AuroraAI-ohjelma esittää: Ihmiskeskeisyysfoorumi
Welcome to the Human-centrism Forum! [Kopponen:] Hi. Welcome to the Human-centrism Forum. Today we want to talk about you, me and all of us, - and how to put us, as humans, at the center of service development. We'll share our opinions about what we believe is possible. How the society can see us as individuals. How the services we need could come into our lives more timelily.
We'll share what we've done in recent years to make this possible. On the other hand, we'll talk about what we have learned, - what we should focus on, - to make Finland an even better place for us to live and work. In a nutshell, we talk about how ordinary peoples' and companies' lives - could guide how we offer public services for us all. I'm Aleksi Kopponen from the Ministry of Finance, your host. I'll lead the conversations. Welcome! Today we talk about human-centrism.
But what' that all about? Why should we talk about it now? Human-centrism has become prominent in national and international strategies. It's also prominent in the hands-on service development work. The term "human-centrism" isn't well-defined. There are multiple interpretations, so critical conversations are needed. We want to be a part of that conversation. Human-centrism is based on a conscious or unconscious idea of humanity.
Today is a good opportunity to observe our ideas of humanity. Human-centrism also includes the idea of humanity's diversity, - differences and equality. But what human-centrism doesn't seem to be? It's not a synonym for client-orientedness, - where people are seen as the objects of a service or a process.
Human-centrism isn't a synonym for individualism. Quite the opposite. People should be seen as parts of groups and larger frames of reference, - such as built environments and nature. Let's think about this through examples. Companies want to become international.
Do we know which companies? And do they receive the services they need? Some companies might need support with funding, or clientele, - or help with their boards. Their needs are individual, and there is no one right path to internationalism. What about if we want to help people work? Do we know who are at risk of unemployment? Can we recognize our own situation and act in our own best interest, - by acquiring additional education or a new profession without unemployment? Human-centrism creates new tools to develop our practices. It helps us service providers to be better at paying attention - to individuals' and companies' situations where services are needed. AuroraAI has implemented human-centrism as an important guideline. The authorities and other service providers - involved in the development have challenged themselves to be human-centric.
We will be utilizing AuroraAI's concrete outputs and insights today. In AuroraAI's vision, individuals and companies are met comprehensively - in different contexts of live and business. Services form fluent and expedient service paths and networks. People don't have to be bounced around form service to service.
Utopia? Maybe. Ambitious? Most likely. Worth striving towards? We're here to find out. This forum consists of five topics. We will cover these topics with over 20 experts.
These conversations help us understand what human-centrism is all about, - and how services can be developed to be more effective for us all. In the conversation introductions we use AuroraAI's products - to think how we could develop the human-centric administration. We will have five conversations with the following topics: - In the first one we talk about - why the shift from organization-centric development - to human-centric development is important now. The second topic talks about - how human-centricity changes how we work across organizations? The third conversation - how human-centricity renews leadership.
The fourth conversation brings us to ethical conundrums. What skills do we all need to make the shift ethically sustainable? Lastly we will dwell into what technical challenges - does human-centrism place on our national digital infrastructure. Let's dive into the talks. Welcome to the Human-centrism Forum and our shared journey. [Kopponen:] Here we are, in the virtual reality.
Seems very nice, clean and beautiful. We are going to be spending the next three hours here. My first guest is Jarkko Levasma, ICT Director General, Ministry of Finance. [Levasma:] Thank you. Welcome to the Human-centrism Forum -
and the virtual reality. It's good to be here. [Kopponen:] You have been the ICT Director General for a year, - and you've seen the society's digital jump close up. What does human-centrism look like to you? [Levasma:] For at least a year, human-centrism - has been an extremely common topic of conversation.
Obviously everyone has understood it's importance. But I hope we would make more headway with the practical side. [Kopponen:] You'll get to discuss that with our experts. I'll move on to the next stop and you get to dwell into the topic. You have a moment to talk about your viewpoint first. [Levasma:] As I said, - human-centrism has been a common topic of conversation.
In the end, human-centrism is not a very new idea. It's very close to the same client-centrism we are used to doing. The key difference here is, - that we don't see the person as only a client to one organization. We need to widen our horizon and see - the person as a shared client of multiple organizations. We need to consider this network and how to form services in it.
Cooperation is the most important and the hardest thing to achieve here. After we see what the person really needs, - it's comparatively easy to take action. But to be bale to bring everyone together, - and make everything work together at the same time is the challenge.
A good cooperation structure is very important in human-centrism. Life events form the basis of human-centrism. That concept is important to include in everything. We have been building the Finnish Digi-Compass for the last year.
The Compass gives us, by the year 2030, - a vision, values and goals. What we want to have achieved digitally by 2030. The compass covers four different topics. They cover the entire society, digitally speaking.
Especially in the Public services section, - human-centrism is a central and leading theme - in how we make better digital public services in the future. Life event service networks help in that too. The Compass' aim is, by 2030, to achieve - making the most important life event services digital. That's enough introduction. I see that my esteemed quests are arriving as we speak.
Human-centrism and life event service networks [Wind catching on a microphone and steps] [Levasma:] Welcome, everyone. I hope the tram trip was pleasant. Let's get into the topic. Outi Valkama, Program Manager for Tampere, - Tampere works hard on human-centrism, can you tell us about it? [Valkama:] I'll try to be brief. This has been in the works for long, and it's a big change. It takes a lot of cooperation and skills.
What human-centrism is actually about, - is we need to understand the city's purpose. To be there for the people. It's not the easiest concept. [Levasma:] That's right.
