Knowledge Management: Document & Records Management

Dr. Vikas V. Gupta reports in an article entitled: Need of Document Management System (DMS) at:
http://www.articlecity.com/articles/computers_and_internet/article_621.shtml

"Estimates have been made calculating that a significantly large proportion (some say, more than 70%) of the documents owned by an enterprise are in digital format and might never be seen in hardcopy.

According to Gartner’s Editor in Chief James Lundy: Records management will become a top 10 issue for many CIOs in the coming year."

Pete's Points

From around 1986, when XT PCs first started their proliferation on to the desktops, they started to replace the pencil and the fountain pen as well as throwing most typing pools out of business. Typing pools were the place where people knew how many paper copies needed to be made of corporate documentation and where these had to be filed.

In Australia, the current "rule" in organisations which do NOT have an electronic records management system is, 'Read it, print it, file it!" Unfortunately most people have no idea what the "file it!" part of this rule means. They have never been trained in filing and generally have no idea that a filing system exists or if they do then they have very little idea on how to use it.

The risk of internal fraud, security vulnerability, lack of privacy protection is enhanced by this oversight by senior managers. Since the problem has been in situ for nearly 20 years, cleaning up the mess that has been left behind and/or re-educating the work force, is too expensive in many organisations. Thus, a risk managament approach has been adopted.

I would like to wish all of the organisations in which this is happening good luck with avoiding an "ENRON" like disaster.

For all those organisations which have purchased EDM systems, I would like to suggest that they educate their staff on what to do with them and start to change the 'way we do business around here' to reflect a new and more useful approach to records management.

PM urges states to cooperate

"Prime Minister John Howard has urged state and territory leaders to press ahead "in the national interest" to overcome federal-state differences affecting issues such as health, water conservation and child pornography." reports Reuters.

Pete's Points

What choice does he have? All the states and territories are controlled by Labor governments. What choice do they have? Not much if they want to be re-elected!

Gee, maybe that's the whole point!

Drug May Block Alzheimer's, Scientists Say

" Scientists said they had designed a drug that, at least in test tubes, stops the buildup of sticky proteins that kills brain cells in Alzheimer's patients." reports Reuters.

If this drug works when fully developed, so much for the adage of 'Use it or lose it!"

The more you learn . . . .

I have always been impressed by the fact that the more you learn the less you know.

When I was a very young child I knew everything. The older I get, the more I learn, the more I realise how pathetically ignorant I really am.

There is nothing wrong with ignorance, provided I do my best not to remain ignorant.

Asking questions and locating sources of information appear to be the way to get ahead. It is through interaction with others that my ability to navigate the seas of my ignorance is enhanced. Every person I communicate with adds value to my life and certainly adds value to what I have learnt.

The only thing wrong with blogging, is that you cannot guarantee that you are reaching people, nor can you get value for effort unless people respond to the posts and add their views to the mix, thus enhancing the interaction.

Submitting a blog to search engines enhances the chances but people really need to stop lurking and start interacting!

What the Federal Election result means for PS workers

"The CPSU will always seek to work constructively with the government of the day to represent and protect the interests of public servants. However our capacity to be effective is only as strong as our membership. If the Government does move against your pay, conditions and bargaining rights we will need a strong, organised and active membership. There has never been a more important time for public sector workers to protect themselves - and each other - by joining the CPSU." *

Pete's Points

It is interesting to note how swiftly the largest public service union has moved to shore up its membership numbers. Whether there is any validity in their argument about a strong membership being able to protect workers salaries and conditions is however moot.

With complete control of the Senate, as well as the House of Representatives, the government may not need to listen to the views of unions especially when a spokesman for the Liberal Party states that their post election polling results suggest that they now represent Australia's workers.

The government has already signalled more savings being required from within the Australian Public Service by increasing the so called 'productivity dividend' from 1% per annum to 1.25%. This is likely to mean a further cut of around $240 million across the country.

The amalgamation of six agencies into the new Department of Human Services will in all probability mean that some 'savings' will be found in avoiding "duplication" particularly among the more expensive management layers of the organisations. Since the members of the SES have always had a mutual protection society operating, albeit behind the scenes, it it the next layer of management that is most likely to be impacted.

The future within the next six months or so promises to be more than interesting.

*(Quoted from an editorial of the CPSU at: http://www.cpsu.org.au/site/editorial/1097817172_9691.html)

An unfortunate news headline

"Swan behind Latham '100 per cent' " is one headline on the ABC today. Given the past history of Mr. Swan and his lack of support for the current opposition leader a cynical person may well ask: "Where's the knife?"

Knowledge Work in the Information Age and Social Worker Resistance

Serendipity is a wonderful thing.

I was minding my own business the other day, re-reading an article about "Program Guidelines for Long-Distance Education Initiatives: Overcoming Faculty Resistance" in Aretê the Journal of the College of Social Work at the University of South Carolina (vol. 23, Winter 1999, No. 1 pp 11-21) when serendipity struck! From reading about one thing, my brain suddenly took me on a journey across space and time to something completely different and yet, probably related.

Faculty members in social work schools who are resistant to the introduction and use of distance education are not alone. Social workers in general (at least in my experience) seem to be quite resistant to the use of the new 'enabling' technologies that have emerged as we have left the industrial and post industrial eras behind and moved adventurously into the information and knowledge ages.

Social workers, as a group, are usually "early adopters" when it comes to things that can positively affect their interactions with each other and with their client groups. The concept of sharing rather than hoarding information, one of the fundamental underpinnings of knowledge management, is familiar and in constant use by most social workers. The social work 'ellipse' that 'defines' (at least in my experience) the way in which social workers adjust their physical space when having a group discussion emphasises the need to communicate freely without barriers. The emphasis which is placed on teamwork, sharing, openness, exploration of options and potential solutions to problems in social work are all elements of the new (or not so new) frameworks being explored and/or used in management today as part of the emerging knowledge management processes.

Yet when we look at the extent to which social workers are and have been adopting the uses of technology which deal with communities of interest, virtual communities, lobbying on line, social policy discussions on line, team rooms, message boards etc. we find a less than overwhelming enthusiasm and pick up rate. Why is this so?

One thought which has emerged (at least in my consciousness) is that it could have something to do with the internalised "rules" which people learn and adopt about interpersonal communications in general.

For example, we all know that communication is enhanced when it is face to face. We all know that the best part of communication lies in non verbal communication. We all know that the nature of the communication and the associated behaviours while one is communicating are governed by the context in which the communication is taking place. Thus you can say things at home that might be inappropriate in the work place, you can say things at the pub that would be most inappropriate when presenting a paper to a conference audience of your professional colleagues and so on.

