Comment ( 1 )

1. ReplyAuthorDavePosted on 12:07 pm August 22, 2021

   On facebook, a correspondent of mine, wrote the following, Dave Levy is right this is from the SCRUM framework. This framework was developed in the 90's by Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland. You can read their SCRUM guides at: ⁠https://scrumguides.org/ ⁠ I don't personally discount management theory and find it interesting. I studied a fair bit of it at Harvard as part of my Master’s degree, with a particular focus on public sector management. The language being used is a bit management gobbledegook and could do with being adjusted to a form of words that made more sense in the context of the pre-existing cultural context of Labour. ⁠ At a certain level the notion of the SCRUM framework has advantages. In the context of a business, it can be effective. It is more often used in software companies but theoretically it can be applied to other businesses as well. ⁠ The big question though is can it be applied effectively to a political party like Labour? I am very sceptical. Particularly as Evans has come out with this idea but doesn't seem to understand the basic concepts. SCRUM is described as: ⁠

   'founded on empiricism and lean thinking. Empiricism asserts that knowledge comes from experience and making decisions based on what is observed.'

   ⁠ Yet Evans is making staff redundant in the Data section and reducing the Data unit. Moving to a strategy based on empiricism but reducing the available data makes no sense. ⁠ SCRUM is built around the notion of supplying a 'product'. It is an administrative mechanism to deliver increased value in your 'product' software, cars, groceries etc. What exactly is the 'product' that Labour supplies? I am not clear on that. ⁠ The core values of SCRUM are Commitment, Focus, Openness, Respect, and Courage. My suspicion is that the SCRUM framework will fall apart pretty quickly when it hits the reality of the administrative culture of Labour. Transparency in Labour is non-existent. It is an incredibly secretive Org e.g., the NEC don't get full accounts, no public minutes of the NEC, Forde Report etc. No respect for ordinary volunteer members, risk averse decision making and staff. ⁠ Labour is an org with a substantial volunteer component. Applying a model designed as a business framework for an org that is almost entirely employed may be a problem. The idea of 'agile' learning behaviour in Labour would suggest that you devolve decision making to the lowest level and give maximum agency to members and CLPs. 'Rapid prototyping' might make sense in an organisation that encouraged grass roots evolutionary innovation. That means the center giving up control. Evans 'Hub and Spoke' model suggests the opposite. The 'Hub' = HQ, it creates, and then directs and the 'spokes' deliver the 'product'. ⁠ The fundamentally ill-conceived aspect of this is that you have a 'product' to supply, and that 'product' is universal and not related to location. If we are selling a software package it is the same in Southampton, or Sheffield, or Sunderland. This can’t be said for the Labour ‘product’ (strongly recommend reading ‘Putting Voters in Their Place: Geography and Elections in Great Britain’ - by Ron Johnston, Charles Pattie, R. J. Johnston, reviewed here). There is a significant local aspect to how the Labour ‘product’ is sold and if local variations and cultural context are squeezed out through excessive oligarchic and hierarchical centralism by HQ that will have the opposite effect. Another key part of the Party being fundamentally a volunteer organisation is that members activity level and work can’t be forced. In any volunteer organisation the empirical evidence is that approx. 10-15% of members will be active. In Labour I suggest it is lower than that. Research by Professor Marshall Ganz of Harvard suggests that to maximise volunteer activity 3 conditions need to be met: 1). experienced meaningfulness, 2). autonomy, 3). feedback. The behaviour of Evans and Starmer towards members is the exact opposite of this. They have a ‘Stalinist’ dictatorial approach to management which will continue to destroy volunteer engagement. This is lethal to Labour because in a GE Labour will always be outspent by the Tories. There is no prospect of Labour matching Tory spending £ for £. Volunteers and the capacity to put far more feet on the ground allows Labour to try to close that gap and leverage volunteers to provide greater electoral ‘punch’. The management talk is a bit ‘wank’ but far more concerning is the fact that this appears to be a really bad strategy rooted in misconceptions and a fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts involved in SCRUM and the nature of political campaigning. Another solid reason why Evans must not be ratified by Conference.