aporia step 5/6
By: aporia pidgeon
Category: (uN)HiDDeN, UIDM refinement-in-action, aporia, aporia approaches, benefits realisation, emergenomics, policy formation, prior art, real option, social enterprise, technology transfer, transforming six steps
[...] This does not prevent you using other processes (such as complaining to the [...]’s funding bodies or to the Parliamentary Ombudsman) but we would like the opportunity to put matters right first ourselves [...]
[...] this aporia work and its derivatives have been emergenomically rated 47, XYY and so m(a)y contain some material only otherwise accessible (as at the time of posting) on written request under the UK freedom of information act from a growing number of distributed publicly funded bodies [...]
[...] Principles of Good Complaint Handling consultation [...] The Ombudsman’s Office is working on a project to develop Principles of Good Complaint Handling and we would welcome your views on the draft Principles as part of a public consultation. Promoting good complaint handling by public bodies is a key part of our work and the attached Principles are based on the experiences of this Office in considering complaint handling for over forty years.
The work on good complaint handling flows from and should be read in conjunction with our Principles of Good Administration and the Principles for Remedy. Good complaint handling is a key element of good administration and you will see that we have started from the same six Principles but applied them to the complaint handling context [...]
[...] science (in) and (through) society ‹ [...]
[...] Without prejudice save as to costs [...] Thank you for inviting views on the draft Principles as part of the public consultation at http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/news/pgch_consultation.html
Having happened upon this Ombudsman’s Office project to develop such principles of good complaint handling, we have since sought to engage the consultation process itself as part and parcel of our own attempts at complaints-handling “innovation”.
For the purposes of inter alia “expertise sharing” across sibling endeavours in good faith, we have thus been digitally curating an online WHiSPeRiNG GaLLeRY which is publicly – and anonymously – accessible at http://ap0riasofar.wordpress.com
We have also been in the process of organising a series of “expertise sharing” sessions online, where such materials may form the basis of more detailed analyses across both academic and practitioner peers for the purposes of criticism, review, and possible public policy formation in due course.
In this sense, we have sought to engage your own project by embedding within our own developmental trajectory and hope that this form of participating in your public consultation may turn out to be helpful for all parties concerned.
Further, we hope that once external liaison and outreach team members have had a chance to explore the WHiSPeRiNG GaLLeRY in some detail, you might consider joining forces with us, to a degree, with a view to collaborating on next steps as fellow peers of what we have been calling public adminstrative “practices-in-transition”.
At any event, in light of our open development efforts and in direct response to the questions you raise with respect to the draft Principles as they currently stand, please find our comments at this stage as follows [...]
If these Principles are written in a way that is relevant and helpful
[...] Personally, we found that the Principles are written in a way that has been very helpful for articulating our own approaches to complaints-handling, to the extent that we were able to embed them directly into our own developmental trajectories by way of weaving them into and through our WHiSPeRiNG GaLLeRY case repository at http://ap0riasofar.wordpress.com. However, we are conscious that the context within which we have sought to extend the open invitation to consider the Principles is itself supportive of the sorts of practices that derive from concurring with such Principles in the first place. That is to say, we have actively developed the WHiSPeRiNG GaLLeRY public space in order to help bring out the possible meanings of the Principles-in-use through the various narrative paths that a visitor might take through the GaLLeRY itself before passing through the page at http://ap0riasofar.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/aporia-step-46/ for example. Without the GaLLeRY space, it is difficult to say whether or not persons unfamiliar with a principle-based approach to complaints handling, in contrast to possibly more widespread procedural-based approaches, would be able to consider adapting/transforming their ways of working solely on the basis of a written text. So, although the Principles have no doubt been written in a way that is as helpful as they possibly can be written, for some parties, the principles may only become tangibly implementable if the written text can be complemented by careful example(s) of their being put into (unfolding) practice at the day-to-day administrative level. We are hoping that a set of such examples can be actively curated in due course for the purposes of “expertise sharing”, and would welcome any comments/queries that you may have with regards our own WHiSPeRiNG GaLLeRY efforts in the first instance [...]
Whether there are any words or terms that are unclear
[...] From our perspective, we have sought to give clarity to the words and terms used in the draft Principles by tying them to how they have been used in practice in the open development context of our WHiSPeRiNG GaLLeRY. For example, the page at http://ap0riasofar.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/aporia-step-46/ in particular serves to cross-reference the words and terms of the text with the living example being embodied by the GaLLeRY space. This page also serves to invite the practitioners in question to consider responding to your consultation themselves, in the hope that any words or terms that remain unclear can be identified and worked through as needs be in due course. In the meantime, we did take note of the fact that the draft Principles do not make explicit mention of the word “formal”, or term “informal”, in relation to the invocation of any given set of complaints-handling procedures. On the one hand. this is understandable in the sense that any such distinction could only come about in relation to procedural-based approaches and not principle-based approaches to complaints-handling. Though, on the other hand, perhaps the omission assumes that the distinction between a procedural-based approach and a principle-based approach is already understood by all parties concerned. For those who are new to the principle-based approach “world-view”, therefore, it may be instructive to find some way of beginning to distinguish between the two “world-views” upfront. Again, we would hope that the WHiSPeRiNG GaLLeRY serves to shed light on the sort of detailed sector specific work that may be required when endeavouring to reconcile differing “world-views” across what may otherwise turn out to be areas of deeply conflicting interests between relevant parties when seeking to complaints-handle in the context of the prevailing administrative – and indeed culturally embedded – “norms” [...]
