Last Tuesday we held our Seminar on Technologies for Participation - a day spent considering all the new fangled methods of holding dialogues.
The audience were mostly public sector officials who are already dabbling in this, but who are mostly working for organisations who are yet to make a strategic commitment. They are almost all working in a twilight zone of semi-approved tactical experiments. Local Government in particular seems hesitant.
Co-incidentally we received the early results of our annual survey of consultation pages on Council websites. We looked at the same 100 local authorities as last year so it is a direct year-on-year comparison.
There have been improvements, but ledt's reflect for a moment on one figure. Only in half of the websites examined could we find the results of public consultations. This is nothing short of a disgrace, for unless we feed back to the public, what's happened as a result of a dialogue, how on earth can we expect people to give their time for future consultations?
I'm not convinced that this is anything much to do with the technology. It's more about process, disciplines and commitment.
That's what is currently missing.
Sunday, 18 November 2007
Thursday, 20 September 2007
Cookie & Socks
It's tempting to smile at the latest Blue Peter catastrophe, but I think it's a classic parallel to many a consultation scenario.
Put very simply, had the BBC programme announced that they were seeking suggestions for a name for this cat, they would have been free to ignore the viewers choice; after all it would have been a consultative vote only.
But having led the audience to believe that their votes would be conclusive, that's it, folks. No fudge factor; winner takes all!
It's all in the expectation-setting.
Now many consultators make the same mistake - and want to retain the flexibility to overule the majority opinion that emerges from respondents. That's perfectly okay, for consultation implies that ultimate decision-making vests with those in charge. But if that is the case, it must make sure everyone understands this!
Making the Blue Peter mistake is to infer that it is a binding vote when it isn't. Questionnaires that appear to be a plebiscite are clearly prone to this, so I think their organisers better take very special care.
Put very simply, had the BBC programme announced that they were seeking suggestions for a name for this cat, they would have been free to ignore the viewers choice; after all it would have been a consultative vote only.
But having led the audience to believe that their votes would be conclusive, that's it, folks. No fudge factor; winner takes all!
It's all in the expectation-setting.
Now many consultators make the same mistake - and want to retain the flexibility to overule the majority opinion that emerges from respondents. That's perfectly okay, for consultation implies that ultimate decision-making vests with those in charge. But if that is the case, it must make sure everyone understands this!
Making the Blue Peter mistake is to infer that it is a binding vote when it isn't. Questionnaires that appear to be a plebiscite are clearly prone to this, so I think their organisers better take very special care.
Saturday, 25 August 2007
Tory Troubles on the NHS
With luck, the Conservative Party may this week have learnt a little about consultation processes. Their "bare-knuckled" fight with the Government over NHS closures resulted in a self-inflicted wound; quite clever really!
Politically it's always disastrous when your research howlers become the story instead of the message you set out to deliver, and I suspect their mistake was to include in the "threatened" list of hospitals, any that had ever featured anything approaching a downgrading (rationalisation, changed opening hours, procedures etc) in a consultation.
Many NHS Trusts that had posed such options, but rejected them, were quick to point out the mistake. In the Tories' defence, they probably had a phalanx of local activists who don't believe that such decisions are final and are fearful that the same proposals will re-surface.
The truth is that local consultation is vital for the health service - and for other public service providers because situations on the ground are very complex, and that its a brave person that can pontificate or generalise without serious investigation and preferably dialogue.
It would be far better for the Conservative Party - or other interested parties - just to take part fully in those consultations, engage in proper reasonsed debate, and then if they disagree - by all means carry the fight into the political bearpit.
But to lump together proposals from consultations current, past and still to come was a recipe for trouble.
Fools rush in .........!
They'll be more careful next time.
Politically it's always disastrous when your research howlers become the story instead of the message you set out to deliver, and I suspect their mistake was to include in the "threatened" list of hospitals, any that had ever featured anything approaching a downgrading (rationalisation, changed opening hours, procedures etc) in a consultation.
Many NHS Trusts that had posed such options, but rejected them, were quick to point out the mistake. In the Tories' defence, they probably had a phalanx of local activists who don't believe that such decisions are final and are fearful that the same proposals will re-surface.
