Supporting Government Evolution

By Peter Dorrington

There is a growing concern in governments the world over that the expectations of citizens and commerce are increasing, while tax revenues are beginning to plateau. The causes are partly macroeconomic and partly because citizens are not willing to foot an increasing bill for lackluster public services.

For some parts of the public sector, this concern has brought increased attention to efficiency agendas, which can be described as "doing more with less."

After years of public sector agencies striving to drive out inefficiency and waste, we are now approaching the point where further savings can be achieved only at the cost of reducing service delivery (many would argue that we have already reached that point). And yet, as I hope to show, there is an alternative.

First, however, we might ask ourselves: What is government for, and how should it be spending my (tax) money? A simplistic answer might be to improve the lives of the governed – but that lacks focus.

Instead, I would like to suggest that governments have tiers of responsibility – each a foundation for the one above. Indeed, combining Maslow's hierarchy of needs with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights might give us a slightly more nuanced policy framework. Based on the following levels of responsibility, governments should:

1. Ensure the lives of their citizens.
2. Provide safety and security. 
3. Build an inclusive and cohesive society. 
4. Offer employment for all in exchange for fair remuneration. 
5. Support freedom of choice and the full development of the individual.
   

Using this framework, we can immediately see that governing involves a lot of practical politics. For example, why does a government strategy that offers a choice about where to receive medical care (Level 5) seem to have priority over funding basic life-saving, and often expensive, drugs (Level 1)? There may be no simple answer, but perhaps it's partly because governments have to be relevant to all people. They must serve not just those who are most deserving but also those who foot the bill. Policy therefore tends to be a blunt instrument, designed to be relevant to large groups at the macro level but almost totally irrelevant at the level of the individual. The result is that most policies end up fitting all citizens equally badly.

But it doesn't have to be like this. Over the last 30 years, analytic techniques have evolved to the point where it is now possible to understand the needs of individual citizens and how these might be aligned with the needs of other citizens.

Internal assessments of process efficiency and cost management allow decision makers to understand the cost of proposed policies, and forecasting and risk management techniques allow the benefits to be weighed against the potential costs in a variety of scenarios. It is perfectly feasible to develop fact-based policies that efficiently meet the needs of citizens, where the costs are accurately predicted and where delivery can be measured and managed.

So why not do it? Frankly, because government IT is in a mess. In almost every country in the world, public sector IT systems have been purchased over many years to meet changing demands within organizational structures, which are themselves in a constant state of flux. Furthermore, tight public sector budgets rarely include money (or opportunity) to pursue a "rip out and replace" strategy (not that I would advocate it in any case). Finally, these systems were rarely procured in a way that was designed to mitigate against the departmental silo.

Thankfully, there is an alternative – an evolutionary framework that uses what is already in place but allows those resources to be exploited more efficiently. The framework is the Information Evolution Model, a five-stage route developed by SAS to deliver improved performance. The stages describe: 

• Operational – which is typically in silos and with individual autonomy and control. 
• Consolidation – which grants department-level access and insight. 
• Integration – which can align organizations to better meet today's challenges.
• Optimization – which can show where efficiencies can be gained. 
• Innovation – which allows for the best possible policies and processes to be selected and deployed.
  

Most public sector organizations are at Level 1. All too frequently they operate in silos, and the government has no overall picture of what is going on or how to meet society's needs. Some departments are consolidating (usually under the banner of "data sharing"), and many governments are actively pursuing a near-term strategy of consolidation for efficiency. A few are aspiring to optimization (Level 4) but would be delighted if they could just get "joined up" (Level 3). For the majority, Level 5 appears an impossible dream – more through a lack of vision than any technological reason.

But it is possible, and it has been done. For example, the Danish National Board of Health managed to improve services and reduce costs, and that surely has to be what government wants and what we, as taxpayers, are prepared to pay for.

When government can act as one body, it is more inclusive, more efficient and more relevant. To do that, public sector organizations should start evaluating their information and business intelligence systems today by determining where they fall on the Information Evolution Model and learning how to move to the next level.

Bio: Peter Dorrington is Head of Public Sector Fraud Solutions at SAS UK.