We are for the people. Welcome, Veli-Matti Keloneva, the Head of Development in Oulu. How does Oulu deal with human-centrism? [Keloneva:] The same as Tampere.
The basis might have been a bit organization-centric. We are shifting the organization to the background, - and putting people in front. Human-centrism is considering the client, - and the people in the organization.
And our own organizations isn't the focus anymore, but the network is. To promote human-centrism we have built OUTO, - Oulu's action plan, to develop human-centrism in customer service. And in regards to customer service, a cherry on top, - we have developed OuluBot, - which facilitates the residents' participation. It's human-centric, open 24/7.
Those are the most important things. [Levasma:] Thank you. OUTO-approach sounds good. [Keloneva:] Suits us.
[Levasma:] Niko Ruostetsaari, Program Manager from the Ministry of Finance, - from AuroraAI. How's that going? [Ruostetsaari:] AuroraAI is a framework for developing - human-centrism and life event based structures. Oulu and Tampere have been in it for years. Our shared hypothesis along the way has been - that developing human-centrism is more than just technology, - and we need new culture and new tools - in leadership, and in developing competences. New ethics views and we need to facilitate cooperation. AuroraAI has developed some technical prerequisites for the facilitation, - but the road is long, and it is a shared road.
[Levasma:] Thank you. Outi, how did you put people in the front? [Valkama:] As you said, to normalize all this, - so we don't have to talk about developing human-centrism, is still far. The biggest realization was, that it needs to be done. Frameworks are important and help us understand this better.
But they are tested only in actual use. We solved this by - finding good functions in our organizations, - where these philosophies are already realized. we have developed those further. We have a development program, but that's only a resource.
The important thing is to share the way of thinking. And it can be very concrete. How we talk about things, how we talk to each other.
Who do we need to understand and include? It's a deep organizational culture. We have developed boldly and learned from that. [Levasma:] Boldness is important in development. Veli-Matti, how does human-centrism appear to the people of Oulu? [Keloneva:] We have this Oulu10 concept. We have managed to develop a one-stop public service network.
The OuluBot that I mentioned, it's a phone app, - you can use it on your phone or a computer. It's contemporary, it's new and up-to date. Our residents want 24/7 and they want it close. We offer services in a physical location and we have those, - but people want to get services online and close, at home.
We succeeded well with OuluBot, I think, - and people like it. We have tens of thousands of users yearly. [Levasma:] Thank you. The bot has a conversational UI, - and that's a modern and desired way to use apps.
Niko, AuroraAI as a program is coming to a close. What comes after? Nothing? [Ruostetsaari:] Not nothing. Your introduction was about the strategy - we use to guide our digital services. The shared ambition and will gets repeated.
We want the development to be life event based. Finland is, in a way, exemplary in digitization in Europe. We are shown in a good light, but I've noticed that - many neighboring countries are further along in life event basedness. Of course municipalities have done good work for example with youth, - to make their services life event based, but the national level isn't there. The Digital Compass will be a good support. We are gathering our troops and starting to prepare.
I believe we'll be successful in the future. [Levasma:] Thank you. We'll catch up with the others. Thank you all for this conversation. I wish you all a very human-centric day. We'll tag Aleksi in. Aleksi, take it away.
[Basketball sounds] [Kopponen:] Thank you for the conversation. We'll continue here by the basketball court. I have Nina here playing catch like Markkanen. We'll talk about forms of cooperation and how they work.
Nina, welcome. [Nissilä:] Thank you. And good to see you wearing Kela's colours. [Kopponen:] Well you have to know what you're attending.
Nina, you are the Director at Kela and been working with digitalization. You made the leap from the private sector to here, - to work on digitalization. The forms of cooperation have featured, I'm sure. What's most prominent in your mind? [Nissilä:] Well, we have of course come a long way. Human-centrism was not well known in the public administration when I joined.
I have this one experience, - I was leading this D9-team in Sipilä's government, - and we went around asking how clients are considered in what we do here. I can tell you things have changed. I'm lad to work in a position where I see outside of Kela - what's going on in Finland. We have changed. I feel good about it. We have a way to go, but we started. [Kopponen:] Sound's good. We'll hear more later, - and we'll give you some experts to talk to.
I'll take the ball now and let you do the introduction. [Nissilä:] Okay. Bye bye. Human-centric cooperation forms between authorities and other actors. [Nissilä:] It's amazing to talk about life event based development - next to a basket ball court. Go KTP! The question here today is - how public administration has tackled the life event based services - and the challenges across sectors.
And how this way of doing, or even thinking, - has changed how us civil servants work. We can change, I've seen it myself. As I mentioned, I've been in the public sector for six years. I can already see a difference in how we approach service development.
When I first started, - service design was a weird thing only on a few people's agendas. Noe it's present in all our work across the society. I would propose our work has already changed. Today we'll hear a few examples on how the way we work has changed. Often we focus on the difficulties and all that comes with them, - but today we focus on - successes, lessons learned, learning and forward movement. I have four experts to share their thoughts from across the public sector.
Welcome, our amazing experts! First we have Hilkka Pelander from the Tax Administration, - welcome. [Pelander:] Thank you. [Nissilä:] We are all jealous of the Tax admin. for human-centrism. You have done amazing things and have been praised for it. You have renewed your services. You are "the first true friend to people coming to Finland".
We at Kela think the one who collects money for us all is a friend to all. But today we talk about creating the services. About the Alliance-model. The term refers to building together. But what does that mean? [Pelander:] A shared will of the public servants - to place people and their life events at the center of it all.
