One of the most universal truths is that if you don’t talk about what you are doing, how will people know?
Everyone leads busy lives, we live in our own bubbles, and while we do generally try and be good humans and notice and recognise other people doing good things, it’s not always that easy to do.
That’s why I personally find things like twitter, reading Blogs and attending networking events or conferences useful, they give me a change to see what else is happening out there, who is doing what good things; they are opportunities to connect and share.
However that is predicated on the basic foundation of having things to share. One of the things I’ve found, upon joining Difrent, is that we are not that great on sharing the great stuff we are doing. Which is a shame, as we are doing some really great stuff!
Thankfully Rach and I are on the same page (perhaps unsurprisingly given we are both rather massive extraverts) so we’ve been having some good conversations within the SLT on what more we can do to develop better content and support our teams and people to be more confident in sharing what they are doing.
Last week we have @RachelleMoose from Strange Digital come in and deliver a two day workshop for us on content strategy, focusing on how we could use video better to tell Difrent’s story.
While I’ve always found the projects and culture video’s we developed at DWP Digital to be great, I’d never actually researched or seen any of the stats on why video is a good medium for sharing content from a business point of view. I knew I liked them, but I didn’t understand why there were useful! But the workshop taught me things like: videos generate 135% more traffic to a site than static content alone; and that 92% of people who watch a video on mobile devices, go on to share that video with others.
It was especially interesting from an accessibility angle, to consider how we make sure our content as accessible to everyone, not simply in terms of sticking subtitles on all our videos, but things like understanding that audio needs to be understood and edited to ensure it doesn’t clash with anyone speaking and how different formats work etc. For example, more than 85% of social videos are watched without sound, which helps explain why Closed Captions and Titles on videos are important.
I found the workshop a really good session to do as a Senior Leadership team, it really made us think about what messages we wanted to put out there, what we felt was the right way to tell our story and who we are as a company.
We also did some competitor analysis to see what other content is out there; what messages resonated with us, and what didn’t; as well as discussing the formats we liked as a group etc. I got to put post it notes on a wall, which is always the sign of a good day for me.
What I found especially beneficial, being new to the company, was asking some of our staff their thoughts on our culture and what they would like to see in the videos. Within Difrent we pride ourselves on encouraging and enabling everyone to be themselves and able to bring their whole selves to work; hearing from people how they felt Difrent embodies that was really encouraging.
I’m really looking forward to seeing the output of the videos once they are made, and really think they will help us within Difrent work in the open better, talk about our amazing people and show the great work we are delivering.
Last month I started with Difrent, my first job in the Private sector after 15 years in the public sector, which felt very much like a change of scenery and a new start, whilst also being a familiar continuation of what I know.
So at the end of my first month I thought it would be worth reflecting on what I’ve learnt and done so far.
First things first, still lots of meetings! In the last month I’ve been in lots of conversations and meetings about our contracts (which is one of the reasons I took this job, to get that experience, so I’m not complaining!) but what I hadn’t realised, from the public sector client side point of view, is the amount of effort and time that is put into contract bids etc. It’s been fascinating to see and experience the hustle and bustle of getting a bid together, ensuring you have the team you’ll need, getting your evidence together, to then just wait and hear whether you have got the work. It’s like constantly doing job applications!
Secondly, the people, lots of the folks at Difrent I had come across (generally on Twitter) before, so I knew of them but hadn’t had the chance to work with them. Part of my role at Difrent is to ensure that we have the agreed standards and principles for our ways of working to ensure we can deliver the right things in the right way for our clients. I’ve spent the last few weeks getting to know the people within Difrent, and the clients we are working with.
What’s been interesting for me has been the culture that comes with a company moving from start up to scale up. Within the Public Sector I’ve only ever worked in organisations that are 4.5K plus. Working somewhere with under 100 people is very different. The infrastructure and organisational governance that comes with working for a huge well established organisation isn’t necessarily there, but nor is that necessarily a bad thing!
In the old work, conversations like office locations, or what our Target Operating model should be would take months if not years; with unions consulted, multiple consultations with staff forums and people groups etc. Within Difrent it’s much easier to have conversations with all our staff, be that in TownHalls or just on our Slack channel. The conversations themselves are similar, but how we have them, who gets to be involved, and how quickly we can get things done is definitely different.
The work, so far most of the team’s I’ve been working with have been working on projects within the Public sector, so the environment for me has been very familiar. The other thing that’s familiar is the conversations we are having, about KPI’s and measures. The need to understand what we are trying to deliver and ensure that we can measure our success in delivering it, not just be ticking off story points, but ensuring we are delivering value for both our customers and their users is key.
