The way we measure is out of date

There’s one idea every year that just blows my mind. The weird thing is that it’s often something simple. Last year, it was shame. Before that, it was purpose. This year, it’s measurement. whatsthepont’s post on Toby Lowe’s work and Complex Wales’ #TSisTM have crystalised some of what I’ve been figuring out.

I started working in public services back in 2005. We were well into a Labour government back then that had devolved power to Wales. The then First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, spoke of the clear red water between the policies of the administrations in Wales and England. He spoke of collaboration in place of competition. Yet all I knew was New Public Management, Thatcher’s vehicle to embedding private sector thinking in the public sector. The Overton window had well and truly shifted. The barometer of success in public service mirrored the world of business. Anything else was unthinkable. Neo-Liberalism changed the parameters of what good looked like. The private sector was fetishised and became the model on which all services would be based, even if they weren’t privatised directly. Since then, services have continued to be be privatised, to the point where even services that safeguard children can now be run for profit. The New Economics Foundation have a fantastic series of podcasts on Neo-Liberalism that serve as a great backdrop to New Public Management, where James Meadway quotes Thatcher:

“‘Economics is just the the method, the aim is to change people’s souls.’ This was a campaign to transform the economy and society along the lines of the things that she always believed in”

The public sector would henceforth be based on economies of scale, where there is a clear line between cause and effect. So nothing like the environment in which public services work, then.

Even in socialist Wales, which was to the left of England (and which is yet to see a non-Labour government), I was counting outputs that didn’t matter. This was the norm. I’d never worked in an environment without private sector measurement until I joined Good Practice WAO. We were the exception that proved the rule. We measured the difference that we made, and I was fortunate enough to be part of a team that made a difference. I then joined Research in Practice, where our membership model meant that I was freed from the shackles of measurement completely.

A cynic might say that the system was designed for public services to fail, because we treasure what we measure. When organisations set targets, they have a new purpose beyond their original aim. We have been measuring our work against things that are easy to measure but tell that us very little of our value. As a consequence, public services have worked to de-facto purposes that build in inefficiency and waste. We’ve been unable to provide what people really want or need.

What are the alternatives?

It took me a long time to figure out that measurement was a problem because I couldn’t see an alternative. This was just what we do. It becomes hard to think differently when it’s all you’ve ever known. The thinking that underpins the governance of public service is out of date and needs to change. It’s not appropriate for public services to work under the command and control practices of Taylorism, which was developed in the 1880s and is still what underpins management today.

So if linear measurement can’t work in a complex environment, what can? Complex Wales has a great post on why the story is the measure:

“Herein lies my most useful tip about when to use a story to represent something — when the context is more significant than the attributes of the thing itself. This signification also explains why, traditional analytical approaches to quantifying attributes are inadequate within complex living systems. When it’s all about the context, the story is the measure.”

So how do we do this? I was fortunate enough to record a podcast with Dez Holmes and Professor Danielle Turney on Grounded Professional Judgement for Research in Practice. It’s well worth a listen to understand the importance of working openly and transparently for accountability in complex systems.

RiPfA have also produced a great open access webinar on Recording Strengths Based Conversations with Gerry Nosowska that looks at the aspects of a story that need to be captured. It’s also well worth checking out RiPfA’s Good Recording Practice Tool, which is really useful in supporting reflection. I love how it aims to move recording away from a management process into a tool to improve people’s lives. This is what we’re all aiming for at the end of the day.

We need to question what has previously been unquestionable. Do targets and measuring what can’t be measured really help the people who access services? Services will always generate waste when they work in this way. If we can change thinking so that the story is the measure, then we’ll be providing what people really want and need, and their lives will be all the better for it.