There are also "rules" that inhibit communications. People may not feel comfortable about expressing an opinion in public that they would have no problem expressing in private. The 'rules' for a 'private' define the levels of trust and acceptance which are expected among a group of participants. The rules for 'public' are quite different.

There are 'rules' which govern the levels of trust and acceptance in business as well. Note how the use of the words "Brainstorming Session" can create a degree of freedom of expression which would otherwise be notably absent for the same group of workers in their communications outside the 'safety fence' created by those words.

What if, the 'rules' which govern communications in the medium of the Internet and Intranet, ie electronic, written and public, run counter to the 'rules' which we have learnt, adopted and are using? Are these old rules an impediment to using the new forms of communication which are becoming more and more de rigeur in the new knowledge community?

Do we have rules which govern these new forms of communication? Of course we do. We have the so called 'netiquette' which governs communications using e-mails. We have words which define anger in communications - FLAMING people. We have rules that determine that the use of symbols to represent ideas is a useful shorthand in this new medium so we have :-) or ;-) or J standing in for and so on. Interestingly enough these symbols are actually culturally defined, so that in Japan there may be different symbols being used instead of those referred to above.

Most people who are part of the baby boomer generation may not have come across these rules and may not be able to use them either in context or effectively. Many of the younger generation that has been growing up with the Internet does know how to use them, but maybe told that when they are at work or communicating with others (usually people senior to themselves and in a more powerful situation than they find themselves in) that this form of communication behaviour is unacceptable. They may be discouraged from using this form of communication in the work place and/or in communication with their professional colleagues lest they be though of as being less competent or professional and hence create difficulties for themselves in their career aspirations. Their behaviour in private may well be something else again, as they may well be participants in chat lines, instant communications with Internet 'buddies' or participants in non profession related forums.

My attempts at introducing members of the Australian Association of Social Work and social workers more broadly to communicate in public using the medium of a 'message board' or discussion data base attached to the ACT Branch Web Page of the Association proved less successful than might be expected given the subject matter. Thus the expected flurry of communications about social issues, governance of the association, continuous professional education, which could be enabled by this medium was being actively used only by a few. There may well be 'lurkers' - people who sit on the sidelines reading the contributions of others, but these people are invisible to the group which is conducting the communications in public.

What is even more interesting are the number of people who communicated about the content on the message board or the web page in personal emails with me directly and who indicate that they would prefer their communications to remain private in a one to one format. I have no difficulties with respecting their wishes, but it is their resistance to communicating in the open which I find fascinating.

Let me explore with you why this is so.

In the past, one of the forms of powerlessness experienced by the masses in society had to do with the absolute control of the media by those who were among the wealthy and powerful elite of society. While this power is now in fact more concentrated into the hands of even fewer people than has ever been the case in history, the countervailing force lies in the Internet.

Anyone can have a web site operational in a matter of minutes and at absolutely minimal cost if you know how. Thus anyone anywhere in the world can express his or her opinion about virtually anything and have it 'published' world wide. The recent spate of case law about the publication of MP3 music files without the payment of royalties to the artists, the furore over fascist right wing web sites, not to mention the variety of pornographic sites which abound on the Internet are all demonstrable proof, if any is needed, that the Internet is probably the most uncensored mode of communication which is possible in the world today.

Alvin Toffler in his "Third Wave" predicted that the use of the Internet would revolutionise the way in which politics was conducted around the world.

People would be able to write directly to their leaders, letter campaigns would be revolutionised in that the cost of mass communications would drop to almost zero. Today it is possible to get a petition signed by people around the world in their hundreds and thousands in a matter of days. It is possible to get people to take a single letter template, and turn that template into a citizen based letter campaign to politicians and the media. It is circulated over the Internet from ONE computer into the mail boxes of thousands of people by a simple process. One person send it to his friends with instructions on what to do with it. They are asked to send it to their friends and so on until the daisy chain created by this process leads to a geometric progression of input from many more people than the individual who started the campaign could possible ever get to know in his or her lifetime.

We can see the stirrings of this revolution already in the way that the Internet has enabled people to get behind the official propaganda machines in various trouble spots around the world, the way in which people who are trying to save an endangered species are communicating with potential political allies in countries around the world in the way that organisations like Amnesty International can bring the plight of prisoners of conscience to the attention of millions in minutes and with minimal cost.

Social workers could embrace this technology and by understanding its power and its ability to influence outcomes be in a position to make a greater contribution to reversing the impact of powerlessness than they have ever been able to do before. They could, for the first time quickly and effectively and at little cost in terms of time and money, muster the information that they have gained from working with client groups across an entire country, about the impact of social policies or bureaucratic guidelines on these client groups. The information could be prepared, collected, correlated and disseminated to politicians, the media, lobby groups, community agencies in an extremely short time frame with devastating impact.

Are we so locked into the ways of communication that we have enjoyed and used in the past that we are unable to embrace this new technological breakthrough? Are we suffering from a kind of 'stuckness', as envisaged in Milan Family Therapy? Do we value the old ways of doing things to such an extent that we would reject a different approach even though it could enable our clients to achieve the levels of empowerment that we have been trying to assist them towards for decades?

I can't answer this question. Only you can, by what you decide to do in the future.

As for me, I will continue to use the technology, I will make every effort I can to make it available to as many professional colleagues as I can and make myself available to help those that decide to use these opportunities through information, advice, coaching, indeed whatever it takes to help them take advantage of this new medium and include it among their professional practice skills.

FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES.

"Pakistan Passes Bill Approving Death for Honor Killings
By SALMAN MASOOD

Published: October 26, 2004

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Oct. 26 - Pakistani legislators in the lower house of Parliament, acting at the behest of President Pervez Musharraf, passed a measure today proposing the death penalty for the killings of women committed in the name of honor, a move that human rights advocates consider a first step toward progressive legislation in Pakistan.

Nonetheless, the bill met with strong criticism from opposition members and human rights advocates who said the proposal was weak and would prove to be ineffective.

"It is an eyewash and an offense against the civil society," an opposition member of Parliament, Sherry Rehman, said.

Each year, hundreds of Pakistani women are killed by relatives acting in the name of honor, on the ground that the woman's behavior in some way has impugned the family's reputation. The women include those believed to have committed adultery and those who marry without the family's consent.

Many of those killings go unreported, or, if reported, are not investigated. The killings are rampant in rural areas of the country, which have high rates of poverty and illiteracy and continue to be dominated by feudal landlords.

In the southern province of Sindh, under a centuries-old tribal custom known as karo kari, family or tribal members kill men and women even if they only come under suspicion of having had illicit sexual relations.

"We must have the courage to redefine the word 'honor' and for effective implementation of this law," Nilofer Bakhtiar, an adviser to Prime Minister Shaukad Aziz, said in Parliament after the bill was passed despite a boycott by opposition parties.

