“Just sociology”: looking beyond the technology of e-government to assure social value.

Just sociology: looking beyond the technology of e-government to assure social value. Mike Grimsley & Anthony Meehan

SHU - 14 March 2007

OutlineContext: public services and e-GovernmentSocial Value: Public Value + Engagement + TrustCase 1: Public Services and Production of Social Value Case 2: Community Development and Social ValuePolitical Dynamics of Attainment and Under-attainment of Social ValueMoving the focus of our attention beyond the technology

SHU - 14 March 2007

Public Services ContextE-government goals include:effectivenessefficiencycommunity regeneration, sustainability, well-being

There is a need to understand the social value of government action; the impact of eGovernment systems and the way they contribute social value. (Irani & Elliman, 2007)

SHU - 14 March 2007

A Second ContextWe are making the public services user-led, not producer or bureaucracy led. (Blair, 2001)E-government goals include:private and 3rd sector capacity building government transformation

CitizenStatePublicPoliticalCollectiveRights(After Clarke et al., 2007)

ConsumerMarketPrivateEconomicPersonalOpportunitiesBureauratic ModelLocus of ExpertiseLocus of PowerPublic Interest EthosPost-bureaucratic ModelNetworks or Chains (PPP)Provider of ChoiceFor Profit, Not-for-Profit, Social Entrepreneurship

SHU - 14 March 2007

Context: Choice-based LettingSignificant change in approach to allocation of public housing:

Available properties advertised.People registered as being in need may apply for properties.Allocation determined according to priority and other policy considerations.Encourages out of borough and non public sector alternatives. Encourages a multi-agency approach to needs.ICT-mediated route complemented by Local Estate and Central Housing Officers.

SHU - 14 March 2007

Two Case Study OrganisationsHC Councils: Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Haringey, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Merton, Royal Borough of Kingston, Westminster.

SHU - 14 March 2007

Public Value (Moore, 1995)normatively compelling collective purposes (p30) identifiable in respect of universal entitlements such as health, education, housing and sanitation, personal security, civil and criminal justice,related to values such as fairness, equity and/or equality people value the entitlements of othersEngagementpromotes effectiveness and efficiencydriven by: need to engagestructural opportunity to engageability to engage (c.f. Cummings, Heeks & Huysmans, 1993)recommendationTrust

Elements of Social Value

SHU - 14 March 2007

TrustThe level of trust in an organisation affects levels of use and engagement with services. Some [people] avoid contact with services they do not trust unless it is absolutely essential. This can have a direct impact on how well services meet the wider community's needs. (MORI, Trust in Public Institutions: A Report for the UK Audit Commission 2003)Trust is an expression of a communitys capacity to co-operate to achieve a better quality of life than would otherwise be available if its members acted merely as individuals.

SHU - 14 March 2007

Production of Social ValueConceptual Framework and Analytical Pathways

SHU - 14 March 2007

TCH Survey2315 TCH IT-Users

244 responses (11%)3625 TCH non-IT-Users

427 responses (12%) August Sept 2006 (about 6months post-launch)Older IT-users were under-represented.Older non-IT-users were over-represented.

SHU - 14 March 2007

Service Experience 1Ease of Use *Adjusted for Age group and GenderSearchSecure LoginApplyTrack ApplicationOther BoroughsAlternatives to Public Housing

Explanatory variablesNRecommendation level (base: Not recommend: 26.7%)Changed Trust level (base: Less: 35.0%)Recommend (49.1%)OR [95% CI]Unsure (24.1%)OR [95% CI]More(12.6%)OR [95% CI]Unchanged(52.4%)OR [95% CI]Model 1 (Pathways A and C)TCH website: ease of use Easy385.61[1.45 - 21.66]1.63[0.40 - 6.61]19.31[1.79 - 208.34]4.14[1.14 - 15.01]Fairly easy431.96[0.61 - 6.30]0.59[0.17 - 2.02]5.00[0.50 - 49.84]1.25[0.42 - 3.68]Difficult (ref)361.001.001.001.00

SHU - 14 March 2007

Service Experience 2

Explanatory variablesNRecommendation level (base: Not recommend: 26.7%)Changed Trust level (base: Less: 35.0%)Recommend (49.1%)OR [95% CI]Unsure (24.1%)OR [95% CI]More(12.6%)OR [95% CI]Unchanged(52.4%)OR [95% CI]Model 2 (Pathways A and C)Housing Officer: easy contactYes965.40[1.46 19.98]1.44[0.36 - 5.82]12.38[0.99 - 155.25]3.36[0.98 - 11.50]No (ref)641.001.001.001.00Housing Officer: able to helpYes762.02[0.56 - 7.31]2.03[0.47 - 8.76]2.36[0.40 - 13.96]1.86[0.54 - 6.38]No (ref)761.001.001.001.00Model 3 (Pathways A and C)TCH helpful: properties information Yes1431.43[0.58 - 3.53]1.11[0.41 - 3.04]2.71[0.63 - 11.70]2.06[0.90 - 4.71]No (ref)961.001.001.001.00TCH helpful: properties selection Yes1193.91[1.56 - 9.78]1.81[0.65 - 5.08]4.85[1.12 - 20.99]1.67[0.72 - 3.84]No (ref)1031.001.001.001.00

