EURIM Working Group Minutes
|
Working Party: |
Theme 02 –
Modernising Government |
|
|
Ref: |
03-T02-Min08 |
|
|
Minuter: |
Emma Fryer |
|
|
Date: |
03/09/16 |
|
|
Circulation: |
Attendees
and Apologies |
|
|
Queries to: |
Emma Fryer,
Tel: 0191 240 3332 Mob: 07714
803 650 |
|
Minutes of EURIM’s Social
Exclusion Planning Meeting 28th January
2004, kindly hosted by IPF, 27 Queen Anne’s Gate, SW1
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
|
Meeting
Objectives
|
1.
To assess whether the “Exclusion Map” was a useful
tool to examine the social exclusion landscape and provide a context for
activity.
2.
To clarify the role of ICT in the social exclusion
agenda
3.
To try and identify whether gaps or overlaps exist
in government’s current inclusion policy
4.
To highlight any emerging issues that need to be
addressed, and identify priorities for group action accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Key Actions for the Group |
|
1. Establish how far the Digital
Inclusion Panel has progressed in setting its agenda and how the group can
best contribute to it. 2. Develop the “Exclusion Map” further
as a reference tool from which a coherent picture of the social exclusion
landscape can be built. 3. Augment the reference list in
conjunction with the Exclusion Map, so that initiatives and projects can be
located within the exclusion landscape and related to other existing work. 4. Continue to identify and liaise with
other organisations and potential partners for this work. |
|
|
Documents circulated |
|
1.
Agenda 2.
Exclusion Map straw
man (ppt slides) |
Meeting Notes
|
|
|
|
Action |
|
1 |
|
Chairman’s Introduction
|
|
|
|
1.1 |
PJ welcomed everyone, tabled the objectives of the group and outlined
the purpose of the meeting. The
objective was to try and identify whether gaps existed in the government’s
current inclusion policy and any emerging issues that needed to be
addressed. The first phase of work
was to establish a conceptual baseline to pull together the different
agendas, stakeholders and issues.
|
|
|
|
1.2 |
Useful meetings had been held with the Social Exclusion Unit of the
ODPM and an array of reports, papers and information on initiatives, projects
and resources had been sourced. From
this information a simplistic “map” in the form of a set of slides had been
prepared.
|
|
|
|
1.3 |
The map aimed to identify how the key social exclusion issues related
to the different exclusion agendas on the one hand and to policy priorities
for government on the other. Its objective was to set out the social
exclusion landscape in very simple terms to provide a starting point from
which activity could be taken forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Conceptual Maps of Social
Exclusion Landscape
|
|
|
|
2.1 |
EF ran through
the set of slides:- see attached ppt. slides and commentary. (To print out the commentary with the
slides use the notes pages option in the print menu).
|
|
|
|
2.2 |
Some
strong messages had emerged from the research and from building the
maps. Firstly the plethora of
initiatives, projects, programmes and organisations involved, (supported by
or working with different government departments) and the vast amount of
research that already existed, suggested that the government’s approach to
social exclusion could benefit from being more cohesive. Secondly, insofar as ICT related to social
exclusion, there were many ways in which ICT could genuinely contribute to
tackling social exclusion. One
important way was simply to raise the standard of user interfaces and
customer service levels provided by ICT suppliers to the same level as more
mature retail industries. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
Feedback on the Map |
|
|
|
3.1 |
PJ
asked everyone for comments on the map and their thoughts on whether it could
be used as a starting point. |
|
|
|
3.2 |
SK
raised four issues: ·
User
self-definition - inclusion programmes were targeted at discretely defined
user groups, but most people did not think of themselves as belonging to any
of these groups. Microsoft was conducting a major research project on
self-definition with Forrester in the US, which might be a useful
reference. ·
Individuals
fell out of the employment system through ill-health, which needlessly
prevented them from using ICT when in fact the hardware could be adapted to
their changed needs. Some ill health
was even caused by poor use of ICT hardware, (such as RSI). ·
ICT was
viewed as something that people had to adapt to, rather than an adaptable
tool, and a change in perception was needed. ·
There was
scope on the map to include quality of life as a factor. Self help,
self-esteem and independence could all result from being able to control
one’s own environment better. ·
In many
cases, exclusion was needless as solutions already existed, people were
simply unaware of them. Too much bad advice was given, and expensive tailored
solutions proposed when what was needed were already provided in the
accessibility features of their existing PCs. ·
There was
too much focus on the intermediaries rather than the end-users. |
|
|
|
3.3 |
RS
added that ·
ICT was too
closely associated with PCs. Mobile
phones and digital TV were also aspects of ICT and should be included. ·
As well as
an EFL issue for some people there was an additional language issue because
the ICT community had a tendency to invent jargon and many websites used
over-complex language which was off-putting to users. ·
This issue
was not just about education, but raising interest and awareness. The major funding providers, the LSCs,
were only interested in qualification-related training and the requirement to
work to a qualification was an instant turn-off for the
non-digitally-oriented. SK agreed. ·
With the
increasing use of intermediaries to deliver government services, there would
be an increasing issue of variable quality of service. ·
There were also major issues around sustainability in terms of
delivering services over the long term.