For the next few months my focus will be on working with our clients helping them shape and deliver the vision’s they have set. Measuring the value we are adding to them, and the value the products and services we are delivering are adding value to their users. Ensuring we have the right resources for our teams based on what the needs of our clients are, and that we as an organisation are supporting our people the best way we can.
These things have always been important to me, and always been key parts of my roles. So it seems whether it’s the public sector or private sector, French Critic Alphonse Karr was right in some ways….
And you know what, I am glad about that. If everything were radically different I might be worried that either the public or private sector was doing it wrong. But the fact is the common problems are very similar, it’s just how we approach solving them that might be different; and having a different perspective to how you solve problems is important, as it means you’re considering all the options there are and hopefully avoiding making the same mistakes over and over.
Last week I started working for @BeDifrent, a business transformation agency working with both Public and Private sector clients to help them deliver #TechForGood.
This is a massive change for me, I spent almost 15 years in the Public Sector, I always said I was a public servant for life, and in my heart I am, when people have asked me this week what I do it’s been very odd to not reply “I work in the public sector”.
But the thing is, I still am, Difrent’s clients are predominantly public sector at the moment (at least the ones I’ve been dealing with in my first two weeks). The challenges our clients are facing are so similar to those I’m used to facing, but the opportunities are so much bigger.
At my interview I got asked why I was interested in this role, and my answer was very honest and in two parts.
One, for my career development. I’ve spent three years working at Deputy Director level as a Head of Product in the Public Sector, and I loved my role. Product and Service design are things that I am passionate about, and designing and delivering services to users that really matter, that improve things for them, is the thing that drives me.
But I’d also realised what I did was wider than the label “Head of Product” really allowed for. So much of my effort and time was on the cultural and organisational changes organisations needed to make to enable them to deliver and change into a Product and User led organisation.
Which is what led me to consider Difrent. When I saw the job advertised I did my homework on the company and the people. Who were they? What made Difrent different? Why did they care?
My mentor for years had been recommending I consider doing a stint outside of the public sector to gain experience from the other-side of the table, but the thought had always made me twitch, but what I saw from Difrent’s information, from reading up on the amazing Rachel Murphy and from talking to colleagues who had made the jump into the dark side to both Difrent and other like minded agencies recently made me feel that maybe this was the time to take that leap into the dark.
My focus will be on working with our clients to ensure we can deliver. Supporting our teams and building our capability to ensure we keep doing the right things in the right ways.
So yes, not only will this give me experience on the other side of the contracting table, and the opportunity to see how the other side live. But the public sector still need us suppliers, there will always be short term projects and pieces of work that it makes sense to use suppliers to help with rather than massively increase their headcount’s, and more importantly (for me) we have more flexibility sometimes, the chance to quickly bring in different perspectives and points of view.
Difrent describe themselves as being activists for change and doing the right thing. They are passionate about delivering things that matter, and only working with clients who meet their #TechForGood ethos.
And for me that is Difrent’s main attraction, they want to help bring about that change, to ensure we are delivering the right things in the right way for the right reasons. Advocating and agitating for that change and real transformation.
As someone who talks a lot about finding their tribe, I look around the company and see a lot of great people passionate about delivering real change. It was especially great to see and hear the diversity and inclusion stats for the company being proudly discussed at events. One of the things that attracted me to Difrent is how much they talk about their people, and how important their people are to them, it feels like a real community of people who care. As stated by Dan Leakey, what ever our makeup, Difrent are 100% awesome.
And while it’s only midway through week two, what I’ve seen so far has already made me feel like the dark side is full of bright lights. I’ve spent time in both Newcastle and Blackpool with some of our delivery teams, getting to understand the outcomes we are trying to deliver and why, and how we can best support our clients to meet their user’s needs.
So while I do intend to return to the public sector in the future with lots of new great experience under my belt, for now I feel like the message is “welcome to the dark side, we’re not all bad.”
I regularly talk to organisations about why having vision and mission statements are important. Over the years I’ve seen many good examples and some bad ones too, both inside and outside the public sector.
They often seems to be overlooked when deciding to transform an organisation, instead companies tend to focus on their Target Operating Model or individual delivery of products. While delivery of the Products is important, because as Tom Loosemore says the ‘Strategy is delivery’ after all; and a Target Operating Model ads value; without a clear Vision and Mission statement the teams involved in delivery can find it hard to focus on what they are aiming for (the vision), and how they are aiming to achieve that goal (the mission statement).
