Working with stakeholders and moving to more inclusive government

examines the relationships we maintain within the government and the community. Includes the following chapters:

10: Working with government agencies and stakeholders

11: Inclusive and innovative government

12: Agency achievements and the way forward

Chapter 11: Inclusive and innovative government

The new government has put a high priority on engaging with Australian citizens and communities to progress its reform agenda. ‘We want to take Australians with us by engaging with the community, by harnessing the best ideas and by drawing on the best talents of our people.’1 Innovation and trying new approaches has also been identified as one of the key objectives for the Australian Public Service (APS) by the new government.2

Working with the community and citizens has always been a core element of APS work. This has been achieved through the delivery of a broad range of services, consultation on policy development or programme implementation, and active engagement with the community to address issues of concern.

Improving service delivery has also been a key objective for the APS in recent years, with the introduction of initiatives designed to make the delivery of public services more customer- focused. These include: better approaches to monitoring and gaining feedback on services; reviewing how services can best be delivered and by whom; enhancing employees’ skills, especially communication and networking skills; and harnessing information and communications technology (ICT) as an enabler of better service delivery.

At the same time, tackling many of the priority issues identified by the Government, such as climate change, social inclusion and Indigenous disadvantage, requires citizens to take on a more active role in making changes at the local level. There are growing pressures on the APS to consider and reflect on how to improve its interactions with Australians.

Debate has focused increasingly on how to provide services that are citizen-centred where there is greater citizen and community involvement in all phases of the governmental process—policy and programme design, as well as service delivery. In discussing the challenges of globalisation, the Prime Minister has indicated the need to ‘continue to reform our system of government and government service, so that our citizens lie at the centre rather than the inflexible behemoths of official bureaucracy’.3

Recent government initiatives such as the Australia 2020 Summit and the commencement of regular Community Cabinets have provided new opportunities for direct community interaction with the Government, and for exchanging ideas. The APS will need to respond and build on these initiatives to better incorporate citizen and community views, including how agencies can develop and support more effective and coordinated responses.

The model for collaboration outlined in Chapter 10 indicates that, depending on the issue, a need exists to engage with citizens and communities through a range of relationships—from networking (exchanging information) to collaboration (sharing risks, responsibilities, and rewards). This model of relationships is similar to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) model outlined in last year’s State of the Service report, which included three levels of citizen engagement in government policy making— information sharing, consultation and active participation. Further work is being undertaken by OECD which builds on this schema and examines how to move from ‘open to inclusive government’ where citizens are at the centre of policy design and services.

In Australia, agencies and APS employees will need to continue to develop skills and capabilities to support stronger relations with citizens as well as being strategic about the level of engagement required to address issues as they arise. Differing levels of engagement will be required to tackle different issues, as well as consideration of whether citizens need to take a more active role and change their behaviours to make reforms possible. At the same time, it will be important to adopt innovative approaches to underpin new forms of citizen engagement and reshape policy, programmes and services to respond to community views.

This chapter examines current service delivery arrangements and the mechanisms in place to incorporate feedback from citizens and communities. It also discusses employees’ perceptions of their ability to provide feedback about services, given their experiences as service delivery workers. Approaches to engage citizens in the policy and programme design phases, as well as getting their views on service delivery are also considered, along with the implications for the APS. The role of innovation, and employee perceptions regarding this issue, are also considered, given the key role innovation can play in helping to engage citizens and improve service delivery.

Approaches to service delivery

As in previous years, service delivery continues to be one of the most important elements of APS activity.

The importance of service delivery is recognised in the APS Values (the Values). Section 10(1) (g) of the Public Service Act 1999 (the Act) states that ‘The APS delivers services fairly, effectively, impartially and courteously to the Australian public and is sensitive to the diversity of the Australian public.’4

Community feedback and review of services are some of the ways in which the views of citizens can be integrated into existing services to support improvements in the quality and effectiveness of government services.

Agencies with public contact use a range of feedback mechanisms to obtain information from the public (Figure 11.1). The mechanisms used most frequently include complaints/ feedback website link (92%), liaison with peak bodies (90%) and complaints/feedback phone hotline (78%). Visitors’ book (19%) has the lowest usage rate.

Figure 11.1: Use of feedback mechanisms to obtain information from the public—relevant agencies, 2007–08

Chart

Source: Agency survey

Most agencies that collect feedback from the public have mechanisms to ensure that it is fed into service delivery improvements. Figure 11.2 shows that relevant agencies were most likely to integrate feedback into decision-making processes to improve programmes and/or systems, with 82% of agencies reporting that they did so often. Fewer agencies presented feedback findings in public forums.

Figure 11.2: use of feedback collected from the public—relevant agencies, 2007–08

Chart

Source: Agency survey

With their direct engagement with clients, service delivery employees are likely to be able to provide feedback to agencies on issues that may arise in service delivery. It is important that agencies emphasise the need to ensure good feedback loops in and across agencies between policy, programme and service delivery activities.

In terms of employee engagement with stakeholders, 66% of those in service delivery areas reported that they rarely met with stakeholders to hear their views. However, more than half of those in policy and programme areas said they usually met with stakeholders to do so. This reinforces the need for effective communication between service delivery and policy and programme development areas. In 2007–08, only 54% of employees believed that their agency used effective feedback mechanisms between the service delivery and policy development areas.

Employee comments suggest there is considerable scope to improve the level of communication and feedback between service delivery and policy development areas. Employees provided a range of suggestions for improving communication in order to improve services, particularly between different areas in agencies:

Greater importance should be given to feedback and suggestions from service delivery staff as they have important insights into the actual impact of policies and could assist in developing policies that assist individuals and address the practicality of implementation.

