Canadian Government Executive - Volume 24 - Issue 01

10 / Canadian Government Executive // January/February 2018 The Interview But I think the other thing that became very clear this year is we have a lot of feed- back loops. We have the public, we have parliament, not just opposition parties but in the federal system at least a dozen of- ficers of parliament who worked hard at telling us what we could have done better. We have the media, we have stakeholders, and increasingly a sort of open social me- dia forum. So all of those feedback loops, mostly focused on what we could have done better, are part of what I’d call a learning software of government. We con- tinually strive to be better, we fall down from time to time, and we learn from it. We deliberately try to do the lessons- learned exercises and try to fix things and correct and ensure that they’re less likely to happen in the future, and therefore this is this steady continuous improvement, which we need. Partly because public ex- pectations keep rising as technology shifts and public expectations rise. Q: Right, let’s drill down a bit on this theme of the implications of disruptive technology on public services. There has been lot’s of emphasis placed on the need to “ready government” for the next wave of technology. I think it’s fair to say we’re on the cusp of trans- formation in the way public ser- vices are delivered. I’m wondering if you can talk about how you see the federal government reacting to those disruptive technologies and how you think it’s going to shape public services in the future? Sure. The first thing I would say is it’s not the first time we’ve dealt with dramatic technological change, and governments have had to think through their laws, policies, regulations and social impacts on many other things. Whether it was the arrival of the automobile, the arrival of the telephone. In my lifetime and public service career, the arrival of the internet and what that did. All of those services, and things that have now moved to on- line platforms. That’s all happened since the late 1990’s. So technology continues to evolve. It has two impacts. I think, in your ques- tion, one is on the country. So the economy changes, industries change, the way jobs are created and destroyed change. Bank- ing doesn’t look like banking did ten years ago, and so on. And we have to then put public policy frameworks around that, which are up to date or even as much as possible looking forward. So there’s that constant renewal, and then the second one, very closely related, is government itself as a service provider and an employ- er. The largest institution in the country in our case, would want to capture and make the best use of emerging technolo- gies to deliver services. That was true of the internet, it was true of mobile phones, and the digitalization of many things will have an impact on service delivery. We have a shop in the federal govern- ment that is thinking through these things. From open data platforms by government departments to what’s going to happen to the banking industry when blockchain’s fully deployed. But as I said, a learning organization is always curious and reaching out and trying to get ahead and think about the next set of problems, which cabinets and parliaments are going to have to wrestle with. Q: Being open to innovation, the way you’re articulating the need here also requires a bit of a differ- ent view on managing risk. If we are to truly embrace innovation, we will need to view public service organizations as learning orga- nizations so that we understand that risk, failure and improve- ment are all part of innovation. How do you think our institutions can be more open to innovation and the risks that go along with that at a time of heightened public scrutiny and frankly, some cyni- cism? I think we will always operate in a public sector environment that is subject to all of that kind of scrutiny that comes with being at the center of democratic political contests. So the risk tolerance around pub- lic sector institutions is going to be lower than in the private sector. I think that’s an iron law. Because if you make mistakes, there are taxpayer’s dollars that people will say could have been used more ef- fectively, should have been used on some- thing else, and the consequences are all in the public space. You have to be prepared in the innovation space to fail and to learn from it. And I don’t think we will ever have the margins of a high tech start-up to do that. We’re not a high tech start-up, but that does not mean that we cannot inno- vate. As I said, we’ve been around for 150 years, and we expect to be around for an- other 150 years. Like the Bank of Montre- al, celebrating it’s 200th anniversary this year. Or IBM, which is over a century old. They’ve had to reinvent themselves sev- eral times over as the world has changed, and I think we’ll have to do the same. What we offer, I think, in addition to that culture of continuous improvement, is public service. It’s right in the name. We are essentially a values-driven organiza- tion, and I say that about my provincial, territorial, indigenous colleagues as well. Public sector is about serving the public and using public money. We have to move away from rules and process-driven orga- nizations to values-driven organizations and really put a reliance on that. Being the largest workforce in the coun- try in our case, but I share that with all of my provincial and territorial colleagues, blending generations as us baby boomers move off of the stage and we recruit the millennials. Taking the values, the experi- ence, the wisdom that older generations can impart, and the energy, creativity and innovation of some of the younger genera- tion and, if we can blend those well, then we’re going to do really well. Q: Interesting. I’ve heard you speak before emphasizing the concept of a “multi-generational workforce” as opposed to just focusing on the general attributes of boomers or millennials. The public services of this country cer- tainly have a complicated demo- graphic composition, so thinking about workforce expectations more thoughtfully will resonate with many readers of CGE. Maybe we can focus a bit now on that workforce renewal imperative of public services across the country. How can we ensure we are getting the best of the full “multi-gener-