Four thoughts

I am slightly alarmed to discover we are well over a quarter of the way through the programme and I remain horribly conscious that I am behind on lots of tasks - so its not immediately easy to articulate the things I have gained from the programme so far. It seems too soon for retrospection but in the spirit of open working this is going to be a sift through my current thoughts in the hope that I can unearth some insight.

After the initial confusion of joining up with the cohort, I recall my first reaction was excitement and delight at the range and ingenuity of the projects represented and the universally positive energy everyone seemed to exude. It was all I could do to draw my attention back to our own project and knuckle down to the initial tasks.

Form and Function

A fair amount of the introductory material was familiar to me but for someone with strong tendency to “busk it”, it is extremely useful to have concepts such as user centric design and the double diamond presented in a structured format. I had heard the idea of “working in the open” previously and have in the past even called on colleagues to adopt that general approach — however I had not really thought deeply about the rationale or come across the techniques and disciplines suggested by Giles Turnbull.

Aha

Somewhat frustratingly but for good practical reasons, our organisation had already implemented a software tool to connect with our user community - just as the programme was beginning. I now see that by not working in the open we missed out on the opportunity to engage our users in advance and showcase the very significant behind-the-scenes effort that went into the roll-out. We could have garnered a great deal more good will and understanding and possibly avoided some real problems with system adoption, compliance and data quality. A genuine light-bulb moment.

Free radicals

Another upgrade to my internal world has been the result of listening to such a diverse range of people talking about their attitudes to technology. I am very familiar with arguments in support of open source, open data and worries of walled gardens and the power of big tech. Most of the voices I have heard on the subject have however been from technical specialists or even technical activists. While I have a great deal of sympathy for those ideas I have also needed to manage development in a large charity where familiarity and costs drove decisions.

If I’m honest, I have tended to feel that self build and open philosophies are often a luxury only affordable to those with the knowledge, time and connections. Hearing a much more diverse group of people sharing worries about data privacy, ownership and bias has made me reconsider the issues and I have been thinking about why it is that digital society behaves the way it does.

Affordances

If the digital realm is a wilderness, as full of dangers as it is opportunity, our behaviour and decisions are driven by the ways in which we seek benefits, safety or power. In a very real sense we have to choose what we are going to worry about. I’m not moved to join the nomadic zealots quite yet. The established trade routes and oases provide a good deal of certainty. I think I will still insist on perching on the fence between practicality and ideology but these recent experiences will continue to provide me with useful perspective and some new considerations to weigh in the balance.