The truth is that local consultation is vital for the health service - and for other public service providers because situations on the ground are very complex, and that its a brave person that can pontificate or generalise without serious investigation and preferably dialogue.
It would be far better for the Conservative Party - or other interested parties - just to take part fully in those consultations, engage in proper reasonsed debate, and then if they disagree - by all means carry the fight into the political bearpit.
But to lump together proposals from consultations current, past and still to come was a recipe for trouble.
Fools rush in .........!
They'll be more careful next time.
Saturday, 18 August 2007
Consultations or just discussions
The new Scottish Government is very keen on discussions. Alex Salmond's constitutional options paper is called a "conversation" and the Health department's long-awaited paper is also styled a "discussion document".
I'm not sure if these are isolated examples but it could be a trend. The Cabinet Office consultation affecting (mostly) Whitehall is currently posing a number of options including one that seeks more flexibility. The trouble with this is that it could just become a licence to ignore best practice standards. Even if this does not happen, will Government departments get around such rules as exist by labelling their exercises as something other than consultations.
Both the Scottish examples include options and seek public dialogue on them. Why not therefore just call them consultations? After all, the Scottish Executive has a tolerably good record on consultations. Let's call a spade a spade.
I'm not sure if these are isolated examples but it could be a trend. The Cabinet Office consultation affecting (mostly) Whitehall is currently posing a number of options including one that seeks more flexibility. The trouble with this is that it could just become a licence to ignore best practice standards. Even if this does not happen, will Government departments get around such rules as exist by labelling their exercises as something other than consultations.
Both the Scottish examples include options and seek public dialogue on them. Why not therefore just call them consultations? After all, the Scottish Executive has a tolerably good record on consultations. Let's call a spade a spade.
Wednesday, 1 August 2007
Consultation Blight
The Government has announced new Unitary Authorities to the dismay of about thirty five District Councils, and the ambivalence of the Local Government Association.
I have no great problem with the general thrust of policy for I see the two-tier structure as responsible for mass ignorance and confusion among the general public.
But I have concerns if, having undertaken good consultation in some of these aresa, we appear to be riding roughshod over their views and going against the grain of public opinion. One or two of the affected Councils (eg Shrewsbury and Atcham) are talking about a judicial review, and ideally, I'd love to have a good look at the consultation they carried out just to see if they are likely to have a reasonable case; in any event, judges may not be the best arbiters of what was good!
What bothers me more is what a lengthy period of uncertainty does for dialogue in that area. There is a danger of consultation blight as relationships with key stakeholders deteriorate as officers face uncertainty over their jobs and Councillors lose motivation as power drains away from them. In fact the idea of 3.5 million citizens living in towns and communities where effective consultation is on hold is appalling and we must find ways to stop this happening.
Fortunately there are some very good ideas flying around, and during this month I hope to get together with colleagues to write something constructive on this.
I have no great problem with the general thrust of policy for I see the two-tier structure as responsible for mass ignorance and confusion among the general public.
But I have concerns if, having undertaken good consultation in some of these aresa, we appear to be riding roughshod over their views and going against the grain of public opinion. One or two of the affected Councils (eg Shrewsbury and Atcham) are talking about a judicial review, and ideally, I'd love to have a good look at the consultation they carried out just to see if they are likely to have a reasonable case; in any event, judges may not be the best arbiters of what was good!
What bothers me more is what a lengthy period of uncertainty does for dialogue in that area. There is a danger of consultation blight as relationships with key stakeholders deteriorate as officers face uncertainty over their jobs and Councillors lose motivation as power drains away from them. In fact the idea of 3.5 million citizens living in towns and communities where effective consultation is on hold is appalling and we must find ways to stop this happening.
Fortunately there are some very good ideas flying around, and during this month I hope to get together with colleagues to write something constructive on this.
Wednesday, 25 July 2007
e-voice in Birmingham
This morning I attended the launch of e-voice in Birmingham.
About 200 people, mostly from the Voluntary & Community sector, came to the Central Library to hear how they can use a Government-sponsored "free" website as a form of strengthening civic society.
Tremendous functionality ....an excellent demonstration .... lots of interest, but some concern in questions from the floor.
