Silo-busting – Changeology Snax

Blinkered: how government does change badly

Les — Mon, 05 Sep 2016 03:31:39 +0000

You have to admire the sheer consistency of non-self-reflection in indigenous affairs in this country. The location of Aboriginal problems, is, of course, Aboriginal people. And to prove it there is a seemingly endless cavalcade of studies evaluating Aboriginal communities. But, although I’ve read every evaluation of the NT Intervention, I can find only one study that actually evaluates the performance of government program managers.
Tellingly, it’s a Department of Finance study that was suppressed as ‘Cabinet in Confidence’ until Channel Seven got hold of it under Freedom of Information in 2011.
Although it’s written in cold technocratese, it’s a damning summary of bureaucratic short-sightedness which, unfortunately, will be perfectly familiar to virtually anyone who has received funding from a government agency, in any context, for any purpose, in Australia.
I have a great idea: what if agency executives got training in program design? Might that avoid the river of wasted money, effort and hope? Or is it more structural? Something in the very organisation of government? I suppose it probably is structural, but in the meantime, some more critical self-reflection, or at least curiosity, would help.
Here’s an excerpt. I emphasised my favourite bits, but the whole text should be chiselled on the walls of our parliaments.
“Consistently and repeatedly over the past decade, many…voices have called on the Australian Government and its agencies to reduce the administrative burden and unnecessary complexity associated with accessing essential and desirable funding support through its broad array of Indigenous programs. The justifications behind these petitions are well known and extensively documented:

existence of multiple ‘like’ programs which overlap and duplicate each other in places, while also leaving gaps in others, together leading to complexity and confusion;
programs with poorly articulated objectives often underpinned by flawed assumptions and weak program logic which then raise unrealistic expectations of what can actually be achieved through the program;
short term, staccato and ‘pilot’ funding arrangements with no commitment to ongoing funding and disconnected from the reality of the scale and timing of investment needed to drive lasting change;
annual funding rounds for ongoing service needs which draw heavily on the limited administrative and management capacity of community organisations;
multiple and complex funding arrangements – both within and across government agencies – with a need for greater commonality in their alignment and contract management approaches even though the contracting party throughout is the ‘Commonwealth of Australia’;
the barriers created by these funding arrangements for long term planning and recruiting and retaining skilled and motivated staff who are essential for achieving the gains sought in challenging contexts;
an approach by many program managers on contractual rather than relational governance, leading to management styles that micro-manage Indigenous and other organisations, and stifle innovation and agility by local providers;
the unintended consequence of these funding arrangements in diverting precious resources from service delivery towards administrative compliance; and  
the compounding negative effects for the sustainability and organisational capacity of Indigenous organisations.”

Quoted from Department of Finance and Regulation (2010) Strategic Review of INDIGENOUS EXPENDITURE, Report to the Australian Government, p300
https://www.finance.gov.au/foi/disclosure-log/2011/foi_10-27_strategic_reviews.html

Fear of collaboration

Les — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:24:00 +0000

A nice post from Vivien Twyford, summarising a Harvard Business Review blog on the fears of collaboration. Good point!

We expect decision-makers to be open to partnerships and multi-disciplinary processes because they break down silos – the No1 way organisations destroy their capacity to make change – and they are just, well, the modern way to do things. But that discounts the natural fears of decision-makers.

Helping people manage their fears, by preemptively addressing them, is one of the main tasks of a change maker, so having a handle on those fears matters.

Here’s the list of fears, which, of course, involve worries about time, risk, conflict, wasted effort, and having to defend oneself against people who think differently.

http://www.twyfords.com.au/news-and-media/our-blog/meeting-collaborative-danger-headon

Twyfords seem to be making a specialty of collaboration…check their blog: http://www.twyfords.com.au/our-blog/+collaborative%20governance

Why scientists make great servants but terrible masters

Les — Sun, 30 Jan 2011 22:11:00 +0000

Beautifully written opinion piece in The Age this weekend from Julianne Schultz, reflecting on the ridiculous debacle of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission’s “draft framework” where, you’ll recall, the agency followed the following script:

1) Let’s propose huge reductions in water allocation to scores of Murray-Darling Basin communities reeling after decades of drought.

