Good advice

Despite my technical backgound, or more likely  because of it, I've never had a smart phone.  The same applies to cars, those little bubbles of isolation.  So I think I can be excused for posting this.

Digital Divisions

Digital technology was touted as the great new hope in the Island's latest economic plan.  It ought to be a useful way to diversify the economy, but as I have commented elsewhere if is concentrates on financial services it could end up increasing strategic risks.  The other driver for digital in Governemnt is the potential to save costs, at least on the government side of the equation.  A bit like online banking, what it actually does is to move an element of cost from the organisation (branches and staff) to the customer - the need to have a computer  or similar, and connectivity to run the account.


There have been a few stories recently of our States involvement in technology.  Interestingly the reporting of them , which may well reflect the thinking behind the development is a little concerning.  They reflect a problem I have encounteed many times working spftware development: un-acknolwedged assumptions.


The first is an item that certainly has some merit.  https://blog.gov.je/2016/02/01/track-my-bus/  I know the original developer, Rob. I used to work with him many years ago, though in those days I did the javascript stuff and he did the presentation bits!  It is well worth reading the reasons the application was developed as a moble web rather than a smart phone app.  Also the rationale for replacing the text system.  They are all related to maintenance and support effort/costs by the provider.  That is typical of a tech driven solution.  So I ask , what about the end users.  Think about  typical bus users and wonder what proportion have smart phones.  Surely smaller than the proportion who have ordinary mobile phones. The result is an improved experience for those who have access, and a  proportion of user  will now have lost service.  Is that progress or not?  Would we be better spending the money on  providing service, actually having more buses on the  routes?  Thats the debate that should be happening in the States chamber, or at least it would be if we had a functioning system.


Second is the parking payment app http://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/new-parking-app-could-make-scratchcards-obsolete-september .  I think the headline suggesting that scratch cards could be obsolete by September is wrong.  The developer hasn't been chosen yet, so the timescale for deployment must be at best tentative. But far more important, does the States really think every car driver is going to acquire a smart phone and the app by September?  Clearly that's not going to happen. At best it is going to have to be a parallel system for sometime.  That is probably going to cost more, not less until the new system is ubiquitous.  Perhaps they have in mind some carparks for free or on a disc, and others app only.  Privilege for a digital elite , or possibly soon a majority, while the minority are left waiting  uninformed at a bus stop because they haven't a smart phone to hand to pay for parking or check bus times.

There is much more to this smart phone app  interaction mode with government than meets the eye.  It is terribly convenient for those who have an authoritarian, controlling, top down view of society. You can get a sense of it from this recent piece http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/09/internet-of-things-smart-devices-spying-surveillance-us-government There are frequent calls for moves to a cashless society - there are even governement agencies in other jurisdictions that will not accept cash http://www.therecord.com/sports-story/2565317-passport-office-refuses-to-take-cash-payments/  despite the fact you don't actually have a right to a bank account.  In fact with the ever more draconion KYC and politically exposed person limitiations being impossed,  ever more people will find it impossible to access the financial system.  I have no problem with people knowingly surrending their privacy and allowing governement and finaicial institutions tracking their every move and expenditure, if they want to, but I do object most stongly to being forced to do so.  I don't do loyalty cards, and while I do  have a couple of bank cards, I seldom buy anything with them if I can avoid it (and I usually can), and I certainly don't have a smart phone.

Part of the problem here is a mental mode of those that are doing what they think of as normal.  It happens all the time - the weather forecasters who describe rain as miserable, and sunshine as glorious, and the news broadcasts that claim interests rates going up is bad news, and going down is good.  It is all a matter of perspective relative to how you live your life.  Rain can be good news for growers and gardeners, whilst interest rates going up is a boon to savers.  But of course the overwhelming majority of those  who are in the editorial positions are car driving , smart phone using mortagors.  In their circles those given 'facts' are undisputed.  It is the same in politics - the Westminster bubble syndrome, and technology is not so very different.  It is a sort of attribution error thinking that you are yourself somehow typical or representative of pretty much everyone. That your lifestyle and choices and options are similar to everyone elses.   In reality you are comparing to a small select similar group, not the entire population.

Since we have moved on to politics and policy, I'll get to the last item, as reported here: http://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/digital-firms-angry-key-12-million-egov-contract-goes-uk-company/  I am not surprised they are angry.   It is rather problematic for governemnt to claim to be supporting and promoting  the local sector at the same time as effectively saying the local  talent is not good enough for their needs.  It something the States of Jersey is good at - wordy and sometimes worthy statements of intent, but ineffective or inconsistent action in implementing them.  I cite States Reform, the demise of tourism, and the state of our agricultural sector and the absence of a Rural Economy Strategy, and the persistent failure to meet the population policy (when we had one).  

It is harldy surprising then that I could name three or four talented people I know locally who used to be in software development, but are no longer in the field.  Interestingly all had decent careers in other fields beforehand, and all still live locally.  I rather suspect a large part of the problem here is that those who are making the decisions cannot recognise the skills and abilities of those who are local.  It is a common enough problem.