What guarantee was there, they asked that funding would continue for this project? The CLG representative responded as well as any civil servant could, but clearly no-one can predict the volatile priorities of politicians.
A recent Report on Partnerships confirmed that one of the big inhibitors to successful development is stop-go funding.
The e-democracy movement has been held back by a reluctance to invest strategically; much of what exists is very tactical and the result of a handful of enthusiasts in each Authority.
In the Consultation Institute, we've concluded that we are close to the tipping point where the benefits of going ahead with e-participation are becoming overwhelming. Initiatives such as e-voice, and the backing of top Councils such as Birmingham, hold the promise of widening the user base of this technology and adding to the momentum for early adoption. I wish them well.
About 200 people, mostly from the Voluntary & Community sector, came to the Central Library to hear how they can use a Government-sponsored "free" website as a form of strengthening civic society.
Tremendous functionality ....an excellent demonstration .... lots of interest, but some concern in questions from the floor.
What guarantee was there, they asked that funding would continue for this project? The CLG representative responded as well as any civil servant could, but clearly no-one can predict the volatile priorities of politicians.
A recent Report on Partnerships confirmed that one of the big inhibitors to successful development is stop-go funding.
The e-democracy movement has been held back by a reluctance to invest strategically; much of what exists is very tactical and the result of a handful of enthusiasts in each Authority.
In the Consultation Institute, we've concluded that we are close to the tipping point where the benefits of going ahead with e-participation are becoming overwhelming. Initiatives such as e-voice, and the backing of top Councils such as Birmingham, hold the promise of widening the user base of this technology and adding to the momentum for early adoption. I wish them well.
Saturday, 7 July 2007
Community Kitties
Seeing Hazel Blears on TV Thursday morning announcing this new initiative makes me wonder whether this will ever get off the ground.
The LGA Chairman immediately denounced it, and many Councillors up and down will rightly claim that we already have Community Kitties - they're called Local Councils!
But participatory budgeting - to give it its poroper title has a decent track record and has aroused serious academic and public sector interest for some time. One of its strongest advocates is Davy Jones, until recently the Audit Commission's lead on Area Profiling. Davy used the Consultation Institute's Manchester Implementation Forum ten days ago to focus on this methodology, and secured much interest from those who manage public engagement in several Northern Authorities.
Even without the Ministry sprinkling holy water on the idea last week, I think it is likely that offering local people a direct voice in budget decisions is here to stay anyway; we had all better start learning how it's done.
For my part, we intend to sit down with Davy and with Governance International to plan a full two-day Seminar/Workshop in the New Year; we're open to offers if readers of this blog have some experience they'd like to share.
The LGA Chairman immediately denounced it, and many Councillors up and down will rightly claim that we already have Community Kitties - they're called Local Councils!
But participatory budgeting - to give it its poroper title has a decent track record and has aroused serious academic and public sector interest for some time. One of its strongest advocates is Davy Jones, until recently the Audit Commission's lead on Area Profiling. Davy used the Consultation Institute's Manchester Implementation Forum ten days ago to focus on this methodology, and secured much interest from those who manage public engagement in several Northern Authorities.
Even without the Ministry sprinkling holy water on the idea last week, I think it is likely that offering local people a direct voice in budget decisions is here to stay anyway; we had all better start learning how it's done.
For my part, we intend to sit down with Davy and with Governance International to plan a full two-day Seminar/Workshop in the New Year; we're open to offers if readers of this blog have some experience they'd like to share.
Sunday, 1 July 2007
LINKs in trouble
Last Thursday was the annual Neil Stewart Consultation conference, and among the speakers was Sharon Grant of the Commission for Public-Patient Involvement in Health. She was giving an update on the Local Involvement Networks (or LINKs) which will take over from the Forums which the CPPIH painstakingly set up three years ago.
Her words were not very encouraging.
Commenting that there is every possibility of Parliamentary ping-pong between the Lords and Commons over this part of the Local Government Bill, she highlighted areas of continuing confusion and uncertainty that must affect anyone planning to implement these proposals.
No-one seems to have the faintest idea of how they will work - or how on earth the DH can imagine that mobilising a hundred plus interested stakeholder organisatins will turn out to be cheaper than the predecessor Forums (of <10>
Public consultation in the Health service has not been a Blair success story. Adding social care to the mix (the right thing to do) increases the importance of getting it right - so let's hope that Alan Johnson and Hazel Blears between them can sort out a mess that their immediate predecessors foolishly created.
