Thinking big on IT and public services
From: Wingham Rowan, Project Director, Slivers-of-Time Working
www.slivers.info wingham.rowan@sliversoftime.comAre we asking the right question on this site? If we’re to really get to grips with the potential of IT for transforming public services we have to be sure we’re focusing on sufficiently high level issues.
In 1995 the music business struggled with the question: “how do we use the Internet to sell CD’s more efficiently?” As we now know, the Internet spawned MP3 downloads which sent CD sales spiralling into decline. But music became more accessible and portable than ever. A better question in 1995 might have been: “how could delivery of recorded entertainment be impacted by new technologies?”
So, it might be worth pausing before asking “how do we improve public services with IT?” Is it possible the whole concept of public services could become unrecognisable because of IT developments? Rather than offering a contribution to one of CTPR’s series of headings I’d like to frame – and answer – an over-arching question.
The underlying issue
At heart public services are bookings of a worker’s time. The homecare visit, a shift on the library helpdesk, Saturday morning in the Council call centre, a dentist’s appointment, a patrol by street wardens, cover for a school football match or the time it takes to sweep a residential street. They all come down to getting the right worker, in the right place at the right time for the right duration.
This underlying issue goes far beyond public services. It taxes some of the biggest private sector employers. How it is addressed impacts employment opportunities for millions of people. Benefits and tax rules can have unintended consequences on the way we work. There are wildcard factors such as the potential of volunteers, to check on the housebound for example.
Ultimately, this is all about how we, the workforce, are going to trade our time in the 21st century. Very broadly: the 18th Century was mainly about working for yourself on the land, the 19th Century saw a shift to working regular –often overly long – hours for an employer. By the 20th Century employment was more humane and facilities like flexible working, part time jobs and job shares became widespread.
We don’t know what the 21st Century will bring in terms of employment patterns. But one way of shaping that debate might be to explore a broad high level question. I suggest: “how might people’s time be traded in the 21st Century?” Public services are simply a sub-set of the market for the time of individuals.
Marketplaces for Slivers-of-Time
Predictably, I have an axe to grind on this issue. I run the social enterprise that pioneered marketplaces for Slivers-of-Time of local people. A Sliver can be an hour, a day, a week or more. Our mission is to allow the person who wants to work in that time to be available to multiple employers on the person’s own terms. Employers, or their customers, can see everyone who is qualified, available, contactable in time and willing to do a particular booking. Everyone is priced uniquely for that particular requirement. It’s hugely complex behind-the-scenes but Slivers-of-Time technology is simple to use.
We operate markets for local authorities and parts of the NHS in London, Yorkshire and East Anglia. But we believe this kind of market hasn’t even begun to show what it can do yet. We’re campaigning for central government to understand its pivotal role as catalyst for this new kind of marketplace.
Imagine a world in which you had mature marketplaces that very precisely, safely, conveniently trade the time of local people. Started with government buying power, these markets could span the full range of public services and all sorts of private sector employment opportunities. They might allow individuals to sell Slivers-of-Time to directly provide local services, for example someone who will clean your house, do your laundry, walk your dog or valet your car. They might also allow hire of possessions. I could have a bike I am not using this afternoon. If the markets could tell me what price it could command, allow me to say it was only to be displayed to people with at least 25 complaint-free bike hires behind them and ensure a neighbour handled all the checking out/checking in of each booking I might be tempted to hire it out.
In any of these markets, those sellers of time who are reliable are likely to command a premium and would probably attract induction by a range of employers. That marries flexibility of employment with the security that comes from being multi-skilled. For buyers, any kind of worker, service provider or possession could be input as a requirement together with a location in which it was required and the times of need. Every possible option would instantly be priced and displayed, ranked in order of reliability. A couple more clicks would book any combination of options.
Government as catalyst for new markets
Think of these proposed markets as a regulated public utility, on a par with the water supply, road network or national currency. We call them NEMs (National e-Markets). Crucially, they are underpinned by all the mechanisms and authority of the state. And government buying goes through them into local communities as the default option.
These markets wouldn’t be funded, designed, built or operated by government. But government would be the catalyst. It’s exactly the model used to get the National Lottery off the ground. John Major’s government bestowed the authority and support of parliament on a putative service and let the private sector compete to deliver it.
Creating this co-ordinated platform for micro-trading would require some seriously joined up thinking. Government is launching marketplaces all the time, it’s too big a force in the economy not to. But there’s no coherent marketplace strategy. The Department of Health is launching markets for Social Care, DCSF will need another to provide breaks for parents of disabled children, and so on. This is reminiscent of the early days of electricity supply. There would have been a time when each government department would have debated what sort of generator to buy to keep their lights on. Households and companies were doing the same. Then it became clear that you could have a national grid that created cheap, universal, standardised supply for everyone, not just government departments. But only government could initiate that national grid. It required dams, permission to put pylons across land, a legal framework for operators and so on.
You don’t have to use the public electricity supply. Nothing stops you going solo and buying your own generator. But most people do want the simplicity and too-big-to-fail security of the national system. They should have that choice. Government needs to initiate the same choice in e-markets. Public Service delivery can then be assessed within that new context.
New possibilities
More efficient markets change everything. Ask an investment banker about the difference between the languid, read-the-listings-and-makes-some-calls world of finance in the 1980’s and today’s turbo-trading of billions in new assets every day.
How might that impact on Public Services? I might be someone with a recurring medical condition. I could have a personal budget for support allocated by the state. Today I might use it for a lunchtime visit from a homecare worker who is actually a neighbour trading – with all legal requirements checked - through the system. Tomorrow I might pool my budget with friends and book someone to take us out for the afternoon. The day after I might enter the market as a worker and offer local services. The old rigidities have collapsed. I both receive and deliver services, sometimes in freey formed mini-co-operatives. Every service I buy is turned into a competitive tender for which government, companies, charities and individuals can compete.
The markets required to deliver this vision are technologically viable. The right framework from government would make them attractive to finance for the private sector. What’s missing is government’s willingness to allow its authority, mechanisms and buying power to integrate with a coherent approach to the possibilities of e-marketplaces. If Whitehall ever does travel that journey, Public Services could be an integral part of the vision.
So, our proposal for the CTPR contest is: government should set up a special committee to look at the kinds of marketplaces now possible. It should ask: “are the British people able to trade whatever assets they might conceivably sell in the most efficient marketplace possible?” If the answer is “No”, the committee might then ask: “does government have a role in remedying that situation?”
Only when that question is answered can you really consider how public services might look ten or twenty years from now.
Back to CTPR Ideal Government IT Strategy home page
There are 6 comments on this page. [Display comments]