It means we have to work in ecosystems. In networks that connect all actors involved in life events together. And it might be time to try new ways of working if the old ones are... old. [Nissilä:] Amazing. And then... What would you see as the biggest success so far in the process? [Pelander:] We strive to work in ecosystems.
An example is a negative life event, a death. We have worked in networks and found a shared goal - to fix the services around this life event. [Nissilä:] That's true and a relevant thing - to us all who have elder relatives. The baby boomer generation is getting old and the inevitable will happen. It will touch all Finns sooner or later. If you had to put this in a nutshell, - to those not as far along, - but who want's to do what you did, - what would you say to a less experienced life event networker? [Pelander:] Take the person's life event - and all the actors and services involved in it.
Which services do they have to use and could they be used at the same place? [Nissilä:] Exactly. Sari-Annika Pettinen from the National Church Council. The ecosystem of death is close to home, - and the church has an important role in people's joy and sorrow.
Your strategy has the words "open doors". Also it mentions shared choices. How does the church move towards a life event based future? [Pettinen:] In many ways. As mentioned, the church is with you from birth to death. And in between too. We are familiar with life events. Our strategy invites everyone to a shared work and development.
It means that when we are with a person in their life, - we understand that the church isn't all the person needs. We are one of many actors. The service ecosystem around a death, like Hilkka mentioned, - is one the church can be a part of. There are of course others. In this way, -
we participate in life event based service development. [Nissilä:] I'd like to take an example from earlier in life. Mun ripari -app. Confirmation camp is usually the first touch to church, - because you don't usually remember your christening. In my experience, - it happens in a stage of life where you start to think about the future, - and being human and stuff.
Tell us more about this case, how did it happen? [Pettinen:] Mun ripari is an app, that's a part of confirmation classes. The participants answer questions about their well-being. They see their own answers. That's different, - than other similar questionnaires. This app let's you see what you answered and you can reflect on it. There's a chance to talk about your well-being - The youth can bring their topics to the conversations.
The app's aim of course is - for the youth to recognize different parts of their well-being - and get tools to increase wellness. The app also produces secure data - which can be used in the classes or on the national level. What our youth are like, how can we make the classes better, - and how can we make sure the tutors are the best they can be. [Nissilä:] Indeed. When you were building the app, - how was it different than working before and what did you learn? [Pelander:] The youth were in the center.
We designed the questions to look like the users. We started with what they want and need. The biggest thing we learned was to change the way we think. It's also the journey we go on as leaders and decision makers.
We aren't there yet, but we are on the way. [Nissilä:] Indeed. The world is never done, there's always more to do. That's a good seque.
Nette Rimpioja, the Chair for the Finnish Youth Parliament Association. You are known for speaking for youth inclusion. One important thing for me in life event basedness haw been inclusion.
How do you get the youth involved in service development? [Rimpioja:] Thank you. The youth is the only demographic who can't participate in democracy - to vote for the decision makers. They are the only demographic who can't participate.
That's why we need other means to make sure the services in their lives - are what they need and fit them. They use the future services and we need to include them, - so we don't build a world not suited for them. [Nissilä:] Do you have a positive example? [Rimpioja:] Yes, in education.
I believe that the youth is very well included in the education system, - There are other sections where they aren't. In healthcare and mental healthcare services - need to improve to hear the youth better. [Nissilä:] Indeed.
I'm sure you have thought about this. When we succeed, and I do mean when, not if. I believe in this.
When we succeed in including the youth, - do you have any tips for us older people, - what benefits do we see when they the youth is included? [Rimpioja:] The most important is that he youth feel like they belong. They can see the impact in their lives. Young people commit to the society, use the services, - are active citizens and vote. If they don't get the early example of their voice mattering, - that carries a long way.
If they get the feeling of being a part of society early on, - the benefit is huge. [Nissilä:] And the church has a role. You create the road for the youth to be included, through the app. We talked about the effects. That's a huge question. I can't give you hours to talk about this topic, - but how can we quantify the effects of this? Inclusion probably has effects, but how can we measure them? [Rimpioja:] For the youth, it's important to be heard - in matters pertaining to them.
And then they need to hear what followed of their participation. If they don't hear what happened, they don't want to participate any more. If the youth is heard, it has an effect on the living environment. We have a quality criteria for inclusion, - and other tools for child inclusion and effectiveness in Finland.
Those can be used to measure the effectiveness. [Nissilä:] I'd like to ask, like I asked Hilkka, - because there might not be that many young people - in the audience. Most are old folks like us. You are obviously the youngest here.
What tips could you give us, what's the bare minimum? [Rimpioja:] The bare minimum? I'd like to emphasize listening. Listening to the youth as they are, experts on youth. That's what they know. Listen. Then, don't close doors for them. Let their voices sound. Take their opinions into account in your work. And lastly, give them the space.
Give them opportunities to participate. The demographic is dwindling, but they are equally important. Let's give them room to talk. [Nissilä:] Well said. Those tips apply to all demographics. In that way too they are valuable. But then, last but not least, the minister who cares for our money, - Elina Moisio, I mean Melasuo. How did I get it so wrong.
You have heard the experts and seen AuroraAI from up close. From your viewpoint, remembering these talks and your work, - what are they keys to success in building life event based services? [Melasuo:] Life events usually have connections to many organizations. It's not enough that one organization is doing their job. You need to focus on the person, based on the life event. Cross-sectional work is how we can concretely put the person in the center. When we are together, working together at the challenges.