One key factor is time frames—that is ensuring service delivery is consulted in a meaningful way with enough lead-time for their feedback and suggestions to be incorporated into future policy directions. In my experience this consultation process occurs after decisions have already been made.

There is a lack of effective communication between policy development and service delivery areas in my agency. This communication gap could be improved through more streamlined reporting, and greater recognition and understanding of the role of the policy unit.

Less of a ‘silo’ mentality and more of a culture of collegial sharing.

Is it a matter of feedback? Or is it a matter of ensuring that feedback is given serious consideration? … How do you make certain public servants stop, listen and innovate?

 Recent service improvements

Over the last decade there has been a steady focus on improving the quality of service delivery. These initiatives have included an increasing emphasis on using ICT where appropriate to improve government service delivery within the framework of the Government’s e-government strategies. One key example of this is the development of <http://www.australia.gov.au> and <http://www.business.gov.au>, websites designed to consolidate themes of interest to the public and business in one location. Developments in ICT that support community involvement and innovation are discussed later in this chapter.

Improved use of technology can direct government services and resources more effectively, for example, the introduction of the BasicsCard, a PIN-protected card for buying essential goods and services through the existing EFTPOS network is an initiative to ensure half of welfare payments are used to buy essential items. This is an initiative announced by the Government to improve income management by welfare recipients.

Designing other new ways to make services more readily accessible to the community has also been a priority.

Centrelink’s Drought Bus Initiative

Centrelink’s Drought Bus initiative successfully delivered drought assistance to drought devastated areas of Australia by making connections with people in the community in need of assistance. The Drought Bus initiative has been effective in breaking down barriers, as many farmers were previously reticent about contacting Centrelink to seek help. A large proportion of the 13,000 customers assisted through the buses were new to Centrelink.

Agency reviews have resulted in a range of improvements over the past two years. Of the agencies that responded, a substantial proportion (82%) have reviewed their approaches to delivering services to the public. Eighty-four per cent of relevant agencies made changes to their approaches to service delivery as a result of the reviews. A further 15% of agencies were still finalising reviews.

Most agencies reported an ongoing process of review, for example, ATO’s programme of research continually receives feedback on the services required by the public such as the evaluation process from Easier, Cheaper and More Personalised, client contact review, Internal Audit and superannuation. The nature of specific reviews and the ways in which they have influenced changes to service delivery are diverse.

Improving agency performance

ATO—Making It Easier to Comply booklet

ATO’s publication of the Making It Easier to Comply booklet details ATO’s current and future work designed to make the taxpayer experience easier, cheaper and more personalised. This is the fifth year ATO has published this booklet, and this year’s edition encompasses ATO-wide activities that help the community comply with their taxation and superannuation obligations. The booklet also details ATO’s achievements for the year as well as the results of the organisation’s community, business and tax practitioner research.

DAFF—Review of service to portfolio industries on international technical market issues

In 2006–07, DAFF reviewed the service it provided to its portfolio industries on international technical market issues. Australia’s primary producers rely heavily on exports and look to DAFF to establish, maintain and improve commercially viable access arrangements in existing and new markets. These issues are often complex and require industry and government to work together closely to develop strategies that achieve results in these markets. The review resulted in better management and coordination of these issues across DAFF.

DVA—Review of compensation claim processing

DVA reviewed compensation claim processing in order to reduce the time taken to process disability compensation claims and applications for increases. As a result, compensation claims are no longer processed only in the location where the applicant resides and/or the applicant lodges the claim.

CSA—Building a Better CSA

As part of Building a Better CSA and implementing child support reforms, CSA has been engaged in a significant process of change aimed at improving customer service and delivering a new child support scheme. This has involved an ongoing review of existing processes and implementation of new processes to provide better outcomes for customers. Additional communication products targeted at particular stakeholder and customer groups (e.g. multicultural and Indigenous, products for young people affected by separation), and additional community information sessions (including for Indigenous and multicultural stakeholders) have also been developed. Major service changes arising from the reviews include the establishment of Regional Service Centres in local communities, intensive customer service training for all staff, call recording, online services, smaller team sizes, better referral processes to other service providers, customer receipts and personalised services, as well as delivery case management for customers with complex cases.

International approaches to service improvements

Internationally, it is becoming increasingly common for generic surveys, which can be applied by a range of agencies, to be undertaken to measure citizen satisfaction with government services. Many agencies already have their own in-house surveys, but the more broad generic kind allows benchmarking across services. The Canadian Citizens First survey, based on the Common Measurements Tool, is now being used in NZ. Public sector agencies in SA and Victoria have also commenced using an adapted version of the Common Measurements Tool to gauge satisfaction with their services.

International highlight—New Zealand Kiwis Count public survey

The Kiwis Count all-of-government public satisfaction survey5 was conducted in September and October 2007 by the Nielson Company. It surveyed 6,500 New Zealanders, and received a response rate of 61%.

Kiwis Count uses the Canadian Common Measurements Tool to measure public satisfaction with government services. New Zealand has now integrated this survey into the performance measures of portfolios.

New Zealand Government agencies are encouraged to use the information gathered by the Common Measurements Tool to track performance and identify areas for improvement.

