Originally published at https://apolitical.co on 27 November 2019.
A few weeks ago, I turned to Twitter to crowdsource some of the content for this article. This is what I tweeted:
“Doing research for an article which I’ll be writing on grass-roots/bottom-up initiatives to support cross-agency collaboration in Govt. E.g. @OneTeamGov. What other initiatives exist out there that I should know about?”
Within 24 hours, my tweet had received more than 30 likes, 13 retweets and more than 50 comments.
The twitter thread made clear that there are passionate public servants all over the world experimenting with grassroots approaches to driving cross-agency collaboration.
But, before diving straight in, it’s important to spend a minute explaining what my tweet meant, and why I chose to focus on this topic.
Cross-agency collaboration
Attempts to support more effective coordination across government departments is not a new concept; the “doctrine of coordination” can be traced back as far as 1820.
Reviewing the vast literature on this topic, stories of failed attempts at coordination, or at least only partial success, tend to dominate. One of the key reasons for this appears to be the fact that government bureaucracies lack the “ supporting architecture “ needed to support joined-up-working.
However, despite the gloomy picture painted by the academic literature, I’ve observed a trend emerging which appears to challenge the conventional wisdom that cross-agency collaboration is doomed to fail.
I’ve been seeing glimpses of a new form of joined-up-government, orchestrated from the ground-up — a way of joining up which is not reliant on Ministerial endorsement, central budgets, or cross-departmental committee meetings. I’ve been observing a number of grass-roots initiatives which are successfully bringing public servants from a range of disciplines and departments together to collaborate, share ideas, and even pursue cross-agency projects.
These groups appear to be bonded by a common ethos and mission, undeterred by structural barriers. They are driven by passionate civil servants who see no sense in the boundaries that have been erected between agencies.
I wanted to understand more about these new forms of collaborative practice, which seem to be growing in popularity and impact despite the lack of formal supporting architecture. My tweet revealed that there are indeed many forms of grass-roots cross-agency collaboration popping up all over the world. And I’ve almost certainly only just scratched the surface.
The remainder of this article tries to very briefly capture and summarise the rich and enthusiastic twitter conversation that followed from my original question.
The value of networks
Both formal and informal networks exist which offer civil servants the chance to work in ways that disregard agency boundaries.
Networks often rely on a range of methods to bring people together — from Slack, to newsletters, to regular meet-ups.
Some of these networks are formed on the basis of a broad shared mission. For example, OneTeamGov describes itself as “a global community, working together to radically reform the public sector through practical action.”
Other networks, however, come together not just because of shared values, but rather, because they are interested in tackling a specific challenge. For example, HIPE is a cross-government, grass-roots network designed to help civil servants plan and build impactful careers, while in the Netherlands, Gebruikercentraal offers a network for civil servants interested in applying user-centred design to their practice. There are also a raft of equality and diversity networks across the UK Government, bringing together civil servants from many different agencies to work on issues which they are passionate about.
Perhaps slightly less formal than networks, in some jurisdictions there is also a flourishing scene of peer-led, peer-designed communities of practice in areas like commissioning, policy, and more. These communities of practice enable civil servants from across a range of agencies to share best practice and learn from one another. You can read more about what it takes to set one up here.
Finally, while many of these networks appear to focus on facilitating conversation and connections, other networks are more output-oriented. For example, one group of UK civil servants collaborated to develop the A-Z to Better Wellbeing (AZ2BW) toolkit. In Australia, the Linked Data Working Group has developed a range of resources and guidance materials for government agencies to use, while in the UK the LocalGov Digital has developed, amongst other things, the Local Government Digital Service Standard.
Events
Beyond networks, events offer a way of bringing together civil servants from many departments, without requiring any ongoing commitment from participants.
Events can be one-off, for example OneTeamGov’s Bureaucracy Hack, or regular, for example, Canada’s Policy Ignite, which runs bi-annually.
A key thing to remember is that even some of the most impressive initiatives began very small — a breakfast (OneTeamGov UK); setting up a twitter account to begin a conversation (OneTeam Gov Canada); a person setting up a server under their desk (GCCollab)
While some events have a fairly broad thematic focus, others concentrate on a specific theme or area of practice. For example NHS Hack Day focuses specifically on health, while Open Data Camp in the UK, and GovHack in Australia focus on using data to solve challenges facing governments.