Networking, it brings together people from different backgrounds. That gives us different viewpoints and different methods. People have different cases and we can learn from them. [Nissilä:] Good advice. We are approaching a new government, - and if everything goes off without a hitch, ad it will, - with regards to life event basedness, - what would happen in the next four years? [Melasuo:] Three things come to mind.
As public administration, we have a duty to promote inclusion. Networking is a tool to recognizing places that need more work. In this picture you can see that giving the same to everyone doesn't cut it. Networking can help recognize demographics that need help.
Then we can measure the effectiveness. Then we can raise different voices. Then we can achieve predictability and get to the right-most picture. [Nissilä:] I'll ask a hard question. Many of us represent public services.
We are close to the customers, they might visit our offices. In that way we gain some insight into their daily lives. Ministries are often further away, - but you have an important role in making the networks operate. What do you think, as a Minister, - the Ministries could do better in the next four years? [Melasuo:] Well. For example the AuroraAI has an open network for everyone, - a network focusing on one topic. When we share and learn in the networks, we decrease overlapping work.
It's easier to work when we know what happens around us. And when we are talking about equality, - we have to remember people and situations differ. With life event service networks we can work more broadly than before.
Giving the same block to everyone might not serve us best. Technology facilitates more varied service networks - that can be aimed at the demographics we need to serve. And developing the services in a network to begin with - makes it possible to advance in the right direction.
And the second thing. Technology was mentioned. We noticed that developing technologies that work together - requires a network-like cooperation to make sure they can interact. MultiChatBot in the AuroraAI community is an example. ChatBots need to talk to each other. How can we achieve that?
We can make open source decisions, and AuroraAI is that. We develop public chatbot training data. So we don't have to make the same data over and over again.
On the organization level, how does working change? How do job descriptions change, for example for bot whisperers? [Nissilä:] That's a good example of a new role, bot whisperers. Those didn't exist 10-15 years ago. The way we do things has changed. I'll ask the rest of you, how does this sound? [Pelander:] Sounds good and I'm sure we stand behind that thought.
[Pettinen:] Together we are more. [Rimpioja:] Digitization will change service developing. The youth will be heard better. [Nissilä:] If we think about it... If we sum up our conversation here, - I'll ask you all, starting with Hilkka. What are the first steps we all can take towards the new future? [Pelander:] When we recognize life events that involve other services, - pick up the phone and call the service.
[Nissilä:] So talking? [Pettinen:] I'll add listening. It's important too. [Nissilä:] So talk and listen. [Rimpioja:] And include those you can't hear yet. [Nissilä:] Talk, listen and include the silent. [Melasuo:] The first step can be to go to ihmiskeskeisyys.fi.
And for example the chat bot that we have created together. We have worked on it together, gathered small groups to work on things. We are exposing it to conversation and progressing it. The documentation is live and developing. [Nissilä:] In a nutshell: Talk, listen, include and find out. That's right. Thank you, experts, thank you, audience.
Stay tuned, we have more in store. Next sections shed light on life event based development. Networks have power, together we are more.
Thank you. I'll give the floor to Aleksi again. [Whooshing transition sound] [Kopponen:] Than you for the conversation - on human-centrism and new ways of networking. As we have noticed, the conversations bring out interesting questions. What's human-centrism about and how does it challenge us - in public administration? We have moved to the helipad and here we found - Tuomas Heikkinen, the Permanent Secretary of Turku. [Heikkinen:] Thank you. [Kopponen:] In the virtual reality - we'll jump in to the next topic, which is leadership.
If we think about the thematics of human-centrism, - how do you see it manifested in Turku? Is it something that opens new conversations - or does it actually change the way you work? [Heikkinen:] At the moment it's in the core. Maybe the most important value in our leadership system and how we work. I'll talk about it later with more concrete examples, - but customer orientatedness, which now has a new name, - has been in our strategies for long. How it's manifested in leadership and our processes? Less. I'll give examples of that too. [Kopponen:] We are all eagerly waiting for how Turku does it - and how it challenges the current way of operating and leading.
You'll soon have other experts to talk to, here on the helipad, - but you can introduce your viewpoint first. I'll get out of your way. [Heikkinen:] If we start with the theme of the day and Turku, - I'd go back to the organizational change we had 10 years ago. All bigger cities had one around that time. We lived in a world where we had 30 different public service offices. Nearly as many boards and committees.
Municipal governments were tightened up, into four or five branches. About that many. We shrunk the boards down. Some cities moved to the mayoral model. I was the change manager at the time, - working directly under the municipal manager. The change was huge, administratively speaking.
There was a lot of challenges in bringing the change about. Processes, people and leaders changed. The core values were set to be customer and citizen orientedness. Now, when we look back and see what happened in this theme, - and how our operations changed, - we needed to create changes in the culture and leadership. Those are hard things to change in an organization. We didn't do enough.
Like all organizations renew and change themselves, - and observe the changes that were made. The digitalization process continues, and making services easier. But still, human-centrism in these changes - remains more of a word than an action.
In order to achieve a cultural change, - the process is intensive and the topic needs to be kept in the limelight. Turku adopted the mayoral model in 2021. The 2013 organizational change was updated at the same time. That update included many things,- that support promoting human-centrism in the leadership system. You can't change it with organization models, - but we created an organizing function, - and their point is considering the customer as a whole and guiding them. Their job is to see the residents - and govern the data we have of their needs.
