Hi Nicola and all,
I think there is in your answer, like GK's, an attempt to slide away
from the questions I have asked. So let me pin it down a bit more.
Many of us in design are aware that one of the things that design may
be able to offer (I say *may be* advisedly) are new scenarios or even
transformation of services into something entirely new. This happens
to many of us designers in the Scoping Stage—that open ended fuzzy
part of the process where we explore possibilities, find out about the
context of use, collaborate with the stakeholders, and play 'what if'
games by hypothetically shifting the problem boundaries. It's what
comes immediately after scoping, by way of benchmarking the current
state of affairs, that is largely absent from contemporary practice,
including btw much that has come out of the UK Design Council.
You mention the Australian Taxation Service as an example. As it
happens I know quite a lot about the Australian Taxation Office (ATO)
and it's seeming championing of design. So let me use that as an
example of why I think ROI, whether narrowly or broadly defined is
critically important and why we cannot slide away from it by yet
another 'transformation'.
There is much I cannot say, because of confidentiality, but there is
enough in the public domain of the stuff I have published in the
design literature and on my blog for people to get the gist.
First, the current wave of interest in design is a reinvention of an
initiative in which I had quite a large part in, during the 1980s. One
has to ask why, after significant investment in design research and
training the ATO abandoned that initiative by the end of the 1980s.
The reasons were economic and systemic and those reasons prevail
today, only more so! In the late 1980s the ATO introduced a policy of
what it called 'self assessment'. At the time, I remember asking
senior people in the ATO who this 'self' was? Many did not understand
the question.
Second, what was already happening in Australia at the time—a gradual
drift by individuals and small businesses to using accountants and tax
consultants as opposed to seeking help from the tax office—
accelerated. The situation today is that well over 75% of the
population and all businesses large and small use tax consultants and
accountants as intermediaries between themselves and the ATO. The ATO
has effectively outsourced the complexity of the system and with it
most of the expertise in tax collecting and the administrative costs
associated with tax collection. Roughly speaking, for every dollar the
ATO spends, we—the citizens and tax payers—are estimated to spend
about ten dollars in collecting, administrating and complying with the
system, but nobody knows the full cost. As an example, in an
organisation like ours, about half our administrative costs are
concerned with collecting tax, compliance, and auditing. We are
therefore a part of the Australian Taxation System( ATS), and we are
collectively, as citizens and tax payers, a larger part than that run
by the ATO. An interesting example of invisible boundary shifting.
It is significant that in all the recent flurry of excitable writing
about redesigning the ATS all the emphasis is about what is happening
is on the ATO, the smallest part of the overall system. Like most
government departments the ATO has been asked by successive
governments to do whatever it does with less money. The systemic
effect of this is that the ATO has shrunk beyond the point where it
could meaningfully run the ATS. It cannot even afford to recruit the
professional it would need to redesign its own activity, let alone
that of the entire system.
It is also significant that in all the talk about 'improvement' by the
ATO and those who have written about its new found interest in design,
there is no mention of what might be acceptable evidence of this
'improvement'. As a tax payer it's very simple. The system will be
improved when it costs me less time and less money to administer. But
to date, the tax office doesn't even not know how much it costs the
rest of us to administer the system. If it doesn't know this, how will
it know when it has brought about any improvement in the system? The
ATO interest in design is, in my view, window dressing.
You say Nicola
> So I would take David question as the initial question, which need
> revisions, because service design research (as in fact any research
> on innovation) before answering the existing open question, tends to
> re-frame the questions altogether.
Well that's fine and I embrace that, particularly if it means an end
to death and taxes. But I suspect that even with the very best of
Service Design (whatever that might be) we are a long way from making
either death or taxes optional, let alone just life style choices.
So it's easy to get caught up in the rhetoric, play the change and
transforming game, and forget the often grim, boring, concrete reality
of ordinary life. I make a simple request as a researcher and a
citizen of anyone who claims to be in the improvement business,
whether through design or something else. Give me some evidence for
the claims you make or stop making the claims until you have some
evidence. But please don't tell me that it doesn't matter.
David
--
blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au
|