There’s been a few good blogs written about Mission statements, these blogs by Mel Cannon, Ben Holliday and Rachel Woods highlight how a good mission statement can help a company deliver, by helping them focus on ‘how’ they will achieve their aims. But there is little value in understanding ‘how’ you will seek to deliver a goal, without understanding ‘what’ you want to deliver. As such, today I want to focus on Vision’s, what makes a good one and why they are important.
So why is having a Vision important?
As Ben Holliday said in his blog a good Vision sets out “What we want to achieve. Setting out an ideal future state eg. what will the council of the future and local services look like?” It is the future state we are striving for. It is what our staff know to aim for, the thing that gives us focus; especially in the public sector it is where we will end up if we’ve managed to deliver our strategy. The reason a Vision is important s that it helps us plan our future. It sets the agenda, the goal.
As good summary from lifehack.com states the question you should be asking when developing your vision is “If you were to take a photo of your future business now, what would it look like? What do you want your business to be recognized for one day?” This could be as simple as being the best, fastest, most well known or trusted provider of your product and service.
What makes a good Vision?
There are different theories on this, this blog from Projectmanager.com states that the best vision statements are concise, clear and future orientated (amongst other things).
Whilst changefactor.com states here that a good vision statement should be unique and evoke emotion, it should say “something about us, our organisation, our operating environment, our dream. When we read it, it should tell us where we are going. We should not be able to substitute our vision statement for other organisations inside and outside our industry.”
I agree with all of that, but the thing missing for me is that they need to be based on your user’s needs, to evoke emotion, you are making assumptions about the needs of your customers and how your organisations will be meeting those needs.
If you look at some of the big name vision statement’s out there you can see how they have tried to follow the above guidelines.
Disney: “to be one of the world’s leading producers and providers of entertainment and information.”
Oxfam: “Our vision is a just world without poverty. We want a world where people are valued and treated equally, enjoy their rights as full citizens, and can influence decisions affecting their lives.”
Ikea: to create a better everyday life for the many people – for customers, but also for our co-workers and the people who work at our suppliers.
Personally, Disney’s vision seems to lack emotion to me, but it is definitely clear and concise. Both Oxfam and Ikea’s vision’s evoke more emotion, but I think it could be argued that Ikea’s vision is not unique to them. It would be easy to mistake Ikea’s vision for that of other companies. Of the three Vision’s above, I personally find Oxfam’s the best in that it is unique to them, evokes emotion and sets out their clear intent.
The thing that interests me is that for many companies, their vision is words. But I actually really like visual vision’s, I’ve always found them easier to get people to buy into, and for organisations staff to understand their place and the value they are adding.
The above vision developed by @DWPDigtial showed how the Department would be organised in the future, with their guiding principles clearly stated. It was developed back in 2017 and showed how the different elements of the organisation would work together to deliver it’s services. While the vision was definitely unique to DWP; it was not concise, or even very clear and easy to understand. You could argue that this was actually their Target Operating Model rather than a Vision, given it doesn’t meet the criteria above of being clear and concise, but it does show clearly where the Department was going.
Another great example is this one by @CCS, which is both clear and simple in it’s statement, and in how it is visualised.
As the Crown Commercial Service is responsible for:
managing the procurement of common goods and services, so public sector organisations with similar needs achieve value by buying as a single customer;
increasing savings for the taxpayer by centralising buying requirements for common goods and services and bringing together smaller projects;
leading on procurement policy on behalf of the UK government increasing savings for the taxpayer by centralising buying requirements for common goods and services and bringing together smaller projects;
It’s Vision to be the “Go – To provider form Common Goods and services” makes sense. It is concise and clear, and specific to their organisation.
The benefit of both of these vision’s is that they help the viewer to ‘see’ how the organisations intend to transform and develop themselves.
Knowing where you are going is important:
No matter what format you go for, when developing a Vision it’s important to remember that it should be unique to your organisation, clear, concise and easy to understand, and that it helps your users, staff and stakeholders understand what the organisations aims are, where the organisation is heading and why.
But the most important thing to remember is that your Vison is not a static thing. You should constantly be revisiting it and checking that it is still valid and innovative. That it still drives your organisation forward and represents your users needs and where you want your company to be in the future.
Sat by a pool in the sunshine waiting to hear about how I’ll get home now Thomas Cook have gone bust, I am reading the news and scrolling through Twitter hashtags thinking about how many companies have stumbled and fallen with the rise of the internet of now.