These functions existing is reflected in the leadership, - and making them on the city level is important. In 2021 we also created a shared training program to the boards. Human-centrism was basically the whole theme. I saw some puke-reactions at the first lecture. "What even is this word? Weird."
We started from a very academic, theoretic, philosophical point, - about what's administratively orientated and what is human-centrism. Then we mixed the boards, - and gave them cases to see how well we know our residents. To see how we could apply human-centrism. We found many places where we could improve. We are pretty good at linear leadership, with one service or area.
Those we can handle. Early childhood education, elementary school. But if we have an issue that touches the whole organization - not to mention other organizations or actors, - we lose sight of ownership fast. Leadership can be called ownership.
That gets lost and nobody is in charge of the cross-organizational situation. We started working at this with the boards. Every board member participated, around 100 people. The top officials were there too.
We made good example cases and conclusions. That was our leading idea in what we do next. The health and social services separating from the city changes the field, - and we lose funding and resources too.
This training program gave us ideas on what needs to change. One idea is that when the health and social services separate, - The health and social services board will be turned into a wellness board. The background work of what wellness actually is... At the same time we have a youth board, a teaching board and so on. They all of course promote the residents' wellness - in their own frames they have been given.
This is overall general promotion of wellness. How does a board like this work? What are the things they should decide? A final test for this season, until 2025, - is starting now, at the start of the year. That's the 10-year history of the theme - and of how leadership is first included and then the next level, - and then the whole structure is seeped through with human-centrism. And then leadership makes sure everything works as agreed upon. That's how we get started.
Leadership, proactive decision making and situational leadership. [Heikkinen:] Now we have more people to talk to. How human-centrism is lead in different organizations. We'll talk about what this means for wellness - now that the health and social service areas are created.
What kind of data-analytics serve us in decision making? What quality data we need and what do we need to get out of it? Then we go into the actual, concrete leadership. How leading an organization differs from leading a service network? How can we assess effectiveness through this? We have Minna, Aino and Kati with their themes, - they will introduce themselves. Minna will first talk about promoting wellness.
[Lothander:] I'm Minna Lothander from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. My specialty is data management in promoting wellness. When we talk about human-centrism and human-centric services, - the wellness areas that start soon are very important. We worked together with the AuroraAI - to assess how human-centric approach, a more total wellness of the person, - could be developed in the coming wellness areas. And how technology could support services.
One key point was forming a picture of the populations wellness - and utilizing it in knowledge-based leadership. We found that forming this kind of picture takes many resources. We formed statistics of the different models used. Information of customers and services in the areas. And the silent knowledge the staff produces. The knowledge is gathered and processed in workshops.
We also used questionnaires and experience experts. One issue in the data was that - on the national level, most data is two or three years old. Quickly arising phenomena can't be viewed in this data set.
Another issue is the data's comprehensiveness. We can only gather wellness information of those, - who actually use the services and are recorded. Not the entire region or the unexpressed need for services. Those, who don't seek out or don't know how to access services.
How can this data be utilized in decision making? It's difficult when the data isn't current enough, - comprehensive enough or fresh enough. There are many issues in knowledge-based human-centric leadership. Let's look at the process of knowledge-based leadership. Starting with data gathering and national indicator information. We need to develop gathering more up-to-date and updating data. The data would improve if we could get wider information - of the residents outside of the services.
Outside the usual demographics. It would be interesting to get data from outside the wellness areas. For example, information on food stuff purchases. That would add to the picture. Another development area is enhancing data processing.
We could be utilizing artificial intelligence more. We need to train our human resources in data analysis and synthesis, - and in proactively evaluating the effectiveness. And in this case, the last step of the development would be - having more comprehensive and updatable information for decision making.
The development needs to start from the needs of decision making. We need to recognize - what questions are relevant for the decision makers. Then we can develop the methods of producing data.
Even the most comprehensive dataset can't give support - if it doesn't answer the decision makers' questions. So it wouldn't be too easy and simple, - the decision makers' questions can change quickly. We need to react to that. One challenge that came up in our report was... when we do development projects for services, - we aren't able to pay enough attention to the effectiveness - of the services and following up.
We need to follow the effectiveness in long term after the decision making. We need to support that. There are some steps the process should follow. The data we get from monitoring effectiveness - should be used in knowledge-based leading. These are my thoughts. Thank you.
[Heikkinen:] Thank you, Minna. In your talk, - you used many terms that are in our vocabulary too. And the situational data snapshot of the population is interesting - because it depends on who you ask. Some ex-soldiers just presented us a system.
To them, it's knowing where the resources are in a situation. To us, it's a much longer situation. We might have the need for a city-block level information. Like with corona cases. Regarding the refugee crisis, we don't know exactly where - they are and where we might find residents for them. Or youth causing disturbance, gang behavior.
Where it occurs and what are the hot spots. We can need fast data, but also long data - in our decision making on where the cycle paths should go, - do we need a bigger swimming pool, or a music hall. Some decisions have to be made fast. Three year old data in an indicator is just trash.
Maybe Aino can tell us how we should be collecting the data. The national indicators need to be made together with the wellnes regions - so they support healthcare and wellness promotion. The current funding doesn't actually come directly to us, - but it lightens the load for the wellness areas - in the heavy services, if we can increase drop out in the youth. Their health and wellness should be better in ten years. Hard questions. But the goals and processes you have laid out - really seem like we are working towards the same goal on our levels.