The Kiwis Count survey confirmed the six drivers of satisfaction that have the greatest impact on New Zealanders’ overall satisfaction with the quality of service delivery, which accounts for 69% of New Zealanders’ satisfaction. These are:

  • the service experience met your expectations
  • staff were competent
  • staff kept their promises—that is, they did what they said they would do
  • you were treated fairly
  • you feel your individual circumstances were taken into account
  • it’s an example of good value for tax dollars spent.

The outcomes from these surveys enable the recipients of the service to provide performance feedback directly to service providers; they also allow benchmarking of results across services.

Comments from this year’s employee survey indicate that APS employees recognise an increasing need to consider service delivery from the perspective of the citizen in order to facilitate further improvements:

Recognising that what is clear to those who have worked in the Public Service is often confusing to those who do not understand how the system works. Involve consumers in developing information/forms etc—not just well educated community representatives, but users of the services.

The difficulty continues to be in ensuring that people who need access to services know about them when they are needed. There is little resource for promoting services in city, metro, rural and remote areas. Time to discuss a customer’s full circumstances is not always available given current funding models.

Difficult for citizens to access relevant area through a phone call. Can be difficult even when working internally to know where to refer people to.

The quality of the basic web information is quite variable across agencies. Any agency should tell you clearly (a) where its offices are (b) what its structure is (c) who you ring to get what and (d) be forbidden to arbitrarily channel all calls to an 1800 number, as distinct from a proper phone number or numbers, because that conflates basic service queries with citizen-interest or citizen-information queries.

Principles of quality service delivery

In keeping with international trends and the expectations of the Government, there is a need for the APS to continue to focus on improving service delivery. Key principles for providing quality service delivery are articulated in the Dutch Burger Service Code, namely:

In its performance audit report on ATO’s Taxpayers’ Charter in June this year, ANAO suggested that ATO, given its experience with charters, could assist the Commission to undertake a review of and update the Client Service Charter Principles. ANAO’s report7 argued that, given the value of charters in shaping the culture of an organisation and improving service delivery to clients, there would be benefits in reviewing the principles so as to ensure their currency and increase awareness of them. Incorporation of the approach to service delivery promoted by the Burger Service Principles, and adapting them to agency circumstances, including exploring opportunities for better coordination and collaboration by agencies, is a key way to take the Client Service Charter Principles forward.

Seeking broader citizen engagement in both the policy and programme design phases, as well as community feedback once services are in place, will be critical to underpinning further service improvements. The level of citizen and community involvement will, of course, vary according to the type of initiative. It will also provide a better basis for securing changes in behaviour by citizens, which is likely to be a tool increasingly relied on to address some of the complex reform challenges facing Australia today.

In NZ, one of the Development Goals adopted for the State Services is ‘Accessible State Services’.8 The Goal is based on the expectation that both policy and services will be designed from an understanding of the different perspectives, capabilities and aspirations of the intended recipients, rather than from the perspectives, convenience or structures of the responsible agency. It represents a major shift in the current practices of many agencies away from ‘one size fits all’ approaches. The design and delivery of policies and services will be undertaken increasingly in partnership with the relevant communities rather than simply delivered to them.

International highlight—UK Public Service Agreements

In the UK, new Public Service Agreements (PSAs) set out the key priority outcomes the Government wants to achieve in the next spending period (2008–2011). Each PSA is underpinned by a single Delivery Agreement shared across contributing departments and developed in consultation with delivery partners and frontline workers. It is recognised that a government-wide commitment to build services around the needs of citizens and businesses will be integral to the achievement of the PSA outcomes. The UK Government has also published a Service Transformation Agreement, which underpins delivery of the new PSA framework, setting out the UK Government’s vision for building services around the citizen and specific actions for each department in taking forward this challenging agenda.

Increasing engagement with citizens and communities

The new government has put in place some specific new initiatives to provide more scope to engage citizens and the community in the ‘ideas’ process, the results of which can be fed into policy and programme development. The Australia 2020 Summit, held in April this year, was a good example of community engagement and open dialogue. The Summit represented the largest ever gathering of Australians in a genuine, community consultation. It enabled the Australian Government to engage directly with 1,000 Australians, and receive input from thousands more, to get their ideas on how to tackle the long-term challenges confronting Australia. Members of the community can continue to give their views on the Summit through the internet at: <http://www.australia2020.gov.au>.

Summit participants emphasised the need to embed processes for greater interaction between government and citizens and the community, as part of their future recommendations for improving governance in Australia.

The Australia 2020 Summit

People from all around Australia responded keenly to an open invitation to contribute in April 2008 to the development of long-term strategies for the future. The Summit was supplemented by more than 500 local summits throughout Australia, a national youth summit, and nearly 8,800 public submissions. From these, ideas were submitted ranging from a national train network powered by solar energy, to a proposal to develop bamboo as a major forestry industry.

The Australian 2020 Summit Final Report9 included ideas to improve the public service, many based on increasing citizen engagement with government, as well as better collaboration between government agencies and recognition of innovative performance.

Ideas for improving the public service included:

  • greater interaction between the public service and the community in policy development
  • greater incentives and recognition for innovative performance and the development of expertise in service delivery and the capacity to move these skills throughout government agencies
  • harmonisation of service delivery and policy between the Australian Government and State Governments.10

Community Cabinet meetings have been introduced to provide the public with direct access to Cabinet Ministers to present their matters and concerns. Reports on individual Community Cabinet meetings can be found at: <http://www.pmc.gov.au/community_cabinet/>.