Budget issues usually meant that follow up was harder to resource than
the initial set-up. SK agreed, even
when funding was provided for training, there was no provision for special
needs hardware, for instance. |
|
|
|
3.4 |
PV noted that: |
|
|
|
|
·
Businesses
were viewing accessibility options as an add-on, and needed to make
accessibility considerations integral in the design process for products. ·
Interactive
TV was being used successfully in Finland to help carers and intermediaries
in their work. ·
New
technology was expensive to deliver to government’s target client groups. The
current approach was focused on the abilities of those people who needed the
services least – the educated middle class. ·
People
needed to be able to control their environment more easily, simple things
like large telephone keypads and large screens were obvious examples. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Issues |
|
|
|
3.5 |
PJ
noted that technology was only a means to an end. If there were definite
benefits from using technology in this context, was there an opportunity cost
of not being conversant with technology to consider? He asked whether that had emerged as a
particular issue. |
|
|
|
3.6 |
SK
replied that there was lots of anecdotal evidence of the opportunity cost of
not being connected, but not much hard data existed in the form of
statistics. |
|
|
|
3.7 |
ER
observed that, in order to engage users, ICT had to be viewed on the basis of
the practical applications that could enhance people’s lives, rather than the
theoretical benefits of technology. This was agreed. |
|
|
|
3.8 |
GW observed that
incentives were needed for supplying solutions:- commercial arrangements had
to take exclusion issues into account irrespective of who provided the
service. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
Digital TV |
|
|
|
4.1 |
RS
referred to the Digital TV project on Carpenter’s estate in Stratford, which
had been extremely successful in building community cohesion, although
expensive to set up. He added that
the same technology that was used to tackle the digital divide could be used
to make social housing cheaper to run, eg monitoring electricity and water
supply remotely. Newham was using technology to help old people stay in their
own homes rather than going into care. |
|
|
|
4.2 |
SK
noted that people were more likely to spend money on services via TV because
they used it a lot, rather than paying for internet access through the phone
bill. |
|
|
|
4.3 |
PV
cited the example of carers using interactive TV in Finland and giving the
people they looked after the opportunity to use it themselves. |
|
|
|
4.4 |
PE
noted that digital TV was not, as yet, a user-friendly tool. EF agreed that it was better at
broadcasting information and was not an effective two-way medium and added
that using digital TV did not give people the kind of skills they needed to
re-engage in the working community.
NG felt that any kind of engagement, even for “unpurposeful” activities, was better
than disinterest because there was a hook to build on. |
|
|
|
4.5 |
PJ
observed that there were two levels of engagement – one was to use ICT to
deliver services in as user-friendly as way as possible, and the other was to
use it to enable people to do more complex tasks and increase their economic
capital. Would over-intuitive access
mechanisms allow people to bypass the new skill-sets that would otherwise
help them? |
|
|
|
4.6 |
EF
replied that this depended on whether ICT was being used to try and tackle
the underlying causes of exclusion or simply to ameliorate the symptoms. |
|
|
|
4.7 |
It
was agreed that the way ICT was deployed could vary depending on the user
group. For young people who needed to
be engaged in the workforce, developing new skill-sets was important. For older
people who just wanted access to services, easy access mechanisms such as
digital TV were more appropriate. |
|
|
|
4.8 |
RS
noted that the community TV programme had been successful not so much by
developing skills but by creating community cohesion where there was none
before, which was an equally valid objective in terms of tackling social
exclusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
Identifying gaps, overlaps and barriers to
inclusion |
|
|
|
5.1 |
PJ
asked whether the group could identify particular areas or gaps that cried
out for better government
coordination to addressing aspects of the e-inclusion agenda. |
|
|
|
5.2 |
PV replied that departmental budgeting structures
were the biggest obstacle to solving problems that crossed organisational
boundaries. GW observed that local Government had
to address this problem all the time so their perspective would be
useful. NP agreed and suggested that
the group might usefully examine those areas that already had joined up
budgets and illustrate the benefits that had been achieved, as exemplars. |
|
|
|
5.3 |
PV
noted that whilst the policy agendas were clear, the means to implement them
were as yet undefined and must be clarified or money would be wasted. |
|
|
|
5.4 |
NN
identified additional barriers, such as performance measurement techniques,
that discouraged information sharing across different bodies such as health
and social care. Greater incentives
were needed to break down those barriers, retain focus on the user and
encourage councils and health bodies to work more closely together, for
instance by coordinating targeting and performance measures more closely. |
|
|
|
5.5 |
SK
noted that business failed to take into account the cost of losing staff
