As you lounge by the riverside with a friend, a sudden shriek fills the air – a child is drowning. Reacting instinctively, you both plunge into the water, rescue the child, and get back to shore. Before either of you can catch your breath, you hear another distress call – another child is drowning. You both jump back in. But before you can rescue the second child, there is another... and another... As more and more drowning children come into sight, your friend abruptly gets out of the river. "Where are you going?" you demand. Without hesitation, they reply, “I’m going upstream to tackle the guy who’s throwing all these kids in the water.” – A public health parable, attributed to Irving Zola and adapted from 'Upstream' by Dan Heath
Let's get one thing straight. Digital transformation is about strategy, not technology. It doesn't matter what technology you use to prevent children from drowning; without a strategy that defines an outcome to address the upstream cause, there is still someone throwing them in. These strategies – having a clear ambition of what needs to be achieved, articulating how we get there and then figuring out how to make it happen – are critical in any successful digital transformation programme.
Estonia, often framed as the poster child for e-Government, are lauded for their digital transformation strategy to “leapfrog rather than catch up with the West” and, over a three-decade journey, have essentially created an entire ‘digital state’. Not bad, right? Closer to home, the UK’s Government Digital Service (GDS) has driven the digitisation of services, saved £bn’s in technology procurement, and introduced a whole new set of professions to drive a new way of thinking and working as a ‘digital by default’ government. What’s the problem then?
Well. Only 13% of large government software projects are successful. The default for policy teams is still a technology-first approach ("we need a machine-learning strategy!") rather than one that defines policy outcomes ("We need fewer children in the river!") and then figures out effective and efficient ways to deliver them. Put simply, these projects lack knowledge of modern software development and rely on outdated processes – a more strategic approach to upstream digital transformation has yet to successfully diffuse. This is where this article fits in.
Over the last six years, I've been working with some of the world's leading companies and, more recently, the UK government to help shift teams' thinking upstream at the earliest opportunity. To better define new digital capabilities that enable effective and efficient digital services by aligning teams through three strategic aspects: (1) Where are we going? (2) How do we get there? and (3) Who do we need to include?
This article is a breakdown of the approach I use with policy teams at the onset of these programs of work, embedding upstream, strategic thinking into digital transformation projects.
"Where are we going?" is, in theory, the ongoing outcome of any digital transformation strategy. It's not just another way to describe an organisation. It's a new way of seeing what that organisation is there to do – aligning everything that's involved in using or delivering its services; from what users see and how frontline teams work, to supporting processes and enabling technologies. By defining what's in an organisation from the outside, you create a viewpoint and language to understand what it does and who it's for. It's a futurestate target to aim at.
In government, mission-orientated innovation policy is the phrase du jour. It calls on governments and policymakers to ambitiously and purposefully set the direction of innovation for public value to meet the tasks at hand. This approach directs large-scale projects towards 'grand challenges', identifying and articulating missions (outcomes) that can galvanise production, distribution, and consumption across sectors.
In the context of digital transformation, missions not only influence change but set a direction for it. It organises projects (which I see as outcomes in their own right) that stimulate innovation towards achieving the mission – creating a tangible vision of the future that allows us to see the potential components needed to get there. These visions are not specific recommendations, but illustrations of scope, methodology, and ambition.
Arranging sectors and capabilities to achieve missions – A Mission-Oriented UK Industrial Strategy, UCL Commission for Mission-Oriented Innovation and Industrial Strategy (MOIIS).
When working with policy teams, I've found that a strong vision can guide entire teams towards the future and encourage them to think upstream about what they need to consider, rather than being stuck solving problems within the constraints of today. To help teams articulate these visions, I often use a mix of the following questions, inspired by Ami Vora, to tease out the characteristics of what they are trying to achieve: