The Policy Officer’s Creed

sharpieThis my pen, there are many like it but this one is mine.

My pen is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.
My pen, without me, is useless. Without my pen, I am useless. 

I have adapted the above from the US Marines the rifleman’s creed” that tells them what they are for, it was written just as America entered the Second World War, and to this day recruits learn it as it reminds them what their purpose is and is a permanent reminder of how they are supposed to carry it out. It continues as below:

My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other.

There are specific concrete actions in this, they tell the Marine recruit how to behave.

There are other “creeds” that help different roles understand their purpose and how they are supposed to act.  Here is a section from one one that defines the role of Non-commissioned officers.

My two basic responsibilities will always be uppermost in my mind — accomplishment of my mission and the welfare of my soldiers. I will strive to remain technically and tactically proficient. I am aware of my role as a non-commissioned officer.

I will fulfil my responsibilities inherent in that role. All soldiers are entitled to outstanding leadership; I will provide that leadership. I know my soldiers and I will always place their needs above my own. I will communicate consistently with my soldiers and never leave them uninformed. I will be fair and impartial when recommending both rewards and punishment.

It is designed to be spoken out loud. Compare this with a job description or person specification, typically saying “the post-holder will…” followed by a list of bland general statements. There is no such person as a “post-holder“. Nobody describes themselves as that. Instead, the creed says “I”.  This makes it real. People are saying I do this, this is what I will and do do.

I loathe vague optimistic statements that are designed to make someone aspire to something  I love concrete description of purpose that you can use to say we do this, we don’t do that. Any purpose or priority should be actionable, something you can pick up and use. Otherwise, why have it?

I have my own purpose, regardless of whatever 5 or 7 priorities my organisation has chosen for this years plan, what is written in my unit plan or my personal performance objectives. Sometimes it is hazy, sometimes it is knee-jerk, sometimes I despair and give it up altogether, but turns out that nice Mr Deming has already wrote it for me on page 92 of The New Economics. Here it is in creed form.

I study and apply the system of profound knowledge to perceive new meaning to life, to events, to numbers, to interactions between people.

I will apply its principles in every kind of relationship with other people.
I will use it as a basis for 
judgement of my own decisions and for transformation of the organizations that I belong to.
I will s
et an example, be a good listener but will not compromise, continually teach other people and help people to pull away from their current practice and beliefs and move into the new philosophy without a feeling of guilt about the past.

What if YOU had one? A statement of your purpose, that the system you work in is designed to support you achieve? If it doesn’t, then make one up and do it. The one you prefer to do because it better helps the external customer. The above is my creed as a person trying to make the universe, or that bit of it that I work in, more like me. But I also work in a job, as a policy officer. My pen and I try to do the job outlined below.

My job is to help people who work on the core services do their work better. I will know I have done this when their work does get better. If I am too far away from them to know this, then I am too far away to have helped them. I create pull so people want my work, and I will not push my work onto others, as this means I do not know what they want or need.

I help people think better about their work by helping them ask different and better questions. I find the right problem to solve rather than solve the immediate problem at hand. I know it is always better to do the right thing wrong than the wrong thing right. I look for repeating cycles rather than get fixated by immediate events. Before I do anything, I get knowledge.

I learn how people work by studying psychology. I continually learn. The external customer who needs our help defines my work, so that is my purpose.

Posted in me doing it, public sector, purpose, systems thinking | Tagged , | 2 Comments

The Schleswig-Holstein Question

Here is a test, a maxim and a principle to guide you on your way.

1: The Dick Gregory Better Mousetrap test

“When you’ve got something really good, you don’t have to force it on people. They will steal it!

Dick Gregory

Mr Gregory tells it like it is

That’s the difference between pull and push right there. Don’t blame others because they are ignoring your stuff, whatever it is. Policies, databases, rules, products, meetings, you.  If they are not stealing it from you, you haven’t made it good enough yet. This is your problem not theirs. Thanks Mr Gregory!

2: The EL Doctorow Emergent Strategy Maxim

night_driving

“It’s like driving a car at night. You never see further than your headlights, but you make the whole trip that way.”

EL Doctorow

Why real change is emergent, and why it doesn’t matter. Exactamundo Mr Doctorow!

3: The FlowChain No Short Cuts Principle.

20130515-214928.jpg

“Culture is a read only attribute. You cannot affect it directly.”

Bob Marshall

Why culture is an effect, not something that can be grafted on. Behaving otherwise is like putting on shorts, shades and sandals and expecting the sun to come out. Wrong way round, cries Bob!

Posted in questions, systems thinking, thinking, very short posts | Tagged | 2 Comments

Value for money is the breakfast of champions!

vfm

Value for money. That’s what.

The public sector and Council’s in particular are obsessed with “value for money”. Or rather obsessed with the phrase, and where they are on associated league tables that purport to answer the foolish question they ask themselves, “But are we Value For Money?”