The bill proposes the death sentence for the most extreme cases of "honor killings" and prison terms from seven years to life in others.

Ms. Bakhtiar said that in 2003, as many as 1,261 women were killed across the country in the name of honor and other such customs, the state-run news media reported.

"This tale of horror and tears must come to an end now, and we should have the courage to go for it," Ms. Bakhtiar said.

The bill is a result of the personal efforts of President Musharraf, who has repeatedly called for such a law. In a speech in May, Mr. Musharraf stressed the need for a law banning honor killings, saying that "it would lend more strength to Pakistan's efforts to do away with this intolerable practice."

While rights advocates commend the initiative and resolve shown by President Musharraf, they question the effectiveness of the measure passed today. The activists and liberal opposition parties also criticize the continued existence of other laws that treat women in a discriminatory manner.

Pakistan's last American-backed military ruler, Gen. Ziaul Haq, enacted the discriminatory laws in 1979 in an effort to Islamize the country. Critics say the laws equate rape with adultery and extend the requirement for four adult Muslim male witnesses in cases of adultery and in cases of rape as well.

In the case of honor killings, the laws allow the relatives to pardon the killers if they meet the relatives' compensation demands.

This loophole, critics say, has been exploited by perpetrators of such killings, who manage to escape punitive action after being pardoned by parents or relatives, who in most cases themselves instigate the murder in order to redeem the lost family honor.

Referring to the measure passed today, Ms. Rehman said the bill retained the problem of compromise "and allows the murderers to continue to be forgiven by the heirs of the victim,'' adding, "Ninety-eight percent of the murderers get acquitted."

Ms. Rehman, who presented a similar bill on behalf of the opposition Pakistan Peoples Party last year, went on: "The government bill also doesn't remove the discretionary power of the judges who allow such compromise.''

The bill now goes to the Senate, Parliament's upper house. If approved there, it will become law."

Pete's Points

Changing the law is one thing, enforcing it another.

No change will take place in Pakistan unless there are changes to the training and behaviour of law enforcement officers both within the police force and the judiciary and the attitude of the ordinary Pakistani man in the street also changes. A law of this kind will only have an impact on general community atitudes and behaviours if the underpinning rationale for the views about the rights of women change. Given the history of Pakistan and the way in which moral behaviour is taught in many of the more fundamentalist religious institutions within the country this is highly unlikely.

The cynic in me wonders whether Musharraf has insisted on legislation like this to convince the USA and indeed the rest of the world that his country is changing towards the more secular and democratic vision that the USA has for the Muslim world?

Let us not forget that Musharraf is a dictator who was brought to power through a military coup. His attempts at reform may be put in place during his rule and be enforced through might. The moment that he is deposed, however, more fundamentalist ideas about the "rightful place of women" are likely to return and the people of Pakistan will continue in the ways that they have maintained for over 1400 years.

It is interesting to note that Islam is only around 1400 years old. If we recall the level of fundamentalism that took place in the Christian Church in the 1400s - crusades, the Inquisition, and the like, then we might have a greater understanding of what is most likely taking place within the Muslim world. Let us just hope that the moderates will have more influence in that world than the moderates did in the Christian world of the 1400's.

If not, the world is likely to be in for a rough ride.

Confidentiality and Truth in Government

"The Australian Communications Authority (ACA) is conducting an inquiry into why silent phone numbers were called by both the Prime Minister's and Treasurer's automated, prerecorded election phone calls."

If a political party and its leadership is able to access confidential information, seemingly at will, how safe is our personal information from other prying eyes?

"Feed the Man Meat" - But what IS it?

"Seven out of every 10 butchers investigated by the NSW Food Authority were found to have wrongly marketed their products, including adding pork or mutton to mince labelled as 100 per cent beef." - reports the ABC News site.

Is this is an example of private enterprise being allowed to go feral?

No doubt in an attempt to maximise profits at the expense of consumers we are being fed whatever happens to be cheapest.

A similar story will be appearing on a TV Channel about a fish substitution racket.

Along side substitution rackets and news about genetically modified foods coming on to the market there is a reported increase in cancers of various kinds.

I wonder if there is any connection?

Rules of Thumb for Change Agents

I received the following comment to this blog entry:

"It is illegal to post, distort and misrepresent Herbert Shepard's copyrighted Rules of Thumb for Change Agents. This is my first warning to urge you to respect Herb's intellectual property as required by U.S., Australian and international laws. A. MartinPartner of the late Herbert Shepard"

I am afraid that prior to this post I was unaware of the existence of Mr Shephard or his work. All I had access to were words under the header "Rules of Thumb For Change Agents" in an A4 set of copied papers obtained some year ago at no doubt some seminar or talk.

I found the material absorbing, challenging and altogether useful.

So I am happy to acknowledge Mr Herbert Shepard's copyrighted "Rules of Thumb for Change Agents" even though I am ashamed to admit I have no idea wher it was published or whether the document I was given contains his materials or not. I assume that it does because of the note received.

I sincerely apologise for this oversight in my blog entry and if A Martin could please advise the relevant source document's location I would be delighted to publish the source as a set of footnotes or in any other fashion which the copyright requires . Equally I would be happy to delete or amend this entire blog entry if any of my coments in any way misuses any content from his documentation.

The paper from which I obtained the headings and any other information used were part of a training course long ago where the author and ownership were not mentioned.

So henceforth let it be known that no disrespect for the late Herbert Shepard is or was intended and I am delighted to ba able to acknowledge both his work and his intellectual property and hope that my use of material through reference to the work will enable more people to be able to find and refer to any other material written by this same author.

With apologies PG

The following are not meant to be 'directions' for change agents. They are merely reflections on my past endeavours and commentary on what worked for me. If a reader finds this useful that's nice. If a reader uses the information to do it differently to suit their own personality and so avoid things that do not work for them - so much the better.

Rule 1: Stay Alive

Under no circumstances should you sacrifice yourself to a cause that you do not want to be your last!

This is of course not to suggest that you should not take a stand when this is required. The
risk should however be carefully evaluated and placed in context.

The best advice that I ever received was from a community development professor of mine (Bob Myers) in the early 1970s. When I came to him with one of the conundrums in which I found myself in his response was, at the time, very surprising. He said to me, "Peter go away and consider the following question: what is the absolute worst possible thing that can happen to you personally if you take the action you have proposed? When you have your answers, and there will be answers that are graduated from the very worst to something less traumatic, bring me the list and we will talk again." So being the obedient student I was at the time, I went off and did what I was told. I developed scenario after scenario in my mind, put it down on paper and then, with a shudder, I obtained another appointment and went back with my list. This time, Bob was even more surprising. He read the list, asked questions to ascertain that I had thought through the whole action set and then said, "Now go away again and this time, make a decision about whether or not you are prepared to accept the risk (in other words the consequences and the likelihood of occurrence - the two dimensions on which risk is measured and evaluated) which you have highlighted. Then come back and talk to me again."