2) Let’s proclaim ourselves for our exemplary science.

3) Then, let’s travel to these communities to “consult” on a document that’s already fully written.

4) Wonder why everyone hates us.

Those of you with a memory for these things will recall the almost identical debacle in 2006 over the plan for drinking recycled water in Toowoomba, and, for that matter, the endless impasse over native vegetation management laws.

Ms Schultz writes:

“The scientific and environmental research was exemplary, but the glaring gap in the voluminous report was of research that used the full range of tools of the humanities and social sciences, research that engaged with people, that drew on historical and international precedents, that explored the detail of local differences, the psychological response to change, the economic consequences and opportunities, resilience and fear. Research that enabled the progressive leaders dotted throughout these towns to imagine and articulate a different future, research that put the environmental issues in human terms, and helped maintain a place for the people who know and love the lands of the basin.”

Yes, it’s true that experts from the humanities and social sciences barely participate in environmental policy making in Australia, or environmental anything for that matter. The field is dominated by smart, well-meaning people with environmental science degrees. I know this because I’ve trained hundreds of environmental managers in the basics of social science, which they welcome like parched explorers sighting an oasis.

However I’m not sure that appending voluminous social science studies to yet another “draft framework” is going to solve the crisis in the Murray-Darling.

How about this: sit down with these communities. Lay a blank sheet of paper on the table and say “We have a problem. Let’s figure out the path forward together.”

Here are four generalisations that are pretty close to the truth:

1) Every authority on community engagement will tell you that sharing power to affected publics is the only way to avoid outrage in situations like this. See, for instance, Peter Sandman’s work www.psandman.com/handouts/sand42.pdf

2) Scientists are incapable of sharing power with the public. They don’t get that, in the human world, there are multiple valid versions of the truth. They are impatient and often contemptuous at lay peoples’ truths. Yet, in Ms Schultz words, “The non-specialists who live in these towns wanted everyone to know that they had something to add, and that in the era of connectivity they expected their hard-won expertise to be considered.”

3) The automatic reaction of scientists to any problem is to carry out more research.

4) In Australia, we have allowed scientists to dominate policy-making in land and water management. That’s why we so much research and so much outrage.

Scientists are brilliant servants but terrible masters. The simple answer is – don’t put them in charge. The solution to these complex, intractable problems is not about truth, it is about process: process that includes the people affected and relegates scientists to the role they are best at – expert advisors. And, I hate to say it, it’s a good idea to have a subtle and seasoned politician in charge of these processes, someone, in fact, just like Craig Knowles, recently appointed to Chair the Murray Darling Basin Commission in a canny move by the Australian Government.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/shared-visions-20110128-…

On tackling wicked problems

Les — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:46:00 +0000

I recently stumbled across a fantastic publication, one that ought to be on the reading list for anyone working in the business of change.

It’s called Wicked Problems, A Public Policy Perspective.

It published by the Australian Public Service Commission and carries its authority. The author(s) are anonymous, but they have done a beautiful job of crisply summarising a literature and critically assessing its huge implications for government.

Firstly, what are “wicked problems”?

Wicked problems are complex multi-dimensional problems like indigenous health, climate change, catchment management, and school bullying. In fact, practically every problem we deal with in environment or health is a wicked problem.

Wicked problems:

– are difficult to define (it depends on who is asked);

– are often unstable…(understandings evolve over time, presenting a moving target);

– have many interdependencies and causes;

– have no clear solution (solutions “are not verifiably right or wrong, but rather better or worse or good enough” (p4) and solutions often have unforseen consequences);

– are socially complex (“it is the social complexity of wicked problems, rather than their technical complexity, that overwhelms most current problem-solving and project management approaches p4”);

– hardly ever conveniently sit within the responsibilities of one organisation;

– involve changing peoples’ behaviours;

– are characterised by chronic policy failure.

Stumbling upon this publication was timely because I was just writing up recommendations for organisational change in the Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority. It handed me a really useful framework for assessing the organisation’s capacity as a change agency.

It’s this: An effective change agency should exhibit seven capacities:

1) Capacity for innovation;

2) Capacity for learning and adaptive management;

3) Capacity to work across silos, in multi-disciplinary teams;

4) Capacity to collaborate with multiple stakeholders and the public in understanding problems and devising and implementing solutions;

5) Capacity to influence the behaviours of stakeholders and the public;

6) Staff capacity in communication, big picture thinking, influencing others and the ability to work cooperatively.

