I was slightly bemused when the Cabinet Office announced that it was going to create a new £160k position for the Director of Digital Engagement.
The job seemed like a tall order: a list of requirements that it would be hard for any one person to fulfill, and a very big job to do with very limited resources. It seemed like a strange move to make when creating two positions at £80k a piece would probably still attract very qualified people, and give you more time and knowledge for your money.
Nonetheless, I watched with interest, and now, a tad later than expected, the position has been filled by Andrew Stott. My initial reaction was along the same lines as Emma Mulqueeny’s — more bemusement — but actually, I think Andrew is a good choice. Not who I’d have expected, but good nonetheless. As numerous people have said, he is very qualified, does have a brain the size of a planet, and has lots of experience pushing through the kind of change that we need. More than that, though, he’s practical.
I worked with Andrew briefly in 2008. One of the things we were looking at at the time was the quasi-XML version of the Civil Service Yearbook, which has lots of useful data in it. As is usually the case, though, it wasn’t proper XML — it’s variously broken, inconsistent and badly written. We spent a satisfying ten minutes at the end of the day bemoaning such irritations, and the next morning Andrew showed up at the office having spent all the previous evening writing a bunch of code to take the nasty XML and make it into useful data.
That, I think, is indicative of the man.
[...] views, one very positive from Harry, and another from [...]
That is the measure, Harry, and why this weirdly seems OK. Andrew will not be merrily wined and dined whilst despairing… he will be far more likely hunched over his computer and working with the POIT to build the scaffolding for everyone to continue hammering away.
I think that’s certainly right, and what’s needed. I’m just half disappointed that it’s not a brazenly outspoken external person who’ll shake up the works. That said, Andrew Lewin thinks that’s precisely what’s *not* needed, which is perhaps the case. We’ll see, I guess
[...] has a positive anecdote about him along with an observation that I’d agree with: It [a £160k post] seemed like a [...]
I think Andrew Stott is a good choice, but £160,000 is an expensive price tag. Rgds Vince
Hi Harry,
FTR, I had also been assuming it would be a “new face from the private sector to make a bold splash and shake everything up”, and my blog piece was making the point that this could prove dispiriting to those people in government who have been working hard on this and seen real progress on social media this year if it were all to be thrown out, “suddenly change direction and start all over again [which] would have been both irritating and time-consuming.” There are pros and cons to both approaches, and while there’s undoubtedly a good case for bringing someone in with a fresh eye I just think the timing for that route is slightly wrong right now given recent progress and also the electoral cycle. But I wouldn’t say it’s precisely what’s *not* needed.
As for price tag – I think it’s very unlikely that Andrew Stott would be getting the top end of that very wide £80k-£160k quotes salary range.