Once again - off I went and eventually decided that I was prepared to accept the risks. When Bob and I met again he asked about what factors I had placed in the decision making mix and how I had evaluated things like the likelihood of occurrence and so on. When he was satisfied that I had thought things through - at least to my satisfaction, he then said, "Now that you are prepared to accept the risk, what do you propose to do to minimise the likelihood of its occurrence and/or what strategies do you have in place to deal with the consequences if they do happen?

I had to admit I was clueless at the time and so once again he sent me off to create what he defined as a 'risk management plan" I needed to find resources in the literature to help me understand what the heck he was talking about, but when I read about it the message was really clear - it was nothing less than a project plan with time frames, milestones, resource allocations etc.

Staying alive simply means:

• staying in touch with your purpose;
• using the skills, emotions, labels, positions, to your advantage rather than being used
  by them;
• not being trapped in other people's games;
• self actualisation (or turning yourself on or off rather than reacting to situations;
• choosing to view consequences and not just the motivating impulse to do something;
• not "going with the flow", but swimming across the current to get to your destination;
• living in multiple worlds at the same time, without being swallowed up by any;
• seeing dilemmas as opportunities for creativity and not as threats;
• greeting absurdity with laughter while trying to unscramble it;
• capturing the moment with a view to the future;
• seeing the environment or the 'big picture' through the eyes of your purpose.

For those living in Australia there is documentation from Standards Australia on the Risk Management Standards AS 4390 in which there is a complete blueprint for best practice in this field. I commend it to those who really want to become professional change agents, as it will serve them well.

Rule 2 - Start where the system is.

Social Workers have always practiced their craft in case work using a technique called - "Get to where your client is at." and of course another process called "Partialise the problem."

What is needed in the community development framework is to extend and extrapolate these case work techniques into the new milieu.

In short one should begin by diagnosing the system. Unfortunately systems do not like being 'diagnosed'. That said, starting where the client is at can be called an Empathy Rule.

To communicate effectively, the change agent needs to understand how the client sees him/herself, the situation and the culture of the system in which the client operates (i.e. the context or the environment). Similarly the client has a right to know all about how the change agent operates, sees him/herself and the framework within which the work is to be carried out.The only caution in using this rule is to continually reality test.

Analysis can be wrong and observations along the way need to be fed into a process called formative evaluation within which the worker continually updates impressions and assessments and re-adjusts the work and/or goals depending on the evaluation results. This provides a level of flexibility that facilitates the work and avoids or at least lessens the chances of unpleasant surprises.

Rule 3 - Don't build hills as you go

When you have chosen a direction to go in under no circumstances should you actively or inadvertently build resistance to what you are trying to do. One of the most obvious examples to avoid or mitigate is where the work involves getting support from one group and seriously alienating another group which is both influential or powerful.

Rule 4 - Don't argue when you can't win

This rule seems to be the 'bleeding obvious', but many people simply seem incapable of learning it. In the event that there is an argument or a point of view which is rejected by the people who have hired you - arguing that you are right and they are wrong will achieve nothing beyond the end of the work. A more useful technique is to try and uncover the reasons for the rejection of what you consider to be a common sense approach to something. Again Rule 2 comes into play here. Understanding the views perceptions etc of the client and/or other stakeholders is a wonderful way of testing and re-testing assumptions.

Rule 5 - Innovation requires a good idea, initiative and a few friends

Change agents by definition have to be pretty autonomous, self motivating and self actualising. This does NOT mean working alone. It means developing and maintaining a network of people that are part and parcel of the holistic process. Some people are resources of information, some are resources of skills, some are support structures, some are mirrors and devils advocate, some are people with ideas that are radically different from yours who enable a new paradigm to be seen. Without them the change agent is less powerful and less effective. Networking is an essential ingredient to getting things done.

What is even more useful is to get your network to meet and get to know each other and then 'leverage' the resulting outcomes from their interactions. In part this simply leverages the Hawthorne Effect.

Rule 6 - Look across silos

Most people work within operational and system based silos. Activities in the community are also usually compartmentalised - this is simply because people are given roles, duties, responsibilities, delegations (where appropriate) and so on. A change agent needs to look across silos and see the field rather than a single blade of grass.Perhaps a more telling example is to look at something as simply as acne. Treating the symptoms does nothing to really deal with the underlying causes. In the case of teenagers they are usually fortunate and grow out of the problem. Organisations, and communities rarely if ever grow out of the root causes that express themselves in the perceived problems. A change agent to be effective looks across silos and operational environments and tries to find inter-connectivities, confluences of interest, things in common etc so that the holistic picture which emerges from such a process is an enabler for potential solutions that would otherwise remain invisible.

Rule 7 - Paradigm shifting

One of the most interesting experiences which is taught by De Bono is paradigm shifting. It is a technique for seeing what is 'invisible' yet in plain sight. Social workers actually have several techniques which are useful in this context. One of them is called 're-framing'. It is where a particular direction of work is proving to be unsuccessful and so the social worker tries to get back to the beginning of the case and/or diagnosis and by deliberately blocking what is already known tries to find a different explanation of what is going on.

A more useful technique however is scenario planning. When contemplating an intervention I usually start by exploring different ways of looking at the presenting problem. It's a little like trying to figure out the combinations and permutations of a Rubik's Cube. At first the technique is really difficult to do. With practice it gets a little easier. What I try and do is to create a framework within which all of the known information fits and then come up with a solution. I record both the framework within which I have found the solution and the solution itself. Then I put this in a safe place and pretend that I have found nothing and start from scratch. I keep doing this until I run out of ideas, frameworks from within which I can analyse the problem and hence solutions. Then I bring all of the frameworks and the solutions to the table and explore them through reality testing, SWOT analysis and other techniques available for this kind of work and draw up a list of the pros and cons of the solutions and of their consequences. Then, having ascertained my preferred option and now being in possession of information which I can share with my client I seek to engage the client to review my 'facts' the analyses I have undertaken and look at the potential solutions with all of their risks clearly identified. Since the client is the person who is ultimately 'responsible' for the selection of the course of action to be taken the ownership is clear and my role as a change agent is clarified yet again. All people at one time or another get caught up in self destructive loops. Within the family counselling medium of social work the best example of this is in the Milan Family Therapy model. I will not bore the reader with a glib overview of this technique and process. Suffice it to say that it is systems based and so applicable to almost any type of human interaction types in virtually any setting. It contains notions like that of 'stuckness' where people who are actors in their own dramas find themselves repeating a solution to a problem which is simply not working and then blaming themselves for the negative outcomes on the grounds that it is their own ineffectiveness that results in the negative outcome. In short the solution is right but the individual applying it is wrong or doing it the wrong way. This analysis almost always creates an ineffective and pathologically dangerous situation which can be assisted with re-framing and paradigm shifts. Since we all live in communities within which these types of behaviour are endemic it is always useful to have a set of techniques for discovering and dealing with what one finds.