unnecessarily from ill health and the good business sense and all-round
benefits to state and citizen alike of keeping people economically active for
as long as possible. The focus needed shifting accordingly. |
|
|
|
5.6 |
NG
referred to the issues slide and reinforced the factors of mistrust and
disinterest. Recent reports had shown
the 38% of people did not feel they got any benefit from the internet. This was a big barrier and it was
important to understand why people felt this way. |
|
|
|
5.7 |
SK
referred to the DoH ICES (Integrated Community Equipment Services) project
and the difficulties in providing integrated services. Putting in PCs was not enough, there were
maintenance issues and a whole range of intermediaries had to be informed and
trained. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.8 |
Quality of Experience |
|
|
|
a |
SK
noted that people had very low expectations of ICT, but once they started
using the technology, those barriers tended to dissolve. IS agreed and noted that the Cybrarian
Project was doing good work in this area. |
|
|
|
b |
EF
observed that a lot was due to the quality of experience when using the
internet. The broadband internet experience
was completely different to dial-up. |
|
|
|
c |
NG
agreed that quality of experience was vital but this extended to
services. Poor online service, for
instance from a company who supplied goods late or had poor follow-up would
discourage users for ever. |
|
|
|
d |
PJ
asked how the OeE was working to build trust and confidence. ER observed that their work was focused on
participation in the democratic process and uptake of government services and
the issue of trust related to developing public confidence in the system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.9 |
Education &
e-Learning |
|
|
|
a |
SK
noted that the main government agenda was around e-learning, but education
was the one area that excluded groups were most distanced from. There was a disjoint in the agenda. |
|
|
|
b |
NP noted that, despite
this, education was one key sector that had truly realised the business
relevance of ICT and the benefits it could bring in raising standards. That was not to say that other areas could
not benefit so well, but that the evidence was clear in the education sector
and attention was focused accordingly. |
|
|
|
c |
PJ
noted that the e-Learning agenda was being addressed in its own right. RS agreed that there was already a great
deal happening in that area. However,
once people were over employable age, most learning initiatives vanished from
the agenda because they were targeted at giving people skills for work. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
Chairman’s Summary |
|
|
|
6.1 |
PJ
summarised the discussion. Members
had suggested additional inclusions in the map but had not proposed radical
changes so the basic structure would be used to develop the work
further. He identified the
distinctions the group had made between developing human capital through
e-skills and benefiting the citizen through improved access to the
e-Society. Barriers involved lack of
awareness, culture, demographics, price, accessibility, health,
user-friendliness of devices and social cohesion and these barriers applied
irrespective of whether services were supplied directly or via mediators.
People needed incentives to use one medium rather than another, and it was
harder to build a business case from the demand side than from the supply
side. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
Defining Group Objectives |
|
|
|
7.1 |
NP
asked what contribution the group was planning to make on a policy level. |
|
|
|
7.2 |
PJ
replied that the group had initially been asked to look at the social
exclusion agenda by two MPs with very different perspectives. It was agreed that the work must start by
looking at the social exclusion environment holistically, identifying the
different agendas and establishing whether there were gaps and whether issues
were emerging that needed addressing in a policy context. The initial work to
identify the different agendas was now in front of them in the form of a
conceptual map, which identified some of the barriers to inclusion and some
key issues. |
|
|
|
7.3 |
Now
the social exclusion landscape had been established, the group could use this
baseline as a starting point to identify overlaps and gaps in the
government’s e-exclusion agenda and to highlight any key policy issues that
were emerging as a result. |
|
|
|
7.4 |
NP
reported that the Digital Inclusion Panel had just been announced and
suggested that the group could identify ways of complementing their
work. He suggested that they approach
the panel to establish how they could be most helpful. This was agreed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
Next
Steps |
|
|
|
8.1 |
PJ
suggested that the next step should be to present the cognitive maps in a
narrative form. |
|
|
|
8.2 |
NP
asked what the objective of the document would be, and its intended
audience. PJ replied that the first
destination for this output should be the proposed Digital Inclusion Panel:
an overview of the current situation and some suggestions as to policy
priority areas might help them set their own agenda. |
|
|
|
8.4 |
EF
noted that the main issue that emerged very strongly from the research
material she had looked at was the urgent need for Government to take a more
cohesive approach to social exclusion agenda, based on the enormous number of
initiatives, papers, reports, programmes and projects, the agencies,
departments and organisations involved.