One of the main causes being attributed to Thomas Cooks’ demise is there inability to adapt to the digital era. With more and more people choosing to book their holidays online from the comfort of their sofa, Thomas Cook kept investing in their travel agencies made of bricks and mortar.
My personal experience of the app and website were clunky and unwieldy on mobiles, an instant off putter for me. We have reached a point in time where website need to be mobile and tablet focused more than they need to be working on laptops and traditional computer screens. In fact 2015 is when Thomas Cook themselves acknowledged that they had more traffic from mobile devices than traditional computers. It only takes a quick look at the App Store ratings for the app against its competitors to see it had issues.
In my local, struggling, shopping centre, amongst the Poundland’s and charity shops, there was still a large Thomas Cook travel agency, but very rarely did you see anyone in there. The people inside were always lovely but sadly that can’t compete against people’s 21st century lives where finding time (during standard retail hours) to spend sat in a store to book their holiday was depleting. In the modern world of comparison sites, last minute deal websites and apps; Thomas Cooks high street store model just didn’t fit.
When Thomas Cook online was launched in 2010 it was one of the first travel companies to do so. So why did it go so wrong? What did they miss?Having been involved in a lot of business and digital transformation programmes over the last decade, there are answers there if you dig.
This article by @iankingsky, business correspondent at Sky News, describes the decisions made by one of the CEOs a few years ago to keep investing in their physical architecture over their digital one as part of the companies end. Citing particularly the take over of MyTravel (air tours) in 2007 and the Coop travel merger in 2010 which added to their physical portfolio while consumers were turning towards digital outlets.
It was only in 2015 that Thomas Cook gained a CDO, and by that point the company was already beginning to show signs of struggling. A struggle that they sadly could never overcome.
To me, and I’m sure many others, this is a clear example of a lack of vision from the top, and of a strategy and vision that has failed to iterate and been left to stagnate rather than adapt with the times.
The sides of the roads on the way to the On demand era are littered with the remains of business who have failed to learn from the mistakes of those who have gone before.
Blockbusters is often used as one of the first casualties of the new digital era, many people lay that blame at its CEO’s feet, but that is a very simple summation of a more complex problem. As Greg Satell in Forbes says, for Blockbusters to have survived it would have had to change it’s very business model, and that was where it struggled. It’s not that its CEO simply didn’t have a vision that included digital, it’s that the company didn’t know how to transform its very foundations.
In my experience this is where most companies struggle, they want to adapt to the digital era, and so they build a digital front end, as Thomas Cook did, but they don’t realise that digital is more than just a shiny front end. To ‘be Digital’ you have to change from the inside out, your commercials, your finances, your governance structures. Changes to the very culture of the business.
This holistic understanding is key at all levels of the organisation, from the people delivering customer services to the Chief Excs and Directors. To be digital requires breaking down organisational silos and for all the different departments in an organisation to work together to deliver a vision of what is possible.
This is where the CEO is responsible, for ensuring that vision is agreed, and that they have the right team in place, at all levels through the organisation, to deliver it.
A good Chief Digital Officer (or someone with similar skills and experience if not the title) is a critical appointment in this time, because they understand the art of the possible and how to deliver it. It took 5 years for Thomas Cook to appoint that person after it began Thomas Cook online. In any business that 5 years can be an eternity, especially one that relies on consumers in a competitive market. In that time their competitors has outstripped them, changed their business models, transformed their offering to meet user expectations.
The lesson here is that digital is not something you can pay lip service to, you have to understand it and how to ‘be’ it. Without that vision and willingness to iterate and change, you will find your users will move on to somewhere else that can meet their needs better.
The ripples of Thomas Cooks fall will be felt for a long time yet, not only in the thousands of holiday makers like myself who are inconvenienced by this, but also the staff who are now out of work and for whom this is a time of heart break and uncertainties. Many other companies around the world relied on Thomas Cook for business, and their futures too are now uncertain.
There is a lot we can learn from this, to ensure this is not a bit of history doomed to repeat itself. Again.
Discussing the differences between Product Management in the Private and Public sector.
There has always been a perceived difference in how Product Managers in the public and private sector work, what their priorities are and their key focuses.
Historically at its most simplistic the view has been that within the Public sector the Product Manager focuses on what user’s need. Whereas Product Managers in the private sector focus on what users want.
Interestingly as more organisations in the Private Sector adopt the user centric design principles championed by Government Digital services and public sector organisations the difference in the role between the Private and public sectors decreases. Within the public sector we do indeed focus on user’s needs, however we do have to consider their wants as well if we want to create services our users will enjoy using.