Do you want to comment something I said? [Lothander:] Yes, about the situation data. Good points. We do need fast, up-to-date data for some decisions. But then we do have long-term planning - and then we have data that we gather over a longer period of time. That can be very valuable in monitoring long-term changes. It's not black and white, we need to take into account the different needs. [Heikkinen:] Indeed.
Will Anni tell us next how we should gather the indicator data? [Ropponen:] I'm Aino Ropponen, Data Scientist at CSC. My answer to renewing leadership is knowledge-based leadership. When we have data on peoples' wellness, - we can make better informed decisions. To support this we developed cluster cards. The cards are a kind of a situational picture. Situational picture can be many things, as you said, - but we use these cards to represent overall wellness.
They help us see how a demographic is doing, like the youth. To see what kind of segments we can find. How many are unwell and how? The cluster cards are a way of visualizing the overall wellness. We have piloted them with the school welfare questionnaires - and the data from Mun Ripari from AuroraAI. This is the card from the school welfare questions.
Let's ignore the unfinished look. You get the idea. The Welfare Institute asks 8th and 9th graders. We have found seven groups of well- or unwell youth. The good news is, most youth are well.
Then we have a group of varyingly unwell youth. Learning disabilities, mental health trouble or substances. The bars at the bottom are the sectors of overall welfare.
They don't correspond to the [unclear]. We adapted them to fit our demographic, school aged children. The blue bar reaching up means the kids are doing well in that regard.
A red bar down means the kids have challenges in that area. In this example all the kids are doing well, all bars are blue. That's positive. In the next one, kids have challenges with the feeling of importance. They feel they can't reach for what they want.
They have fewer friends. Most youth in this example - have aspects in the red, telling us there is reason to be worried. The sidebar tells us 11% of the youth is in this group. Half and half boys and girls. In the last example the group has severe challenges. All bars are red and down, all aspects have challenges.
The substance abuse bar is slightly blue, but other aspects are in the red. These cluster cards are a way to visualize the overall welfare - of different groups. With these cards we can recognize different groups of welfare - and how we could help them - using the features of the specific group. This data can then be used in decision making.
[Heikkinen:] Thank you. The school welfare questionnaire is an old tool. If we look at the situation for the young school kids, - we get information from the healthcare system and Wilma.
Grades, attendance, how actively parents and kids use Wilma. We have this amazing data bank. And what do we do with it? We do these penetrating analysis, that are more involved than our own, - but do we connect this information on a personal level? Do we have steps to take, when certain red lights are on, - can we guide them to a service package? How do you feel the coming welfare areas' data analytics are coming along? How do they manage all the data we apparently have? You had a good example for how the data can be used.
[Ropponen:] The cluster cards and the overall welfare are one way, - and there can be others. I know the municipalities have data, - and the country gathers a lot of data. But...
The problem with advanced analysis is we can't combine datasets. Municipalities have a lot of statistical data that's hard to combine, - because we have limitations due to privacy policies. That limits what advanced analysis methods we can use. But of course we can get information from percentages and averages. That can be used to support decision making.
[Heikkinen:] I'll continue with this. we don't have a systematic way of attaining consent for data usage. We would need to attain consent in every service situation. Is it ok if we combine this data with our services? Of course we have to protect individual's privacy. We've seen what happens if the data is leaked. But the law's intended purpose also causes us harm.
We should be able to use common sense and the law should view us - in a more flexible light. Municipalities and welfare areas. We have resigned to the law, but we should be able to express - that we don't want to sell the data, only to improve the service. But first, we need consent. I'll bet that no public service has the step where - they attain consent for data analytics.
If someone has, tell us, we'll copy you. Share your best practices. [Ropponen:] The school welfare questionnaire is anonymous. We can't add any personal data to it.
We can analyse it on a group level, - or measure them against municipal or national indicators, - or contrast them with other areas. But we can't combine other data with the questionnaire. [Heikkinen:] I didn’t mean that one. [Ropponen:] But we have those issues. [Heikkinen:] We can get a lot out of anonymous data. I'm sure we'll return to this theme later. Thank you. Next Kati tells us how to lead.
The organization needs to be governed, but how do we govern services? And how does human-centrism fit in? [Launis:] Thank you, I'll try. I'm Kati Launis, from Kela, where I work on consulting on digitalization. I've been involved with AuroraAI, - especially on the part about moving from organization centrism to human-centrism. I'll try to illustrate how governing the service processes differs - from governing service networks, - and what elements change when moving from one to another. Typically, in governing service processes, we highlight - legal requirements, structures, performance, - and the organization's productivity. Cooperation often appears as individual instances, - we see partnerships and interest group work.
Generating value to the organization is highlighted. It can be hard - to support individuals' overall welfare in a structure like this. If all organizations view individuals from their own perspective, - an object for their processes.
What if we change the viewpoint to us, me and you? What service networks do we need? Now our overall welfare in different live events is centered. It's not enough to see us from inside one organization. All these different organizations together need to support - us people in what ever life throughs at us. In governing service networks, co-leadership and cooperation are highlighted. Value to the users is central.
We need updated funding models for the new way of working. Together we can work to ease different life situations people have - by interpreting the situations together. But the change in leadership from processes to networks.
We are out of the comfort zone. What does this mean? Does someone order us? Do we have to? The question is, can this change be forced? Maybe the push to this change should come from the organization. Are we currently working for the customers' overall welfare? Tuomas, you pointed that out in your talk. Even if the law doesn't order, can we see the overall welfare, - and their actual situation? The shared goal of understanding people's needs is important.
Our service networks need to have a shared goal. Of course a service network's success depends on - the change capabilities of the organizations. But I think even small changes move us forward.