Rule 8 - Keep an optimistic bias

In the 1970s there was a popular bumper sticker along the lines of "S*^T happens". When you are a change agent this 'rule of thumb' seems inevitable. Murphy's Law, will be a companion most of the time. People stereotype each other, there are outlooks based on culture, religion, political perspective, what our parents and peers taught us, our own limited life experiences and so on. Each of these frameworks represent both a lens through which we view the world and a set of blinkers that only allow us to see what is out there through our biases. My reaction to the adversities which befall me and my projects and practice are based on the lessons learned by others over the eons, - things like "Laughter is the best medicine" Patch Williams knows what he is doing when he clowns around the hospitals of the USA. In short by laughing at adversity I manage to keep a my perspective and see the funny side of almost any disaster. This rule does not advocate ignoring the negatives and destructive forces. It's positive spin is for the change agent to look for and find the constructive forces which are often masked and suppressed in a problem oriented and envious culture. People have as great an innate capacity for joy as they do for resentment. Resentment causes them to overlook opportunities. Keeping an optimistic bias and sharing it is one of the best tools a change agent can have.

Working as a "Knowledge Worker" in the Information Age

The old adages: "It's not what you know, but who you know" and "High Tech, High Touch" could be the mottos of knowledge workers in the 21st Century.

Never before in the history of the world has both networking and interpersonal communication been potentially easier, broader, more wide-spread and paradoxically, more difficult.

The access to people and information in the information age is without parallel in history. The same technology which has enabled this to happen, has also reduced the time between communications from weeks to seconds. In short there is simply no officially available time within which to conduct the communications on which networking and interpersonal contacts depend. The time that people used to spend thinking and crafting their communications and interacting is now at a premium. While the volume of communications has expanded exponentially so too has, what I can only refer to as 'noise'. Noise, being communications whose content is usually less than useful and in many nstances banal and not useful at all.

Most of what appears in the journals, in public forums and in discussions describes new forms of work place organisation that assume solid support from the institution in which they form.

Coherent groups which used to be called "self interest" groups and are now re-badged and called "communities of interest" or "expert groups" or 'learning communities" or 'quality circles" or "virtual teams" or "communities of practice".

Groups which do receive official encouragement and institutional support are usually not only unsuccessful, but in many instances, actively resented by the participants who are often "selected" by their senior management colleagues to attend.

The resentment appears to be based on the fact that the individual has not self selected the people with whom he/she would like to communicate, this choice is made for him/her by management. Generally there is:

• no assessment about whether the person is the 'right person' for the discussion and/
  or topic under discussion;
• no attempt to undertake any ice breaker exercises when the groups first meet to try
  and ensure that there is a sufficient and necessary breakdown of the interpersonal
  barriers to communication; and
• no attempt to realise or rationalise the differing political agendas that each individual
  has been sent to present to the meeting by his/her administrative supervisor.

In short, the means by which these groups are set up and managed, presents a barrier to its success. This is generally not acknowledged by the management that keeps on setting up these groups, usually because they have read a little in the literature and skimmed the information, found a good idea and then without in depth knowledge about what they are doing, launched their next management 'fad'.

It is interesting to observe, by way of contrast, that those groups that self create and self moderate and do NOT include the management layer at all within their constructs, seem to do very well and achieve a lot. There is however a downside which is a period during which the original purpose of the gathering has been achieved and the group struggles to find a new 'raison d'étre' to continue because they value the interactions, the mutual upports and the 'tick tacking' discussions which add value to each person's understanding by leveraging the understanding and/or perceptions of the others in the group. Most often than not, this fails and the group engages in a process that is like 'swirling'. It disbands, members keep their contacts alive and when a new reason for meeting emerges then some of the original group reforms involving others in the group as their interests and/or expertise comes to bear.

The work which actually takes place behind the scenes to maintain contact and to keep supporting each other is intensive, hidden and generally not reported in any way within existing reporting structures or performance reporting tools. It can take up at least 1/3 of a working day. How it is factored into information lodged within tool suites that attempt to record work to funded projects is one of the most well kept secrets used by most staff.

The reports that these groups make to management, with their usually innovative and practical suggestions are probably the best form of intelligence the organisation could harvest. There is unfortunately serious resistance from the senior management layer to receiving and considering the information, because it is perceived as having come from what are described as 'feral' groups within the organisation. Cynics in the work place usually ascribe this reaction to senior managers being miffed that they cannot claim kudos from the work because they did not even know it was happening.There are companies around the world who reward and indeed fund 'feral' behaviour. One company for example has created the 'thief of the year' award. It is given the person who can find something in the public domain which he/she then leverages to substantially improve the corporate bottom line. The same company also funds its staff to go off line and develop a productive idea at full pay for a period of six months. If they succeed then they are rewarded and the company gets the benefit of their work. If they fail then they are sacked or at minimum placed into work situations where their independence is considerably constrained for an extended period. This usually puts the intrapreneur on his her mettle and forces a risk management approach to the innovation cycle before choosing to try out that idea and increases the pressure to succeed once the choice has been made.

The reality for most workers is that the many manifestations of organisational change - downsizing, outsourcing, merging, splitting, acquiring, partnering, and the constant redrawing of internal boundaries, responsibilities and organisational charts leads to situations in which it is increasingly difficult for workers to turn to established role based structures in their organisations when they need labour or information. It is in these conditions that workers leverage their own personal networks rather than relying on unstable and weakening organisation charts. Workers are empowered only if they are successful at creating and maintaining their own personal social networks. The work of networking really is 'invisible work' which is not accounted for in workflow diagrams or performance evaluations.

In the past, employees worked for relatively long periods in 'communities of practice' (Wenger, 1988) within which they built up expertise in the details of their jobs. "Research on communities of practice has documented a number of important characteristics of this style of work: workers operated within clearly defined organizational and social roles, they were highly familiar with one another and shared considerable social, cultural and organizational knowledge that served as a backdrop for work and interaction. Workers were generally, (but not always) co-located, making it possible to have frequent interpersonal communications that contributed to the creation of shared knowledge, and facilitated the smooth execution of work tasks." (Kraut et al., 1993; Whittaker et al., 1994; Nardi and Engeström, 1999) - Quoted in "It's Not What You Know, It's Who You Know: Work in the Information Age." Nardi, Bonnie A.; Whittaker, Steve; Schwarz, Heinrich 2001 www.firstmonday.dk

Recent management literature has documented that these working conditions are rapidly becoming obsolete. One of the consequences of these organisational and technical changes is that in many companies and organisations operations are conducted in an increasingly 'distributed' manner - i.e. where the workers, contractors, consultants, and important contacts can be distributed across the organisation and indeed the world. In this sort of environment, workers experience stresses such as:

• remembering who is in the network;
• knowing what people in the network are currently doing;
• where they are located;
• choices among the many forms of media means to communicate effectively with
  people;
• being mindful to 'keep in touch' with contacts who may prove useful in the near or
  distant future.