More than a few times when I worked as a contractor consultant I was hired by big consultancy firms like KPMG, PWC  to deliver projects they had won.  I don't know if the customers knew these big names didn't have the expertise they thought they were buying.  Often times it was about risk perception on the buyer side . If you get a big established consultancy to do the job you won't get half as much grief when it goes wrong than if you hired an 'unknown' name.  Backside covereing is an essential art in any civil service from what I hear, and  'nobody ever got fired for buying IBM' still echoes faintly down the corridors. 

Of course it is a self perpetuating  situation - you never get credit for delivering - the consultancy claims that, and the buyer never really gets to know that the delivery was by a tiddling specialist third party.  If the States only throw low risk tidbits to the local developers while reserving tables at the banquet for external suppliers, you just end up with hungry and impoverished locals with no reputation in that aea  and money pouring out of the island's economy. Because if there is one thing those successful large consultancies do know it is how to succesfully live off  the host.

Future St Helier

Yesterday I was on of the 'chosen few' to attend a workshop style meeting at the Town Hall on the Future of St Helier. It might seem odd that someone who lives and works in St Ouen should be invited, but it was as a representative of a stakeholder group, as were the other attendees.

The last such States event I attended was Imagine Jersey 2035 . Compared to that event this was rather less prescribed and much more open ended questions were posed. Were were divided into table of six or so for each questions, and each on different tables for three three topics. These topics were: Travel and transport; Urban living and the environment; Identity and community. 

I arrived in not too good humour . I have spent an hour in the early morning looking for my cheque book (and failed) so I could run an errand while on one my rare town visits. I also had to ensure I had checked the plant covers, done the watering and updated my online paper before catching the bus. When I arrived there was no name badge for me. I knew this was not going to be an easy day.

We had an introduction from Constable Crowcroft, Environment Minister Luce laid out some criteria, notable when talking of the future we should be mindful of the 20-30years ahead as well as the vision for 2-3 years hence. David Olgivie, the independent facilitator then did some ice-break exercise and elicited a list from the participants of criteria for interaction like listening and courtesy etc.

And then the wall for pro-car sentiment hit us. The topics we each accompanied by the three same questions: What would mater to you and why; what could we change to met what's important to you, If we could only change 2 things, what would they be? That makes sense if you tackle each in turn, which is what I expected the moderator on our table to do. But it wasn't done like that on the first, and really only tried on the last table I was on. A trio of people dominated the input at our table , having come it seemed with their own agenda and list of points to make on traffic and parking , particularly on what could be done. We were told that everyone drives, and residents of St Helier each should have a right to a parking space, like everyone else does. I contradicted those points they were factually incorrect where I could , but there was no means or space to actually make constructive input. When the moderator with just a minute or so left asked each of use what pints we though were the 2, I refused pointing out that my chance to state what was important had not even been made on what matters. Choosing a conclusion form that position is stupidity. This was not well received , but that is the only sensible comment when things had be so poorly moderated the rubric had not been followed.

There was a summing up from all the tables inputting their two main points and so on. From what I could tell from a couple of discussion in the break, carbon emissions, air quality, population fitness, technology changes and home working had barely been raised anywhere. There was a general agreement that a much better bus service is needed. 

The second session was more constructive. Again the input was very firmly focussed on the tangible and the built environment. At least there was an opportunity to comment on the importance health wise of open spaces, the possible sea level rises impact and sea defences, and air quality was mentioned by someone else on our table. It got interesting when SOS and SOJDC started on the finance quarter. They seem not even to be able to agree on whether the revised plans mean the road is to be sunk or not. I had the impression it was not to be sunk, thankfully. With the exception of the future of the finance centre buildings, I once again had no sense of the long term thinking and how the world will be different then and how that might influence decisions we can or should make today. In the summing up thankfully the desire for more trees did well!

The final session was on safety, identify, community. We had some agreement that it had identity and community, but that it was more people than places. There was a lot of talk about night time economy being distinct and different from day time economy. There was also some comment on the need for St Helier as the capital to have more autonomy, especially given it is proportionately under representation in the States.

At the summing up there were a few comments from the floor. Notably they included the lack of youth at the event and the need to have them included in thinking of the future (I agree wholeheartedly), and the need to engage with social media. Deputy Luce made concluding remarks, two of which stood out. 90% of us agree on 90% of what was said , and that the next Island Plan will cover the period 2012-2030. While I don't particularly disagree with much of what was said and points raised , I think the minister is in danger of misunderstanding the significance of what was discussed. It was for the most part short term, it lacked significant consideration of how the world will be by that 2021 plan let alone in 30 years time (2045!). 

The rapid and still escalating impact and power of computing, the rise of world population and the resource demands to go with that, the change we might expect in working patterns (the extinction of professional middle class knowledge jobs!), sea level rises, food insecurity, energy production, basic material shortages, whole new industrial sectors arising, and other technologies becoming obsolete. It is hard to do , and almost impossible project those things correctly. However is it certain that assuming things will continue more or less as they are now is sure to be way off the reality.