The road is long from the organization centering to the human-centric. You can't just make it happen. That's my piece. [Heikkinen:] Thank you, Kati. Sounds similar to us. If a person needs permission to build a house, and we have that operation, - the person comes to us and we serve them when we have the time. Or is the building supervisory authority guiding people and helping growth - and welcoming people to become Turku residents.
How we view our own purpose is a cultural change. It's hard to order that change. How do you see it, with the TE-25 -update, - with it adding to the municipal responsibilities, - then we have the social services, some need healthcare services. Also support from Kela, and the customer is shared.
We might have a shared service counter, but we don't share info. we don't asses them as a whole. When we add all these other organizations to the situation, - on top of the complicated process in you organization, - how do we meet in the middle? [Ropponen:] If we talk about ecosystems, service ecosystems, - I'll ask, how much, in the situation you described, - where multiple actors work with the same life event, - how much we currently work together to solve it? Sit down to discuss our services and what we provide? How do we take the person by hand to the next service, - or is the person left alone in a chasm between? From a development perspective and for understanding, - all organizations have so much understanding.
But sitting down together at a shared table, - without something compelling and ordering us. You can't force it. It all comes from the desire to work together. That's how I see it. Then, if we can somehow think about compiling the data - across organizations.
Then we might be able to find phenomena we've never seen before. You mentioned the clusters, - we might find something we need to work on together. How to do it together. It may be naive, but - that's my leading thought in leadership. [Heikkinen:] Not naive, it brings hope. It's hopeful that we feel like that about our roles - and the customers receiving the services.
At the right time, in the right way, effectively. [Ropponen:] I have to continue. We could test this in certain life events, life stages. We don't have to chomp down the entire mammoth at once. We could take something that clearly resonates with all the actors. Take it and examine how it works.
See about all aspects, such as regulation and funding. Those are things we have to deal with. But to start somewhere, with a service network, - to see how we would do it. [Heikkinen:] That's the idea in AuroraAI.
Something triggers the need for services, we hear about it and act. It's true that if you try to take on the entire field, - you will crumble under the weight. Not eating the elephant in portions, it sits on you.
This has been a good conversation about leading with human-centrism. How indicators and data affect how we do it. What we need, how we analyse it and how we use it.
We discussed challenges. Then we moved on to how we should view service production - as human-centric - and not from the organization's point of view, as a requirement. Not as productivity goals, but through individuals. Very productive, thank you all. [All:] Thank you. [Whooshing transition sound] [Kopponen:] Thank you Tuomas and co for the conversation on leadership - while we are on our way to human-centrism and life event basedness. We now have an idea of what human-centrism is about, - how it challenges the cooperation between organizations and in leadership.
This is already a lot to take in. But if we look at this picture we made in AuroraAI, - it gives us an idea of all the aspects involved in this change. The change touches on all facets, including technology and data, - which we also cover during this forum. Well also cover how teams will work.
We have two experts here to lead us into the next theme. Irene Impiö, Director of Growth Services from Tampere. Kyösti Väkeväinen from HAUS development center. Kyösti and Irene will introduce the theme and capabilities, - on are we capable of this change? Before we introduce more experts, I'll ask you first. This change is overarching. How do you feel about it so far?
[Impiö:] Looking at the picture you showed us, - it tells us this change and human-centrism will need technology. Looking at the level we see we'll need rules too. [Väkeväinen:] Looking at the country and the situation we're in, - and where we need to go, - I see this change is necessary and it will take time.
We need perseverance to get there. [Kopponen:] Time and sisu? Finns can do that. Please, introduce our theme and we'll then get more experts on stage.
[Väkeväinen:] Thank you, Aleksi. I'll start. Our topic is "Do we know how to make the change?" If we take the question apart, - we have the words know, make and change. For the change, if we think about what Aleksi showed us, - we have many viewpoints for it. The change will likely be huge, in thought and action. We are talking about a systemic change.
Our experts will tell us more about it. Then making. What does this mean concretely? What techniques we have, what methods we use, - how do we make the change. Those are important questions. We'll have to start making. Otherwise we just stay where we are - and will not achieve our goal in service production.
We can also think about that Finnish trust in authorities is high. We'll have to keep that trust trough the difficult changes ahead. Then the word know. Do we know how to make the change, - and it's not enough to just want the change, - but we also need know how to make it happen.
I'm sure we'll have questions about technology, leadership, and even ethics. How those help us towards functioning services. In Tampere the journey has already began, - and Irene will talk more about what they have achieved.
Combining AI and service production. [Impiö:] I have some cases as warm-ups. I'm the Director of Growth Services and I do data change for businesses.
Public business services have been called fragmented. Businesses don't have the time to hunt down the services. Including all companies, we are talking about a huge ecosystem.
We want to introduce new, human-centric solutions. The first issue we ran into seems simple, but is very complex. What data are these services based on? On the left, we see the typical style of organizing. The services are offered on one datapoint, such as the business' size. Sometimes it's age or development stage. Huge segments. The actual needs inside the segments are varied.
We only know the needs of the ones we have time to interview or meet. Even in big cities, we can maybe meet 10% of the businesses. Lately we have been working with clusters with multiple data sources. Shown here on the right. Productivity data has been gathered from public sources.
The businesses inside clusters seem to have similar needs. We are creating the competences that were mentioned, - to focus the services on the businesses that need them. Next year we can provide tried and tested service paths, added value. A change as radical as this affects everything, such as our job descriptions. This example is from a business adviser's job description.
