Skip to content.
|Networking government in New Zealand.
You are here: Home » Services » Shared workspace » S.E.E. Workspace- Phase 2: Focus Group Report » What is the consequential value proposition?

What is the consequential value proposition?

Value proposition

Although intuitively, the Focus Group participants were able to identify a number of potential benefits of a shared policy workspace, it is still necessary to test those assertions in a more rigorous way. To establish a value proposition, it is necessary to:

  • Map how policy development is done at the current time;

  • work out how things would be different if they were done electronically; and

  • quantify across a range of criteria (time, cost, quality/quantity of input and resources required) whether the alternative electronic processes provide significant efficiencies or savings.

The Project Team [ We would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by Shenagh Gleisner (SSC) in mapping out the iterative processes of policy development.] has worked through a process to broadly map the policy development process, as it is currently carried out in the Public Service. In the first working paper for this project (October 2000), the Project Team looked at the high level policy mapping provided in the SSC published work on Improving the quality of policy advice in the Public Service. Several inputs to the policy development process were identified in that work, and depicted as being interdependent. These include:

  • Problem definition

  • Policy inputs

  • Policy analysis

  • Policy instruments

  • Consultation

  • Co-ordination mechanisms

  • Decision

  • Implementation

  • Evaluation.

Using this framework, the procedures policy analysts use to carry out each part of the process were identified. This was broken down into specific related tasks. From this, it is then possible to see how those tasks might be done differently in an electronic environment.

The following table maps out this analysis. It should be noted that the Project Team sees some of the interdependent processes as repetitive within the overall framework. For example, as part of the policy analysis process, further inputs could be sought; policy analysis and policy instrument selection can be refined following consultation; and following coalition discussions, the policy could require further inputs and analysis. These iterative processes do not however, materially alter the nature of the mechanistic tasks required to complete the policy development process. An electronic workspace may make such repetition of process more manageable, and less time consuming.

NB: Individual departments may vary in modes of carrying out particular tasks and functions - this table is intended to be a generic picture/overview of particular procedures for carrying out specific tasks.

Note1: Current procedures marked "*" means these functions could be replaced by electronic ones

Note2: Potential Electronic Procedures answer what could be different?  Electronic functions could replace and/or supplement current procedures.

Problem Definition

  • Identifies task to be done.

  • Specifies project team with lead department/agency and/or lead person.

  • Specifies expected outcome and timeframe for completion.

  • Departmental officials scope problem to be addressed and refine product required.

TASKS

CURRENT PROCEDURE

POTENTIAL ELECTRONIC PROCEDURE

Circulation of Cabinet/ Ministerial Committee Minutes or departmental directive documents.

Manual circulation of minutes via internal Public Service delivery system to multiple departments. *

Individually numbered copies (manually photocopied) to be logged and then redistributed within each department by support staff and then Managers according to departmental procedures. *

Minute generated and logged in Public Service database under relevant Committee/ Cabinet Register.

Cross-link by subject and/or sponsoring Minister.

Flag raised to lead and named departments (possibly CE or GM Policy) where action is required.

System notice to service department.

Identification of personnel to participate in project.

Manual [i.e. post/fax/courier]/e-mail correspondence between lead agency and named contributors and/or identified stakeholder agencies.*

Manual/email distribution of relevant background papers.*

Preformatted request for resources by lead agency to named contributors including Cabinet reference/background information/expected outcome /timeframe.

Relevant background papers posted on project site for viewing by named departmental officials.

Scoping of problem by officials.

Phone/email organisation of meeting of identified contributors by support staff or officials. [May have used letter requesting resources (in task above) to set up first meeting]. *

Face-to-face meeting to scope problem.

Email discussions.

Project site calendar with flag notification to nominated project members.

Scoping discussion following face-to-face meeting held on single electronic project site.

Project management planning.

Manual and/or electronic project management planning completed by project managers or lead agency staff.

