Opportunities, Issues and Risks

Value Proposition

34 The e-government strategy indicates that the New Zealand Government intends to be amongst those governments that actively manage e-technology to make life better for its people. Among other things, this requires the Government to "capitalize on e-technology to improve the way government serves New Zealanders ...". [ e-government strategy, April 2001, pg 11]

35 Utilising existing, and developing, technologies in the Government sector is necessary to:

1. improve the quality and efficiency of government

2. complement, and keep pace with, the move to utilise advanced technologies for greater engagement between citizens, businesses and government, and

3. keep pace with international technology usage trends within governments.

36 The question this raises is whether the use of shared workspace, for developing crosscutting policy will result in improvements to the way the Government serves New Zealanders and/or to the quality and efficiency of government. Policy development is an inherently complex process, involving a variety of steps that are not carried out with textbook sequencing, or to ideal standards in all cases.

37 The reality of the government environment is that officials work under a range of pressures including tight timeframes, limited resources and multiple stakeholders' interests (political, government and public). All of these things have to be managed, and each affects differently the way the policy development process is carried out. Discrete pieces of policy work can be developed in quite varied ways as a consequence.

38 The potential exists for technology to address existing communication and information duplications, and difficulties accessing knowledge, expertise and appropriate personnel within the government. This is not to say that shared policy workspace should be implemented just because it is technically possible. Some proof of greater efficiency is necessary to justify the financial and management investment in such an application.

39 This needs to be considered against the risk of not moving towards greater utilisation of available applications for intra-government communications and working practices. The principle of using electronic applications to work across departments is a necessary part of realising the vision of e-government, and keeping abreast of global moves towards information-age government. It will also be an expectation of future recruits, particularly younger policy analysts, that 'virtual' working will be commonplace.

40 There are a number of potential benefits to shared workspace in the Public Service. These include:

• enabling greater accessibility to a wider range of information, research and dialogue

• fast, efficient means of communication and the transmission of ideas and opinions

• improving the quality of policy advice

• utilising the technical capability and capacity of the new 'e' enabled technologies

• facilitating efficient changes to work practices, and project administration.

41 These benefits depend on some underlying assumptions about the inherent value of doing work electronically, and untested assumptions about the contribution of electronic processes can make to the policy development process. For example, there is no inherent relationship between the increased quantity and speed of inputs, both of which can be accommodated by electronic processing, and the subsequent quality of policy advice.

42 To establish the potential value add of shared workspace for government, the Project Team broadly mapped the policy development process as it is currently carried out, against possible changes e-technologies could facilitate. Policy development involves iterative processes that depend on the subject matter; the range of stakeholder interests; the type of consultation required; and the nature of the policy product. Shared workspace technology can be useful for the production of policy products, and for:

• sharing information and ideas

• formulating concepts and frameworks that can usefully be applied to the analysis of policy issues

• utilising research and evaluations as input to analysis

• carrying out a range of relevant analyses to shape and formulate specific policies (e.g. social impact/ economic/ cost-benefit/ gender etc.).

43 A broad map of the policy development process, as it is currently carried out in the Public Service was produced in Phase 2 of this project (www.e-government.govt.nz). The Project Team used the inputs to the policy development process [Improving the quality of policy advice in the Public Service, State Services Commission. (www.ssc.govt.nz)] as a framework to identify the procedures policy analysts use to develop policy. Each procedure was broken down into specific related tasks. Mapping the tasks then made it possible to see how things might be done differently in an electronic environment.

44 Some of the interdependent procedures within the policy development process are repetitive. 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. The table set out in the Phase 2 working paper clearly shows that an electronic workspace may make such repetition of process more manageable and less time consuming.

45 The Project Team's brief did not at this stage require a business case to be developed. However, the analysis to date indicates that given the iterative process of policy development and the need for 'real time' working, electronic shared workspace could make a significant contribution to streamlining policy development. The processes involved, and the associated procedures and tasks are not necessarily different but the electronic functionality has the potential to complement the physical tasks (e.g. face-to-face meetings), and make other tasks faster, and more accessible. It could also lead to facilitating greater ease of access to tailored subscriber based channels for information and research that will in turn complement the robustness of policy development.

The Project Team believes there is value to be gained from a shared workspace and that the returns in terms of efficiency gains should be quantified as part of the business case developed in the next phase of work on this issue.

Management of a Shared IT Resource Across the Government

46 An electronic shared workspace that includes project management functionality can add-value to crosscutting policy development. There is a set of issues around the management of a shared IT resource for government. These relate to the interoperability of IT systems across government; how funding is organised; and how the software product is developed, implemented and managed on an on-going basis. These issues will be discussed more fully in the next section of this report (Ownership issues).

