Defining the optimal future state of a digital Aotearoa New Zealand.

Digital Economy & Digital Inclusion Ministerial Advisory Group – 21 August 2018
Optimal future
state consultation
Polis trial

What & Why
Defining the optimal future state of a
digital Aotearoa New Zealand.
Over a 1-week period in July 2018, the Digital Economy & Digital Inclusion Ministerial Advisory
Group sought feedback on statements aimed at defining the “optimal future state” of a digital
New Zealand.
Five statements (one from each of the five DEDIMAG subgroups) were put out for consultation
using the Polis online consultation tool. The statements concerned: digital technology sector
productivity; digital inclusion; connectivity; small & medium business; and adaptation.
The invitation to contribute (anonymously) was sent to the list of 303 DEDIMAG applicants, with up
to 90 participants contributing on each statement.

Objectives
1. Follow through on the promise to keep this group
involved.
2. Benefit from their contributions.
3. Trial the use of the Polis online consultation tool.

Polis interface
Participants vote
and add their views.
We started one “conversation” per
subgroup, with each conversation
headed with the subgroup’s optimal
future state vision and pre-
populated with up to 5
“statements”.
Participants had three options for
responding to the statements:
agree, disagree or pass. There is no
option to comment, meaning the
process avoids much of the
degenerative conversation often
found in online conversation.
They could then add their own
statements for others to vote on.
Conversation
topic
Statement for
participants to
vote on

Why Polis?
An online tool to help find consensus.
We first heard of Polis in Tim O’Reilly’s book WTF: What’s the future and why it’s up to us, where
he references the Taiwanese government’s successful use of Polis to engage society in “rational
discussion” - in that case discussing Taiwan’s taxi industry and introduction of Uber.
Our assessment of the Polis tool endorsed its utility for helping draw out consensus, albeit that we
decided to go ahead with reduced functionality (e.g. no demographic metadata questions) in
order to allow participants to take part anonymously.
The fact we weren’t collecting any personal data was also an important factor in obtaining speedy
permission to go ahead with the trial, with government IT otherwise hesitant about cloud security.

Feedback on the tool
Good levels of engagement, positive
feedback and some constructive criticism.
Participant numbers represented around one-third of those invited to take part. One participant
emailed to proactively offer feedback on the Polis tool, saying: “What a great way to get
feedback. Easy to do and interesting.” We then added a statement to this effect within Polis to
test whether others would agree - the statement was seen by 13 people, with none disagreeing,
46% agreeing and the remainder opting to pass.
It’s worth also noting that Government agencies have expressed interest in DEDIMAG’s trial of
Polis, with staff at DIA and the State Services Commission making enquiries.
Two pieces of constructive feedback were posted as statements in the tool: one participant
wanted a longer character limit for comments; and one noted that they would be able to “game”
the system by clearing their cookies.
We didn’t put either of these statements live but are including them here by way of feedback. On
the latter, we note that Polis is designed for large and informal (i.e. non binding) conversations
where there’s little incentive for participants to invest their time in voting multiple times.

Our assessment
Overall, we found the Polis tool to be
valuable.
We found the Polis tool’s simplicity, ease of engagement, and restrictions on adversarial
conversation made it a constructive way to solicit feedback. We also found that the reporting
provided significant insight into not just the opinions being shared, but also into how those
opinions reflected the overall feeling of the group participating.
We note that the phrasing of the conversation topic (in our case, an “optimal future state” vision)
is critical to the success of the consultation. We considered using a general question as our
conversation topic (e.g. “What does an optimal future state for digital inclusion look like in
Aotearoa New Zealand?”) and possible versions of an optimal future state vision as statements.
However, the tool’s limited character length for statements did not make this feasible. Another
way to deal with this is to have a robust initial statement, elicit a first round of feedback (over,
say, 24 hours), and then post an updated statement and repeat the process as necessary.
We also note that the tool is, as of now, exclusively online. We feel this was fine for the initial trial,
as it was carried out with a digitally-enabled audience, but if we were to use the tool for a wider
engagement process we would need to take steps to ensure accessibility for people who do not
have the same level of access or skills. For example, engagement kiosks at libraries where people
can physically assist people to participate.

Results
Interactive, realtime reporting, updated as
votes come in.
The next section of this report explores the outcomes of the Polis conversations, including our
feedback on the comments, and the changes we’ve made to our ‘optimal future state’ visions as a
result.
This is best read alongside the interactive reports in Polis (see here for a guide to interpreting the
data), which can be accessed in full via these links:
• Adaptation
• Digital technology sector productivity
• SMEs
• Connectivity
• Digital inclusion.

Optimal future state
Original version.
All New Zealand people, organisations and institutions have continuous adaptation embedded
within their culture and systems, and are able to constantly evolve and thrive in a rapidly
changing world.

