I think the distinction is important, as even in these times of enlarged government roles, I believe the future does not lie in an artificial separation between government and citizens, but rather in government as an enabler for people to efficiently, compassionately, collectively create a better society.

For now, with social distancing likely to be part of the landscape for the foreseeable future, technologies for citizen engagement, over and above simple digital service delivery, are critical.

Moreover, if we consider the opportunities from this extraordinary crisis, perhaps the biggest one is to enhance or rebuild democracy, which I think most people would agree is broken in many countries around the world today.

Given my belief in the power in potential of CivicTech, I am proud to be a non-executive director of The Centre for Civic Innovation, founded by Amelia Loye, which supports citizens in bringing their ideas and energy to creating better communities and societies.

The Centre for Civic Innovation recently ran a compact virtual event CivicTech: Tech for Social Impact, featuring experts from World Bank, mySociety, and many of Australia’s leading CivicTech organizations, which I was honored to host.

Fabulous insights emerged from the event on the state of CivicTech globally, and what is required to make CivicTech impactful, effective, and sustainable.

Click on the image to see all the resources created from the event, including a full video of the event and video excerpts of all the featured speakers.

I will be writing more here about the vital role of civic technologies in shaping our future, as CivicTech is absolutely central to the massive opportunity for this pandemic to lead to positive shifts in society.

The topic was The Future of Government, so I provided a high-level frame on the forces dramatically shifting the role of government, and the opportunities to reshape government to transcend the government-citizen divide and catalyze resources to generate the sociel outcomes we desire far more efficiently and effectively.

My slides and an overview of my presentation can be found on my Future of Government keynote page.

One of the topics I touched on was the importance of agile legislation.

It is a truism that legislation is not keeping up with the pace of change in the world. Legislation is slow, and the world is moving increasingly fast.

The solution is less in making the legislative process faster, and more in making legislative agile and adaptable.

With some tweaking for context, the principles of the Agile Manifesto and Lean Startup provide a decent starting frame.

However the essence is that legislation must be seen not as something set in stone, but as an ongoing journey of adaptation.

As an example, the UAE RegLab, set up at the beginning of this year

“is designed to proactively anticipate and develop future legislation governing the use and applications of emerging technologies in the UAE in ways that maximise the benefits and minimise the risks. It aims to create projects that can be adopted by policy-makers, legislators and regulators worldwide.”

On the same lines, regulatory sandboxes have rapidly become commonplace around the world over the last few years. This has been driven notably by the rise of fintech, which has the potential to offer substantial value to consumers of finance services, yet is often not able to innovate effectively within long-established financial regulations.

One very nice example of regulatory innovation is New Zealand’s Better Rules initiative.

It is about re-imagining regulation as an open platform based on logic, decision models and rules – also known as ‘legislation as code’. We are reframing the regulatory design process using an end-to-end system design approach to enable regulation to be more easily implemented as part of NZ government’s digital services for citizens and businesses.

In particular legislation in the Better Rules model is designed to be “machine consumable” so it can be integrated into users’ systems, with benefits including tighter feedback loops to enable swift iteration and development.

The journey to agile legislation will be long and highly challenging, but for governments to remain relevant and useful in an era of extraordinary change, legislation needs to keep pace.

Image: Visual artist Frank Bonilla

The context for foresight in government

For governments to plan for the long-term future, they must first sustain their efforts at long-term thinking. Long-term thinking actually has a history of at least 100 years in national governance. In fact, an entire field has built up in that time devoted to helping organizations, both public and private, to forecast, plan, and prepare for the future.

Even before World War I, thinkers such as Thomas More, Marquis de Condorcet, Karl Marx, and H.G. Wells all promoted variations of future thinking. Exactly when and where these early forms of futures thought began to coalesce into futures studies and futurology is still debated. Even the definitions of industry terminology are still debated by futurists, such as horizon scanning versus environmental scanning. Futurists even debate the merits of different terms to name their field: futures studies versus strategic foresight versus foresight versus futurology versus anticipation versus la prospectiva. Even the term futurist is defined too broadly to be accepted as an industry standard.

The state of futures in government today

We want to help, in some small way, to bring clarity to these issues in the futures and foresight field. Earlier this year we began cataloging some of the organizations that use futures thought with a preference for those that favor multiple scenarios of the future over those attempting to predict a singular predictive future. We also decided to focus initially on those organizations that are currently active.

We eventually want to dig into the history of the field of futures and foresight, but for now our lists can be used as a resource for continuing activities, both ours and our readers. The research so far has been solely online with no interviews, surveys, or networking involved. As such, our research is far from a comprehensive reference but hopefully provides a useful starting point.