Left is the current one. Advisors interview and offer services to businesses. They can only serve a few businesses.
We have now hired two business data coordinators, - who build a knowledge-based leadership view. All businesses can use it to recognize their service needs, - and how to find the services. A window into knowledge-based leadership. The interface needs to be simple to use, like an app. Both types of advisors are needed and they work together. The change takes time and know how.
[Väkeväinen:] What kind of feedback did you get? [Impiö:] We are starting the pilots now. We have found businesses to partner with us and give feedback. [Väkeväinen:] Thank you. Now is the time to bring the experts to the stage.
Let's see what kind of a conversation we can have. Competences for human-centric and life event based services - and how to cultivate them in the public administration. [Väkeväinen:] We have our top experts. Tero Vuorinen and Kati Kivistö from HAUS, - and Marko Latvanen from DVV.
[All:] Thank you. In the intro we covered three things. The change, and the need to develop capabilities and know how. If we start unwrapping the change. How do you see human-centrism and AI in service production? What changes does it necessitate in thinking and other regards? [Vuorinen:] I think there are many steps to take before using the technology.
One issue is the lack of data or data movement. We need to think what else we need to do first, before implementing anything. [Väkeväinen:] Indeed. Kati, how do you see the change? [Kivistö:] No matter the change, it always happens in human interactions.
It's understanding, knowledge and attitude. [Väkeväinen:] Marko, what needs to change in our attitude? [Latvanen:] We need to develop the attitude together, and agree on it. If we talk about radical, overarching change to the society, - it is a shared thing.
And we need to publicize it, so the residents' know about it. To make the terminology clear and so on. Public debate is an inherent and necessary part of the process. [Väkeväinen:] Now we're warmed up. Irene? [Impiö:] Let's talk about how the world will work with specialized quality. We all here have experience with developing digital services.
We often use pilots and testing. But in order for the tests to not be left on the shelf, - we need to move on to developing the core services. We also need to tackle inclusivity and equality in development. If we need to promote everyone's chance to succeed, - the services might not be uniform.
I have a warm up picture here. It's the difference between equal and uniform services. Digital uniqueness might look like this.
Kati, what do you think about this? What could digital uniqueness mean, and do we need to give something up? [Kivistö:] I think, in the future, - our digital services' voice and appearance needs to change. They need to be customizable and serve the user's goals more than they do now. They are a bit stiff now. We need to challenge our thinking, as public service providers - as businesses and companies, as citizens. We need to bring the users together and involve them in the development.
Boards can't solve this. [Impiö:] Do we need to let go of something? Is it easy? [Kivistö:] We need to give up seeking self-interest. We need to really see who we are doing the work for. Human-centrism. That forces us to think about things differently.
Not just the software developer, - not just the public official, but everyone involved in the new process. [Impiö:] When talking about human-centrism and change, - we talk about machines and technology. We already have software robots working. The aim is to bring people to people, - and robots taking the other work to enable us.
We made this fun screen capture of the New Team, - where some functions are given to robot partners. Marko, what do we need to talk about when we have robots working - in service processes and even supporting decision making. What about ethics? [Latvanen:] One thing we must talk about are structures and roles.
We have very data intensive services, and so we need more data competences. Data work is a multifaceted field of work. It covers what data is chose, who chooses it and what for, - who and how do we monitor it's quality. We need new expertize, new roles, new titles. The structure will change.
We also need to understand technology's limits. We have promises, but AI is far from prepared to do complex tasks. We need to understand better what it can and can't do, - and what fields are suited for it.
AI is not a general purpose tool, it's not a Swiss army knife. The excel in one and fail in many things. And another thing with implementing tools - is monitoring effectiveness and predicting effectiveness.
With scenarios and predictions, we should add methods - to evaluate the technologies effects on different demographics. In different time frames. To prevent unwanted effects. It takes an expert and we might not have that skill yet. It's another new job. [Väkeväinen:] This is a good transition. Developing competences. Let's bring our second big theme into the conversation.
How do we bring abut the change - and what types of competences do we need for it? How do you see the big picture, - what competences and skills are highlighted, - and what skills do we need now, or in the long run? [Vuorinen:] I'll go first. If we think about - the big picture, a city. What are our competences and models? What do we do for the youth? We might not know where we are internally or what the residents' think. How well we do. So we know we nee the big picture. Then we can parse out what operations models we need, - to obtain that big picture.
Then we can think of the skills and competences we need. If we need the competence of a better big picture, - we will quickly run into what Kati said, - that we need to let go of optimizing sections. We need to work together better. Then we run into needing to make services different. Service design.
And the big picture - can be split to starting work with a phenomena canvassing. Then we might see if we need a virtual or a physical situation HQ. Or if we need some indicators for monitoring.
We can break it into smaller pieces. But the main things are the big picture, cooperation and service design. They would give us better data and better actionable data. [Väkeväinen:] Indeed. Tero mentioned service design, - How do you see its role in service development? [Kivistö:] I am a big believer in service design.
Talking about human-centric services and designing and providing them, - we must have people at the heart of design. I agree that we need systemic understanding of the big picture, - but I'd highlight human assets. Courage to stop and take a look at out processes, - and how they should change. Courage and sympathizing.
[Väkeväinen:] How do we get more courage in development? [Vuorinen:] Speeches often mention experimental mindsets. You see it less in practice. But if we had tools to do limited tests... I mean you shouldn't fail on a massive scale.
In the public administration it's better to fail controlledly, - and we should move towards