47 There is also a set of issues that need to be addressed to enable and support shared workspace as a common tool for officials, if the full potential it can offer is to be realised. These include cross sector uptake, the need for upskilling in computer skills, and clarity around privacy and OIA issues. There are also a number of practical operational issues to be addressed, such as working protocols and quality assurance. Each of these is discussed below:

Uptake by Public Service

48 There are inevitably different perspectives across government on whether increasing the use of technology in the workplace is either useful, or desirable. Part of the question is whether officials currently use the full range of technology available to them (e.g. PowerPoint; Excel; Internet). It is also unclear whether all of the products available are necessary to the work of officials in policy making, and/or whether the level of technological literacy is high enough amongst officials to make the best use of the products available. In the absence of data, the question of whether additional electronic functionality will deliver the benefits it is designed to may be dependent on other factors, such as how the product is marketed to officials and the support systems that accompany its introduction.

49 The continuum of views expressed by officials participating in Focus Groups set up to discuss shared workspace was broad ranging [ See Phase 2 working paper] . At one end were people in the 'just do it' or 'we have to do it' category. At the other end, were those who could not envisage the policy development process in the future as being any different to what it is now, and could not see the added value of shared workspace.

50 Attitudes of officials to technological and work practice change highlight the importance of obtaining the buy-in of senior people within agencies, and planning and managing the introduction of shared workspace carefully. Policy analysts, and their managers, are busy people. Many would not pay attention to technology beyond the immediate impact it has on their work. Shared workspace is not a concept that they would therefore necessarily embrace intuitively.

51 Focus Group feedback indicates that officials could see the potential value in the suite of functions or services the workspace would provide to facilitate the work of analysts. For example, common information and data storage tools; a notice board; and better access to the range of policy development work going on, were all seen as benefits. The ease with which regional staff could have involvement in a project, or manage a national project from their region, was also seen as useful. These benefits however, have to be marketed across the sector; they had to be widely available and reliable; and officials would need to be able to have confidence in the training and support that accompanied the introduction of the system.

Training and support

52 Training is a big issue for officials. Focus Group participants indicated that for a shared workspace to be adopted positively, training has to be thorough and meet the needs of a broad range of users. Traditional methods of IT training were criticised. Participants saw it as necessary to use a more targeted and compact approach to training. Policy analysts need to know how the technology is going to assist their work practices, and how they can make the best use of it. Lack of adequate training was seen as a significant barrier to voluntary participation in shared workspace, and an inhibitor to efficiency if using the workspace was compulsory.

53 Officials also indicated that well-trained technical support was critical to support a shared workspace product. Policy makers rely on the availability and reliability of software products in order to do their job. Without adequate support services, a software product deployed throughout the Public Service would have an inverse impact on efficiency to that desired, or expected.

54 Requirements for adequate training, and high quality support services, will have to be addressed as part of the implementation process.

The Project Team is of the view that to be successful the system needs to be adopted by all agencies, and therefore will require the support of all chief executives. Any future phases of this project therefore will need to:

• market the concept of a shared workspace as a value-adding proposition to agency chief executives and senior managers, to build a strong body of support for its implementation;

• investigate further the training and technical support needs for a shared workspace, and develop a firm proposal for increasing skills across the Public Service.

Privacy and legal considerations

55 Two of the other most common issues raised by the Focus Groups, related to access by Ministers to the shared workspace, and gaining an understanding of how the Official Information Act would be applied. In relation to Ministers, the issue is one of privacy considerations for individuals, and protecting officials from undue pressure or influence if a Minister can follow a policy debate, and have access to who said what.

56 It is important that the practices and conduct of officials and Ministers are not adversely affected by the introduction of an electronic shared workspace. An impartial Public Service, that serves the Government of the day with free and frank advice, should not be at risk of being compromised by the technology used to develop that advice. The provisions of the State Sector Act will ensure the accountability structure of the Government continues to protect the protocol of free and frank advice, but the design of the shared workspace also needs to take this into account.

57 The second set of issues relates to how the Official Information Act (OIA) will be interpreted and operated in an electronic environment. The key concern of officials is the status of informal discussions held on-line (similar to current white-boarding sessions). A broad range of ideas can be mooted, and perhaps later discarded as implausible or just 'straw-men' used to elicit further thinking and discussion. Will these 'conversations' then be available to members of the public, or interest groups, as 'official' information? If so, will the principle of discoverability inhibit officials from using the technology (verbal discussions are more difficult to recall accurately over time, than are electronic records), to prevent the misinterpretation of informal discussions?

