We have standards to uphold around here
A digital service standard for local government
Having standards is important. Whether it’s the type of cable that connects your computer to a screen, the current that comes out of an electrical socket, or your lunch being properly cooked, standards are a way of ensuring that things work reliably, effectively, and safely.
None more so than public services. For the past few years, central government services are being designed and built to meet the digital by default service standard. It’s undoubtedly improved the quality of government services across the country, in a prize double act with the wisdom contained within the service design manual. But should this go beyond central government, and be a model for local government or a prescription for the NHS?
Go forth and multiply
In February a group of people working in digital teams in local government visited GDS to explore the notion. We heard from assessors at GDS about how it’s applied in practice, and the value it brings. We debated on where it might need to differ for local government (if at all). We haphazardly threw around a bunch of notes on the day, and continued to refine our thoughts afterwards.
In late February we released a draft digital service standard for local government. The draft closely follows the original, but there are a few differences. For example:
- We’ve removed references to things that don’t exist locally, like Ministers and the Performance Platform.
- We’ve softened the language around building and frequently iterating open source software, due to the preponderance of external providers (and tendency to buy rather than build).
- We’ve added a point on data and registers, because they’re really important!
Need is the mother of necessity
The idea of applying these standards to council services is relatively popular. Staff from dozens of local authorities sought to attend the session in February. Cabinet Office Minister Matt Hancock has offered his support and recommendation.
And it’s in high need. Local government services are difficult and varied, and there are huge financial pressures. A reputation for seeking excellence in service design hasn’t necessarily been earned:
Failure is not an option
So what are the options for a local government service standard?
- Do nothing
Easy enough I suppose, the status quo. The more laissez-faire might even argue that the sharing of practice is good enough, without needing the authority of standards. But they seem to work more effectively together. - Imitation
Take the government service standard in full, as-is. After all, we can pretty reasonably translate concepts like ‘Minister’ without getting too precious. We adopt a lot of other digital service practices from the wider community fairly wholesale. And the standard itself is tried and tested, having been through its own revision last year. - Remix
This is essentially the draft referred to above. Based heavily on the original, but modified for local tastes. - Collaboration
A combination of the previous two options: adopt a single government service standard, but contribute actively to its future evolution. A pull request, if you will. The draft point about data and registers for example seems destined for a future iteration of the standard. - Rip it up and start again
Most thought on this topic has, not altogether unreasonably, assumed adoption as the starting point. But Andrew Greenway, one of the standard’s originators, has some differing advice. He makes the point that processes tend to snowball over time, only becoming more imposing. It might not be necessary to specify absolutely everything, but instead to laser in on the important things that aren’t done now. Especially if you need to convince other people, the ones with power or elected responsibility, that this is achievable:
“If you get the chance to start afresh, start small.”
Watered down, or water-tight?
Here’s where pragmatism strolls in to sully the party. Local authorities, loosely speaking, do not have the resources that central government departments possess. So long as local government remains a fragmented network of slightly isolated practitioners rather than a cohesive part of the core of government in the UK, that will remain the case.
So do we aim for the highest standards, because that’s what we aspire to? And if so, how do we square that circle? On the one hand, making a significant improvement, a revolutionary difference, requires boldness. On the other hand, you’ve got to walk before you can run, and part of this is about collectivism with a collective at different stages in their journey.
So perhaps we aim for good standards — a clear platform that undeniably sets standards higher than they are now, and one that more organisations can realistically get behind, which might achieve more in practice than theoretical idealism. Done is better than perfect, after all.
Upheld
I’m not sure that there’s a definite answer. There are policies and there are practicalities, and a murky in-between. There are other questions too, about how to assess standards without a central authority, or how councils could operate peer reviews while maintaining decision-making independence.
What I think is definite, is the need to continually take active steps towards improving the quality of public services. Firstly, because citizens should be able to easily navigate services which are based on their needs, as part of the fabric of a decent society. Secondly, because to paraphrase Policy Lab Head Andrea Siodmok’s comments about design: good services cost the same as bad services, it’s just that bad services cost way more in the long run.
Comments can be submitted about the draft standard until 19th March 2016.