In contrast to the personal network view, the bulk of the management literature on work place organisation reflects a team based approach. This literature generically seems to assume that workers go about their business in teams with clearly defined and stable roles, functions and responsibilities. In much the same way, there is a further assumption that organisations have predictable, stable structures.

In listening to people in at least one large Commonwealth organisation both of these assumptions are invalid. Other researchers report similar viewpoints in many other bureaucracies, for example: Fisher and Fisher, 1998; Lloyd and Boyle 1998, Jarvenapaa and Leidner, 1999, Mark, Grudin and Poltrock, 1999.

In this brief overview what is being suggested is that management groups re-appraise their directions and consider whether their official structures are delivering the outcomes which were predicted and/or imagined and then explore whether the vitality of unleashing and supporting underground, feral or more 'neural' networks offer a better direction.

Bibliography:

D. Ancona and D. Caldwell , 1988. “Beyond Task and Maintenance,” Group and Organizational Studies, Volume 13, number 4, pp. 468-494.

L. Bishop, 1999. “Visible and Invisible Work: The Emerging Post-Industrial Employment Relation,” In: B. Nardi and Y. Engeström (guest editors). Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Volume 8, numbers 1-2 (special issue), pp. 115-126.

Y. Engeströrn and V. Escalante, 1996. “Mundane Tool or Object of Affection?: The Rise and Fall of the Postal Buddy,” In: B. Nardi (editor). Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human - Computer Interaction. Cambridge , Mass. : MIT Press, pp. 325 -373.

A. Epstein, 1961. “The Network and Urban Social Organization,” Rhodes - Livingstone Journal, Volume 29, pp. 29-62.

K. Fisher and M. Fisher, 1998. "The Distributed Mind: Achieving High Performance though the Collective Intelligence of Knowledge Work Teams." New York : American Management Association.

N. Friedkin, 1982. “Information Flow through Strong and Weak Ties in Intra-organizational Social Networks,” Social Networks, Volume 3, pp. 273-285.S.

Jarvenpaa and D. Leidner, 1998. “Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Volume 3, number 4 (June).

J. Lave and E. Wenger, 1991. "Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation." Cambridge , Eng : Cambridge University Press.

P. Lloyd and P. Boyle (editors), 1998. "Web-Weaving: Intranets, Extranets, Strategic Alliances." Oxford , Eng. : Butterworth-Heineman.

G. Mark, J. Grudin, and S. Poltrock, 1999. “Virtually Collocated Teams in the Workplace,” Proceedings, ECSCW ‘99 (6th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 12- 16 September 1999 , Copenhagen ), pp. 159-178, and at http://www.research.microsoft.com/research/coet/VirtualTeams/ECSCW99/paper.doc

B. Nardi, A. Kuchinsky, S. Whittaker, R. Leichner, and H. Schwarz, 1996. “Video-as-Data: Technical and Social Aspects of a Collaborative Multimedia Application,” Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Volume 4, number 1, PP. 73-100.

B. Nardi, and Y. Engeström, 1999. “A Web on the Wind: The Structure of Invisible Work,” In: B. Nardi and Y. Engeström (guest editors). Computer Supported Cooperative work, volume 8, numbers 1—2 (special issue), at http://www.best.com/~nardi/InvisibleW.html

E. Wenger, 1998. "Communities of Practice". Cambridge , Eng. : Cambridge University Press.

S. Whittaker and H. Schwarz, 1999. “Meetings of the Board: The Impact of Scheduling Medium on Long Term Group Coordination in Software Development,” Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Volume 8,pp. 175-205.

L. Wildeman, 1998. “Alliances and Networks: The Next Generation,” International Journal of Technology Management, Volume 15, numbers 1/2, pp. 96-108.

A. Wolfe, 1978. “The Rise of Network Thinking in Anthropology,” Social Networks, Volume 1, pp. 53-64.

Some Debates We Should Have

There are literally billions of people on the face of the globe whose very existence depends on having some form of remuneration with which they can purchase the necessary goods and services that enable them to stay alive.

It is thus essential that businesses which employ people should not only stay in business, but actually expand their domains so that their shareholders (where they exist) or their owners can continue to employ the staff they have and continue to return at least a break even situation for themselves, if not a profit.

The facts; that we live on a planet with finite resources; that are being used up at an increasingly faster rate and that with human population growth; we are adding more pollutants to the biosphere than ever before, is simply a "necessary" by product of this ‘development’. The fact that some of the ecosystems, without which we will be unable to survive at all, are being damaged in the process, is not something that has been seriously discussed in mainstream discussions until relatively recently.

At present we have multiple instances of situations in which what we are doing as the human race is actually counter-intuitive to our survival on one hand, but seemingly very logical from a completely different perspective – assuming that you accept the premises which underpin the arguments.

Let’s explore a few:

We have a reality around the developed world at least that there was a huge expansionary bubble of human beings which came into being at the end of the 2nd World War. We all know this group as the ‘baby boomers’. They are currently reaching retirement age and thus are about to leave the work force.

This has multiple consequences – some of which are:

1. overall they will lose a considerable amount of spending power by being on reduced or fixed incomes;
2. there is a likelihood of a vacuum of expertise and skills coming into being within organisations as groups of these people leave at a time;
3. the living and spending patterns of these people will change as their needs change, causing a ripple effect among goods and service providers;
4. their needs for medical and ancillary services will skyrocket as they age and their bodies are no longer as viable as they were in their youth;
5. the tax base will shrink as they leave the work force.

Assuming that this is likely to be the case, there is a need to invest heavily now in retaining the skills and the productive power of these people and to ensure their continuing involvement in the development and management of society, rather than permitting them the ‘luxury’ of settling into their retirement and enjoying the twilight years of their lives.

At present we see rhetoric which points in this direction, but very little action. We see greater emphasis on training up the young to fill the roles in a hurry. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this approach, if you accept the fact that training alone will be a substitute for seasoning, experience and judgement. However if you do not accept this premise then we may have a problem.

The decision makers of today are people that are "baby boomers", they have a conflict of interest in making decisions about things that will affect their life styles. If you were a politician; looking forward to the golden handshake of your retirement pension plan and contemplating what you could do with it now that you have ‘earned’ it, would you seriously abandon this and keep working in a high pressure and unforgiving and insecure working environment? I would suggest that most would not. Having worked hard all of your life; raised a family; deprived yourself of heaps of selfish ambitions and wishes – this is the time you would want to continue to work?