7) Capacity to critically review accountability frameworks.

Of course, as soon as you think about these capacities, it’s obvious why of most government agencies and local councils are hopeless at tackling difficult problems. The authors say this so much more diplomatically:

“A traditional bureaucracy, divided into vertical silos, in which most of the authority for resolving problems rests at the top of the organisation, is not well-adapted to support the kinds of process necessary for addressing the complexity and ambiguity of wicked problems. Bureaucracies tend to be risk averse, and are intolerant of messy processes. They excel at managing issues with clear boundaries rather than ambiguous, complex issues that may require experimental and innovative approaches.” (p13)

In short, if you want to change the world you can’t afford be a traditional, hierarchically managed, value-free, service-delivery agency like a Department or local Council. You just can’t. You need to be small, nimble, passionate, and happy to “fail informatively”. CMAs are one promising model; PCPs (Primary Care Partnerships in Victoria) are another; Alliancing is another (used for large infrastructure projects); outsourcing to NGOs like Landcare groups and local Environmental Centres is another.

Here are some nice quotes from Tackling Wicked Problems:

“Because of social complexity, solving a wicked problem is fundamentally a social process. Having a few brilliant people or the latest project management technology is no longer sufficient.” (p28, quoting Conklin, L. 2006)

“It has been argued that the public sector needs to adopt more systematic approaches to social innovation as opposed to the current rather ad hoc approach: ‘How many departments or agencies have a board level director responsible for innovation..? How many have significant budgets for innovation..? How many can point to the flow of new models in their service that are being cultivated, developed, improved and tested.’” (p13, quoting Mulgan G. 2006)

“A concomitant condition to increasing adaptability is a broad acceptance and understanding, including from governments and Ministers, that there are no quick fixes and that levels of uncertainty around the solutions to wicked problems need to be tolerated.” (p15)

“Critically, tackling wicked problems also calls for high levels of systems thinking. This big picture thinking helps policy makers to make the connections between the multiple causes and interdependencies of wicked problems that are necessary in order to avoid a narrow approach and artificial taming of wicked problems…A multi-disciplinary team approach is one practical way to garner all the required skills and knowledge for tackling any particular wicked problem.” (p33)

“Collaborative strategies are the best approach to tackling wicked problems which require behavioural change as part of the solution.” (p10)

“The fact is that a true understanding of the problem generally requires the perspective of multiple organisations and stakeholders, and that any package of measures identified as a possible solution usually requires the involvement, commitment and coordination of multiple organisations and stakeholders to be delivered effectively.” (p11)

“Is the requirement to tightly specify programme outputs and outcomes useful in an environment where even defining the problem and solution is difficult?” (p23)

“There is increasing evidence that some types of pre-set performance measures, especially lower-level indicators, may undermine the responsiveness of the delivery of complex services and could even distort or constrict the services by making the indicator (or the target) rather than the service the focus of provision. In the case of devolved services both service providers and service users can find themselves playing second fiddle to programme reporting regimes.” (p24)

———————-

Australian Public Service Commission (2007) Tackling Wicked Problems – A Public Policy Perspective, downloadable from www.apsc.gov.au/publications07/wickedproblems.htm

The marvel of multi-disciplinary mingling

Les — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:17:00 +0000

Howard Jones, pioneering Green activist of the NSW south coast stood up at the annual Raspberry Day get-together this year and said, in his rich, thoughtful voice: “Copenhagen isn’t really about climate change. It’s about cooperation.” Nice.

I witnessed a marvellous case study in cooperation – at a somewhat smaller scale – when asked to facilitate an intensive day of multi-disciplinary planning by Housing NSW this year. The aim was to figure out how to green the public housing estate in NSW: 60,000 dwellings covering 70,000 hectares (and some are awfully bleak).

We had 40 participants from a rich mix of professions – architects, landscape designers, community renewal staff, sustainability gurus, Housing NSW managers, community gardens facilitators – a smorgasbord of jargons and perspectives (but don’t ask me where the public housing tenants were…we obviously can’t achieve perfection overnight!)