SHU - 14 March 2007

Experience of (PV) OutcomesPV Outcomes are about the extent to which people develop a community-level picture (even when the desired outcome eludes them personally). *Adjusted for Age group and Gender

Explanatory variablesNRecommendation level (base: Not recommend: 26.7%)Changed Trust level (base: Less: 35.0%)Recommend (49.1%)OR [95% CI]Unsure (24.1%)OR [95% CI]More(12.6%)OR [95% CI]Unchanged(52.4%)OR [95% CI]Model 4 (Pathways B, D)TCH: appreciate why others allocated Yes573.62[0.90 - 14.55]0.74[0.14 - 3.93]22.81[3.81 - 136.68]6.77[1.41 - 32.43]No (ref)1731.001.001.001.00TCH: helped consider alternativesYes714.21[1.36 - 13.00]2.72[0.84 - 8.86]1.99[0.56 - 7.10]0.67[0.28 - 1.62]No (ref)1601.001.001.001.00TCH: better informed on housing Yes11510.24[4.15 - 25.27]3.35[1.31 - 8.62]6.70[1.49 - 30.12]2.79[1.32 - 5.91]No (ref)1151.001.001.001.00

SHU - 14 March 2007

Trust and RecommendationTrust is a powerful driver of recommendation.*Adjusted for Age group and Gender

Explanatory variablesNRecommendation level (base: Not recommend: 26.7%)Recommend (49.1%)OR [95% CI]Unsure (24.1%)OR [95% CI]Model 5 (Pathway E)Trust level (covariate) less to moreScore:3 to 92063.96[2.64 - 5.96]1.91[1.33 - 2.75]

SHU - 14 March 2007

ICT Mediation of Trust?Poorly designed/managed e-government will damage the relationship between citizen and public service provider

and may have much wider implications for community well-being.ICT

SHU - 14 March 2007

Change in Trust

Trust StaffUser respondents(N=244)Non-User respondents(N=427)No.%No.%More2299723 Same1435813131 Worse53226615Missing261113331

Trust CouncilUser respondents(N=244)Non-User respondents(N=427)No.%No.%More241011928 Same1375612730 Worse57235412Missing261112730

Trust CouncillorsUser respondents(N=244)Non-User respondents(N=427)No.%No.%More1357217 Same1375615135 Worse59246415Missing351514033

SHU - 14 March 2007

Drivers:

Well-informedness

Personal Control in Life

Influence/ContingencyTrust in Public ServicesGrimsley, Meehan, Green and Stafford, 2003

SHU - 14 March 2007

HC: Trust ReinforcementChan & Harkness (2004) Home Connections Focus Groups Report.

SHU - 14 March 2007

HC: Threats to TrustChan & Harkness (2004) Home Connections Focus Groups Report.

SHU - 14 March 2007

Experiential Modulators of SV *Adjusted for gender and age group Grimsley & Meehan, 2007a

Explanatory variablesNOutcome: Overall trust change (score 3-9)GLM adjusted* parameter estimates [95% CI]ModelSummated score: WCI low (3-9) 69-2.21 [-2.68 to -1.74]moderate (9-11)82-1.27 [-1.73 to -0.81]high (12-15) (ref)560Adjusted R2 0.32

SHU - 14 March 2007

Context: Goals:avoid social exclusion resulting from digital divide;promote co-operation between community advice agencies to achieve multi-agency approach to clients needs.

Strategy:position voluntary and community organisations (VCOs) on the right side of the digital divide;support community advice agencies in developing an online presence that faces both their clients and (more importantly) other agencies.

SHU - 14 March 2007

Directory servicesSurveys & pollsSharable/reusable documentspolicies, procedures, reports, guidelines, codes, forms,Secure case discussion/referral foraLinks to national and local e-government servicesCommunity awareness features Local VCO control (design, content and administration)Open Source ToolsHosted by Greater London Authority but may be hosted by VCO

SHU - 14 March 2007

4-Capitals PerspectiveOrigins in the literature on growth and environmental economics (Ekins et al, 1992; Perlman et al, 2003). Elaborated by Grootaert (1998) in the context of community sustainability. Green et al (2001, 2005) developed the model and incorporated the capitals as key drivers of community wellbeing. Hancock (2001) has given an interpretation of the 4-Capitals from a health perspective.

