For example these extracts imply the view of the user as passive recipient:
- “focussed upon the impact of their service to users”
- “encouraged innovative and entrepreneurial practice to meet the needs of service users”

There’s an increasing recognition now that as the context within which services are provided becomes increasingly complex, “listening” or consultation often isn’t enough. It’s simply not possible for any one service provider to have a rich enough understanding to judge well enough all the messy compromises often required.

Expectations are also much higher now that services should be individualised, so even the idea of a standard “service to users” is outdated. We certainly see this in education.

Involving service recipients in decision-making is being found to produce significant improvements. And of course technology is making this more feasible.

See for example the recent DEMOS report “The Collaborative State” (203 pages, pdf)

But at best, collaboration holds out the tantalising prospect of a new approach to running local public services. It presents the possibility of replacing the old rigidities with flexible federations of public bodies that can quickly sense and adapt to changing need, at
the same time creating new forums that bring people and institutions together to identify shared problems and work collaboratively on solutions.

I hope this doesn’t seem negative, but these issues do seem conspicuous by their absence in what is otherwise a very encouraging story.