As many people as there are on this planet there will be at least that many answers to these questions.

What remains though are some conundrums.

The cities in which most Australians live are getting to be at least 100+ years old. The infrastructures on which they depend are getting older by the day and more expensive to both maintain and/or to renew. With a decreasing tax base and a decreasingly skilled labour force where are we going to find the money and the resources to do the work which will be required?

We are just beginning to see that the water supply around Australia is being stretched to the limit just to supply our needs today – what are we doing about the future?

We currently have policies for outsourcing many if not all of what used to be public utilities to private enterprise organisations. These organisations are not motivated or driven by any concern for the ‘public good’ they are driven solely by the profit motive and providing a return to their shareholders and/or owners.

As one example, there is no longer preventative maintenance on our electricity supplies merely a "risk management" approach to maintenance. In short, if the expected life of a component is a certain period of time then you use a "Just in Time" management approach and replace the component at the very time it is expected to fail. A good approach in theory, assuming that there is a 100% accuracy about your predictions. The situation in New Zealand recently where there were simultaneous failures of redundant systems which brought Auckland to its knees in minutes is merely one case in point where things can go drastically wrong. Another, is the sudden black-out of most of the eastern seaboard of the USA, right up to Canada, as integrated systems failed.

The consumers in these cases, simply had to cope. There was no mention of compensation and there was no discussion about how, as we become increasingly dependent on service providers, we actually manage to keep our lives going when their service delivery fails.

Perhaps this is a debate someone should start.

We have also seen the recent spate of corporate collapses many of which are related to personal greed, a lapse in audit controls, lack of adequate record keeping and generally a focus on the 'main chance' for personal profit by the CEO at the expense of shareholders or consumers.

The livelihoods and investments of many of the ageing generation are vested in such large corporations and they expect at least a sound level of due diligence from those who are in charge of the businesses in which they invest. The regulators and their powers need to be extended and the penalties for infringements need to reflect a Mikado principle - namely - "let the punishment fit the crime". If the individuals involved lost their personal fortunes completely to repay what they had misused, if they spent time in gaol and had their assets sequestered, to give as much restitution as possible, then I would feel comfortable about some level of equity having been applied.

There is really very little that I can do about this as an individual. However by voicing my concerns and providing an opportunity for public comment there is an opportunity to at least attempt to influence outcomes.

Then there is the issue of health care costs - but that's another story!

Musings on Education in the 21st Century in Australia.

We have been told by our government that the children in Australia need additional assistance with their education. New rules have been brought in to provide a greater mix of male to female teachers, there is increased spending on education, albeit within a large scale debate about the appropriateness of the targeting of this funding and the increasing use of the ‘user pays” principle that is putting some forms of education out of the reach of many people. At the same time all of the information from both the literature and from the practical hurly burly of life in the ‘real world” tells us that continuing professional development and education is the key to survival and adaptation in this new knowledge world that is far removed from the Industrial era that we have come through in the last 100 years.

I was visited by a proud father the other day who waxed lyrical about the inherent intelligence of his child. An inquisitive, courageous (it appears) and diligent child who explores the universes around himself with a confidence that seems to belie his mere 9 years of life. His proud father recalls how on a quiz night in their home town recently, his young son managed to get to the correct answers on two occasions by associating elements of life he had come across in his experience, adducing that the connections were right before blurting out the correct answer.

This same proud parent then went on to say how disappointed he is with the current education system within which his child is required to learn. On his own, with the supervision and encouragement of his parents, his son managed to acquire reading and mathematical skills at a very early age. These skills were NOT based on rote learning of maths tables or simply a result of functional exercises which set out problems to be solved. He seems to have acquired the skills by means of asking questions and trying to puzzle out the answers provided by using his intellect. His contortions with words and with figures and his athletic skills in manipulating the elements involved in his brain is what appears to have so beguiled his father.

When considering the ways in which we are taught, it is true that for the simple practical reasons which underpin class sizes and the ratio of teachers to students the reality of school life is that teachers short cut to the practical and so train out of many children their natural and inquisitive abilities to think and to explore the universe within the safety umbrella of an adult who can guide and mentor.

I wonder if this is but one of the places we are going wrong?

Mutual Obligations

“Mutual Obligation: Ethical and Social Implications”, is the name of Discussion Paper Number 23 August 2000 published by the Australia Institute and written by Pamela Kinnear.

She manages to summarise her conclusions very well in the executive summary of this document (pp v - vi) and I have reproduced extracts from this below to highlight her presentation as the start of this brief discussion stimulator.

The rhetoric of mutual obligation often uses ethical principles drawn from social contract theory. A close examination of this ethical tradition reveals that it does not apply to welfare programs that aim to help the society’s most disadvantaged. The modem contract theorist John Rawls, argues that individuals incur obligations only when two conditions apply:

1. society’s institutions must be just and
2. individuals must have freely accepted the benefits provided by society.

Are the circumstances that give rise to unemployment just?

Australia ’s system of economic management has relied on the creation of joblessness to sustain economic growth. In addition, policies to promote rapid economic restructuring have created structural unemployment in an endeavour to strengthen the economy as a whole.

If this is true, then it can be argued that the unemployed have made an involuntary sacrifice for the economic well being of employed people. The starting point for obligations to accrue is therefore not just.

Is acceptance of unemployment benefits a choice?

For people to incur obligations from accepting benefits they must exercise choice in the context of meaningful alternatives. In a modem economy subject to structural unemployment, for many people there is no alternative to accepting benefits. This is especially true for people with few skills and capacities, with disabilities or with circum stances in their lives that are disadvantageous or who suffer from discrimination in the labour market for one rea son or another.

The current government’s Mutual Obligation program thus fails the principle of fairness on both counts. Unemployed people are subject to a double penalty by society, they are denied the means of making a living and penalised for accepting support.

The ethical case for a social contract is further eroded, because only the least well off in society have obligations imposed upon them. Other recipients of government largesse do not. Witness for example the investment incentives to industry, payment to landowners to better care for the environment or the incentive payments to trainee doctors in the hope that they will then work in rural areas. These groups are not required to give something back to society, even though they are in a much better position to do so.

Fair welfare policy should acknowledge that the need for support arises from the failure of society to provide opportunities rather than the personal failings of recipients. It should also acknowledge that the rest of society has benefited from the misfortune of others and on this basis develop policies that reflect true mutuality.

One can find a considerable level of detail in Brian Cheer’s book “Welfare Bushed: Social Care in Rural Australia” especially in his chapters on In come Support and Housing (pp 109 - 129) that help explain, the policies of consecutive governments that have played such a central role in the creation of the current social and work environments in rural Australia.