Manual/email distribution of project plan including Terms of Reference (TOR)/budget.*

Project planning software available to all project members. Data added by project members as appropriate.

Reference to project plans made as required by project members for information on TOR, budgets etc.

.

Project initiation.

Working group meetings held face-to-face to sign-off TOR, budget, timeframe, and resources.*

Sign-off facilitated through project management application.

Policy Inputs

  • Define issue.

  • Identify information; contacts; resources; problem-solving requirements and gaps.

  • Define stakeholders.

  • Consultation as required.

  • Research.

  • Background papers produced (if required).

TASKS

CURRENT PROCEDURE

POTENTIAL ELECTRONIC PROCEDURE

Brainstorming.

Phone/email organisation of meeting of project team members by project managers or support staff.*

Face-to-face meeting.

Whiteboarding.

Write-up of meeting by nominated person.

Email distribution and feedback for finalisation.*

Hard copy for file and electronic copy (by each participant).*

Project team noticeboard notification of meeting with reminder flag to members.

Write-up posted in project team file with flag to members it is available for feedback and finalisation.

Final copy placed on project team file with reference classification.

Primary and/or secondary research processes.

Interrogating statistical databases - hard copy via department (and external) library services and/or on-line.

Developing/designing stocktake requirements.

Issuing requests to departments via mail.*

Mail and/or on-line returns.*

Manual analysis.

Design and implementation of primary research if required.

Links to international statistical databases, research material, government research contacts.

On-line stocktake analysis.

Identify key stakeholders.

Seek views/opinions /information from key sources and/or stakeholders.

Review documents to identify nominated stakeholders.

References from formal/informal departmental and contact/network sources.

Phone/email/mail contacts with stakeholders to organise meetings.

Phone/email discussions with stakeholders.

Face-to-face meetings with stakeholders - structured/semi-structured interviews/ brainstorming/information sharing.

Corridor chats.

File-notes of meetings.*

Manual/e-mail distribution of notes to project team members or verbal report back. *

Manual file.*

Facility for Public Service agencies to register as stakeholder for particular projects, or identify public stakeholders.

Reference facility to alert project manages or team members of useful contacts or potential stakeholders.

File-notes of meetings registered on project team file and flag to members it is available.

Drafting background (issues/discussion) paper

  1. editing

  2. critique

  3. production

  4. distribution

Word processing by individual on departmental electronic filing system.*

Email/mail distribution for editorial comment and critique.*

Email/mail responses.*

Editing of paper by single penholder to incorporate changes as judged appropriate by lead agency.*

Sign-off by lead agency chair/sponsor.

Final copy emailed/mailed to members of project team.*

Electronic and/or paper file kept in each (multiple) departmental project files and/or email systems.*

First draft version available on project team site with flag to members for editing/critique.

Project team members view and submit input as required by using number of options including:

  1. making changes on -line with that are tracked and new versions created; Project manager authorises final version for distribution.

  2. Comments/changes placed on project team 'Draft Response Table' where members can feedback and debate specific issues.

Project Manager authorises final changes.

File copy on project file.

Policy Analysis

  • Thematic arrangement of information.

  • Gap analysis.

  • Priority settings.

  • Establishing criteria.

  • Applying analytical tools, e.g. cost benefit/ modelling/ instrument analysis.

  • Document production.

TASKS

CURRENT PROCEDURE

POTENTIAL ELECTRONIC PROCEDURE

Filtering/analysing information.

Phone/email organisation of face-to-face meeting by support staff or officials.*

Face-to-face meeting.

Whiteboarding.

Consensual agreement on priorities, criteria and analytical tools to be used in analysis.

Allocation of tasks, and agreement to analysis process.

Project team shared calendar.

Allocation of tasks entered into project management application.

Flag to specified members re inputs/products required in specified timeframes.

Discussions - refining of priorities/criteria

  1. gap analysis

  2. application of tools

Further organisation and face-to-face meetings if required, by support staff or officials. *

Development of written inputs by members.