Revised version.
All New Zealand people, organisations and institutions have continuous adaptation embedded
within their culture and systems, and are constantly evolving and thriving in a world of
accelerating change.

Response to feedback
Feedback Subgroup response
Perhaps we should say "...thriving in a world where
they are leading the rapid pace of evolution, not
simply responding to it."
We appreciate and endorse the idea of “leading” but
the purpose of this group is adaptation and
responding to disruption.
“It's not just embedded, it's part of our DNA where we
continuously learn, grow adapt and therefore building
resilience as a result.”
We feel that this sentiment is implicit in the original
statement.
Not specific enough of a statement. What does the
"embedding" of "continuous adaptation" mean? Sounds
like empty buzzwords.
We acknowledge the sentiment here. However we feel
that specificity is not what’s needed in an aspirational
statement. We are leaving it deliberately high level
and the specificity will come from the work that sits
under this.

Agree with the focus on thriving and empowering.
These statements need to allow freedom for people to
make their own choices.
We don’t feel there’s a limit on personal freedom in
the original statement.
"All New Zealanders are responsive and adaptive to
change”. Keep it simple. There's really no need for
long sentence that make little sense.
We feel that the specificity in the original statement is
stronger than the suggested alternative. We take on
board the point though and have amended the
original statement to include “in a world of
accelerating change”
Always remove passive voice. Not "and are able to" -
instead say "and are constantly evolving and thriving
in a rapidly changing world."
Taken on board.

Would rather it said continuous improvement than
adaptation as it hints at rework rather than progress.
Disagree.
All NZ individuals, communities & organisations
understand importance of adaptation & feel
empowered to respond to a changing world
We feel the original statement is stronger.
Multiple cultures - thrive adaptation. Active - "All New
Zealand people and organisations are thriving in a
rapidly evolving world."
We have taken this on board and switched to an
active voice.

Digital technology sector
productivity

Original version.
Aotearoa New Zealand’s diverse, inclusive and thriving tech sector is experiencing sustained
double-digit annual growth. Knowledge and productivity gains feed other industries. Tech
entrepreneurs and businesses are notably emerging from all segments of society, and have
access to the resources needed to thrive at all growth stages. There is abundant homegrown
talent, with strong networks and visibility.

Revised version.
double-digit annual growth. Tech sector knowledge and productivity gains are well integrated into
other industries. Homegrown talent and tech businesses have emerged from all segments of
society, and have access to the expertise, resources and capital needed to thrive.

Revised version.
double-digit annual growth. Tech sector knowledge and productivity gains are well integrated
into other industries. Homegrown talent and tech businesses have emerged from all segments of
society, and have access to the expertise, resources and capital needed to thrive.

I agree with the sentiment but think the statement
itself is a little bit fluffy and could be tightened up
from a copy writing perspective
We’ve endeavoured to take this on board and tighten
the language in the revised version of the statement.
Second sentence could be: Tech sector knowledge
and productivity gains are well integrated into other
industries.
We’ve taken this suggestion on board and have
adapted the statement accordingly.
I wonder if “tech entrepreneurs” is best term. It’s
vogue now, but you don’t need to be a TE or a
business to benefit from technology.
This has prompted us to rethink our use of the word
‘entrepreneur’, as entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial
activity are inherently included within ‘business’. We’ve
now dropped the reference to tech entrepreneurs.

Remember that Technology is a set of tools. We want
more people to be "expert" with these tools so that
new and old businesses can benefit.
We have taken this on board and have now added
specific reference to ‘expertise’.
Too many concepts, requires unpacking. The
statement in itself is not clear and concise.
We’ve sought to create a vision to aim towards as we
work up our recommendations on how to grow the
productivity of NZ’s digital technology sector. We
want it to point towards some of the levers we are
considering e.g. access to capital, capability building
etc.
“Sustained continuous growth”. Keep the language
simple.
We appreciate the point but we’ve decided to leave
the ‘sustained double digit annual growth’ ambition in
place. This is to keep our attention focused on looking
for the big opportunities to make big jumps in
productivity.

Need more than just homegrown talent - NZ needs to
be a place where people want to come to work
We take this point and we think that the addition of
the word “expertise” (see above) also helps address
this point. Highly skilled migrants (immigration regs +
attraction) are part of the picture of access to
expertise.

Original version.
That all SMEs are open minded learners and have sufficient basic digital skills to respond to new
technologies and changing customer needs; can identify those technologies most pertinent to
their business; and are able to continuously evolve and increase productivity in their business;
and that the productivity of SMEs across Aotearoa has improved, to the extent that New Zealand
rates in the top 10 of the World Economic Forum’s Networked Readiness Index for “business use
of ICT” (compared with 2016 ranking of 20th).

Revised version.
An Aotearoa where our diverse small, medium enterprises safely embrace the opportunity to learn
skills to respond to new digital technologies and changing customer needs.

