Daniel Korski: This A levels and GCSEs exams crisis exposes government’s technology problem

This article was originally published in the Evening Standard on 18 August 2020.

Thousands of young people have realised that the phrase “computer says no” isn’t just a Little Britain joke; it’s real life in modern-day UK as a computer programme has taken over the role of exams and teachers, and determined their A-level (and likely their GCSE) results — with disastrous consequences for many. Their protests against government-by-algorithm has lead to a very human U-turn but it highlights the need for government to become much savvier about the use of modern technology in public services.

Since the computers that calculated economic models in the Treasury of the Fifties, the use of technology by government is nothing new. Indeed it’s hard to imagine most public services, from healthcare and welfare to counter-

terrorism and warfare, taking place if the computers crashed. In the last months, however, the UK has had a unique crash course in the misuses of new technology in public services rather than its benefits.

First there was the NHS test-and-trace app, the inaugural version of which floundered on Google and Apple’s recalcitrance and arguably the NHS’s overambition. Now the education department and the regulator Ofqual are in the digital crosshairs for relying on an algorithm to grade A-levels; thousands of students have suffered downgrades to protect against grade inflation. Behind the scenes there are many lesser-known problems — like the failure to adopt new technology for the tagging of offenders. Meanwhile the costs pile up.

It’s easy to succumb to the belief that the words “IT” and “government” are best kept apart — but that’s an unrealistically Luddite fantasy. The record is also far more mixed. For every mishap there are many successes — the digital ease of the HMRC website is an example. That said, recent failures have been larger, more high-profile, costlier and more important. So what’s to blame?

Many seem convinced these different problems stem from the same cause — an over-enthusiastic and naive embrace of new technologies. But that is not borne out by the facts. Education Secretary Gavin Williamson isn’t known to be a technophile. Nor is Home Secretary Priti Patel. That’s neither meant as criticism or praise, just a statement of facts. No more than a handful of police commissioners who understand the value of technology.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock is an avowed techno-enthusiast, as is Dominic Cummings. But enthusiasm isn’t an adequate explanation. In my experience working with the Government the problem is often the opposite. Most ministers, officials, MPs, judges, police officers and journalists have too little understanding of technology. They either don’t understand its potential or because they don’t, overestimate its power. Too often technology is believed to be able to replace or fix policy.

Truth be told, government just isn’t good enough at innovating. It either leaps blindly ahead or stymies change. As the Woody Allen joke has it, the food is terrible and there isn’t enough of it. The same goes for innovation in government.

A recent survey found the majority of the civil service, especially at senior levels, believe their role does not allow them to innovate. Coupled with a lack of understanding of IT inside government, it is easy to see how apps or algorithms are allowed to be developed unchallenged.

Fixing this is critical if the Government wants to deliver on its ambitious post-Brexit, post-Covid-19 programmes and keep IT costs down. To help the process of change, I recently joined a new effort — the Commission for Smart Government — with a number of ex-ministers, experts, technologists and former officials.

Over the course of a year we aim to take evidence, explore problems and offer ideas. A number of steps are obvious even at this early stage. First, a real effort is required to upskill ministers, MPs and officials. Short courses on the uses and misuses of technology should be available to all MPs and obligatory for ministers and officials. Treasury minister Jesse Norman has begun enrolling ministers in courses on project management; that’s a fantastic start which should be extended to digital skills.

Each department must elevate the role of their chief digital officer. If they exist they are too often far removed from decision-making and conceived mainly as technical posts in a way that no modern company would allow; a new Cabinet Secretary needs to change that. There is NHSx but no similar body in other departments.

Furthermore, the two departments in the digital spotlight — the Home Office and the Department for Education — have for years been known as organisationally technophobic. The fact that these crises have been allowed to emerge is also a sign that the centre is digitally weak; where is the respected person that everyone turns to with a problem, a programme or a concern?

A cultural shift is necessary. A truly innovative government will pursue both “incremental” innovation (innovation directed at incremental optimisation and service improvements), and “radical” innovation (innovation directed at radical and bold transformation and cutting-edge technologies).

Government should learn from the Amazons and Googles, taking a more experimental approach — trying small things, testing, and only scaling if they prove effective; but it also has to develop bold and impactful solutions to some of the country’s most significant public challenges — within a system of digital checks and balances. The exam fiasco is an example of doing neither.

The Spending Review is a good opportunity to take stock and create financial incentives for ministers and officials to pursue innovation.

Tech and public services are inseparably linked but as has become clear, the connection can create as much progress as failure.

This Government — because of its majority, Covid, Brexit and the character of key decision-makers like the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and of course Cummings — has a unique chance to digitally reboot the Government machinery.

Future students, victims of crime and patients, not to mention taxpayers, will benefit hugely if they seize it.

Daniel Korski is a Commissioner for the Commission for Smart Government, the former deputy head of the Downing Street Policy Unit and CEO and co-founder of the technology firm PUBLIC.