SHU - 14 March 2007

Interpreting the 4-Capitalscomputing artefacts (hardware and software) which are created, purchased, integrated into the technological infrastructure that facilitate the goals of the systemICT amenities that afford/mediate relationsskills and competences required for the development, management, and use of the system, including communication, relational and governance skillsbonding, bridging and linking relations within and between stakeholders. We distinguish between the value arising from the existence of the relations and the value arising from the quality of the relations with special reference to trustInfrastructural CapitalEnvironmentalCapitalHuman CapitalSocial Capital

SHU - 14 March 2007

Relating 4-Capitals in Design~BalancesheetCreditInfrastructureSoftware tool setInitial technical skillsDebitAdvanced technical skillsNon technical skillsRelational contextOrganisational Development for VCOs~~

SHU - 14 March 2007

Relating 4-Capitals in DesignSocial Capital: How to construct and sustain the required relationships?Human Capital: What relational skills are available? need? attainable?Infrastructural Capital: What infrastructural resources are need to facilitate the relational environment? AlignmentEnvironmental Capital: What environmental resources are appropriate for mediation of the relations?

SHU - 14 March 2007

A Second ContextWe are making the public services user-led, not producer or bureaucracy led. (Blair, 2001)E-government goals include:private and 3rd sector capacity building government transformation

CitizenStatePublicPoliticalCollectiveRights(After Clarke et al., 2007)

ConsumerMarketPrivateEconomicPersonalOpportunitiesBureauratic ModelLocus of ExpertiseLocus of PowerPublic Interest EthosPost-bureaucratic ModelNetworks or Chains (PPP)Provider of ChoiceFor Profit, Not-for-Profit, Social Entrepreneurship

SHU - 14 March 2007

Common Context?E-government Strategies:New Public Management (1980s-90s)an inappropriate emphasis on narrow concepts of cost-efficiency and a downplaying of non-functional objectives that were difficult to measurereduction of goals to simplistic targets that lend themselves to manipulation and contrivance in their attainment. (Kelly, Mulgan, Muers, 2002; Moore, 1995)

Citizens as Customers (late 1990s - )Images of the citizen-consumerharvesting information, making informed choices in the market, walking away from public services which do not command their confidence (Milburn, 2002)And of the poorThe norm which is broken by the poor today is the norm of consumer competence or aptitude. (Bauman, 1998)

SHU - 14 March 2007

Some ReferencesBauman, Z. (1998) Work, Consumerism and the New Poor. Buckingham, Open University Press.Clarke, J., Newman, J., Smith, N., Vidler, E., Westmarland, L. (2007) Creating Citizen Consumers. London, Sage. Cummings, Heeks and Huysmans (2003) Knowledge and Learning in Online Communities in Development: A Social Capital Perspective. Development Informatics Working Paper Series, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester.Green G., Grimsley, M. and Stafford, B., (2001) Capital Accounting for Neighbourhood Sustainability, CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University, UK.Green, G., Grimsley, M. and Stafford, B. (2005) The Dynamics of Neighbourhood Sustainability, Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York Publishing Services. Gilbertson J., Green G., Grimsley M. and Manning J. 2005. The Dynamic of Social Capital, Health and Economy. CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University, UKGrimsley, M, Meehan, A, (2007a) e-Government systems: evaluation-led design for public value and trust. European Journal of Information Systems (in press to appear May 2007).Grimsley, M, Meehan, A, Tan, A, (2007b) Evaluative design of e-Government projects: a community development perspective. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy. (in press - to appear in Vol. 1, Issue 2, 2007). Kelly, G., Mulgan, G. and Muers, S. (2002) Creating Public Value: An analytical framework for public service reform, Strategy Unit discussion paper, Cabinet Office. Moore, M.H. (1995) Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.MORI (2003) as Duffy, B., Browning, P. and Skinner, G. (2003). Trust in Public Institutions: A report for the Audit Commission. MORI.

SHU - 14 March 2007

Mike Grimsley & Anthony Meehan

SHU - 14 March 2007

Supplementary SlidesFor possible use in discussion.

SHU - 14 March 2007

Some Lessons/Issues (1)Customer/client/citizen relates to whole process need for seamless integration of all system elements, and in ways that support diversity and avoid exclusion.

Well-informedness is promoted by: personalised proactive communication;consistency/lack of contradiction;and reinforced by trusted 3rd party mediation.

Personal control is promoted by:flexibility (multiple paths to the same end);clarity of where the initiative resides.

Sense of influence is promoted by:timeliness of context sensitive communication/feedback.

SHU - 14 March 2007

Some Lessons/Issues (2)It is possible to maintain trust (even if the desired outcome is very difficult to attain) by taking a holistic view of clients needs and proactively supporting the client in recognising and addressing these needs.