Community Cabinet meetings

Community Cabinet occurs every four to five weeks in metropolitan and regional centres across the country, usually on a weekend afternoon or weekday evening to maximise community attendance. During the first half of 2008, Community Cabinet meetings were held in Canning Vale, Western Australia, on Sunday 20 January; in Narangba, Queensland, on Sunday 2 March; in Penrith, New South Wales, on Tuesday 15 April; and in Mackay, Queensland, on Sunday 29 June. These meetings attracted some 2,300 members of the public. Subsequent to the Community Cabinet meeting itself, Ministers have also held about 300 one-on-one meetings with individuals who attended.

The Prime Minister and his Cabinet Ministers take questions from the floor in an open forum for about half an hour. After the public forum, individuals attend one-on-one meetings with a Cabinet Minister of their choice to pursue matters of personal interest to them. Individuals have pre-registered for the meetings, and Ministers are supported by senior departmental officials.

All issues discussed and commitments made at the meeting are tracked and a quarterly report is submitted to Cabinet.

 

International highlight—Canada, Province of New Brunswick—A new model for public engagement

Dr Donald G. Lenihan, as Advisor on Public Engagement to the Government of New
Brunswick, established and oversaw five pilot projects in New Brunswick on behalf
of the provincial government in developing a new model of public engagement.

The model is based on four key principles:

  • First, the traditional view that government planning and policy making should be the sole responsibility of government officials is too narrow and must change. There is a role for the public in making choices, developing plans and taking action to achieve important social goals. Government must open up the policy process to allow the public to play a role.
  • Secondly, to make this kind of engagement work, government needs to play a role different from the one it now plays in consultation processes. It must learn to act more as a convenor, a facilitator, an enabler and a partner.
  • Thirdly, the public is not a monolith, but a complex entity made up of different sub-groups, including stakeholders, opinion leaders, ordinary citizens and communities, all of whom can and should be engaged for different purposes.
  • Finally, if the public is a complex entity, so is public dialogue. Different kinds of dialogues should be used for different tasks; and different sub-groups are suited to different kinds of dialogue. At present, however, public dialogue is often far less ordered, coherent and disciplined than it should be.

The pilot projects tested the use of ‘new tools’, such as the internet and a variety of techniques aimed at ensuring that the dialogue connects with the people being engaged.

The five pilot projects covered a range of fields such as knowledge management, health, the environment, and sustainable development. These projects were: Skills Development; Reckoning with the New Economy; the Wellness Project; the Climate Change Action Plan Initiative; the Miramichi Action Committee; and Sustainable Communities in a Self-Sufficient Province—Planning our Future Together.

The research found there was no single answer to the question of how government should engage the public. Governments need to adopt different approaches for different tasks. Learning, capacity-building, the development of new guidelines and practices, and culture change are needed to ensure success. The proposed model of public engagement will bring about a fundamental change in the relationship between government, on the one hand, and citizens, stakeholders and communities, on the other. If government is expected to be more flexible, open and collaborative in making decisions and plans, stakeholders, communities and citizens must take on new responsibilities to help solve problems and achieve goals.

The final report from the New Brunswick project, It’s More Than Talk: Listen, Learn and Act—A New Model of Public Engagement, can be found at: <http://www.crossingboundaries.ca>.

Consultation over the proposed national Indigenous representative body to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a voice in national affairs and policy development has also commenced.11

Community engagement through advisory councils continues to be promoted. Members of the recently established Prime Ministerial Advisory Council on Ex-Service Matters12 are drawn from every part of the veterans’ community, including servicemen, partners of veterans, war widows and veterans’ advocates. The Council will advise the Government on veterans’ and ex-service issues, and identify problems and priorities to improve the Government’s provision of services.

Other new models of community engagement are likely to emerge, and overseas models may also provide new approaches to engagement suitable for adoption in the Australian context.

Implications for the APS

The dual expectations of improving services for citizens, and including them in policy and programme design stages, are increasing. However, there is no ‘right way’ or model for engagement, nor is there a structural level of engagement that must occur. Agencies and employees will need to ensure they consider citizens in their work, take into account the key principles of quality service delivery, and select the most suitable way forward. Sharing of experiences across agencies will be important, and it will be imperative for all agencies to consider how they can work together in framing their approaches and services for citizens and communities, within the context of budgetary and governance requirements. Research into community engagement and service delivery indicates that citizens see government as a single entity and not as a set of separate agencies they are required to deal with.

This new way of working will have important implications for how agencies operate, and for the skills and capabilities they are seeking in their employees. In terms of agency culture, there will need to be increased emphasis on how to engage and support collaboration with citizens and communities, as well as a focus on promoting best practice endeavours. APS employees’ views suggest that agencies may not be adapting quickly enough to meet the need to incorporate citizens’ views more broadly into policy and programme design. There has been no significant change over the past three years in the proportion of employees agreeing (48%) that their agency encourages the public to participate in shaping and administering policy (e.g. seeks and uses feedback, consults and engages communities on issues affecting them).

Agencies will also need to ensure that all areas of departmental activity (i.e. policy, programmes and service delivery) are cognisant of the importance of citizen engagement— and that a continuous cycle of feedback is in use, as well as effective evaluation tools—in order to harness learning from current service delivery operations. Opportunities for broader sharing of lessons across the APS should also be provided. APS leaders will have to reflect on and model ways of encouraging community engagement and adaptation to reflect community responses.

Agencies must invest more in training and experimental learning for the policy-makers and programme designers, and encourage a style of management in which policy-makers consider how best to seek out and incorporate citizen input. Employees will need to develop a blend of skills, including the ability to build and maintain relationships, manage significant contracts (preferably in partnership with the community), negotiate and resolve conflict, analyse and integrate a range of differing views into policy and service delivery, examine issues creatively, as well as develop the ability to work across portfolio boundaries. Issues related to leadership, learning and development in the APS are explored in more detail in Chapter 5.