Revised version.
An Aotearoa where our diverse small, medium enterprises safely embrace the opportunity to
learn skills to respond to new digital technologies and changing customer needs.

SMEs’ digital needs are not all the same.
We’ve changed our statement as the feedback has
helped us realise that we were focused too much on
the detail. Looking at the feedback we realised we
were trying to combine an optimal statement with
goals. We’ve now separated the two so that we have
a higher level optimal statement that will be
underpinned by measurements.
TOO LONG! AND VERY DRY.
Far too long a statement

Too long for a statement but intent is good.
See comment on previous slide. We’ve taken the
feedback on board and shifted the measurements out
of the optimal future state vision.
This is WAY too wordy. Even if the words remain the
same, they need to be broken into simple, short
sentences everyone can process.
Too long for a statement but intent is good.

Original version.
New Zealanders are always connected across networks. The roll outs of UFB & RBI have been
completed and gaps filled after community consultation. New Zealanders know what networks are
available to them because the National Digital Architecture is available visually and virtually.

Revised version.
New Zealanders have ubiquitous internet access that is able to meet their digital needs, wherever
they are.

Revised version.
New Zealanders have ubiquitous internet access that is able to meet their digital needs,
wherever they are.

Naming UFB and RBI is too specific and speaks to
short term goals, not overall strategy.
Agree – the original intention was to situate the
optimal future state in relation to current programmes
I am not sure that New Zealanders care what networks
are available, just that they have connectivity that
allows them to do what they want.
Agree
Acronyms can be avoided through referring to urban
and rural broadband rollouts
Agree

"New Zealanders have connection available where
they chose to live, learn, work, and play."
Agree
Businesses, communities & individuals have access to
the highest quality digital access services at prices
they can afford everywhere in NZ
Agree

Original version.
All of us have what we need to participate in, contribute to, and benefit from the digital world in
ways that work for us.

Revised version.
All of us have what we need to participate in, contribute to, and benefit from the digital world.

This message is belittling and offensive.
This is one of about five comments from the
consultation where people were not impressed with
the vision statement. For three of these comments,
about 10% of responders agreed with the comments
made, and over 50% disagreed. There will be an
opportunity for people to tell us a bit more about
“why” the vision did not sit well during wider
consultation on the Digital Inclusion Blueprint. (Two of
the comments mentioned above wanted more
concrete goals to aim for so outcomes could be
measured; this will be included in the Blueprint).
Digital Inclusion to me is creating a future where
everyone disabled, no qualification, economically
disadvantaged, rural are still included
Agree with this, and aimed for it to come across in the
vision. Specific groups of people will be mentioned in
more detail in the body of the digital inclusion
blueprint. Also important that everyone is included, so
will keep the vision itself more high-level.

Everyone in New Zealand has what they need to
participate in, contribute to, and benefit from the
digital world.
This suggests replacing “all of us” for “everyone in
New Zealand” and was one of a number of
suggestions for re-wording the beginning of the
vision. The vision will be revisited in the next two
months to get the words that resonate most. “In ways
that work for us” has been removed from the vision,
reflecting this suggestion.
Not just about needs, it's about ability to enable. It's no
good creating accessibility policies if orgs aren't given
skills to enable them.
Agree. This will be reflected in the draft digital
inclusion Blueprint content and thought about when
actions are developed.

Replace "in ways that work for us" with "in ways that
benefit current and future generations of New
Zealanders."
There were a number of comments about showing the
value for New Zealand and future generations and
making the vision less about individuals. Do not plan
to change at the moment, but suggest strengthening
how we talk about the benefit to NZ as a whole clearly
in Blueprint. Note that “in ways that work for us” has
been removed from updated vision.
Digital access and opportunities are a universal human
right.
We will ensure the work on digital inclusion is linked in
with current work on digital rights.

Thank you and stay tuned
Towards our optimal future states: what
happens next?
Thank you to everyone who took part in the temperature test of our optimal future state visions
& trial of the Polis tool.
It’s been very helpful to be able to call on you to challenge and help refine our thinking. We want
to keep you involved and will soon have a simple website where we can share progress.
By way of an interim update, just some of the issues we’ve been providing advice on to-date
include: marae connectivity; R&D tax credits; productivity commission Terms of Reference for the
inquiry into technological disruption and the future of work; government procurement of
innovation; definition and measurement of the digital technology sector; ICT uptake in SMEs; and
formation of the Digital Inclusion Blueprint.
Until our site is launched, please keep up-to-date via our meeting minutes or get in touch via our
MBIE support staff on digitalnz@mbie.govt.nz

Defining the optimal future state of a digital Aotearoa New Zealand.

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Defining the optimal future state of a digital Aotearoa New Zealand.

Similar a Defining the optimal future state of a digital Aotearoa New Zealand. (20)

Más de Rebecca Caroe

Más de Rebecca Caroe (20)

Último

Último (20)

Defining the optimal future state of a digital Aotearoa New Zealand.