<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>

		<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
		
		<channel>
		
			<title>Demos Project : The Journey to the Interface project</title>
			
			<link>http://www.demos.co.uk/projects/thejourneytotheinterfaceproject/</link>
			<language>en-us</language>
			<copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>
			<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:05:36 -0100</pubDate>
						
			<description>Latest items from The Journey to the Interface project on http://www.demos.co.uk/ - the thinktank for everyday democracy</description>
			

			
			<lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:05:36 -0100</lastBuildDate>


			
		
		
		
		
	
	<item>
		<title>311</title>
		<link>http://www.demos.co.uk/items/6956</link>
		<description><![CDATA[There&amp;apos;s a lot of talk of the single non-emergency line number. Introduced by Michael Bloomberg in New York in the form of 311, Demos is now recommending that the government of New Zealand try it out. With a population that&amp;apos;s less than London&amp;apos;s it may just work. Our own government here in the UK is also exploring the idea of a single phone line for non-emergencies. First mooted in Transformational Government in 2005, it is now being considered as part of the channel review that was announced in... ( from BlogPosts )]]></description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.demos.co.uk/items/6956</guid>
		<content:encoded>
		
			<![CDATA[There's a lot of talk of the single non-emergency line number. Introduced by Michael Bloomberg in New York in the form of 311, Demos is now <a href="http://www.demos.co.uk//projects/newdirectionsforpublicservices/overview">recommending </a>that the government of New Zealand try it out. With a population that's less than London's it may just work. Our own government here in the UK is also exploring the idea of a single phone line for non-emergencies. First mooted in <a href="http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-government/strategy/">Transformational Government</a> in 2005, it is now being considered as part of the channel review that was announced in the 2006 Budget. That's due to report in autumn, so watch this space. For an interesting discussion, see <a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.11/start.html?pg=2">Stephen Johnson</a> writing about 311 in Wired. Concerns about such a service being 'captured' by particular groups of people are discussed on <a href="http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com/2005/12/optimistic-assumptions.html">Accidental Deliberations</a>.]]>
		
		</content:encoded>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:48:17 -0100</pubDate>
		
		
		
		
	</item>
	
	 	
		
		
	
	<item>
		<title>From DIY to DFY?</title>
		<link>http://www.demos.co.uk/items/6912</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week we published The Journey to the Interface: how public service design can connect users to reform. One of the things we argue is that  we need to stop viewing services as commodities where their value lies in being an efficient operation: instead, their value lies in something less tangible - the sense that they are supporting you, helping you uncover your needs, working for and on behalf of you. Back in 2002, The Support Economy argued that support would become the new... ( from BlogPosts )]]></description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.demos.co.uk/items/6912</guid>
		<content:encoded>
		
			<![CDATA[Last week we published <a href="http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/thejourneytotheinterface/">The Journey to the Interface: how public service design can connect users to reform</a>. One of the things we argue is that&nbsp; we need to stop viewing services as commodities where their value lies in being an efficient operation: instead, their value lies in something less tangible - the sense that they are supporting you, helping you uncover your needs, working for and on behalf of you. Back in 2002, <a href="http://www.thesupporteconomy.com/">The Support Economy</a> argued that support would become the new 'metaproduct'. This year we've seen some hints that this prediction will come true. From <a href="http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1806063,00.html">DIY being replaced by DFY</a> (do it for you), to <a href="http://travel.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1810549,00.html">personal travel agents</a> being the new rivals to Travelocity, opodo et al, to Alex Cheatle at <a href="http://www.tenuk.com/membership.htm">TEN UK </a>selling support rather than specific products and services, it looks like we are losing interest in assembling our own lives and looking for people who can help us out. Seeing services as a form of support like this has some big implications for the reform agenda in public services, which we explore in the pamphlet. Let us know what you think.]]>
		
		</content:encoded>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:03:47 -0100</pubDate>
		
		
		
		
	</item>
	
	 	
		
		
	
	<item>
		<title>Why some doctors don&amp;apos;t get sued</title>
		<link>http://www.demos.co.uk/items/6705</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Medical researcher Wendy Levinson recorded hundreds of conversations between doctors and their patients, to find out why some doctors get sued and others don&amp;amp;rsquo;t.The answer was three minutes. It turned out the surgeons who had never been sued spent three minutes longer with their patients than those who were sued (18.3 minutes, versus 15 minutes). More importantly, they were far more likely to make comments that involved the patient in what was happening, such as &amp;amp;ldquo;First, I&amp;amp;rsquo;ll... ( from BlogPosts )]]></description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.demos.co.uk/items/6705</guid>
		<content:encoded>
		
			<![CDATA[<p>Medical researcher Wendy Levinson recorded hundreds of conversations between doctors and their patients, to find out why some doctors get sued and others don&rsquo;t.</p><p>The answer was three minutes. It turned out the surgeons who had never been sued spent three minutes longer with their patients than those who were sued (18.3 minutes, versus 15 minutes). </p><p>More importantly, they were far more likely to make comments that involved the patient in what was happening, such as &ldquo;First, I&rsquo;ll examine you, and then we&rsquo;ll talk the problem over&rdquo;. They listened actively and laughed more than the doctors who were sued. The quality of medical information they gave wasn&rsquo;t any better. It was the way they interacted that differed. </p><p>It gets stranger: recordings of doctor-patient conversations were made and the words were removed via computer. All that was left was intonation and inflection &ndash; the rise and fall of the voices. Independent judges were asked to rate these doctors for warmth, hostility and dominance, knowing nothing about them but the sound of their voice &ndash; not even the words they spoke. They accurately predicted which doctors would be sued and which not. </p><p>What&rsquo;s this got to do with you and your customers? It&rsquo;s the &lsquo;E&rsquo; word, of course &ndash; Empathy. Try listening to how your people talk to customers and see if you think there&rsquo;s room for improvement. </p><p>One obvious example to think about &ndash; If you have time limits on your customer phone calls for incoming queries, just how much customer dissatisfaction are you creating out there by pushing customers off the phone to keep the calls under the time limit? </p><p><span class="caps">You can buy the book <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713997273/203-2357956-9936733">here</a> or check out <a href="http://www.gladwell.com/">Malcolm Gladwell's website</a><br /></span></p>]]>
		