Government agencies using futures and foresight

Our first project is a list of government foresight agencies in alphabetical order by nation. We begin each nation’s section with a brief overview of how these methods have been applied in that country. We then provide details on the specific relevant agencies within each country. The list is still in development; we intend to develop it over time to become more extensive and detailed.

We have initially selected the countries that have the greatest activity either presently or historically. Within each nation, we have focused on central government and the highest echelon in which foresight is used. Although we have tended to avoided regional organizations, we have included the European Union since it is responsible for high level governance of its member states.

Some nations have maintained projects and even federal agencies for many years that focus on long-term planning and preparation. So far, we have included Australia, Canada, European Union, Finland, France, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and United States of America. The current foresight activities of Sweden, mentioned above, were not considered substantial enough to include them in our first round of government organizations. Their historic significance, however, will no doubt be considered as we continually add to the list.

If you know of a significant government agency globally that uses futures/ foresight with public information available on their activities, please contact us so we can consider them for inclusion in the list.

The group was the first to get a run-through of my new concept framework Vectors of Disruption, shown below, which I used to introduce and frame the rest of my presentation.

Click on the image for the full-size pdf

Some brief thoughts on the framework:

The first comment is that I – as many others – am not a fan of the word ‘disruption’, which has lost much of its meaning through misuse and overuse in recent years. However I cannot find a better word for what is meant here. I’m very open to other suggestions!

Overall the intent of the framework is to distinguish between the different layers that are driving disruption, from the underlying forces, through the high-impact developments and finally key structural shifts. These are often confused, making the mechanisms – or vectors – of disruption far harder to understand.

The framework is of course immensely simplified. There are many other elements that could have been included, such as demographics, however many of these will play out over a longer period.

Underlying Forces

The most common focus is on Information technologies, with past future exponential growth in Data, Processing, and Connectivity, which a long runway yet for these trends. Advancing Interface technologies are also critical in giving people far deeper engagement to information.

Technologies in other domains, including Materials, Health and Energy are also impacting not just these industries, but many others, including construction, infrastructure, manufacturing and transport.

Expectations are continuing to rise on every front. Societal expectations, notably of sustainability and accountability, seem to be shifting into higher gears. Customers are demanding powerful experiences and customization. Another important force is that of shifting Investor expectations, who not only expect consistent growth, but also scalability and constant renewal.

High-impact developments

Here we can catalog the array of technology buzzwords that soak through almost every business presentation you are likely to see this year, such as AI, Robotics, Big Data and VR. While these developments are hyped, they individually are likely to have a massive impact on business and society, and even more when they are combined. However there are also important non-technological developments, including Power to the individual and active Capital reallocation by investors.

Structural shifts

While it is bold to point to only two fundamental structural shifts in the economy, I believe they will be responsible for the majority of structural change in coming years.
Automation in manufacturing has already significantly played out, however we are really just at the beginning of the impact of automation – as the application of AI and robotics in a work context – on not just almost all job roles, but how organizations function.
Platforms are the fundamental mechanism underlying the network economy. Beyond the evident rise of marketplaces in transport, accommodation, work, and many other domains, platforms also encompass blockchain and crypto-currencies, open innovation structures, and new models of reintermediation.

Disruption

It is clear that these forces, developments and shifts mean that existing Business models are unlikely to be sustainable without changes, sometimes evolutionary, sometimes revolutionary. However we also need to focus on other domains of disruption, including Organizational structures, Urban structure, Education and the Role of Government. Perhaps most importantly there is potentially massive disruption to existing Social structures. Understanding and shaping this in positive directions – to the degree possible – is everyone’s responsibility.

Of course this framework only looks at the vectors and structure of disruption, not the responses or solutions. I will be creating other frameworks soon that focus on what we need to do to create successful outcomes in a disrupted world.

As always this framework is released as a Beta v1, not intended to be final, but a first attempt that will be refined over time if useful. So please let me know your comments, ideas, and constructive criticism so that can be incorporate into subsequent versions.

It was a very broad-ranging interview, however one of the topics I touched on was the concluding point of my keynote that afternoon, on governments as platforms.

I have written before about issues such as the role of crowdsourcing in government, how crowdfunding could shift the shape of taxation and government, how we can envisage the future of government as a solution enabler, and the value of a framework for the Transformation of Government.

As I have recently spent increasing time and attention on platform strategy, it has struck me that “government as platform” provides a clear and compelling vision for the future role of government.