Equally while Product Managers in the Private Sector will focus more on want’s, as that is where their revenue is likely to be, and what will give them the edge in the market. But they will also consider need’s, because when developing a service for users, it’s important to understand whether users wants and needs are polar opposites to ensure your not setting your scope too small or your costs too high. As such, while this difference between need and want is possibly still the best way to separate the roles, they are not as different as they once were.
No matter what sector they work in, be that private sector or Public, Product Managers are still there to ‘represent’ the end user and their needs/wants, within the Public sector the Product Manager is more likely to work with a user researcher who will help them understand those needs, and there will be more of a focus on user research to ensure the users are properly understood and represented, but at their core the Product Manager is still there to ensure those needs are met in the best possible way.
They are also responsible for understanding the opportunities and gaps within the market place, looking for opportunities to fill a need that is missing; for developing their Product strategy and roadmap and setting the scope for their Product to meet the needs or target the gaps they have identified.
So, perhaps the other key difference between the Private and Public sector Product Managers, is cost revenue. Within the Private Sector, the Product Manager is responsible for ensuring the Product or Service they are developing will fit within the Business Model, they manage the profit and loss for their Products, and the development of the business development strategy. They will quantify the return on investment predominantly through revenue return. They will be examining the market place to understand what similar products are out there, and their costs to users to use; Once they have a rough idea on how much they can make they can determine their ROI is based on how much it will cost to develop vs. how much profit are they likely to make from users once the Product or service is live.
Within the Public sector there is not the same onus on cost revenue. Departments are funded by the treasury, very few agencies or bodies generate their own revenue, and while there are some, they are not looking to create a profit in the same way the private sector is.
Instead the return on investment we are considering in the Public sector is about value to the public purse. Is there value in spending public money on developing this product or service? We do this by examining how much is currently spent on running any existing services; how much is ‘lost’ through waste or inefficiencies; how much can be saved by introducing service improvements or a new service for users and how much will it likely cost to develop? If the savings out way the spend, then there is likely value in us using public money to develop this.
This approach to determining value is the difference between the public and private sector product managers, but also shows how similar the roles actually are. Product Managers, no matter what sector they are in, care about their users and developing products and services for them. They look to the market to understand opportunities; they work to develop their Product strategy and to quantify the available Return on Investment.
I think we need to put to bed this idea that the Private sector solely puts revenue over users, and that the Public sector doesn’t care about costs. Both Private sector and Public sector Product Managers have a lot they can learn from each other, and we should be looking for more opportunities to join up and share our experiences and knowledge.
I believe both Private sector and Public sector Product Managers have a lot they can learn from each other, and we should be looking for more opportunities to join up and share our experiences and knowledge. I think we need to put to bed this idea that the Private sector solely puts revenue over users, and that the Public sector doesn’t care about costs.
When it’s not about user needs or human centric design, but instead about fixing technological infrastructure.
When it’s not about transforming the service but keeping the lights on systems.
When it’s not about asking “why?”, because you already know the solution you want.
As Tom Loosemore said, Digital is applying the culture, practices, processes & technologies of the Internet-era to respond to people’s raised expectations.
There are lots of conversations online about being digital, not doing digital. Digital is not a process, it is a cultural mind-set.
It is a way of asking questions and prioritising needs. It’s about delivering value and designing services that meet user needs and expectations.
Now and then you can still see organisations that use Digital as a label when they mean technology or IT.
However, those things are not interchangeable. The culture and mindset of of the teams of the teams, and the organisations itself, is very different.
In organisations that use digital as a label but are not embracing what it means to be digital you will still see a separation between change or transformation and digital. They will still have siloed ways of working.
The business will still separate the programme funding, governance and strategy from the digital teams tasked with delivery.
Organisations where digital is a way of working, not just a label, you will see properly empowered teams made up of people from across the business. You will have teams who ‘own’ the holistic service they are delivering from strategy to delivery.
These are organisations where the multidisciplinary team isn’t just something that digital ‘do’ but the whole organisations embraces.
This comparison between Digital and Technology is equally relevant when considering the role of the Chief Digital Officer vs. a Chief Technology Officer or Chief Information Officer. There’s a good discussion of the various roles here. As with the other roles the Chief Digital Officer looks after an organisations data and technology assets. However, they go one step further and have a wider eye, considering the strategy and the possibilities for innovation and wider transformation. Their focus is not on keeping the lights on, but understanding why the lights are needed and are there any other options?
For me this sums up why digital is wider ands more far reaching than Technology, and why the Digital mind-set and culture is so important to get right for organisations trying to deliver transformation. And why, if you don’t have these things right, if you are digital in name but not culture, you are going to struggle to deliver real transformation.
