Thanks for highlighting the report and the approach - it really is an example of how agile state capacity can fix, change and deliver things. Test and learn as an approach is quite common over a number of public service areas, including in local government - the challenge has been how to grow it over time, and the capacity needed to move to new models while still managing the old. You might find this interesting, which is the Cabinet Office led approach to public sector reform, which is explicitly about test, learn and grow and has been working with local places on experiments
This is now being supplemented with an initial £100m for innovation in local government - not a lot and when local government is facing massive and existential challenges such as temporary accommodation costs - but it’s the beginning of a commitment, and a way of proving to e.g. treasury that this sort of thing can work and deliver real reform. https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-03-12/37802/
Good piece and not a criticism but I was waiting for the eureka moment. In fact, how UC was turned round came down to common sense, starting small, continually adjusting approach, (always with an eye on the policy goal) and basing roll out on people's ACTUAL FUCKING needs.
Aaaaaaargh!
It's what everyone else calls customer focused delivery.
So system designers said: "This is how people OUGHT to use the system - they should lead straightforward lives which are easy to code, rather than messy lives which are hard to code". Same with health and social care and banking. We're complex. Deal with it and stop pretending it's our fault.
Government procurement is surely part of the problem. Or, rather, fixing procurement is part of the solution so that agile developments are easier to procure. I was only part of a small one but the stage-by-stage, function-by-function financial and technical approvals were painful.
Much of this rings true - I was told that project meetings for the original UC system were frequently dominated by big company contract lawyers shouting down anyone they felt to be impinging on their turf.
But there have been several serious flaws in the 'digital' system, including an error correction system that silently overwrote existing journal entries, making reconciliation and audit excruciatingly difficult for advisers and bewildering for claimants. The digital system also ignored some bits of the universal credit regulations, which is difficult to fogrive.
There are always stories of how individual government projects changed their approach and successfully adopt an effective development strategy. And then they forget.
What Universal Credit doesn't do is support Parliament or press, thinktanks etc to hold the system to account. The statistics produced (later than previous systems) do not enable people to see what is going on, and critique it. It is part of the GDS way that the people supposed to hold Government to account are not users, and therefore should not be considered.
Meanwhile, UC is a digital panopticon prison that watches the poor.
Thanks for highlighting the report and the approach - it really is an example of how agile state capacity can fix, change and deliver things. Test and learn as an approach is quite common over a number of public service areas, including in local government - the challenge has been how to grow it over time, and the capacity needed to move to new models while still managing the old. You might find this interesting, which is the Cabinet Office led approach to public sector reform, which is explicitly about test, learn and grow and has been working with local places on experiments
https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Public%20Service%20Reform%20webinar%20slides%20-%20complete%20pack%20-%2023%20Jan%202024%20%281%29.pdf
This is now being supplemented with an initial £100m for innovation in local government - not a lot and when local government is facing massive and existential challenges such as temporary accommodation costs - but it’s the beginning of a commitment, and a way of proving to e.g. treasury that this sort of thing can work and deliver real reform. https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-03-12/37802/
Good piece and not a criticism but I was waiting for the eureka moment. In fact, how UC was turned round came down to common sense, starting small, continually adjusting approach, (always with an eye on the policy goal) and basing roll out on people's ACTUAL FUCKING needs.
Aaaaaaargh!
It's what everyone else calls customer focused delivery.
As you say, let's hope lessons have been learned.
So system designers said: "This is how people OUGHT to use the system - they should lead straightforward lives which are easy to code, rather than messy lives which are hard to code". Same with health and social care and banking. We're complex. Deal with it and stop pretending it's our fault.
Government procurement is surely part of the problem. Or, rather, fixing procurement is part of the solution so that agile developments are easier to procure. I was only part of a small one but the stage-by-stage, function-by-function financial and technical approvals were painful.
Much of this rings true - I was told that project meetings for the original UC system were frequently dominated by big company contract lawyers shouting down anyone they felt to be impinging on their turf.
But there have been several serious flaws in the 'digital' system, including an error correction system that silently overwrote existing journal entries, making reconciliation and audit excruciatingly difficult for advisers and bewildering for claimants. The digital system also ignored some bits of the universal credit regulations, which is difficult to fogrive.
More on this at:
https://cpag.org.uk/news/digital-universal-credit-system-breaches-principles-law-and-stops-claimants-accessing-support
There are always stories of how individual government projects changed their approach and successfully adopt an effective development strategy. And then they forget.
What Universal Credit doesn't do is support Parliament or press, thinktanks etc to hold the system to account. The statistics produced (later than previous systems) do not enable people to see what is going on, and critique it. It is part of the GDS way that the people supposed to hold Government to account are not users, and therefore should not be considered.
Meanwhile, UC is a digital panopticon prison that watches the poor.