It was agreed that the primary action for the group should be to help
government simplify and co-ordinate its approach. |
|
|
|
8.5 |
EF
added that from the corporate perspective, it was important to identify
clearly how ICT could help address social exclusion. This would be a useful area for the group
to focus on in more depth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
ACTIONS |
|
|
|
9.1 |
PV
to ask Norwich Union about their experiences of consumer selling over the internet. |
PV |
|
|
9.2 |
EF
to liaise with ER regarding the Trust Charter. |
EF |
|
|
9.3 |
PV
to speak to Dave Waltho at EDS to follow up his activity there. |
PV |
|
|
9.4 |
RS
agreed to forward information on Carpenters Connect |
RS |
|
|
9.5 |
EF
agreed to investigate the use of Digital TV via Jason Berg at Action
Knowsley, Jamie Bend and James Crabtree. |
EF |
|
|
9.6 |
PJ/
EF to establish whether the Digital Inclusion Panel has set out its agenda. |
PJ/EF |
|
|
9.7 |
PV
agreed to forward a copy of the Real Time Club report to PJ |
PV |
|
|
9.8 |
EF
and SK to liaise regarding Citizens Online list of initiatives. |
EF/SK |
|
|
9.9 |
EF
agreed to include suggested additions to the slides, add a commentary and
circulate them together with the minutes and the reference list. |
EF |
|
|
|
|
|
Attendance
F name
|
Surname |
Organisation |
Email |
|
|
Paul |
Jackson |
CIPFA |
|
|
|
Peter |
Eckersley |
CIPFA |
|
|
|
Emma |
Fryer |
EURIM |
|
|
|
Nigel |
De Noronha |
Audit Commission |
|
|
|
Nig |
Greenaway |
Fujitsu Services |
|
|
|
Paul |
Johnson |
ITNET |
|
|
|
Shuna |
Kennedy |
AbilityNet |
|
|
|
Nick |
Penston |
CISCO |
|
|
|
Elspeth |
Rainbow |
OeE |
|
|
|
Lord |
Renwick |
EURIM |
|
|
|
Wanda |
Serafin |
OeE |
|
|
|
Rick |
Smith |
|
|
|
|
Philip |
Virgo |
EURIM |
|
|
|
Geraint |
Williams |
BT |
|
Apologies
|
William |
Barker |
OeE |
|
|
|
Demelza |
Birch |
ODPM |
|
|
|
John |
Fisher |
Citizens Online |
|
|
|
Prof Paul |
Foley |
De Montfort
Team |
|
|
|
Julie |
Howell |
RNIB |
|
|
|
Rosalyn |
Hunt |
De Montfort Team |
|
|
|
Hinna |
Jawaid |
ODPM/SEU |
|
|
|
Ian |
Johnson |
OeE |
|
|
|
Ian |
Kearns |
IPPR |
|
|
|
Arlene |
McCarthy |
MEP |
|
|
|
Margaret |
Moran |
MP |
|
|
|
Henryk |
Trzebiatowski |
Royal Mail |
|
Perspectives
Represented at the meeting
|
|
AbilityNet (SK): a charity to help give people access to ICT, working with
people from all exclusion environments. |
|
Audit
Commission, (NN):
Priority to understand the inclusion agenda so they can evaluate Local
Governments next year in the context of ICT |
BT
(Education and Local Government), (GW):
Primary interestrs from the BT corporate responsibility perspectives
are education and digital divide and how they are becoming more closely
linked in terms of policy
|
CIPFA (PJ & PE): Developed an interest in social
exclusion via the disability agenda,
and what organisations need to do to comply with legislation such as
the DDA
|
Cisco (NP): from the public policy perspective
|
Consultant, RS: worked on both Wired up Communities and
Digital onLine, particular interest is how to drive up use.
|
EURIM (LR):
Background with Dyslexia Education Trust and others, here to get an
overview.
|
EURIM (PV): Primary objective to ensure technology is
fit for use by its intended clients
|
Fujitsu Services (NG): A systems architect across local and
central government e-services, concerned about building inclusive systems
|
ITNet, (PJ):
From the perspective of a provider of services to lots of local
authorities, to find out what we can do vis a vis the SE agenda.
|
|
OeE, (ER): Perspective of increasing online participation in the
democratic process. |
OeE, (WS), Central Strategy Unit, Interest in Digital
Exclusion Issues.
|