I’ve been working within Digital transformation for almost ten years now, working on some of the largest projects and programmes within the public sector. From front line services to backend systems, from simple forms to complex benefit processing applications.
One thing that has been a feature of every product or service I’ve been a part of has been the business case. Over the years I’ve worked to challenge and transform the business case itself, making it more agile and less cumbersome, in multiple organisations.
Traditionally business cases have been built on the preconception that you know exactly what solution you want, with the costs and timings estimated accordingly. These behemoth business cases usually clock in over 25 pages long, with very little room of flexibly or change. The millstones in them are clearly laid out and everyone sits around clapping themselves on the back for delivering the business case, and then wondering why the Product itself never gets delivered.
In the last decade as the more agile methodologies and user centric ways of working have spread the traditional business case, and the role of those individuals who are focused on their development, has struggled to keep pace with the changes happening within the projects and programmes themselves.
The traditional method of drafting business cases that map out your road map and spend in full are now antiquated, and holding back teams from delivering. New business cases need to instead focus on agreeing design principles and the problem the business is trying to fix rather than bottoming out the minutiae of the roadmap. On explaining the assumptions that have helped define the scope of the Product or programme, which can be backed up by evidence , this is worth more than a cost estimate hammered down to the pounds and pence.
Before doing Product evaluations it is vitally important to ensure all senior stakeholders agree on the assumptions the team is working too (regarding the scope, business needs, user needs etc.) And these are the things new business cases should be focused on, not jumping straight to a solution based on product comparisons that have been carried out before everyone has agreed what is in scope.
One anecdote in particular has always stuck with me, in terms of why it’s important to agree your scope, before you start comparing products.
A few years ago, back when I was working with the Office of the Public Guardian on their CRM replacement, the team at the time did some research and analysis into the best options for the business and whether they should be looking to build, buy or configure a new system.
As the business wanted to be a digital be default exemplar, there was an early assumption that the new system would only need to ingest data received via digital channels, or call data for the minimal cases that couldn’t be dealt with digitally. This led to some early product comparisons being done, into Products that would meet the business’ requirements.
However, some research and conversations with legal SMEs during the Discover period highlighted that, as the OPG had responsibilities as a safeguarding body, they needed to be able to accept and analyse data received via any source. Which meant they actually needed a system that could ingest and understand faxed data, call data, digital data and handwritten data. The ability to ingest and assign meta data to handwritten data meant some products that had actually been in consideration now had to be ruled out.
Thankfully the business case for the CRM system had been developed with enough flexibility and empowerment and trust within the programme team, that this did not dramatically slow down or derail the team in terms of delivery as they were still working within the agreed scope and cost envelope, but the Product Comparisons had to be reconsidered and the scope and cost estimates changed accordingly.
While this was a relatively small example, it highlights the importance of validating scope assumptions before pinning down your business case.
Many organisations embracing Digital and agile ways of working have struggled with how they can fit the need for traditional governance structures, and especially the business case, into the culture and ways of working that Digital brings with it. My honest opinion is that you can’t.
Instead, there has been a movement in some areas, led by the likes of GDS and MoJ which I have been apart of and leading conversations along with others on for some years, to change the role and format of the Business case. To encourage the business case itself to be developed and iterated alongside the Product and Programme it supports. This approach to iterate the business case alongside the agile Project lifecycle was first laid out by GDS back in 2014 for digital transformation programmes. The Institute for Government did a report back in October 2018 on how business cases were used, and what could be improved to enable better delivery.
Rather than a business case written almost in isolation by a Programme Manager before going round and round for comments, there is value in treating your business case like any other output from the a multidisciplinary team.
Instead of a 25+ page tome that aims to spell everything out upfront, before the project even commences properly, there is much more value in simply having a couple of pages explaining the problem the project is seeking to fix and why, along with estimated timing and costs for some exploratory work to define key assumptions and answer key questions (like what happens if we don’t fix this? How many people will it effect? Are there any legal requirements we need to be aware of?) that will help your project start on the right foot.
Once you can answer those questions, then you can iterate the business case; taking a stab at estimating how you think you might going about fixing the problem(s), how long it will take to fix the important key problem(s) you identified need fixing first, are there any products out there in the market that could do this for you? How much might this roughly cost?
You can then iterate the business case again once you’ve started developing the Product or implementing the identified solution. Once you have validated the assumptions you’ve made previously about the solution to the problem you’re fixing.