 Use of information and communications technology

The increasing use of information and communications technology (ICT) to enhance government service delivery provides opportunities for agencies to engage and involve citizens and communities in innovative ways. While traditional forms of engagement will continue, agencies are exploring online approaches to involve the community more.

The Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO), a business group of Finance, undertakes a range of activities designed to improve the online access of citizens to government services and resources. Two reports of particular relevance are Consulting with Government—Online13 and Australians’ Use of and Satisfaction with e-Government Services—2007.14

The Consulting with Government—Online report identifies and highlights the findings of public consultations, focus groups and online surveys conducted to collect public opinion on the concept of and interest in a government consultation blog and discussion forum. The consultation was conducted in three phases between 24 September 2007 and 1 December 2007 via a public discussion paper, focus groups and an online survey. In all three phases there was overwhelming support for the concept of a Government consultation blog and discussion forum.

The second publication, Australians’ Use of and Satisfaction with e-Government Services—2007, is the third report in a series of annual studies designed to monitor the level of community satisfaction with and uptake of APS e-government services. Results from these annual reports are a useful tool, enabling agencies to measure the effectiveness of their e-government approaches and to identify areas for improvement. However, it is important to note that citizens without internet access are not included in these studies.

In 2008, the internet became the most commonly reported means for Australians’ last contact with government, replacing telephone and in-person contact as the most commonly used service delivery channels. Over the past 12 months more than three in five people (63%) contacted government using the internet, an increase from 39% in 2004–05. The report also revealed that the proportion of people who undertook most of their dealings with government using the internet increased to 31% in 2007–08, up from 14% in 2004–05.

Although the internet and e-technology are of great importance, a strong case can still be made for using a range of communication tools to interact with citizens, given individual preferences and differing levels of access to ICT across the community.

The APS is making advances in using e-government to improve levels of service delivery to citizens and business. The Australian Government Online Service Point (AGOSP) programme run by AGIMO will leverage Australian Government online infrastructure and technical services to transform <http://www.australia.gov.au>, to make it more convenient for individuals to gain access to and use government information and services. It is expected to improve the online experience of citizens by providing, over time, a single access point for government services and the opportunity to personalise online engagement with government. For business, the Australian Government’s business portal, <http://www. business.gov.au> continues to offer simple and convenient access to government information, transactions and services.

While good progress has been made, there is considerable scope to further harness the internet’s potential to support and improve service delivery and rationalise access points.

In addition, e-Government supports e-participation and citizen engagement in the decision- making process. The UN E-Government Survey 200815 presented a comparative assessment of the 192 UN Member States’ response to the demands of citizens and businesses for quality government services and products. The survey evaluates the application of ICT by governments. It is pleasing to see that Australia has been rated number eight overall.

InnovatIon and technology

APS agencies are developing innovative and practical ways of applying new technologies to benefit the community, business and government. Examples of agency initiatives designed to meet users’ needs include:

In June this year a Finance report found there to be significant community support for the development of a government online consultation web space that includes blogs and online discussion forums. Apart from using email and websites, other forms of technology such as blogs are now being used by MPs, Senators and government agencies to provide a more direct channel for conversations with the community.

The Minister for Finance and Deregulation, the Hon Lindsay Tanner MP, for example, has established a business blog on The Age newspaper website to foster citizen engagement. Later this year, Mr Tanner is expected to produce trial blogs for other Ministers and senior public servants to increase their opportunities to interact with citizens.16 ATO also released an e-tax Facebook page called ‘Lodge your Australian tax return online using e-tax’ in July this year. According to the latest ABS data17 on innovation in Australian businesses, ICT skills (35%) were the most prevalent skills type used for innovation purposes.

Increasing the use of Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs, wikis and Facebook could be a way of encouraging broader discussion of innovation among APS employees. Other possible strategies include the introduction of a style of consultation or network among APS employees and senior leaders, both within agencies and across the APS, similar to the Australia 2020 Summit and Community Cabinet meetings, to engage employees.

Creating a culture of innovation

Innovation is viewed increasingly as being important to enable APS agencies to respond to complex policy issues, create public value, and improve the performance and responsiveness of public services to citizens in the community.

As one of the seven elements of the Government’s vision for the future of the APS, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has stated that future public policy professionals need to be characterised by:

... policy innovation, by policy creativity, by policy contestability, by long-term policy planning and by a parallel commitment to excellence and innovation in how we best deliver services to the Australian community.18

The need for a diversity of skills within the APS in order to create innovate policy was also reflected in Mr Rudd’s speech. In it he said:

The leadership groups within the public service should reflect a wide diversity of past work experience. This diversity better enables us to understand the different needs of the Australian community and to develop and deliver better public policy.19

Public service reforms in recent years have attempted to open up government to greater innovation and flexibility. Many of these changes have been essentially structural reforms, such as reducing hierarchy and increasing autonomy for staff, but the structure and processes of government still need to change significantly in order for innovation to thrive in the APS—including consideration of the performance and accountability framework reporting requirements, and whether there are sufficient incentives in their performance management systems to encourage innovation among staff.

Agency cultures need to support and reward innovation, and encourage trials of new approaches and policy options. Agencies also need to increase collaboration between each other, as well as with other stakeholders such as State and Territory Governments, businesses, research groups and community organisations. Improving links and gathering knowledge from overseas government agencies will also foster a culture within APS agencies of new ideas and new directions.