The current view of government is of a set of institutions that take money from citizens in the form of taxes, and spend it to create social value. One of the most fundamental problems with this model is that governments are indubitably highly ineffective and inefficient at achieving the desired outcomes with the resources they have.

Governments should not be doing work that they do very poorly. They should be facilitators, enablers, catalysts, and orchestrators of value-creating interactions between citizens.

The starting point needs to be agreeing and understanding the social and economic outcomes we want, which can still happen through a political process that may not be dissimilar to current structures (though the shift to true participatory democracy is another important topic, to return to another day).

When we know what outcomes we want, we can design platforms that bring together participants to create those outcomes in the most efficient manner possible.

As a small example, HireUp enabling people with disability to find and work with their own support workers. The platform is able to enable the desired outcomes at substantially lower cost than any government body has been able to do. Moreover, since it enables people to find each other, it is far more likely to bring together people who will get on well with each other, rather than be randomly matched.

The idea of government of platform is by no means new. Tim O’Reilly has written and spoken about the idea at length, including an excellent book chapter on the topic. The UK government is currently discussing the topic, though largely from a narrower technological perspective.

Now that platforms models such as Uber, AirBnB, PayPal, Upwork, Tripadvisor, Lending Club and many others have not only helped people understand what platforms are, but also for us to develop far better principles for effective platform strategy, we are in a far better position to build not just the metaphor, but the reality, of government as platform.

The potential is exceptional.

Graham Kenny, President of Reinvent Australia, described the organisation as a collaborative initiative to create a conversation on a shared vision for the nation. The bottom line of its endeavors is to increase the quality of life for all Australians, by influencing government and business in how they work.

Kenny quoted Henry Mintzberg in a recent Harvard Business Review article, Rescuing Capitalism from Itself.

Kate Eriksson, Head of Innovation at PwC, described the landscape of the participants in creating a vision for the future of Australia, and noted that being polite is one of the biggest impediments to progress. The big questions are ‘What we can do? How can we do it?’

Oliver Freeman, Vice President of Reinvent Australia, talked about the crisis of parliamentary democracy, in which powerlessness is a recurring theme, resulting in a “manifestation of misalignment”. We need to realize James Surowiecki’s idea that collectlvely we are smarter than the elite few.

Michelle Fitzgerald, the newly appointed Chief Digital Officer of the City of Melbourne, spoke about using technology to reimagine our cities, to enable better human experience. The most important part is to co-create a vision for Melbourne as a smart city, with all stakeholders involved. Melbourne has many assets, including its open data platform, sensor on rubbish bins, and much more, but it needs to be ready for dramatic further change, including the impact of driverless cars.

Paul Schetler, CEO of the Australian government’s recently formed Digital Transformation Office, noted that the big difference between government and private sector is that government doesn’t participate in a market, they are sole providers of government services. There is an ethical imperative to provide the best possible services. We must do better. The costs of computing and storage have gone through the floor, completely changing the economics of service delivery. This opens up the opportunity to focus on service design.

Reinvent Australia seems like an excellent initiative, complementing existing efforts to form useful visions and catalyse action to build a better national future. I look forward to seeing what comes from the group.

It’s an excellent report, bringing together contributions from leading researchers from Australia and globally, looking at the exceptional challenges of the changing landscape of work, and some of the policy prescriptions that will help nations and their citizens to prosper.

One of the highlights of the report was an analysis of the likelihood of automation replacing jobs in Australia, adapting the methodology used by the Oxford Martin Institute in examining the risk of job losses in the US.

The Australian study looked at the likelihood of different job sectors being replaced by automation.

Source: CEDA

The report notes:

40 per cent of current jobs have a high probability (greater than 0.7) of being computerised or automated in the next 10 to 15 years. This is a lower figure than that for the US (50 per cent) – we believe due to smaller numbers of workers in the service sector – and is comparable to the UK.

The study went on to look at the geographical distribution of potential job losses, extending on the methodology of the original report.

The report notes that in fact physical labor and machinery operation have a high chance of being automated, meaning that in fact highly physical industries such as mining will significantly disrupted.

Regions with high dependence on mining (Western Australia and Queensland in particular) will suffer a bigger impact from automation and computerisation.

Within cities such as Sydney, shown above, the knowledge-intensive inner city will be least affected, while the edges of the city are likely to be more affected. The authors say:

These… simply underline many of the messages in the national data: The jobs that will remain will most likely be those in professional, technical and creative areas.

it is critically important to convey to policy makers the degree of potential impact of the automation of jobs. However digging deeper to look at specifically what kinds of jobs are at risk, and the regions and even suburbs that will be most affected, start to provide real insight into the policies and actions that need to happen now to mitigate risks and seize opportunities.