The day began with the Minister for Housing, David Borger, saying his goal was to make public housing estates “places you’re proud to live in and happy to come home to.” (deftly expanding the ambit of “sustainability” into the social realm…where it absolutely belongs, after all: no grass-roots buy-in, no sustainment).

Next came 2 hours of inspiring 15 minute talks. Then we split the room into mixed teams of 5-6, each with a facilitator, and gave them a pile of plans and coloured pens. Two hours of brainstorming and mad scribbling later and we had 6 exciting plans for greening different kinds of housing estates.

At the plenary session, well-known sustainability guru, Michael Mobbs, was the spokesman for the team dealing with one big, grim, western suburbs estate.

He reported how each profession made its unique contribution to the plan:

– the architects showed how joining two roads and transforming a rough footpath could make it easy for tenants to navigate the estate;

– the landscape designers spotted two disused tennis courts along the footpath that could become a community garden and meeting place, shaded by a dense grove of trees;

– Michael Mobbs then explained how the temperatures in those areas could be cooled by 10 degrees in summer by water tanks and evaporation pools(!); and

– the community renewal manager showed how framing the changes around the tenants’ hot issues (crime and isolation) could bring them into the planning process;

Then the council guy finally piped up and said, more or less, “that won’t work because the road is too narrow and the council garbage trucks will just knock those trees down.” Michael Mobbs’ response was “well we’re just going to have to have that discussion with council’s waste services manager” – illustrating perfectly how making change means continually expanding the conversation.

So, can we successfully bring together diverse professions with different strengths to plan together? And can their results vastly exceed what any single profession could achieve? The answer is “yes”.

How to bust silos

Les — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:32:00 +0000

An article by Graham Winter, an Australian organisational psychologist, with some nicely expressed ideas about minimising organisational silos.

When initiatives failed
Our studies showed that when business initiatives failed, the ‘players’ were likely to be:

pursuing their own agenda: there was no shared bigger picture between units and little understanding or empathy for others, and leaders allowed conflicting agendas to prevail
avoiding and denying: employees avoided reality checks, there was a limited use of data in feedback and decision-making and the company had poor problem-solving practices
stifling communication: there was an absence of listening, e-mail was used as the main means of communication, there was a prevalence of hoarded information and alternative views were often dismissed
protecting their own turf: employees prioritised and planned in isolation, used their status to influence decisions and fostered inconsistency in processes and systems
playing ‘I win, you lose’: employees were blamed as soon as things went wrong, and success was rewarded inside the silos rather than across the company.

When initiatives succeeded
When business initiatives succeeded, the ‘players’ were likely to be:

sharing the big picture: companies created and shared one big picture, found common goals and synergies and focused on what was best for the organisation
sharing the reality: employees were focused on real performance, made fact-based decisions and had the tough conversation rather than avoiding reality
sharing the air: companies invited ideas from employees in every area of the business, and employees expressed opinions clearly and succinctly and listened to others
sharing the load: employees prioritised and planned together, were clear about roles and expectations and looked for common ground
sharing the wins and losses: companies paid close attention to joint results, learned and adapted together and rewarded true performance.

The dream team to tackle obesity

Les — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 05:14:00 +0000

A recent US National Research Council report, Local Government Actions to Prevent Obesity provides a nice summary of the kind of interventions that have the best potential to tackle childhood obesity.

According to the press release: “Many of these steps focus on increasing access to healthy foods and opportunities for active play and exercise. They include:

– providing incentives to lure grocery stores to underserved neighborhoods;

– eliminating outdoor ads for high-calorie, low-nutrient foods and drinks near schools; requiring calorie and other nutritional information on restaurant menus;

– implementing local “Safe Routes to School” programs;

– regulating minimum play space and time in child care programs;

– rerouting buses or developing other transportation strategies that ensure people can get to grocery stores; and

– using building codes to ensure facilities have working water fountains.”

So, here’s the dream team you’d need for a comprehensive attack on obesity at the local government level:

– an incentive manager;

– a regulator;

– a building code planner;

– a nutritionist;

– a transport planner;

– an educator;

– a courageous politician or two to drive these changes through; and

– a facilitator, to pull it all together.