Whether there is anything else you think should be included
[...] As introduced above, for the purposes of this consultation on the draft Principles, we are hoping that our WHiSPeRiNG GaLLeRY publicly accessible online at http://ap0riasofar.wordpress.com may help to shed some light on the sorts of issues that may benefit from further study at the level of the Ombudsman’s Office together with sector specific specialists at the earliest opportunity. As such, we welcome this chance to collaborate and “expertise share” with your team as you move into the forthcoming analytical phase of your current project, and hope that we can find a way to include ongoing support for “expertise sharing” with a view to complementing the emerging written text with evolving examples of the Principles-in-use going forward [...]
Whether the supporting text is useful and whether you would find it helpful to have the final Principles presented in this way
[...] We found the supporting text indispensable and critical to being able to flesh out the draft Principles in ways that allowed us to begin to draw distinctions between prevailing procedural-based approaches and this somewhat contrasting principle-based approach in light of current “norms”. The danger being that if the supporting text were to somehow become separated from the summary text, the summary text would then be open to reverting to procedural-based interpretation rather than being critically tied to principle-based interpretation. Nevertheless, for those unfamiliar with the distinction between procedural-based approaches and principle-based approaches per se, it may be helpful to link the final Principles to concrete presentations/performances of the Principles-in-use (for example, the WHiSPeRiNG GaLLeRY in the case of the academic sector so far) in order to facilitate “expertise sharing” across what may otherwise turn out to be possibly incommensurable conflicts of interests stemming from differing “world-views” with respect to “practically achievable” complaints-handling, if not “good” complaints-handling innovations”/”transformations in and of themselves [...]
[...] Code of Conduct and Policy on the Governance of Good Research Conduct [...] INTEGRITY, CLARITY, AND GOOD MANAGEMENT [...] This consultation document is complementary to the work of the UK Panel for Research Integrity in Health and Bio-Medical Sciences and that in the Department of Health / National Health Service but will in certain parts cover a wider range of issues because of [...]’s concern with all research, and with issues of good research practice as well as research integrity. Equally it will cover other aspects in less depth. Every effort has been made to ensure that there will be no conflict in the guidance from these different sources, and this will be reviewed further after the completion of the consultation [...]
[...] bringing together emergent profile for phase I with emerging profile for phase II (+I) ‹ › [...]
[...] Roles, responsibilities and actions [...] Do these areas and questions provide a suitable framework for addressing challenges we have identified? [...]
[...] COMMENTS on (w)hole page [...] Further to [...] workshop on “Building mature relationships with our stakeholders: how can we make it work”, just to confirm that we have now linked this page to our WHiSPeRiNG GaLLeRY by way of comment #271 at http://ap0riasofar.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/aporia-step-56/ (un)labeled “D*US ex machina” in good faith – hope this helps as sibling consultation(s) continue to unfold for the time being at least [...]
[...] open development ‹ › [...]
[...] The Patent Research Exception: A Consultation [...] A patent gives the owner the right to prevent third parties from making, using, selling or importing their invention for up to 20 years. Subject to certain exceptions, if a third party does any of these without the consent of the patent owner it will be considered to be an infringement of the patent; the owner would be entitled to take legal action against the infringer. The rights granted by a patent encourage innovation by helping businesses to protect their investments in R&D.
A strong research base is vital to the competitiveness of our economy and to promoting the well being of our society. It is important that the right balance exists between the opportunity to conduct research and the framework of IP laws which can provide incentives for innovation and economic development.
Patent laws in most European countries include a “research exception” (or “research exemption”) which permits use of a patented invention for experimental purposes without infringing the rights of the holder. Additionally, there are further exceptions such as those in respect of private and non-commercial use [...]
We aim to make this a successful consultation by engaging with stakeholders in a variety of ways, for example through conducting workshops with major stakeholders. By taking this approach we hope to maximise the feedback from all parties who may be affected by the research exception [...]
We welcome comments from all interested parties on the issues raised in this document and to the specific questions. We are particularly interested in any evidence in support of your views which will help us to determine the scale of the problem, if it exists, and to decide the way forward [...]
Information provided in response to this consultation will be dealt with in accordance with the access to information regimes. These are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Please refer to the accompanying Guidance on the Code of Practice on Consultation http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file44364.pdf for more information.
The Government will use the responses to assess whether the patent exception requires clarification. According to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, all information contained in the responses including personal information may be subject to publication or disclosure. Where respondents request that information given in response to the consultation be kept confidential, this will only be possible if it is consistent with freedom of information obligations.
A request for confidentiality from a respondent will not be enough to guarantee confidentiality. Where respondents specifically request confidentiality, this can only be agreed if it is consistent with freedom of information obligations [...]
[...] 7 August 2008, 11.05am [...] Many thanks for your email with the comments on the draft Principles of Good Complaint Handling. We intend to publish the final Principles later this year and will send a copy to your organisation then [...]
[...] .. [...]