As part of this year’s employee survey, staff were asked for the first time what they thought their agency or the APS could do to meet the challenges of the future. Over one-third of employees in the survey responded, mainly with recommendations for actions in the areas of climate change, education, welfare, the economy, health and the community.

A review of Australia’s National Innovation System (Venturousaustralia: Building Strength in Innovation, 2008)20 was released on 9 September 2008. Among the review’s recommendations were the need to embed a culture of innovation into the public sector, and the creation of a single body to coordinate the innovation activities of public sector agencies. The Government will respond to the review’s recommendations by the end of this year.

A shift from ‘command and control’ to ‘innovation and collaboration’ was one of the four key imperatives driving governments to become more agile and innovative, according to the Victorian Government report, Towards Agile Government (2008):

Governments increasingly recognise that they cannot drive improvements in public services simply by specifying targets from the centre, investing more money and pushing for ever higher standards. Sustainable improvements will only come from enabling public sector agencies to innovate from within, developing their own new approaches in ways that meet the distinctive needs of a wide range of citizens.21

Harnessing ideas from the broader Australian community and encouraging their participation in government processes, through forums such as the Australia 2020 Summit and Community Cabinets, will help APS agencies better understand how government policies affect Australians. This will also assist the APS to create a culture of innovation, and design the most appropriate services to meet community needs. Embedding citizen-centred service delivery principles into business processes will help achieve this as well.

Review of Australia’s National Innovation System

Building a strong innovation system has been a key focus for the new government in enhancing productivity and economic growth.

On 22 January this year, the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator the Hon Kim Carr, announced a wide-ranging review of Australia’s national innovation system to identify gaps and weaknesses in the present system and develop proposals to address them.

The review, conducted by an expert panel led by the industry consultant and CSIRO board member, Dr Terry Cutler, received more than 700 submissions by the 30 April 2008 deadline. The review panel’s report, Venturousaustralia: Building Strength in Innovation, was released by Senator Carr on 9 September 2008.

The review panel made recommendations across a number of key areas, including innovation in business, excellence in national research and information and innovation in government.

The panel made clear that, while Australian Governments have many policy innovations to their credit, they have been less successful at harnessing the insights of those at the government ‘coal face’ and of consumers of government services.

To this end, the review panel recommended a suite of low-cost measures to inculcate a culture of innovation in the public sector from the ‘bottom up’. These include:

1. A body to operate as—

  • an advocate for those within the public or private sectors who seek to innovate but who are stymied by government culture, practices, structures or regulation
  • a source of funds and skills for the development of innovative approaches to public policy and/or service delivery, the running of policy trials and government tendering that maximises scope for innovation in the supply of goods and services to government.

2. The use of COAG reform payments to encourage innovation, experimentation and evaluation among the states and territories.22

The review panel also recommended that the appointment of an advisory committee of Web 2.0 practitioners be established to propose and help steer governments as they experiment with Web 2.0 technologies and ideas.23

Evidence of an innovation culture

Given the importance of an innovation culture, it is disappointing that employee perceptions of innovation within APS agencies were largely ambivalent. It is also clear that there is a disparity of views between SES and non-SES employees.

Taking a closer look at the underlying trends from employees’ responses using factor analysis24 (see Figure 11.3), 52% of employees were non-committal or neutral about the existence of an innovative culture in their organisation, specifically in relation to the development of new ideas and whether or not their agency encouraged them to find better ways of doing things. Of the 12 employee engagement factors, Innovation Culture ranked tenth and was among the lowest ranked factors for employee engagement. It was equal to the Senior Leaders factor (39%) and ahead of the Agency Culture factor (27%).

When asked specifically about whether an employee’s agency encourages innovation and the development of new ideas, nearly 70% of SES agreed compared to 49% of EL employees and 45% at the APS 1–6 levels. Members of the SES also felt they had much more opportunity to be innovative and creative at work, with only 10% disagreeing, compared to 22% of ELs and 21% of APS 1–6 employees.

This year there was also a significant drop in the number of employees from large agencies who were satisfied with their opportunities to be creative or innovative in their work (52% in 2007–08, down from 69% in 2006–07). Employees from small agencies believed they had the best chance to be innovative (72%). In large agencies, however, more than double the amount of respondents believed that the SES discourage innovation and creativity compared to those in small agencies. When it came to questions regarding personal innovation, however, employees ranked this factor first out of the twelve employee engagement factors.

Figure 11.3: Factor analysis on innovation in the APS, 2007–08

Chart

Source: Employee survey

Employees were asked a number of new questions to gauge their views on their own innovative ability in this year’s survey.

Figure 11.4: Employees’ views on innovation at work, 2007–08

Chart

Source: Employee survey

At an individual level, employees strongly agreed with a number of statements on innovation. Ninety-four per cent of employees said they were keen to learn about new ideas at work, with more than 80% interested to try new ideas regardless of how long they have been in the APS. Ninety per cent said they always looked for better ways to do things. (see Figure 11.4).

Most employees (93%) also said they were able to adapt and respond to new challenges quickly and 85% were flexible and open to change. But employees were less confident about how well their agencies managed change, with a seven percentage point drop in 2007–08 (36%) compared to 2006–07 (43%).

Further, there was a significant decrease in the proportion of employees who were satisfied with their chance to be creative and innovative at work (54% in 2007–08, down from 70% in 2006–07) (see Figure 11.5), although satisfaction levels were much higher among SES (78%) and ELs (60%).