Her words were not very encouraging.
Commenting that there is every possibility of Parliamentary ping-pong between the Lords and Commons over this part of the Local Government Bill, she highlighted areas of continuing confusion and uncertainty that must affect anyone planning to implement these proposals.
No-one seems to have the faintest idea of how they will work - or how on earth the DH can imagine that mobilising a hundred plus interested stakeholder organisatins will turn out to be cheaper than the predecessor Forums (of <10>
Public consultation in the Health service has not been a Blair success story. Adding social care to the mix (the right thing to do) increases the importance of getting it right - so let's hope that Alan Johnson and Hazel Blears between them can sort out a mess that their immediate predecessors foolishly created.
Friday, 15 June 2007
Consultation standards for Government Departments
On Thursday, the Cabinet Office launched a three-month consultation on the future standards of .....consultation.
I'm not sure whether this will remain of interest just to policy wonks and consultation specialists or whether the media will get hold of the story.
There certainly might be a story, for by the autumn, when the consultation is evaluated and decisions have to be taken, we will be three months or more into a Gordon Brown administration.
And given the his current passion for "listening", the fate of the Consultation Code of Practice will be one of the first real tests of his approach to this. Will the process result in higher standards, or might those who seek a looser, more flexible framework win the day?
What we certainly do not want from this exercise is a licence for politicians to play fast and loose with consultation. If they wish to exert strong leadership and take decisions without consultation, that is fine.
But once they commit to consult, I think they have to do it to the highest standards - and that means a strengthened Code of Practice and someone with the responsibility for ensuring that Departments and Agencies stick to them.
What do you think?
I'm not sure whether this will remain of interest just to policy wonks and consultation specialists or whether the media will get hold of the story.
There certainly might be a story, for by the autumn, when the consultation is evaluated and decisions have to be taken, we will be three months or more into a Gordon Brown administration.
And given the his current passion for "listening", the fate of the Consultation Code of Practice will be one of the first real tests of his approach to this. Will the process result in higher standards, or might those who seek a looser, more flexible framework win the day?
What we certainly do not want from this exercise is a licence for politicians to play fast and loose with consultation. If they wish to exert strong leadership and take decisions without consultation, that is fine.
But once they commit to consult, I think they have to do it to the highest standards - and that means a strengthened Code of Practice and someone with the responsibility for ensuring that Departments and Agencies stick to them.
What do you think?
Sunday, 10 June 2007
A Logo for all seasons
The Olympic logo rumpus prompts many questions, not least over the competence of those who created as well as those who approved it.
But the issue that intrigues me (and several who have e-mailed me) is whether this would have been an appropriate matter over which to consult the public. Those who have experience in this business confide that public competitions for logos or mascots produce a hatful of the whacky, unusable and incomprehensible, usually followed by as virulent a row as we have seen last week.
But I don't understand why a technical team can't narrow the field to a shortlist, say of three acceptable designs and then ask the public? Apparently, focus groups were extensively used in the process, but we have no information as to whether or not they were shown alternatives to the eventually selected design.
The essence of consultation is to offer people a meaningful choice.
It's the misfortune of Lord Coe and his colleagues that the first the general public (and our vociferous media) heard of this logo was a fait accompli. As such it is a missed opportunity for some genuine public engagement.
But the issue that intrigues me (and several who have e-mailed me) is whether this would have been an appropriate matter over which to consult the public. Those who have experience in this business confide that public competitions for logos or mascots produce a hatful of the whacky, unusable and incomprehensible, usually followed by as virulent a row as we have seen last week.
But I don't understand why a technical team can't narrow the field to a shortlist, say of three acceptable designs and then ask the public? Apparently, focus groups were extensively used in the process, but we have no information as to whether or not they were shown alternatives to the eventually selected design.
The essence of consultation is to offer people a meaningful choice.
It's the misfortune of Lord Coe and his colleagues that the first the general public (and our vociferous media) heard of this logo was a fait accompli. As such it is a missed opportunity for some genuine public engagement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
