I think the prior commitment to funding whatever came out of the process was the key. IBM is a *very* bureacratic organisation, more like a government department than a private company in alot of ways so if IBM could make it work government could too. Makes you wonder what would have happened if Rudd had committed a billion or so to the best ideas coming out of the 2020 Summit (or if someone does that in future).

You’ll be pleased to hear that the former UK environment secretary David Miliband (now Foreign Sec) used a much cheaper form of “innovation”. He asked for a notice board to be put in the reception of the Department building, where anyone could stick up ideas for change. This way he could in theory, read new ideas, every time he stepped into the building. He also used to, and continues to write a blog (which allows comments).

There were three problems with this of course. First is the accountability - why put something up when you don’t know whether it will get implemented. The Shell problem arguably addresses this. Second, you need to incentivise innovation throughout the organisation, and a noticeboard is but a drop in the ocean of doing this. Maybe the Shell design improves this a little bit but ultimately bureaucracies are incredibly good at stifling new ideas. Third, somehow you need to move beyond departments and out into schools, police stations, hospitals, because they are the front line. I wonder how shell does this - do people in oil rigs in the Caspian send in ideas?

But overall agreed - more innovation, using well-designed information systems would be good. I’ve often thought internal prediction markets within government could be a fun idea…until that is, the media found about it.

Where have “policy competitions ..been held in the Victorian public service” pls?