Navigating the complexities of public service delivery: a response to the Tech Bros

Monzo cofounder and tech bro Tom Blomfield's recent comments on public service delivery have given me pause. For those who didn’t see his comments, here’s a reminder:

“I feel like with a small team and 2-3 years, proven tech founders could automate huge chunks of the government. I would sign up for a tour of duty (in the UK). It would need a lot of political aircover - I have no desire to fight a massive bureaucracy.”

Naivety or arrogance?

While the appeal of applying Silicon Valley's rapid innovation to government is understandable, Blomfield’s remarks reveal fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of public services.

Suggesting that these services can be overhauled within a two to three-year timeframe, akin to a digital bank or tech start-up, overlooks the complexities and societal responsibilities inherent in government operations. It’s common to see these kinds of take every so often – a lazy assertion that ‘private sector can do always do better’.

Public services grapple with multifaceted human needs and societal challenges that, in my view, resist simplistic technical solutions. Unlike private sector products tailored to specific market segments, public services must serve everyone—regardless of profitability or ease of access. They handle complex cases, support vulnerable people and balance competing public interests.

The stakes are higher, the challenges more nuanced, and the implications of failure far more significant.

Comparing the running of a digital bank like Monzo to managing public services reflects a common Silicon Valley fallacy. Customer transactions in a fintech app are not analogous to citizens' rights and entitlements safeguarded by our public institutions.

Market efficiency does not equate to the public good. Assuming technical solutions can replace the nuanced need for positive social outcomes is a profound oversimplification.

Public services cannot simply optimise for efficiency or profit. They must consider broader social impacts, requiring careful attention to equity and fairness. Automating a welfare application might streamline operations but could exclude those without access to digital technologies or less tech-savvy individuals. Democratic oversight and accountability are essential to ensure services remain accessible and fair.

Statutory obligations cannot be automated away either. Legal and regulatory frameworks exist to protect citizens' rights and ensure services are delivered fairly.

These frameworks require transparency, public consultation and are subject to judicial review. Ignoring these obligations in pursuit of mere efficiency also undermines the need for us to remain human centred in how we modernise our public services.

Proposing to overhaul public services within a two to three-year timeline neglects the scale and complexity of government operations too. It overlooks the necessity for consultation, compliance and impact assessments.

Implementing sweeping changes without these considerations risks failures that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations – not to mention the humiliation of very public failures and u-turns.

Public services deal with life-critical functions—healthcare, welfare, policing and national security — that require reliability and accountability not typically demanded of private sector products. A glitch in a social media app might cause inconvenience but an IT failure in an NHS Trust could have dire - even fatal, consequences. The margin for error is slim and the repercussions are profound.

Blomfield’s blend of technological solutionism and private sector bias demonstrates a misunderstanding of what public service truly entails and the complexities involved in delivering it effectively and equitably. While technology can play a role in modernising public services, it must be applied thoughtfully, respecting the unique aspects of how we get things done whether we’re in central or local government, the NHS, policing or elsewhere.

It's also crucial to recognise that public services operate within a different paradigm than private enterprises. They are accountable to the public, bound by legal obligations, and responsible for ensuring equitable access and outcomes.

Decisions are not solely driven by efficiency but must consider political feasibility, public acceptance and long-term impacts. As we know, political imperatives are often at the centre of our most ambitious transformation programmes.

Collaboration between technologists and public service professionals is essential – in fact, diverse, multi-disciplinary team; are, in my view, one of the keys to success in public service transformation. We whisper it but Silicon Valley is hardly renowned for its diversity. The term ‘tech bros’ is only partly tongue in cheek.

Public services must cater to diverse populations with varying needs, abilities and access levels. Digital solutions must be accessible to people with disabilities, language barriers, or lacking digital literacy. We also need to acknowledge that not everyone has access to online services.

Banks like Monzo don’t have to deal with customers who aren’t digitally literate or might have special educational needs. This requires adherence to accessibility standards and provision of alternative service channels to ensure no one is left behind.

As we all know governance structures in public services differ significantly from the private sector. Decision-making involves multiple stakeholders, including elected officials, civil servants, advocacy groups, and the public.

In the UK, policies undergo rigorous scrutiny to balance different interests and values. This deliberative process is essential for democratic legitimacy but no doubt would conflict with the rapid iteration cycles favoured in the tech industry.

Public services are accountable not just for outputs but for outcomes that align with societal goals such as reducing inequality, promoting public health and ensuring justice. These outcomes are complex and often require coordinated efforts across multiple departments and agencies. Technological solutions must be integrated within a broader strategy addressing systemic challenges.

Addressing Blomfield's comments requires acknowledging that while innovation and efficiency are valuable, they must be pursued within the context of the reality of public service. The potential for technology to enhance government services is significant but we must harness it thoughtfully.

Engaging stakeholders, piloting solutions, learning from feedback and scaling up carefully are not optional. Investing in the digital literacy of both the public and the workforce is crucial too.

Training programmes and support services can help bridge the digital divide and ensure technological advancements benefit all segments of society. Ultimately, transforming public services is not merely a technical challenge as Blomfield suggests but a social one too. It requires a commitment to public values, an understanding of governance complexities, and a collaborative approach that brings together diverse expertise. Simplistic solutions that overlook these factors are unlikely to succeed and may cause harm.

In reflecting on Blomfield's perspective, it's clear that importing private sector methodologies wholesale into the public sector is misguided. Instead, we should strive for a nuanced approach that recognises the strengths of both sectors.

By fostering partnerships we can co-create solutions that are both transformative and aligned with public service values and our desire for impact. I believe this collaborative approach can lead to sustainable transformations that deliver future fit public services that contribute to a more just and equitable society.