Figure 11.5: Chance to be creative and innovative, 2006–07 and 2007–08

Chart

Note: Only employees who selected ‘Chance to be creative/innovative’ in their top five most important workplace attributes that impact on how satisfied they are with their job were asked to rate their satisfaction with this attribute.

Source: Employee survey

This data appears to indicate that, while most employees are keen to be innovative and act on new ideas, more than half do not clearly perceive an innovation culture in their agency. It also shows that SES feel significantly more able to be innovative at work than those at lower levels. Innovation is recognised as one of the key ways for organisations to improve their performance and a culture that encourages innovation is also important for job satisfaction.

The value of an innovation culture is well-recognised at management level; just over one-quarter of SES and EL 2 employees (26%) said working in an agency that supports greater levels of innovation was one of the five most important ways that their agency could achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness.

Innovation requires a level of risk-taking, but only 17% of APS 1–6 employees, 25% of ELs and 39% of SES disagreed with the statement: ‘I want to try new ideas, but the public service discourages risk-taking.’

There could be value in public servants participating in conversations around risk-taking and innovation to explore barriers to innovation and change, which may also assist them in resolving issues of personal preference versus agency culture.

Senior leaders, communication and innovation

In agencies where communication between senior leaders and employees was effective, employees were more likely to be innovative and to feel encouraged to develop new ideas. This suggests that there may be scope for considering how communication and perceptions about communication between senior leaders and employees can assist with building a positive innovation culture.

Seventy-one per cent of employees who said communication between senior leaders and employees was effective also said their agency encouraged innovation (see Figure 11.6). Employees who felt change was managed well in their agency were also more likely to believe communication between senior leaders and their employees is effective.

Figure 11.6: Relationship between effective communication in an agency and level of encouragement of innovation, 2007–08

Chart

Source: Employee survey

Eighty-four per cent of employees said effective formal and informal communication within their agency was important to them. While 87% of employees said it was important to them to have a manager who encourages and manages innovation, only 55% of employees believe their manager has done this in the last 12 months, and only 35% of employees said senior leaders were receptive to their ideas.

This contrasts with the results that 64% of all employees who had suggested new ideas said they received support from their manager, indicating employees may perceive that their immediate manager is more supportive of innovation than the APS as a whole. Sixty-eight per cent of the SES also agreed that in the last 12 months their manager encouraged and managed innovation well; this was significantly higher than EL employees (56%) and APS 1–6 employees (54%).

Employees suggested ways of improving communication, including how they might best put forward their ideas to senior leaders, in this year’s employee survey comments. One employee said:

The senior executives of our organisation could not care less what the employees think and nor are they interested or receptive to any ideas put forward by other employees. There is no industrial democracy within this organization. There is no consultation or effective communication at all from senior executives towards the employees. Senior executives need to treat their employees with respect and listen to what they are saying and provide venues by which people can express their opinions without being victimised or ignored.

Employee comments suggested that an innovative culture, one where managers communicate effectively and encourage and manage innovation well, was also linked to an increase in an individual’s productivity. One employee said:

Communication has fluctuated in its effectiveness over the last year, however, positive improvements were made after feedback was sought after the staff survey. Since providing further feedback, some really constructive changes have been made to build team morale/ employee engagement by engaging innovation through colleague-based meetings every fortnight ... our section manager has taken a lead in meeting with us all on a monthly basis to see how we are progressing. This has been very important in terms of providing feedback on my future work. This is having a great impact on my productivity and workplace engagement levels.

Employees also commented on the lack of leadership and communication in encouraging and managing innovation within APS agencies.

Managers in the APS do not know how to lead or are not allowed to lead. Innovation does not happen when people are managed.

The senior leadership team have not engendered a climate whereby staff are energised and working to the same goal. Innovation and robust conversation between the senior leadership team and the remainder of staff is not encouraged.

The need to improve communication skills in senior leadership in the APS is considered in more detail in Chapter 5.

Key chapter findings

Building an innovative culture and designing services that can meet citizen and community needs continue to be challenges for APS employees, in all areas—policy design, programme design and service delivery.

The Government has made it clear that engaging citizens and the community is a high priority, and while the APS has been making steady progress in improving services and has been receptive to new ways of engaging citizens and the community, significant additional effort is likely to be required on the part of agencies and employees to meet government expectations.

Effective communication between policy, programme and service delivery areas within an agency, and between different agencies, is essential to ensuring that quality services are delivered to citizens at a pace that matches community expectations.

The Rudd Government believes that service delivery should be contestable, with services delivered by whichever sector—public or private—the evidence shows can deliver services most efficiently and effectively. It has also emphasised the importance of engaging with the community, for example, through initiatives such as the Australia 2020 Summit and Community Cabinets.

It is pleasing to see that agencies are continuing to put a strong emphasis on collecting, and responding to, feedback on the quality and effectiveness of government services. As APS agencies work towards building a better future there may be scope to explore international initiatives such as the New Model for Public Engagement developed by the Province of New Brunswick under the leadership of Dr Lenihan and other strategies that take a coordinated approach to benchmarking the quality of service delivery, for example, the New Zealand approach to Kiwis Count that draws on the Common Measurements Tool.

Research by AGIMO shows overwhelming support for the concept of a Government consultation blog and discussion forum for public consultations. There may be potential for more public consultations using ICT in the future. From this perspective it is encouraging to note that the UN E-Government Survey 200825 ranked Australia eighth out of 192 member countries. Innovation, including the use of ICT will be a key tool for improving engagement opportunities.