Introduction of e-government raises client and citizen expectations and it is these raised expectations that must be met. This is particularly challenging for developers and managers of e-government systems as the introduction of the system itself raises benchmark by which it will be judged.

SHU - 14 March 2007

Trust Management Matrix

SHU - 14 March 2007

Project

Activity

Target Experience in Citizen/Community Group/Agency

Sense of being well-informed

Sense of personal control

Sense of being able to influence

Information

Strategy

How should information be structured and organised to promote well-informedness? Address the volume, quality, and scope (breadth) of information, and the effectiveness with which it is communicated.

What information is needed and how can it be organised to promote a sense of personal control?

Address the information needed to make clear the scope for alternative courses of action/opportunity.

What information is needed to facilitate the formation of informed views and how to convey them appropriately and effectively? What information is needed to provide evidence that views have been considered and/or acted upon?

Distribution of Control

Where should the initiative lie in the elicitation/provision of information?

For each information element of the information strategy (see row 1, above) determine whether it should be reactivly or proactivly communicated.

In persuit of the shared objective of the trust-relationship, how might responsibility for the subtasks and objectives be distributed between the parties? Demonstrate flexible practice (distribiution of tasks) in respect of the distinctive needs of each individual, group or agency in the community.

With whom should the initiative lie in the elicitation of views on current and future policy?

Establish a consultative dialogue. Adapt (standard) provision in light of expressed needs.

Deployment of Influence

What balanced and (preferably) independent evidence is available to legitimate current policy and practice?

How might perceptions of needs be changed so that any diminution of the space of alternative courses of action/opportunity is not experienced as a diminution of a sense of control?

What negotiation strategies will be perceived as trustworthy?

Adopt coordinative (recognises others priorities) or even integrative (trades off own low priorities if they meet other partys high priorities) negotiation styles.

Willingness to recommend TCHIT-Users are more willing to recommend TCH.

SHU - 14 March 2007

Chart16

174

3020

2323

1010

157

536

IT-Users

non-IT-Users

%

Willing to Recommend TCH

Sheet1

Housing Need

IT-Usersnon-IT-Users

Gold61

Silver71

Bronze8798

IT-Usersnon-IT-Users

Bed-sit11

1 bed2944

2 bed4133

3 bed2820

4+ bed12

IT-Usersnon-IT-Users

Disabled adapted310

Ground floor1324

Sheltered112

Feedback

Better informed generally

IT-Usersnon-IT-Users

Strongly agree107

Agree4030

Unsure1832

Disagree1918

Strongly disagree1313

Unsderstand why others allocated and they are not

IT-Usersnon-IT-Users

Strongly agree37

Agree2231

Unsure3035

Disagree2714

Strongly disagree1113

Housing Office

Easy to speak to when needed

IT-Usersnon-IT-Users

Very easy2222

Easy to speak to when needed3849

Not very easy1818

Quite difficult75

Very Difficult156

Answer questions in reasonable time

IT-Usersnon-IT-Users

Very easy1621

Easy to speak to when needed3439

Not very easy1816

Quite difficult1811

Very Difficult1414

Satisfaction

Very Satisfied14

Reasonable satisfied37

Unsure14

Quite dissatisfied18

Very dissatisfied14

Trust

IT-usersnon-IT-users

Trust in H.O.s (users)-229

Trust in H.O.s (non-users)-1523

Tru st inCouncil (users)-2310

Trust in Council (non-users)-1228

Trust in Councillors (users)-245

Trust in Councillors (non-users)-1517

Recommendation

IT-Usersnon-IT-Users

Strongly agree174

Agree3020

Unsure2323

Disagree1010

Strongly disagree157

No Opinion536

Sheet1

IT-Users

non-IT-Users

%

Priority Bands (all clients %)

Sheet2

IT-Users

non-IT-Users

%

Property Sought (%)

Sheet3

IT-Users

non-IT-Users

Accommodation Needed

%

Special Housing Need (%)

IT-Users

non-IT-Users

&

Understand why others succeed when you do not?

IT-Users

non-IT-Users

%

Better understanding of housing in general?

IT-Users

non-IT-Users

%

HO easy to speak to when needed?

IT-Users

non-IT-Users

%

HO answers questions in reasonable time?

Trust is Less : Trust is More

Change in Trust (Percentage of clients)

IT-Users

non-IT-Users

%

Willing to Recommend TCH

The Hysteresis of Trustwhen trust is lost, there is rarely a quick and easy way to rebuild the relationship.

SHU - 14 March 2007

ExclusionTrustAnxiety exclusionActing in the WorldConfidenceNote: Confidence and Trust are not linearly additivevoting?mental health?fear of crime?after Luhmann, 2001

SHU - 14 March 2007