This means the business case is a living document, kept up to date with the costs and timetable you’re working to. It means your board are able to much more accurately assuage their accountabilities, ensuring costs are being spent in line with the scope of the programme or project.
Whatever methodology you are using, the importance of being able to explain why you are doing something, and what the problem you are trying to fix is, before leaping into what software product is the solution to buy and how much it’ll cost you. If it’s done right, the business case helps you evidence you are doing the right thing and spending money in the right way.
Why we need to bring user centric design into our Communications in the public Sector.
Having been involved in the hiring of many Content and Interaction Designers in the last few years, we’ve always preferred candidates from within the Public Sector, because they tend to have the same specialisms as we in the Digital Data and Technology (DDaT) Profession have, looking down our nose a little at applicants from the private sector who seem to be a bit of a ‘jack of all trades of design’ doing some social media, some UX and some content design.
We want people who understand user centric design, who design services based on user needs. We want content designers used to working in multidisciplinary teams designing and developing services. We want Content Designers who are used to designing what ‘we’ class as Content, which having spoken to people interested in applying for our roles seems to be quite often different, or at least a narrower definition, to what the wider industry classes as Content. A search for content design jobs online shows the breadth of jobs that can fall under that category.
But in the last year or so I’ve begun to look at those we have left behind with this approach, those we have excluded and where this has left us, especially in terms of both recruitement, and our engagement with our users.
The Government Design community is constantly growing and expanding. With the salaries being offered quickly outsripping the number of candidates we have available. We are all constantly stealing candidates from each other, and those departments and agencies that can’t afford to pay that much, are left relaying on contractors because we can’t hire people.
Digital is seen as a channel for contact, and within the public sector we are moving our products and services online. However, social media is generally not considered as part of that transformation. It is not a transactional service, and therefor generally not considered within the remit of the Digital design teams. The content we put out on social media is seen as the same as we put out to the press, it is a tool for giving out information, as such the people on our social media teams tend to be comms professionals, or people with a background in journalism or marketting.
Interestingly Social Media teams are not generally included within the Government design community, and until a conversation 18 months ago with Joanne Rewcastle at DWP Digital I’d never really thought about that. The DDaT roles are based around the roles first needed by Gov.uk and expanded on from there as part of the work by GDS. As such these are the roles needed to design and develop transactional services. Which makes sense.
However, it means we are not thinking about what our users need from our social media. We are not designing the content we put on social media in the same way as the content we put on our digital services, or even our websites.
Also, it means when it comes to recruitment, we are not looking preferably on those people who have a social media or wider comms background as they are not, by the DDaT definition, Content Designers, and unfortunately it is currently quite hard for people working in Social media or wider comms to move over into the Content Design space as they tend to not have the experience of working in multidisciplinary teams or on transactional user needs driven services we are looking for.
With our digital services we have to ensure they are accessible. Our content designers and interaction designers are experts in making sure our content is accessible and understandable by everyone. But in my experience we haven’t been making sure our social media teams are experts in that as well.
It was from Content Design and Accessibility expert colleagues I learned the rule of #CapatalisingYourHashTags so that they can be better understood by accessibility software. The same goes for images and emojis, are we all making sure we’re using them in such a way that screen readers and accessibility software can understand them? If our users are using social media, if that is a service we offer, then do we not have the same responsibility to make sure that service is as usable and accessible as any other service we offer? Even if it isn’t ‘transactional’.
Our Social media colleagues are generally great in helping us think about how to design messages in ways to engage the audiences on different channels, they understand the demographics of the users on the different platforms and what messages work best with which users where. They often have a wealth of data and evidence regarding our users that could benefit Product Development teams. When we’re considering as Product teams how to engage our users it seems to me that is a great time to engage with our social media colleagues. Equally, Product teams, through user research sessions and user needs analysis collect a lot of evidence and data teams that could benefit our Social Media colleagues. Unfortunately I’ve seen very few places pulling those skills together well.
Full credit to DWP Digital’s social media team here, where the team reached out and joined up with the content design community even though they were not officially part of it according to the DDaT professions, to ensure they were considering user needs in how they used social media. That team worked incredibly hard to build people’s awareness of how to use social media, to ensure content was accessible and usable.
A few other Departments have done simillar, and I think that is a good thing. But I also think we need to look again at social media across the public sector. It’s not just a marketing tool anymore, In the age of the internet a good social media presence can make or break a company. Nothing is ever really gone from the internet, and that tweet or Facebook post from 5 years ago can come back to bite you on the bum.
So why are more places not using the principles of user design in our social media, or recognising the hard work of those people who are pushing for accessibility and user design in social media as much as those who are designing good content for a website or transactional service?