It’s all Total Cock, and science will now show us why this is all Total Cock.

The Menu Test

You are in a fancy restaurant looking at a menu. You see the following items.

Capture

You see the priciest item and think “Well, that’s a bit pricey, I’ll go for the seafood platter that looks good Value For Money at £20“.

But imagine the menu is arranged another way…

Capture

Suddenly the price of £20 seems a bit steep, and the true value for money is at £7.  But hang on, what happens when there is all 3 items?

Capture

Now £20 for the Seafood Platter looks entirely reasonable and certainly the best option.

This is not your fault. This is your brains fault. It has built in patterns of thinking, one of which is to find out the value of something by comparing it to like items around it. In the case of the fish, you compare what is there, with what is around it. You evaluate the £85 cost of the Oysters de la Fancy Dan against the other fish dishes, if they are cheaper, it seems expensive. You don’t compare the £85 against the cost of a nice new shirt, or a bottle of fine wine that is actually in the same restaurant, listed in the drinks menu on the table you seated at. Is £20 good value for a 10-15 minute bit of eating compared with £20 for a bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey that could last you months? If you weren’t me.

There isn’t an objective sense of value for money that these little tricks will influence you away from your true path. Your sense of value for money is MADE OF these tricks and influences, otherwise known as the context you are in.

So that’s you seated at a table with 3 similar items to choose from, with the prices next to them, being swayed to and fro unconsciously by things around you.

The Survey Test

Capture

Now imagine you are asked by a Local Authority survey the degree to which you agree or disagree that the Council provides “good value for money“. This is a real question that Local Authorities ask residents. You can imagine what a seafood platter looks like, it will be a plate of seafood. You know it costs £20. Yet your judgement of whether it is “value for money” will be affected by what is next to it on a menu. How much does a Local Authority cost to run, and what does it do? You can’t possibly imagine. You may know roughly how much you individually pay in Council Tax per month, but this is only about a quarter of the cost of running a Local Authority. There is all the money given by grants, by central government, income from sales and services etc

If you don’t know this, you don’t know the cost, if you don’t know the cost, you don’t know one half of the stuff that value for money is comprised of, the money part.

It gets worse.

The Managers Test

About once a year I am involved in a frantic scramble within a Local Authority for it to come to a conclusion about the value for money of its services.  Tables are drawn up, comparator groups established, scores established. All bollocks. In conversations with managers I have never heard them say that any of it was ever of any use. That whenever they have compared their costs and the service they provide with other Local Authority services, they always find that they can’t compare as the costs are calculated differently or they offer different services or both. This is not comparing fish dishes on a menu with clear pricing. This is comparing measures that don’t measure a service, using budgets that don’t measure the cost of a service. Neither value, nor money, are objectively identifiable particularly when the workflow crosses services and budgets, for example through a customer service centre that handles multiple service contacts.

A judgement of “good” or “bad” value for money is not useful. You can’t use a conclusion, it is sealed and final. You can only use knowledge of what is happening and why and this come from questions, useful questions not judgements. Value for money is so subjective it is not useful as a measure.  It is an unanswerable question. If you truly understand continuous improvement the question “do we provide value for money?” can only ever be answered with “not enough, not yet“.

My conclusion

  • Context shapes judgements.
  • Value is not price, it is a feeling about price shaped by the context you are in.
  • Nobody knows the true price of Council services or the value of them.
  • Value for money judgements, conclusions, scores or ratings are not useful in any way under any circumstances, they are symptoms of a management model that is broken and they can’t help heal it.

You want list posts? I SAID DO YOU WANT LIST POSTS? Then cracked.com welcomes you

Posted in all wrong, command and control, public sector, questions | Tagged | Leave a comment

Space Oddity

This is an actual astronaut, who recorded this IN SPACE and posted to YouTube last night as he is leaving the International Space Station and returning to Earth today.

Beyond mindblown that you can post to YouTube from space.

A message for my mobile phone supplier O2: I can barely connect to the internet about 4 foot from the Earth, so get your act together.

Posted in very short posts | Leave a comment

Do you pretend to do pretend work?

Capture

Is this work?

No, it’s art. It’s the minimum wage machine!

The minimum wage machine allows anybody to work for minimum wage. Turning the crank will yield one penny every 4.97 seconds, for $7.25 an hour (NY state minimum wage). If the participant stops turning the crank, they stop receiving money. [link]

So, it’s art more than it’s work. But if you weren’t in an art gallery, instead in a normal office doing something similarly as futile as turning a crank, would you be doing work?

Science says YES! In physics, work is defined as when a force (your hand) does work that results in movement (the crank). So when the crank turns, hey presto, there’s the work.  The tinkle of one penny falling down the chute every 4.97 seconds rewards the worker for the work, hey presto, there’s the pay. Work done, worker rewarded.