Some events, are deliberately local in their focus — like Data Jam North East. Others, such as UK Gov Camp, appeal to a national audience, while others still, like the OneTeamGov Global Unconference and Global Gov Jam, attract a diverse global audience.
While events differ in terms of regularity, audience and focus, they all appear to share one key feature — they are events organised by public servants, for public servants, and offer a chance to connect with people from different agencies to “ ask questions and share ideas about how we can make government work better.”
Digital platforms
Another prevalent theme which emerged from the twitter conversation was the use of digital platforms to facilitate conversations and collaboration across traditional agency boundaries.
In Canada, GCTools offers a suite of digital collaboration tools for civil servants, some of which are open to civil servants only, and some of which are open to members beyond the civil service.
While GCTools is now hosted by the Canadian Government, it was started by enthusiastic public servants who recognised the opportunity to use digital technology to work more closely together. What began as a small pilot soon had thousands of users, ultimately leading to endorsement from the most senior levels of government.
In the UK, Slack is also used to support a cross-government community, with between 2000 and 10,000 civil servants all using the platform to help each other at any given point in time.
Twitter was also highlighted as a simple, but effective way to connect with passionate and like-minded civil servants from across the world (my twitter thread being a case in point!). Twitter can be used informally but also in a more structured way. For example, LeadersGC uses Twitter to facilitate conversations between citizens and leaders about topical issues in government.
Pushing the boundaries
One final interesting initiative worth noting is Canada’s Free Agents programme, which enables a select group of civil servants to work in a way which means they are not tied to a particular team or branch, but rather, work on projects which match their skills and passion.
Again, while this is now a programme endorsed by central government, it was started by a small team of civil servants interested in doing things differently.
The twitter conversation revealed an interesting tension between those who feel like grassroots initiatives need senior buy-in and endorsement to succeed, against those who felt that when initiatives are subsumed into existing structures, they get weighed down by the “burden of a bureaucracy that acts like treacle” (per Brigette Metzler).
It seems that the best approach is to have a balance: some bottom-up initiatives which become formalised; as well as those that remain at the fringe, pushing the boundaries of what’s possible, moving quickly, and operating outside of the constraints of the bureaucratic machine.
From humble beginnings
All of these initiatives began as the seed of an idea and then, often, a conversation between a passionate group of individuals who felt strongly enough about their idea to give it a go.
A key thing to remember is that even some of the most impressive initiatives began very small — a breakfast ( OneTeamGov UK); setting up a twitter account to begin a conversation ( OneTeam Gov Canada); a person setting up a server under their desk ( GCCollab). They were set up to be experimental, open-minded and evolutionary in their nature.
The teams who got these initiatives off the ground were powered by a mindset of “ permissionless innovation”. Their modus operandi was to radiate intent, meaning that they made their intentions clear, and gave their superiors a chance to stop them if necessary, but did not seek permission or forgiveness for what they were doing.
There is also a lot of learning from each other. Iona Finchiu, who co-founded OneTeamGov Canada, said that their approach has been to adapt, but not recreate, many of the initiatives begun by OneTeamGov UK to fit a Canadian context.
Kit Collingwood, a co-founder of OneTeamGov, also made an important point around the framing of these conversations:
“One thing I’ve been reflecting on is that it’s not so much about ‘breaking’ silos or overcoming boundaries — that rhetoric feels quite combative. It feels more natural to say we’ve ignored those things and just sort of done stuff and tried hard to look under rocks for people.”
Why do people get involved?
Perhaps the most inspiring thing that emerged from this twitter conversation was people’s reflections about why they have chosen to be involved in initiatives like these, despite them requiring additional time and energy over and above their usual workload.
A number of people suggested that they are involved out of a strong sense that it is the right thing to do to make government better.
People shared that they found a sense of connection and belonging in networks like these — the feeling they had found their tribe.
Sam Villis offered this reflection about why she is involved.
“Because it adds to my purpose. It enables me to feel like I’m doing something useful, valuable, when it can (sometimes) feel difficult to see what impact you’re making. Also, it makes me better at my day job because I get to hear views outside of my own bubble which sparks ideas.”
And, finally, I asked for advice for people who might be interested in getting involved in initiatives like these, or starting something similar, if nothing already exists. David Buck made this very simple suggestion — “join someone and dance together.”
