Innovative Local Gov Leaders

Comment

Comment by Andrew Krzmarzick on May 2, 2012 at 9:05am

3 great nuggets of wisdom from Jim Elliott in this blog post on "Motivation, Rewards and Leadership" - 

http://www.govloop.com/profiles/blogs/motivation-rewards-and-leader...

Comment by Steve Cottle on May 1, 2012 at 8:59am

Anyone from this group care to share examples of efforts to encourage more innovative thinking in city hall? http://www.govloop.com/profiles/blogs/mayor-s-around-the-country-ar...

Comment by Andrew Krzmarzick on April 16, 2012 at 8:46am

Not exactly a "local gov" model, but a key development in innovation:

http://www.govloop.com/profiles/blogs/michigan-s-innovation-fund-is...

Comment by Michael Lafreniere on March 19, 2012 at 4:03pm

And if it fits, maybe they should call it the "Potland" model. Oh, wait ...

Comment by Andrew Krzmarzick on March 19, 2012 at 3:51pm

@TheOtherAndrewK,

Too funny! Perhaps it is an Onion piece and I didn't read closely enough.

And if it is, I want the rights to Portland-a-Potty as the name for my new product. ;-)

Comment by Andrew K Kirk on March 19, 2012 at 3:27pm

@Andrew Krzmarzick,

Thanks for sharing. That article reads to me more like an Onion piece than an actual development. But, hey, if you can get $40K for a toilet innovation, more power to the city! 

Comment by Andrew Krzmarzick on March 19, 2012 at 10:17am

Here's an innovative local gov idea if ever I saw one - patenting and selling a unique design on a public toilet. Portland-a-Potty ;-)

http://www.govloop.com/profiles/blogs/a-toilet-that-symbolizes-inte...

Comment by Cindy Riordan on March 16, 2012 at 11:37am

Edward makes a great point.  I too have seen employees "work the system" so as to please management, but any improvement is on paper only.  We have to make sure our tracking systems are capable of handling extenuating circumstances - such as a batch of tickets being put on hold for good reason, because the dept has to deal with some other urgent matter.

There also seems to be a false notion that if 10 people complain about a problem it should get fixed faster than if 1 person complains about it.  In our customer service center, we will only put in 1 request for any given issue at a time.  Secondary callers can add their name to that request, but until the department says the job is done - we won't open another ticket.  Lots of open tickets just clogs the system and wastes the crew time.  We could end up sending crew B to a job site a couple hours after Crew A finished the work. And besides, just because a citizen lives in a somewhat apathetic neighborhood, should their street lights get fixed slower than an area where everyone is active about reporting?

I would love to see a CRM that uses some sort of intelligence when estimating completion dates.  If, under normal times, the Forestry Division can remove a downed tree limb in 24 hours then the citizen should be advised of that.  But if some other variable comes into play (like a huge wind storm) and that time has to be extended, would be great if the CRM could intelligently make that decision based on pre-set formulas about how many crews can remove how many limbs in a certain time period - and as the number of open requests grows, the alloted time increases as necessary.   Managing citizen expectations is half the battle when it comes to customer service.

Comment by GovLoop on March 16, 2012 at 8:32am

Edward - I like your idea on smart phones for volunteers or staff as force multipliers

Interesting point on incentives with requests.  Ideally it wouldn't just be increased number of reports without more resources.  In the ideal world, the increased number of reports could be solved in a couple ways - many more reports of same issue therefor giving focus on the priority issues...also would be great if you could leverage citizens/volunteers for low-level reports like the adopt-a-highway program

Good post by Paul - Does local government need to embrace the passion of amateurs?

http://www.govloop.com/profiles/blogs/local-governments-need-to-emb...

 

Comment by Edward S. McRoy on March 15, 2012 at 7:19pm

 

I'm personally not a big fan (so far) of citizen request or management systems as they are currently configured. A problem with them is that they may in some ways become too effective.  If the number of reports increases significantly but the resources (code officers, street crews, etc.), is static the result may well be slowed response times and frustrated citizens.  If perception is reality, why would a rational manager deliberately set their organization up for such a public relations pyrrhic victory?

 

Another involves what I like to call the "tail chasing the dog effect." Many of these systems include automatic tracking and performance measurement mechanisms.  They may even forward a case that is not closed within a set time frame up the management chain automatically.  From their perspective, administrators and elected leaders see these as positive features.  They are sold on the idea that this provides increased transparency, accountability and accessibility.  They are tantalized by the seemingly effortless performance measures and metrics they can acquire.

 

What administrators may fail to consider is that staff typically studies the management carefully. Staff usually wants to please upper management.  They quickly learn with laser like precision what brings a positive response and what is ignored. Staff can become so motivated to show good numbers that they will ignore other more objectively important needs.  Relatively low priority requests (the tail) receive a disproportionate response from the staff (the dog). Resource allocations can become increasingly more pavlovian and reflexive rather than deliberative.  Eventually it can become difficult to tell which end is doing the chasing. There can be much activity but little in the way of effective results.  The metrics meanwhile measure the rising cloud of dust from the increased activity as a sign of success rather than a bothersome obsurement of reality.    

 

Providing smart phones and/or tablets to existing field personnel or to trained volunteers however is a very different circumstance. These systems can be force multipliers dramatically increasing productivity.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page