Mr Cheers says that, “Australia’s income security system provide an impressive array of pensions, allowances and other benefits for people who are unable to earn basic income either permanently or because of temporary circumstances such as illness or unemployment.” He goes on to say that primarily these payments have been considered from within a framework where a wage earner has lost income and has not, until relatively recently dealt with what to do with people who are self employed and get into financial trouble as a result of events that are outside their span of control.

“From a rural perspective, Australia ’s income security system reflects urbo-centric, reactive, residualist and, in relation to primary industries, developmental policy frameworks.”

He goes on to describe the present discussions as ways to ‘remove these anomalies’. In essence he asserts that prior to 1993 Australia ’s mainstream income security provisions had two major limitations in relation to farmers and other low-income rural private entrepreneurs. Because of the net value of their assets, many were ineligible for assistance or received reduced payments even though their real income was low or in some instances negative income. Special ‘hardship provisions’ since 1994 have reorganised the way in which assets are considered and the provisions that deal with a requirement to seek full time employment as part of an activity test have been considerably ‘adjusted’ to deal with the situation that farmers find themselves in as they cannot abandon their land and seek work if they are to have any chance of restarting their rural businesses. Several disastrous attempts (e.g. Farm Household Support Scheme, Rural Adjustment Scheme) later it is fair to say that the attempts made sense from a point of view that looked rural industry restructuring, but were indefensible from a social justice point of view. On the one hand they discriminated against fanners com pared with unemployed wage earners while, on the other hand they discriminated in favour of farmers compared with other rural business people.

What is interesting about the current arrangements for rural Australians is the extent to which the notion of mutual obligation does not appear to feature heavily in them for farmers. Cheers, does not address the differences and the relative inequalities that appear as a result of this in his book. Nor are the issues canvassed in Kinnear’s study. What should impoverished farmers do?

The fact that they work more or less full time on their farms, to try and get their business back on the road, is this a form of mutual obligation? In the view of this author, they are contributing nothing ‘back” to society they are merely having a taxpayer subsidised time frame within which they can try and restore themselves to profitability. A similar situation is NOT available to people in the city or indeed in any other rural industry besides farming.

If you own a small business in rural Australia you are not assisted to try and reform your business. You are paid an allowance the terms and conditions of which require that you meet your mutual obligation requirements to an extent that precludes your focusing on restarting your business.

Yet, your business may very well have been affected by exactly the same flood or the same fire or the same drought, either directly in terms of destroying your premises and/or stock or by creating a situation in the area in which you work where the business is no longer viable simply because your customers have been negatively impacted.

Newly graduating doctors, are ‘bribed ‘to work in rural environments rather being told that in return for the support that the state has given to them for their education they have a mutual obligation to work in areas where there is a need for their services.

There is no similar incentive for people in other walks of life to go to rural communities and make a difference. Fairness and equity and social justice should not be selective and should not be based on notions that suggest that farmers are ‘different’ because they produce our food or because we do not want to be dependent on others for our food supply.

So what is the answer?

Garpet's View

For those people who really want to know, THIS is the view I can have by walking out of my door and heading off down the street. This little pond, takes around 1/2 an hour to circumnavigate and provides me with visual pleasure on each day of the year that I make the effort to walk around it's shores. Welcome to MY world!

Changes to Service Delivery for Human Services

John Howard has won the Federal elections in Australia. He was previously dubbed with the epithet of surviving a triple bypass in honour of his survival in the political wilderness before a recall to the highest office in the land.

This is Howard's fourth term in office (perhaps something deserving of a change to his being called the recipient of a quadruple bypass?).

Having also gained control of the Senate as well as the House of Representatives it is likely that all of the legislation that he has wanted to push through the parliament, that has previously been blocked in the upper house, will now be enacted and promulgated when the new senators take their seats in the middle of 2005. This may or may not augur well for Australia. Some of the legislation has been extremely controversial and perceived to be very pro big business and hostile to more socialist perspectives.

In an early insight into what may change in the world of work and business the Prime Minister has just announced the creation of a new "SUPER" ministry called the Department of Human Services. This will include 6 agencies providing services to Australian taxpayers. The agencies are: Centrelink (otherwise known as the Commonwealth Service Delivery Agency); Health Insurance Commission; Child Support Agency, Health Services Australia; Commonwealth Rehabilitation Services and Australian Hearing.

These agencies currently pay out something like A$80 billion per annum in one form of support or another. Thus, the new Minister, Joe Hockey will be graduating from his former post as Minister for Small Business and Tourism to a much larger 'business' responsibility.

This new department will be contained within the Finance portfolio and as such is likely to be appropriately financed, but also made more accountable for outcomes. This conclusion is arrived at from a number of things that the Prime Minister has stated in his announcement and in the selection of the Secretary for this new "Super" department.

Mr Howard said: "Immediate priorities will include improving the flow of clients from Centrelink to the Job Network; increasing the speed with which injured employees are referred for assessment, intervention and rehabilitation support; and further developing a client-focussed participation network across government agencies. The new Department will ensure that the development and delivery of government services is placed under strong ministerial control with clear lines of responsibility through the Secretary." He then appointed the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Patricia Scott as the new Secretary.

By placing these agencies under the Finance portfolio and by locating one of his own Department's senior staffers into the position of the Secretary, the Prime Minister may be signalling a crack down on the administration of these agencies. Certainly there is considerable effort being placed into ensuring that: "Existing boards will continue to provide advice to the Minister with the aim of establishing a single Advisory Board on Human Services by early next year."

There are also likely to be changes at the top among the current senior administrators in charge of the agencies that are being amalgamated. This is made clear in the following reference by the PM in his media release on the subject of Appointments of Secretaries: "A number of distinguished public servants are retiring or moving on to new positions; . . ."

One wonders what will become of the current crop of SES officers who have only recently been appointed to their new positions in a number of these agencies.

One can also speculate on whether there will be changes to corporate logos and names. Will there be new departmental structure requiring yet another re-organisation back into Divisions and Branches and Directorates? Will there be a bloody or bloodless integration of the staff members in the various agencies with a view to productivity savings? Will there be major additional expenditures required to change the current set of computer systems in the various agencies so that they can talk to each other?

Who knows?

At this point all that is clear is that there will be yet another major process of change in each of the agencies which is unlikely to be resolved before the end of 2005 and during this time, the much vaunted improvements of service delivery which are intended as the outcome of the changes, may not improve much.

One item that piques particular interest is the change in the description of the people who are entitled to the services which are being amalgamated. In the past 8 years there has been an emphasis on classifying these groups as 'customers' - the PMs recent announcement has labelled them as 'clients' once again.

Does this mean a 'back to the future' outcome in these organisations.

Interesting times ahead - that is for sure