Discussion with peers/managers by individual members.

Corridor chats.

Analysis by individual project members, or groups of members tasked with analysis of specific parts of projects.

Document drafting.

Shared calendar.

Parts of document developed by individuals entered into main document system as they are produced.

Additional information entered into central project repository by members as it comes available. Flag to members re new information.

Policy tool templates to aid analysis.

Further information gathering if required.

Secondary research as required via library/departmental resource/files and/or on-line.

Phone/fax/email discussion with information sources.

Links to on-line research. Sources available in Public Service 'common room'.

Document drafting and production.

Word processing of draft document.

Email/fax/mail/courier distribution to team members and peers. *

Main document available to all team members.

Version controlled by project moderator.

Flag to project members for input/feedback by specified time.

Peer review.

Email/fax/mail/courier feedback to central sources by peers/departmental policy staff/technical experts/academics involved.

Reviews emailed to project team mailbox for clearance by project administrator/ manager.

Revision of draft.

Phone/email organisation of face-to-face meetings by support staff or officials.*

Face-to-face meetings to discuss/review/ rewrite draft.

Lead agency production of new paper.

Shared calendar.

New version of main document able to be contributed to by members.

Document control.

Consultation.

Mail/courier distribution of document.*

Hard copies to other Public Service agencies/departments/stakeholders and/or public.*

Publication of document on website with request for feedback.

Project managers authorises source document for release to Public Service space and/or public site as appropriate.

Tick-box section for 'no comment' by departments/ agencies.

Consultation verification.

Analysis of consultation feedback.

Phone/email organisation of face-to-face meetings by support staff or officials*

Face-to-face meeting.

Thematic arrangement of feedback data.

Re-analysis of material.

Shared calendar.

Website feedback automatically arranged by themes.

Policy tools template.

On-line consultation verification.

Final document production.

Production of new draft.

Distribution via email/fax/mail/courier to members.*

Feedback on draft.

Final draft moderated by lead agency.

Cab 100 sign-off by departments.*

Sign-off by lead agency.

Distribution to project members*.

Copies to Cabinet Office*.

Version control.

Main document available on Project Team site.

Sign-off by lead agency sponsor.

Emailed to Cabinet Office.

Project Team file released to Public Service.

Availability of source document on Project Team site for access by members, with appropriate access controls.

Policy Instruments (How to affect the policy change).

NB. This stage of the project development process can be incorporated as part of the analysis phases, dependent on the policy subject.

  • Required legislation changes drafted and implemented.

  • Machinery of Government (MOG) processes.

  • Regulations promulgated.

  • Order in Council affected.

  • Departmental capability and accountability issues identified and actioned.

  • Formal/informal requirements identified and actioned.

TASKS

CURRENT PROCEDURE

POTENTIAL ELECTRONIC PROCEDURE

Analysis of requirements of instrument of choice.

Development of requirements of instrument of choice.

Phone/email organisation of meeting with relevant technical experts/key stakeholders.*

Face-to-face meeting.

Whiteboarding to analyse instrument requirements.

Agreement to process for development including resources required and accountabilities.

On-line identification of technical experts/key stakeholders.

Shared calendar with flag.

Public Service repository of best practice information (e.g. MOG manual/Order in Council process and requirements).

Consultation: 

NB. Parts of this stage of project development process can also be carried out during the analysis phase.

  • Identification of public/Public Service stakeholders.

  • Distribution to stakeholders.

  • Formal/informal feedback.

  • Analysis of feedback.

TASKS

CURRENT PROCEDURE

POTENTIAL ELECTRONIC PROCEDURE

Marketing.

Multiple media distribution of new policy requirements/options.

Production of distribution lists.

Lead agency co-ordinates stakeholder nominations via email/phone/fax/ mail and produces list (electronic or hard copy).*

List held on paper project file. *

On-line registration of stakeholders.

