It is my earnest hope that these new transparency
arrangements will mean that citizens and taxpayers become more confident that
their money is being spent wisely on the projects and services that make a
difference. In other words that there will be a greater sense of ownership and
accountability about what councils, central government departments etc. do and
achieve. To coin a phrase, that we will have ‘transpocracy’ – where
transparency is adding to (and not subtracting from) democracy.
I also hope that we get ‘transporency’ too, such that the
information that is published under the transparency guidelines seeds ideas,
actions and initiatives by all concerned (politicians, providers, service users
and media observers) that helps all to build the Big Society that our
government is committed to developing. I believe we already have a big
(hearted) society where everyday millions of people do something for a friend,
neighbour or family member. But we can have an even bigger society if
transparency helps a thousand flowers bloom.
I am concerned though that all this transparency could
feed a growing number of cynical armchair voyeurs. To coin another word – I
fear we may be at risk of creating ‘transpruriency’ where a legion of self
proclaimed ‘auditors’ and ‘researchers’ are only interested in the costs of
public services and not in their value.
In my more cynical moments, I also fear that the sheer
volume of the data which is being published and the ways it is being uploaded
onto the internet will bamboozle & overload far more than it will enlighten
and inform. In other words (and this is my final ‘new’ word) that we will get a
great deal of ‘transapparency’ where a semblance of transparency is created but
which is actually nothing of the kind. There will be a lot of ‘sound and fury
signifying nothing’.
So, how can we ensure that we get plenty of transpocracy
and transporency, whilst ensuring that we keep transpruriency and
transapparency in check? For me there is a simple one word answer to this
question: strategy.
In this context, I speak as an organisation development
and change facilitator who has seen lots of public services lurch into policy
implementation without considering what they want to achieve other than
baseline compliance. So my challenge is this – what do you want to achieve with
transparency and how will you evaluate whether you are getting closer to (or
further from) your goals?
Transparency could achieve so much. I hope it will help
reconnect people with their public services and make those services more
accountable. It can and should help boost value for money and spread wise
spending practices from one public agency to another. It must not become
bureaucratic, opaque or inaccessible.
In my view, how each council (or other public agency)
develops their transparency strategy will help it to be successful or not. If
the strategy is developed by just a few accountants and IT people sitting in a
darkened room, I think it won’t work very well.
It is not that I have anything against accountants and IT
people, I hasten to add. It is simply that if transparency is for the public
then I think the public need to be involved in shaping the strategy and
designing how transparency is rolled out for them. I know that some councils
have done this – but have they all? (I note that the website guidance:
http://data.gov.uk/blog/local-spending-data-guidance Local Spending Data
Guidance does cover items such as ‘file formats’ and ‘data content’ well but
makes no mention of involving the public...)
How are you developing your transparency strategy?
Great post Jon.
ReplyDeleteAs a progressive thinker and total advocate of open data I should be enthused by the Government's proposals her but sadly I'm not.
The whole 'armchair auditor' issue leaves me cold I have to say. I really think that this will appeal to those few in our society who, for somewhat questionable reasons, enjoy sabre rattling, writing to the local rag, submitting FOI requests and questions to full Council etc.
That's all well and good but the vast majority simply don't want to be involved in scrutinising expenditure and rightly expect public sector organisations to have adequate scrutiny and audit arrangements in place. To suggest that publishing data on expenditure will have a significant effect on spend is a total nonsense IMHO.
I have, however, seen some interesting developments with open data where it can be taken and used for public good. San Francisco seem to have led the way here ( see http://www.datasf.org/ ) but we're catching up. I do think this is where we need to focus.
SO I would conclude by saying transparency for genuine public good is great but as you suggest in your final paragraphs, publishing raw data for the sake of it is not likely to have any positive effect.
Just one man's views (and not necessarily those of his employer).