Head-to-head

Tue, 28 Jul 2009

I can’t claim to be an expert on ‘systems thinking’ but I know (now) that many visitors to our site are passionate about the subject. They’re also none too keen on the Audit Commission.

My conclusions are based on the incredible surge in traffic in the past week due to three particular articles.

Back to 16 July - an opinion piece from John Seddon was published on the website and in the LGC magazine. The sentiments were clear from the headline: Cut the Audit Commission, not public services.

It prompted a reply on 20 July from David Walker, managing director, Communications and Public Reporting at the commission. Again the headline was a giveaway: By all means criticise us, but get your facts straight

His response was strong in personal terms. This was the first paragraph: ‘John Seddon, the prophet of ‘lean’, is an outsize critic of targets. And now he is seeking to make a living as the self appointed scourge of the Audit Commission’.

Later, Mr Walker wrote: ‘Mr Seddon is incontinent in his judgement’.

Within 48 hours, people - including Mr Seddon - had begun alerting other web users about the response and our user stats for Wednesday 22 July were a record.

Keen to highlight the growth in interest, I created a new article which included links to the original material. I had lit the blue touch paper and stood well back.

Whoosh! Traffic soared again and within three days that third article was the most-visited on LGC this year. Nor have we ever had the number of comments it generated.

Although many comments were about the tone of Mr Walker’s response, more importantly the debate grew into a discussion of systems thinking. So - where do we all go from here?

Readers' comments (7)

Bruce Levitan | 31-Jul-2009 10:17 am
Where do we go from here?

I think, as noted in the comments from the "Walker v Seddon - the debate goes on" article, it's to get John Seddon and David Walker together to debate the issue. BBC Today programme tried - John Seddon accepted, but David Walker refused!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2009 9:40 pm
Where to go next - LGC to commission a poll of local government managers on what should happen to the audit commission. Every manager i know thinks it should get out of service design and delivery issues, which it knows little about but forces its prescriptive views on councils. It should go back to checking on proper financial management, like auditors used to do.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Tim Brooks | 3-Aug-2009 10:44 pm
Where do we go indeed! It's a bit difficult to take a one sided discussion anywhere. Where has the Audit Commission gone - does it have no defence? Seddon for a while has been saying that the regime is deaf, and it would appear they are mute as well!
This debate can only be a debate if there are two sides. Currently there are considered and thoughtful points from systems thinkers and other sympathisers against absolutely nothing from the Audit Commission!
Surely there must be someone at the Audit Commission with a counter argument?

After all David Walker's bluster - and I guess he must be considered an official mouthpiece - where is the substance. Surely if Seddon's arguments are so weak and "religious" a good logical argument should all but finish him off! Or is Mr Walker's position like so many of the Commission's prescriptions - just empty packaging with no reason, method, or sense?
Just answer a few questions - why do you prescribe back offices? Why do you prescribe target setting? Why do you prescribe publishable service standards that no customer actually wants? Why do you say you are not prescriptive and then prescribe the way an organisation should be run right down to the type of telephony it should have, or the type of individual performance management that should be practiced?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 4-Aug-2009 1:00 pm
The LGC could follow up on all the offers made to the audit commission in the comments and step into the organisations to look at the difference the systems thinking method is making and report on the findings.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 4-Aug-2009 5:23 pm
Tim Brooks is right. The Audit Commission needs to respond meaningfully. It has a chairman, many commissioners, a chief executive and seven managing directors. LGC needs to find one of them who is prepared to enter into the debate and if that fails, to press the appropriate minister to respond to John Seddon's points. This issues are fundamental to the whole future of public services. Over to you, LGC.
Unsuitable or offensive?
David Griffiths | 4-Aug-2009 7:21 pm
What next? Offer John Seddon a regular column! It will help to compensate for the loss of Simon Caulkin's management column in the Observer.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Jon Harvey | 4-Sep-2009 3:31 pm
I would support what David Griffiths says - if the previous articles proved so popular - think what a regular column would do! I would add that this would beneficial so long as the broad church of system thinkers can continue to have their say as well. John Seddon is an impressive advocate of a different way of thinking about performance and results - but his is not the only way. Indeed, perhaps even the Audit Commission will rise to the challenge and engage in the debate also.

I would also be very interested to read what the leading politicians on all sides have to say about this matter. The Opposition are saying that they want to remove central / top down (target led) control - but given that they introduced the concept in the first place when they were last in power... can we trust them now? Moreover has the Government begun to hear these points - or do they still believe that the whole edifice and philosophy that 'command and control' thinking represents is still a good thing? And for the LibDems - Nick Clegg has set up a website to gather together ideas for improvement from the public services (http://www.nickclegg.com/2009/08/intheknow/) - is this evidence of a new way of thinking for them or just populist campaigning? I and other readers would be very interested to know - I think.

Oh - and why not hire Simon Caulkin as well - the Observer were daft enough to let him go - I am sure he could write a very useful column for you too!
Unsuitable or offensive?