Most organisations haven’t progressed beyond this approach. If you do what is asked, turning a crank or turning out a report, then that’s considered work. A fellow Onion-patch dweller writes about their place of [cough] work:

“I am fairly sure that my current ‘meh’ attitude to (some of) my work is interpreted by my management as boredom or beneath-me-ness, when really it’s a quiet protest about how utterly pointless and valueless it is.
Knitting fog doesn’t even begin to describe its meaningless futility… however it does still pay the mortgage, and if it’s worthless then it’s certainly a) not my fault, and b) not seen that way by the bosses. (This is both the problem, and the salve).”

What if work isn’t defined by what is presented as work, but as what actually adds value to the end (real) customer. This moves work from being something that is subjectively defined by people, plans, policies or prats, to something that can objectively be evaluated as either actual work or mere activity.

When I first learned about this I thought it revolutionary. With the idea of the customers needs defining value, it moves work from turning cranks for pennies every 4.97 seconds to an exciting race of discovery. What actually adds value? If you work on a core process that begins and ends with the customer, this continuous excavation of value is exciting enough, but if you don’t then what are you? What is the work that you do?  If support work then that is whatever is needed to enable the core work to be done, or to be done better. So if filling in pot holes needs asphalt, then procurement is pulled as an activity to buy asphalt.  There it is. Still objective, no guessing needed.

Problem is this is not how organisations think.  Work is still considered to be mainly “work to be done“, not “value to be added“. According to this here:

Typically [...] you will find that only 5% of activities add value, this can rise to 45% in a service environment. [link]

The Japanese word Muda covers it nicely.

Muda is a Japanese word meaning “futility; uselessness; idleness; superfluity; waste; wastage; wastefulness”

Anything that doesn’t add value, yet is done at a place of work, is not work it is Muda.

Or better still, it is

bullshit1

Pretend work is bad enough, but if you KNOW it is…

bullshit1

…and you continue to do it, pretending to do pretend work, that is double the…

bullshit1

As the lovely statistic above stated, only about 5% of activity in an organisation is work, the other 95% is what pretends to be work. This handily is a nice law…

This is a controversial position to take in most organisations. People like to feel valuable and identify with their activity. “Doing” is the currency of success, and questioning the fundamental values of people doesn’t make you any friends, but I would like to be the Queen of Sheba idly eating grapes and I’m not.

The reality is that work is activity that adds value to the end customer, that waste activity is not work, that E really does equal mc² and that…

Work≠NotWork

Posted in customer, systems thinking, thinking | Tagged , | Leave a comment

How to write a plan

20130502-151006.jpg

There’s loads of guff in the public sector around “having a plan”.
Contrary to expectations, planning doesn’t produce plans. No, the need for plans gives birth to planning, like:

  • leadership strategic retreats to nice country hotels
  • managerial away-days in acceptable Travel-Inn conference suites with carpet tiles on the walls
  • staff planning afternoons in meeting rooms that “won’t be locked at lunchtime so you’ll have to take your bags with you.

The latter are the best value as they’re the cheapest.
After this there is the ceremonial garments that festoon plans.

  • a godforsaken Policy Officer who’s never had to write a plan in their life has to produce guidance to tell people what to put in their plans. Luckily, not me so far.
  • challenge sessions, where some people in a room argue over the content of fictitious plans based on guesswork and ignorance.
  • launch events where staff stumble around a corporate church fete of tables and pin-boards staffed by Sub-under Assistant Deputy Managers (temporary), bewildered and bored in equal measure.
  • jolly diagrams and triangles are pinned on walls showing a spurious alignment with fictitious corporate priorities, demonstrating the crucial part they play in the organisation.

I can’t stand plans.

If you’ve done something repeatedly, and know how it works, you’ve got yourself something you can write a plan about. Like building a house, after ten of them you’ve probably got a pretty good idea how it all works. You can plan your next one now, safe in the knowledge that it will probably go roughly the same as the others.

But if it’s your first house, well, you’ve seen those programmes on the telly, where someone is building or renovating their dream house? And everything takes twice as long and costs three times as much? Same thing. Not plan worthy. Be organised, yes, but a plan that is not the same, especially in an organisation. There they become millstones around people’s necks, replacements for reality.

That diagram above was written on 1 side of an index card and I’ve put it in a suggestion box that’s been set up for our service plan. I’ve also drawn in felt tip this old thing.
image

I don’t want to change the plan, I want to change the thinking. So that means I don’t tinker with a Word document, I’m going straight for the jugular, or rather several inches above and behind the jugular, that squishy grey blob where the only thing worthy of the word “strategic” resides.

photo (4)

It’s the Voight-Kampff Test for bureaucrats. Which came first?

Lobbing improvised home-made cube grenades into suggestion boxes may not be the way to change an organisation, but then plans aren’t either, and at least mine are only on 1 side of paper.

20130502-162709.jpg

More than art needs business any way.

Posted in experiment, plans, public sector, systems thinking | Tagged | 12 Comments

How do we treat our indicators?

Posted in data, public sector | Tagged | Leave a comment