We need to recognise that the people within our Social Media teams and our Content Design teams have more in common than not, and that when we are recruiting we can gain a lot from people who come form both sides of that bridge.
Hi, I’m Zoe and I’m a NeuroDiverse Senior Civil Servant.
Last week I attended Civil Service Live, it was an interesting day, with sessions on everything from AI and keeping abreast of new technologies, to Transformation to resilience and personal wellbeing. The session that stood out most for me was the “Making Government an event greater place to work” which was an interesting session featuring several people talking about their own mental health, and colleagues from DWP’s Diversity and Inclusion Team talking about the work they have been doing to make invisible disabilities more visible.
The team has been working with neurodiverse colleagues to make short videos to help neurotypical colleagues understand their disabilities. This included a video on sensory processing disorder, and how many colleagues with ASD can find what some people might call normal background noise overwhelming; and another video on how some people with Dyslexia can struggle with reading, with text moving around the page.
I thought these were really useful tools for colleagues to help increase understanding, and to normalise invisible disabilities.
After the session I got talking to one of the speakers and a few other attendees about some of the mentoring and leadership schemes that exist for Disabled people, and that unfortunately these are not widely visible with a lot of people not knowing they exist or how to join them. We also discussed the need for more visible representation of neurodiverse people within senior leadership.
I was diagnosed with Dyspraxia when I was 14, and nowadays I’ve recognised (through parenting my child through the intricate diagnosis process for ASD and ADHD) that I probably have ADHD as well and am now in conversations with my GP to get a referral for an assessment.
When I first joined the Civil Service (technically as a temp back in 2002 before I went to university) I was doing a data entry job, and when I admitted to a senior manager that I had Dypraxia he told me to keep it quiet or everyone would wonder why he’d hired me. Having a learning disability was definitely seen as a barrier to progression.
I remember when I joined the Ministry of Defence as a Fast Streamer back in 2006, I looked at the data for the Senior Civil Service at the time and realised that less than 3% of colleagues in the SCS had a disability, and of those, the number who were declaring a non-physical disability was in single figures (in the MoD at least). At that time, I made the decision that I would do everything I could to reach the SCS, so I could help change those stats.
Until a few years ago I’d never met an SCS person who I knew was neurodiverse. I was talking to a senior leader asking for advice on speaking at conferences as it was something I’ve always struggled with in terms of confidence, and he admitted that he was Dyslexic and couldn’t read of prompts, so would always have to learn his presentations by heart. This was someone I had known for over a year, and it felt like I was being told a secret that they were ashamed of, but it made me feel hope. Here was this person 2 grades above me, who also had a learning disability. It was possible.
Several years ago at a leadership development session designed to help G6 colleagues pass the SCS application tests, one of the senior colleagues stated that “anyone can just learn to do maths with a little bit practice”. I ended up speaking up and saying that “as someone with a learning disability I found that kind of sweeping statement very unhelpful”. After the session I had another colleague approach me and ask if I could provide some mentoring to one of their members of staff who had Dyslexia and wanted to progress in their career but they weren’t sure if that was possible given their disability, and my colleague believed that talking to another neurodiverse person might help their confidence.
Over the years I’ve mentored perhaps a dozen people, some through official schemes, but just as many have approached me and asked whether I would mentor them as they themselves are neurodiverse and there aren’t that many senior leaders out there who own up publicly to having a learning disability or being neurodiverse. As such people feel that there aren’t people in senior leadership positions who have learning disabilities or are not neurotypical.
Within the Civil Service and wider public sector we are doing more now to normalise Disability, there are great leadership and development schemes like the Possetive Action Pathway out there now to help build capability for Disabled colleagues or recruit more neurodiverse people. DWP and HMRC have been running Autism work placement programmes, GCHQ has it’s “Positive About Disabled People” scheme and there’s the Summer Diversity Internship programme; Diversity and Inclusion networks across the Civil Service are working to help support Disabled colleagues, and schemes like the ‘Workplace Adjustment passport’ are a great tool for disabled colleagues and their managers.
But I still believe we need more visible neurodiverse senior leaders, and leaders with both visible and invisible disabilities. Figures from 2018 show that still only 5.4% of SCS colleagues have a disability. I couldn’t find any data on the percentage of those colleagues whose disability was visible, invisible or both, but it’s safe to say we need to normalise neurodiversity at all levels.
For those of us who are neurodiverse in the Senior Civil Service, we need to speak up and say to our colleagues that we are here. It is possible. We bring something to the table, and so do you.