A lamp

Does the state need to be more like a start up?

Adam Kilsby

Over the weekend we’ve seen commentary suggesting the Civil Service is ill-prepared for the challenges of modern governance — both on the global stage and domestically. Wherever you sit on the political spectrum, it’s hard to disagree that reform is necessary. But being more like a start up? 

Whilst there’s no formal definition of what constitutes a start up, start ups are typically immature (0-10 years), small (1-100 people) and willing to be disruptive to meet a customer need. Yes start ups can be innovative, but disruptive innovation in one sector often carries unforeseen consequences somewhere else. If the state is to be more like a start up, Government will need to carefully construct an ecosystem that nurtures and encourages, whilst simultaneously being able to manage the inevitable tensions.  

The root cause    

What we would seem to have is a crisis of complexity. In the last few decades, global complexity has skyrocketed. With billions more people and unprecedented connectivity, governance systems around the world are overwhelmed. The established “world orders” are coming under huge amounts of strain. It’s little wonder. We’re attempting to navigate a spacecraft with tools designed for railways. The principles may still be the same, but the mechanisms are outdated.

So, what are the options?

Reduce environmental complexity: Close borders, cut connections, and simplify systems drastically. Not a realistic or desirable option, but there are examples where this, sadly, is proven to be a feasible one and humanity is diminished as a result. 

Increase our intrinsic capacity to manage complexity: Historically, humans have managed complexity by organising ourselves. Whether banding together to hunt and cultivate more efficiently, to reap the societal benefits of industrialisation, or to rise up against tyranny, banding together and striving towards a common cause is what has helped us become one of the dominant species. While AI is often touted as the solution to helping us navigate the complexities of the modern world, perhaps smarter organisation is the low-hanging fruit.

Watch on demand webinar: A civil servant’s guide to kickstarting AI projects

We therefore have a tension. We can build a HMG that is relatively easy to manage, and “efficient”, but unable to handle the complexity of the modern world. Or we can build one that is pioneering and innovative, effective rather than efficient, but also likely to be hard to manage with a lot of simultaneous spinning plates and a level of waste. 

If we’re not careful, we could fall back into the age old argument of centralised vs decentralised organisations. In reality it’s a balance of the two, and the structures that will need to be in place to hold all of these small, autonomous teams together (at pretty considerable scale) will need to be carefully considered.    

So what are some of the things that state could do to increase the chances of success, and embrace the opportunities that start ups bring. Here’s some initial thoughts off the top of my head:

Heuristics, not process – or as McFadden puts it a compass not a map. Focus on the outcome, not the outputs. Perhaps easy to do in a start up, when backed with VC funding and an implicit understanding that this endeavour may fail. Less easy to do when you have to present a detailed business case to secure funds, or set a compliant tender with a supplier. 

Whilst we may be able to shift the risk appetite of front line departments to experiment and fail fast, can we shift that of the Treasury; especially against a backlog of trying to eliminate any “wasteful” spending.  

Networks, not hierarchies. Build a multi-disciplinary team to deliver the outcomes, and ensure they have the requisite skills and autonomy to meet their goals. 

Don’t stifle their capacity by needing to run every decision by a board or committee. Don’t necessarily divide teams across departmental lines, as the missions of today often cut across the briefs of multiple departments. Brigade teams around a shared purpose, and under an umbrella that celebrates their “one-ness” as part of HMG, rather than reinforcing differences across departments.

This is likely to require a level of legislative support, as departments are often different legal entities, with different ministers, cultures, policies and languages – not to mention politics. Start ups may not have to worry about this; they’re often small enough to navigate through the gaps and are often focused on one problem. 

Providing a coherent Government service may not have that luxury.  If McFadden’s initiative is to succeed, it will likely need support from Parliament to help iron out those wrinkles. Will Parliament be able to move at the same pace?    

Platforms, not just products. Something as big as providing world class citizen facing services is likely to be a team effort. If we don’t set some level of standards, and have someone owning a future vision, the whole will appear a disjointed mess. If as a user I need multiple personae and log ins (NI number, Unique Taxpayer Reference, NHS number, Driver’s License Number etc) it’s easy to see how the whole thing will become a mess. 

So yes, we can build a HMG out of lots of smaller bricks, but we still need someone laying the foundations, providing the mortar to glue everything together, and acting as the architect to ensure that the end solution is fit for purpose. Where does that role sit?

So yes, the country could benefit from a level of reform of the Civil Service. I fear invoking the model of a “start up” is perhaps over simplistic. I would instead argue that we should be invoking the lessons learned from the tech giants – the Metas, Alphabets and Amazon’s of the world. They work on a global scale, on data problems of mind bending complexity, providing platforms and services that we choose to engage with and in many cases can’t imagine being without. They’re also very good at acquiring new talent and products, and integrating them seamlessly into the wider whole. These are organisations that I certainly wouldn’t consider “start up”. Reforming the Civil Service is an ambitious undertaking.  Trying to turn it into a start up is possibly not ambitious enough.  

I’ll leave with a thought experiment – if we outsourced the running of state services to Amazon, what would that look and feel like? Lets start with an end blueprint in mind, and then figure out how we organise to meet them. We’d love to hear your thoughts and ideas – feel free to reach out. 

Thanks for joining us! We’ll keep you informed with regular updates.

Sign up to our newsletter

Consent(Required)
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.