Innovation will also be important in responding to citizens’ views and designing better services. Employees strongly agreed with statements about their own acceptance and practice of innovation at work. Ninety-four per cent of employees, for example, were keen to learn about new things and new ideas. However, the proportion of public servants who believe innovation is important for their job satisfaction has declined over the past five years, from 30% in 2002–03 to 18% in 2007–08. Employees at the APS 1–6 levels (14%) are the least motivated by innovation, compared to the SES (38%). This indicates there is still some way to go to bring employees along with new visions.

Of note was the large disparity of views between SES and non-SES employees on innovation from a personal work view as well as their agency-wide perspective. Nearly 70% of SES believed their agency encouraged innovation compared to 49% of EL employees and 45% of APS 1–6 employees. SES also said they had more opportunities to be innovative and creative at work. This shows that in the APS, innovation and creativity are more likely to be identified by the SES and that SES employees are happy with their current levels, while non-SES are far less likely to consider they have the chance to be innovative at work. This contrasts with the finding of the Review Panel on Australia’s National Innovation System (Venturousaustralia: Building Strength in Innovation) (2008), which recommended greater innovation at junior levels in the APS. This could be addressed by a series of discussions between SES and non-SES employees around risk-taking and innovation.

In agencies where communication between senior leaders and employees was effective, employees were more likely to be innovative and felt encouraged to develop new ideas. This highlights the importance of effective communication in helping agencies to create and maintain an innovative culture. This suggests that there is a need for all SES to consider ways of improving communication with non-SES employees.

 

1 Hon. Kevin Rudd MP, ‘Quality Education: The Case for an Education Revolution in Our Schools’, Address to the National Press Club, Canberra, 27 August 2008, p. 4, <http://www.pm.gov.au>

2 Hon. Kevin Rudd MP, ‘Address to Heads of Agencies and Members of the Senior Executive Service’, Great Hall, Parliament House, Canberra, 30 April 2008, p. 4, <http://www.pm.gov.au>

3 Hon. Kevin Rudd MP, ‘Hard Heads, Soft Hearts: A Future Reform Agenda for the New Australian Government’, Address to the Progressive Governance Conference, London, 4 April 2008, p. 4, <http://www.pm.gov.au>

4 PS Act s.10(1)(g).

5 New Zealand Government 2008, Public Satisfaction with Service Quality 2007: The Kiwis Count Survey, <http://www.ssc.govt.nz>

6 <http://www.burgerservicecode.nl/home>

7 ANAO 2008, Taxpayers’ Charter—Follow-up Audit, Performance Audit Report No. 40, 2007–08, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 15, <http://www.anao.gov.au>

8 State Services Commission, Development Goals for the State Services: 2008, NZ Government, <http://www.ssc.govt.nz>

9 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 2008, Australia 2020 Summit Final Report, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.australia2020.gov.au>

10 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 2008, Australia 2020 Summit Final Report, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 334, <http://www.australia2020.gov.au>

11 FaHCSIA, ‘Giving Indigenous Australians a Voice’, <http://www.fahcsia.gov.au>

12 Prime Minister of Australia, Hon. Kevin Rudd MP, Joint Media Release with the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Mr Alan Griffin MP, ‘PM Announces Membership of the Veterans Advisory Council’, 6 September 2008, <http://www.pm.gov.au>

13 AGIMO 2008, Consulting with Government—Online, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.finance.gov.au>

14 AGIMO 2007, Australians’ Use of and Satisfaction with e-Government Services—2007, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.finance.gov.au>

15 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Public Administration and Development Management 2008, UN E-Government Survey 2008: From E-Government to Connected Governance, <http://www.unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN028607.pdf>

16 M. Franklin, ‘Out, Out Damned Waste, We Can Drive a Harder Bargain’, The Weekend Australian, 20 September 2008, p. 22.

17 ABS, Innovation in Australian Business, 2006–07, Product No. 8158, <http://www.abs.gov.au>

18 Hon. Kevin Rudd MP, ‘Address to Heads of Agencies and Members of the Senior Executive Service’, Great Hall, Parliament House, Canberra, 30 April 2008, p. 4, <http://www.pm.gov.au>

19 Hon. Kevin Rudd MP, ‘Address to Heads of Agencies and Members of the Senior Executive Service’, Great Hall, Parliament House, Canberra, 30 April 2008, p. 5, <http://www.pm.gov.au>

20 Review of the National Innovation System, Venturousaustralia: Building Strength in Innovation (Chair: Dr T. Cutler) (September 2008), <http://www.innovation.gov.au>

21 State Services Authority and Demos 2008, Towards Agile Government, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne, p. 4, <http://www.ssa.vic.gov.au>

22 Review of the National Innovation System, Venturousaustralia: Building Strength in Innovation (Chair: Dr T. Cutler) (September 2008), <http://www.innovation.gov.au>

23 Review of the National Innovation System, Venturousaustralia: Building Strength in Innovation (Chair: Dr T. Cutler) (September 2008), <http://www.innovation.gov.au>

24 In 2007–08, factor analysis on the employee survey identified a set of 12 factors. These factors provide an overall summary of employee perceptions of issues such as governance and integrity, agency culture (and innovation culture), leadership and management, merit and career progression, work-life balance and personal innovation and flexibility. Chapter 4 contains more information on the employee engagement factor results.

25 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Public Administration and Development Management 2008, UN E-Government Survey 2008: From E-Government to Connected Governance, <http://www.unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN028607.pdf>

Previous Next: Agency achievements and the way forward