Source: OECD

It is fascinating to see what people value the most around the world. When we look at cultural differences between countries, the simple question of what people value show deep differences, and strong insights into national identity.


Australia is far and away the country that most values work-life balance. However Australian professionals work harder than in almost any other OECD country. Interestingly, New Zealand, along with Singapore, value work-life balance the least.

Those in the Netherlands, US, Ireland and UK most value life satisfaction, with this least valued in Finland and Canada.

Japanese most value safety, which is reflected in the safety of the country (earthquakes and nuclear reactors excepted). Other countries where safety is highly valued include Venezuala and Brazil, in this case because they often don’t have it.

Does this data resonate with you? Are you aligned with the desires of your compatriots?

While daytime TV isn’t an ideal form to discuss all of the ins and outs of big issues, we did start to discuss some of the advantages of driverless cars. Some of these are:

* Safety. Humans are highly fallible, as self-driving cars improve we can be confident they will in the (vast) majority of cases be safer than human drivers.

* Vehicle efficiency. Driverless cars can be continually operational and do not need to be tied to a single driver, meaning we can have far fewer vehicles.

* Fuel and road efficiency. Self-driving cars can be designed to be far more energy-efficient, and once there is a sufficient proportion of self-driving cars on the road, they can interact with each other to create optimal road efficiency, reducing traffic jams and travel time.

* Time and attention. Across major cities globally, average daily commute time is an hour or longer. This adds up to two weeks of waking time a year that is available for work, entertainment, or socializing.

* No drunk driving. Depending on your perspective, this creates far safer roads, or more opportunities to over-indulge.

* Free up parking spaces. Self-driving cars can drop people off and trundle off to somewhere convenient. The massive amount of parking in prime destinations can be freed up for better uses.

Of course there is not only upside. Beyond the technological, regulatory, and financial issues that need to be addressed to get driverless cars common on the roads, there will be a real impact on jobs as drivers transition to other work, as well as the reality that technology is vulnerable to compromise.

There is a very high degree of uncertainty on the pace of adoption of driverless cars, as it is driven by regulatory change. While four states in the US, UK and France are allowing driverless cars on the road for testing, suggesting that other countries could follow suit and the technology rapidly become widespread, that could easily change.

However the social and environmental benefits are compelling. Let’s make it happen.

One of the themes was Cities Reconfigured. The section began:

Urbanisation has proved to be a dominant global force, shaping both developed and developing countries. We know cities are both spreading out and become denser at their centres, but radical shifts are now reshaping the structure and shape of cities. The rise of flexible, remote and freelance work and shifts where and how people shop and socialise are significantly changing travel patterns. The widespread deployment of data sensors is providing real-time insights into environmental, traffic and infrastructure conditions, enabling rapid response and a deeply-needed increase in urban efficiency.

In highly summarized form, some of the most important shifts reshaping cities are:

Changing work
Work is becoming increasingly location-independent, with employees dividing their time between traditional offices, home, and co-working ‘third spaces’ that provide attractive collective work spaces far closer to home. Many more people will work independently or across a portfolio of activities, while many low-skilled service jobs will be replaced by new high-touch roles.

Shifting retail
As more purchasing of everything from fashion to groceries moves online the mid-tier of retail will shrink, leaving highly localized offerings and larger complexes that incorporate not just shopping and entertainment but also work and community centers.

Community at the heart
Always-on digital connection is, paradoxically, driving demand for real community and connection. Retailers, property developers and even banks are recognizing that they can only succeed if they support the drive for community, with local social networks supporting a shift from government to citizens in providing vital social support.

Networked transport
Car sharing, ride sharing, and new driver networks are providing lower cost and more efficient alternatives for travel, while driverless cars could transform how people move around. Collective public transport will increase in importance, but cities will vary enormously in their success at meeting demand for attractive, comfortable systems. However the context is that transport needs could be dramatically different from today.

Public data
The explosion of data available on everything from micro-traffic trends to air quality and even commuter moods – almost all shared publicly – will enable the design of government and commercial services that support efficient use of resources.

Environmental imperative
Well-designed dense urban living has a substantially lower net environmental impact than a more distributed population, however people will only want to live in cities if they are clean and beautiful. Thoughtful development and restructuring will shape urban environments.

Many people and organizations are acting with an implicit belief that cities will have similar shapes in the future that they have now.

However fundamental forces are reconfiguring the very nature and structure of how people live together in major urban centers, and there is a long way further for these forces to play outt.

Image credit: Twelvizm