Transformation traumas - who pays?

Are we spraying and praying in the name of access to justice technology?

'Digital transformation' - two words which should strike fear into the heart of a leader. Not because its a bad idea but because its an abused term, often peddled by the inexpert to the unknowing, in the desire to go better/faster/cheaper with  some tech and a few tweaks to the way you work. If only…

But its bigger than that and the clue is in the name. All digital transformation is (whisper it... 'transformative') aka major heart surgery which requires assessment, prep, expertise and fitness, followed by commitment through the operation and a recovery period afterward. You wouldnt just wake up one morning and run a marathon with no planning or preparation would you? Yet too many organisations are embarking on the self same thing without thinking it through.

Innovate or die?

Digital innovation may or may not be digital transformation. We all need to evolve, to innovate, to improve. But beware of the difference. Innovation may be doing something uniquely new, adapting something else so its new to you or indeed transforming your very essence in the name of technology.

Types of project

So what kind of projects sit along the spectrum of digital transformation?  

Level one is strategies and scoping exercises. They require internal commitment and honest dialogue but are usually straightforward. They can act as a health check and are a good way of dipping a toe in the water. It may clarify a ‘good idea but it can also, importantly, quash a rather stupid one. IT reviews are a subset of this level.

Level one is also upgrading your IT infrastructure - a new server, new PCs and faster internet connection is fairly straightforward (its essentially a refresh). Its baseline stuff and you need to refresh/improve your kit regularly, just like you need to get a new pair of shoes if you do a lot of walking or trade in your old car for a model that doesnt break down as often. If you are using six year old PCs on a slow internet connection then do something about it.

Yet who would get a new server these days? Level two is ‘moving to cloud'. This depends on how organised you were in first place and commitment to manage it well. If half your data is on paper, most of your staff have a completely independent filing system and no one ‘really collaborates, then this could be a bigger challenge than you think. Youll probably be accessing data in different ways with different security and management implications and need to think carefully about filing structures. After all, sticking Doc1.doc somewhere in the cloud isn't going to make it easy to find. Information architecture and training are key.

Level two is also using new collaborative online tools. There are lots of them about from online project management, messaging, time tracking, HR etc. Their features are often layered by price point. The key is to know what you need (clear specification and user benefits) and be prepared to pay what that costs. And training – you do train your users dont you? The best software in the world is rarely totally intuitive (and learning more about the stuff that is can help you get more from it).

Level three is Internal Digital Platforms. These can be very tricky (see also – But I Only Wanted A Database? Its a Bit More Complicated Than That…). They require considerable commitment, communications and flexibility. Making a database work and possibly integrating it with your website takes time. It pays to be clear and to have explicit leadership and commitment behind these projects. The projects usually hurt but can be worth it.

Which brings us to level four. Innovative External Platforms. You know the sort of thing – a guided pathway you will save society from ever needing to consult a lawyer again (other more practical use cases are available). A knowledgebase for the entire information ever gathered about ‘problem x'. These can be highly complex and may not find a market. Even if it is a really good idea, are you sure YOU should be doing it? And be careful that when someone mentions minimum viable product you both have the same idea of ‘viable' and that minimum is only the beginning and not the end.

How to get ahead of the curve

But its not all pain and disaster. These things can work without you wishing you had an easier job (like sorting out Brexit perhaps?).

Projects work best when:

• clearly scoped,
• effectively planned and budgeted,
• well led at multiple levels of the organisation,
• supported by adequate capacity of expert experienced resource,
• have internal commitment and prioritisation
• plus appetite for change and attention to detail and follow through. 

Simple huh? Follow those principles well and you have made a good start.

Benefits need to be explicitly planned and clearly measurable with a baseline and interim measures recorded. Yes, know where you are going, what the value/impact is, how to demonstrate progress along the way and what success really looks like. Dont be like the Finance Director who spent £250k on a project and was greeted by a ‘lack of appreciation because the users didnt see the difference. It wasnt the project (and it did meet users needs), they just didnt actually see the difference as they expected the result so it looked like a wasted investment to the Board. If you dont plan or measure, how will you know if its working or whether you actually reached the goal?

Working with third party stakeholders can be challenging - youre not their first (or even second) priority. For most of us, platform development will involve partners either in testing, pilot use or actual ongoing use. They will have different expectations and different priorities and experiences so may not actually meet the deadlines of YOUR project plan. Factor in some contingency. Thats before you consider suppliers who may speak a different technical language.

Consider whether you would spend your own personal cash on this - grant funding is not free money. Im not suggested you start writing cheques for your own tech but I do get a little perturbed (read: bloody angry) when organisations think foundations or donors should pay for something ‘just because. I always think the willingness (if not the actuality) to stump up your own cash is the difference between commitment and playing with other peoples money. Are there better ways to spend that money?

Technology is just an empty vessel without data and content. People and process are the engine and fuel for making things happen and getting it done and as Stephen Covey says, make sure youre pointing in the right direction. You dont want a white elephant, do you?  

So what does this mean strategically for funders and the organisations they fund?

Change IS hard. Any technology or data development will cause some pain and the more extensive the development and change, the higher the risk and the more painful it is. But if it wasn't a problem, they wouldn't need you to lead it would they?

There are good things to come through the intelligent planning and application of technology and data in the interests of user needs (both staff and client) but we need to:

• be clearer about our problems,
• recognise the culture/change costs (and lets call it what it is, trauma)
• and ensure that projects are well specified,
• appropriately funded,
• have clear benefits and measures and
• are delivered by those capable of delivering them.

Development costs are a small overall part (often as little as 25%) of the longer term lifecycle costs.

We need:

• better problem statements, 
• clearer detailed user journeys (which cover the entire cycle not just the tech one), 
• a log of what works and why alongside a repository of what already exists (oops, there goes a knowledgebase) and 
• to be investing money, not just spending it, across a lifecycle. 

So rather than building X, lets think about the real cost of resolving problem Y or taking opportunity Z. Not just a bright shiny toy which looks good when its built but the hard yards of making progress on transforming a seemingly intractable issue.

Technology (and use of data) has a long way to go in the advice and access to justice sector. It starts with ensuring a level playing field of basic IT infrastructure (which may or may not include ‘the cloud), moves through using ‘internal tools (collaborative tools, case management systems) well, accelerates through platforms and guided pathways and reaches its peak with voice assistance (hello chatbot!) and the unicorn of AI (artificial intelligence). But the latter are another story. Lets get the basics right first, lets sustain those basics, lets innovate intelligently (with a rational mix of risk and semi-certainty) and lets move towards resolving the big hard problems. After all, any fool can pick low hanging fruit and buy a bright shiny toy and sadly, many do. If we stop ‘spraying and praying and start working together in pursuit of shared outcomes, we can truly make a difference.