58 The Project Team sought the input of SSC Legal Services in relation to questions surrounding the OIA. On advice, a meeting to discuss these issues was also held with the Ombudsmen, Sir Brian Ellwood and Judge Anand Sataynand. From these discussions, it is clear that the basic tenets upon which the Act is based apply equally to both paper-based, and electronic policy development. The legislation's intent is that all official information is available to the public of New Zealand within the principle of 'public interest'. The public have the right to ask for information, and it will be given on request unless there is a good reason to withhold the information (as set out in the Act). This is the way the Act is currently administered, and doing more work electronically will not change this.

59 The Ombudsmen clearly indicated there is a need for government officials to fully understand the Act, and the way that it operates. In their view more thought needs to be given to the processes used to develop policy, to take into account the possibility of requests for official information once the work is completed. At the current time, e-mails are legitimately part of the information that citizens can request. The Ombudsmen indicated that, in their experience, Public Service officials are not using the e-mail system in a professional and considered way that demonstrates they are cognisant of the requirements of the Act.

60 In this respect, the government as a whole needs to give greater consideration to the way they communicate. It is both possible, and desirable, that officials clearly differentiate in their everyday work between formal responses (regardless of the medium by which they are delivered) and informal comments. This is not only important for the administration of the OIA, but the disclosure requirement if proceedings should be brought before a Court.

61 On the other hand, the Act cannot be used to make an electronic shared workspace any less safe than the environment in which officials work now. For example, officials conduct their business on behalf of Government in the full knowledge that information can be discoverable, but understand there are some constraints around the point at which certain information becomes publicly available.

62 Once Cabinet or Ministers make decisions, background documents can be released into the public arena. The test of public interest is applied. If there is a clear differentiation between formal policy development material (e.g. versions of drafts; formal departmental responses to those drafts; or records of discussions that lead to positions being reached on particular issues), and informal discussions between individuals in which a broad range of ideas are generated for interest sake, it is unlikely that the latter would constitute 'official' information and be released under the Act. [ This would be a case-by-case decision, with final decision the right of the Ombudsman.]

63 Similarly, the Ombudsmen indicated that the OIA should not get in the way of government decision-making, and the government needs to be free to carry out its business without undue restraint. A test is applied to consider whether the release of any particular piece of information is likely to inhibit the provision of free and frank advice to Government if it is released at any time.

64 In this respect, officials are protected in their ability to have free flowing conversations, and provide advice that constitutes the free and frank expression of opinion. This principle is applied regardless of the medium in which such opinions are expressed. It is important to note however, that while some protections exist around undue harassment or pressure of individuals, officials cannot seek anonymity through the OIA. Transparent and open government remains a key platform of the legislation.

65 The implications of this situation is that officials need both a good level of understanding of the Act and how it is operated, and to improve the standard of communication when discussing issues that may be subject to official information requests. It is also important that the design of a shared workspace take into account the requirements of the Act, and the best way these can be accommodated electronically.

NOTE:Discussions with the Ombudsmen indicate there is a need for the government to increase its understanding of the intention, and administration of the Official Information Act as well as improve the standard of professional communication across government.

Future phases of this project should address issues of across government training on the implications of OIA, and the appropriate nature of communication in an electronic environment.

Technical solutions should take account of the responsibilities of government officials under the OIA when conducting their business.

Operational considerations

66 Issues relating to working protocols, quality assurance in a shared workspace, and the use of electronic archiving by a project team need to be considered. These all relate to the differences there will be when officials work in a shared space, instead of within the current constraints imposed by departmental boundaries. A government-wide shared workspace will require officials to think and act differently; to form new sets of working relationships across agencies; to develop clear protocols for how those relationships will be managed; and to reach a common understanding of how work will be presented, information shared and contributions to work made. These things will not necessarily be intuitive. Careful management of the introduction of shared workspace will be required.

67 Some of these issues will present particular challenges to the Government. The idea that a cross-departmental project team or working group can produce a single electronic record of their deliberations and formal records (e.g. minutes, discussion papers, reports and Cabinet papers) which does not have to be duplicated and physically stored in multiple departmental files may be beneficial for access and retrieval purposes. On the other hand, it may pose some interesting questions in relation to the legislative requirements under the Archives Act, 1957 that may need to be worked through carefully.

68 Similarly, consideration needs to be given in the design of the workspace to the controls project managers will need to adequately manage a project, and obtain the appropriate level of authorisation from departmental officials to regulate the status of various documents and document versions before they are released from the restricted project area. Care also needs to be taken to ensure the design of the workspace meets the practical needs of the analysts who will use it, and is not solely a technical solution produced by those who do not fully understand the iterative and interactive environment within which policy advisers work.

Future phases of this project should develop working protocols and ensure those are built into the user requirements specifications and training programmes. Quality assurance processes and the requirements of the Archives Act, 1957 also need to be built into user requirement specifications.

[ Previous | Next ]