		</content:encoded>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:27:34 -0100</pubDate>
		
		
		
		
	</item>
	
	 	
		
		
	
	<item>
		<title>Types of participant suggest different kinds of response?</title>
		<link>http://www.demos.co.uk/items/6704</link>
		<description><![CDATA[What types of public participant are there? or types of participation journey?    Simple transactions (like purchasing) with options from a small number of propositions but from essentially one provider. eg. Local council Parking Shops, local public transport.    Voluntary opt-in to a free scheme. eg Recycling. Visiting my local public library.    Seeking free advice or support on day-to-day issues. eg. Making a enquiry about council tax, benefits, parking refuse collection.    Seeking free... ( from BlogPosts )]]></description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.demos.co.uk/items/6704</guid>
		<content:encoded>
		
			<![CDATA[<p>What types of public participant are there? or types of participation journey?</p><ul>    <li>Simple transactions (like purchasing) with options from a small number of propositions but from essentially one provider. eg. Local council Parking Shops, local public transport.</li>    <li>Voluntary opt-in to a free scheme. eg Recycling. Visiting my local public library.</li>    <li>Seeking free advice or support on day-to-day issues. eg. Making a enquiry about council tax, benefits, parking refuse collection.</li>    <li>Seeking free advice or support on more significant issues. eg. * Visiting a GP and referral to a local hospital or other facility or expertise. Critical benefit issue. Victim support.</li>    <li>Mandatory opt-in to a free facility but with little or no genuine choice. eg Using the school system.</li>    <li>Mandatory participation with no options. eg committing a crime, the justice system, prison.</li>    <li>Emergencies in which you give up control. eg medical emergencies, immediately after being a victim of a crime or other emergency.</li></ul>]]>
		
		</content:encoded>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:05:23 -0100</pubDate>
		
		
		
		
	</item>
	
	 	
		
		
	
	<item>
		<title>Haringey Council - check out their vision</title>
		<link>http://www.demos.co.uk/items/6683</link>
		<description><![CDATA[&amp;quot;To improve the quality of life for everyone in the borough &amp;amp;ndash; putting people first, being bold in dealing with issues for the benefit of all.Our priorities in the drive to achieving excellence are:    Better Haringey &amp;amp;ndash; creating a cleaner, greener, safer borough    Raising educational achievement    Building safer and stronger communities    Achieving excellent services    Putting people first&amp;quot;Who or what were they putting first before? ( from BlogPosts )]]></description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.demos.co.uk/items/6683</guid>
		<content:encoded>
		
			<![CDATA[&quot;To improve the quality of life for everyone in the borough &ndash; <strong>putting people first</strong>, being bold in dealing with issues for the benefit of all.
<p>Our priorities in the drive to achieving excellence are:</p>
<ul>
    <li>Better Haringey &ndash; creating a cleaner, greener, safer borough</li>
    <li>Raising educational achievement</li>
    <li>Building safer and stronger communities</li>
    <li>Achieving excellent services</li>
    <li>Putting people first&quot;</li>
</ul>
<p>Who or what were they putting first before?</p>]]>
		
		</content:encoded>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:23:06 -0100</pubDate>
		
		
		
		
	</item>
	
	 	
		
		
	
	<item>
		<title>Central reservations</title>
		<link>http://www.demos.co.uk/items/6659</link>
		<description><![CDATA[&amp;quot;Britains 30 years of centralisation has left local government weaker, poorer and less influential than in any other western country. New Labour has made some tentative steps in the opposite direction, but is still criticised for its centralising tendencies. The time has come for it to pin its colours firmly to the mast of devolution. Over the last year, I have been working with councils across the country and with government departments to show how empowering neighbourhoods can... ( from BlogPosts )]]></description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.demos.co.uk/items/6659</guid>
		<content:encoded>
		
			<![CDATA[&quot;Britain&rsquo;s 30 years of centralisation has left local government weaker, poorer and less influential than in any other western country. New Labour has made some tentative steps in the opposite direction, but is still criticised for its centralising tendencies. The time has come for it to pin its colours firmly to the mast of devolution.<br /><p> Over the last year, I have been working with councils across the country and with government departments to show how empowering neighbourhoods can work in practice. I have been arguing that the time is ripe for &ldquo;double devolution&rdquo; &ndash; not only passing power downwards from Whitehall to local towns, cities and counties, but also from town halls to neighbourhood democracy. For the first time in a generation, thanks to the vision of the minister for communities David Miliband and the political possibilities opened up by leadership transitions in all three parties, it is now possible to imagine how the long drift to centralisation could be reversed.&quot;</p><p><a href="http://society.guardian.co.uk/localgovt/comment/0,,1720158,00.html">http://society.guardian.co.uk/localgovt/comment/0,,1720158,00.html</a></p>]]>
		
		</content:encoded>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:16:50 -0100</pubDate>
		
		
		
		
	</item>
	
	 	
	</channel>	 	
</rss>