Distribution of policy document to stakeholders.

Publication on website.

Distribution of multiple hard copies via mail/courier to Public Service departments and/or public stakeholders and/or expert groups.*

E-mail distribution to selected key stakeholders.

Meetings.

Marae visits.

Publication on website

Receive and analyse feedback.

Website collation.

Mail/phone/fax input to identified contact in lead agency.*

Analysis process (as described in [feedback analysis] above.

On-line submissions and submission analysis.

Analysis templates.

Co-Ordination Mechanisms

  • Coalition discussions.

  • Formal departmental comments.

TASKS

CURRENT PROCEDURE

POTENTIAL ELECTRONIC PROCEDURE

Co-ordination between lead agency project managers and Minister's office.

Phone/email/fax.*

Availability of source document with access controls to Minister's office staff.

Ministerial cross-party discussions.

[OUTSIDE SCOPE]

Revision of paper by lead agency as per Ministerial direction.

Distribution of final copy to departmental project members (usually with very tight timeframe for response, or no ability to contribute further - information only.)*

Availability of final source document on Public Service site with flag to members.

Briefing by officials to Ministers.

Briefing document prepared for Minister.

Management sign-off.

Ministerial mail 1-2 days prior to meeting. *

Phone/email organisation of meeting between department and Minister's office. *

Face-to-face meeting with Minister.

Email of briefing to Minister's office by departmental officials with appropriate sign-off controls.

Decision

  • Cabinet process.

TASKS

CURRENT PROCEDURE

POTENTIAL ELECTRONIC PROCEDURE

Cabinet Office processes [OUTSIDE SCOPE]

 -

 -

Cabinet Minute generated.

[OUTSIDE SCOPE]

 -

Cabinet Minute distribution.

Multiple hard copies distributed to departments via Public Service mail system.*

Internal distribution processes and filing systems, in multiple departments.*

Storage of minutes on a Public Service common database.

Implementation

Actioning decisions made.

TASKS

CURRENT PROCEDURE

POTENTIAL ELECTRONIC PROCEDURE

Distribution to relevant departments for resource allocation and implementation management.

Manual distribution as above. *

Flag to departmental policy administrator on production of Cabinet Minute.

Policy instrument development (as appropriate)

[SEE ABOVE]

[SEE ABOVE]

Implementation.

[OUTSIDE SCOPE]

[OUTSIDE SCOPE]

Shared workspace functionality could be utilised for developing policy instruments.

Evaluation

  • Analysis of whether specific policy initiative is meeting its intended goal and/or resulting in its intended impact.

TASKS

CURRENT PROCEDURE

POTENTIAL ELECTRONIC PROCEDURE

Information gathering.

Implementation information held in multiple departmental/agency sites (national office and regions) depending on unique characteristics of policy subject.*

Flag for evaluation requirement (based on specified time-lapse) to lead agency (possibly to a designated position, not individual).

Research.

Mix of manual and on-line research design and implementation processes.

Templates on-line.

Links to national and international evaluation sites.

Subscription channels for journals.

Key word searches transferred to user.

Analysis

[AS OUTLINED ABOVE]

[AS ABOVE]

Report production.

[AS FOR ANALYSIS PROCESS]

Report templates.

The table above shows clearly that electronic shared workspace can make a significant contribution to streamlining the tasks policy analysts carry out when developing policy. The policy development processes, and the associated procedures and tasks are not necessarily different, but the electronic functionality has the potential to make them faster, more accessible and more efficient. This implies that they will also be cost-efficient. In the following section of the report, the functionality that Focus Group participants saw as critical to a shared workspace is specified further. The model of the secure 'mall' developed in the first paper was shared with participants, and they used this as a discussion starter. Not all participants agreed with all aspects of the 'mall', but the general framework was perceived as a useful starting point. The analysis carried out above, is supported by the feedback on functionality that was received by the Focus Groups.


[ Previous | Next ]