The surprise here is not that the idea is new, it's that they may not have realised how much is already available.
To answer some of Derek's points,
If I was to get involved in an adviser v computer debate then I'd end up saying, I suspect, that a well designed computer system will be consistent and thorough in its information collection. It will not forget to ask questions, nor will it make incorrect assumptions and it should be able to determine what questions to ask or not ask according to circumstance. An advisor may well be able to focus quickly on the core issue(s) and information but may not choose to take a comprehensive view of the situation.
This covers MTBs in the regulated schemes. For NMTBs it is of course much more difficult to actually determine entitlement but it may well be that algorithms can be as good, or better, than advisors in estimating the probability of success for the generality of claims particularly in the indicator based schemes. They will not be as good where 'local' knowledge is important - "Try and see Mr. Jones - he's a soft touch for this condition" - although that kind of knowledge can be encapsulated.
There is a lot of experience and technology around that can help meet the different needs of users. It is often easier to provide a system that works in a minority language than to provide an adviser who speaks it. There are all sorts of ways to meet the needs of users in other ways, multi-media techniques for the literacy problems, avatars for sign-language etc.
Pitching the level of questions and explanation for different kinds of users is not new either. There are a lot of web sites which have had to do this for commercial reasons and, crudely, most make an assumption that the users of the technology need a minimum level of understanding to get to the site in the first place. Otherwise they will assume that there is an intermediary involved. It will also be true that no-one would attempt to produce a system that 100% of the population could use on their own. The question will be 'What's the target usage figure?'.
As for what level of advice does the client need or want.
I wrote a paper seceral years ago which broke electronic information down into a number of categories:
"Scatter Broadcast For example, Posters, Advertisements. Information believed to be of general interest or of importance to a smaller number of people. Probably not relevant to most readers / viewers and normally happened on by chance.
Leaflet Provided by search effort of user. This is the lowest level of information provision which requires the user to search for and find a document which may contain information of interest to him/her.
Target Broadcast For example, list server, channel, but sent to those who express an interest. The same level of information as leaflet which may contain variable amounts of information of interest or relevance to the user but which is 'pushed' to those who have previously expressed an interest in a particular topic.
Structured Document assembly by dialogue. The generation of a document making use of responses from the user indicating interest which selects from a boilerplate library elements which are of specific relevance..
Anonymous personal Modelled advice - e.g. financial. No ID needed. The provision of a service based upon a 'model' of a situation, for example, a social support query may be made by describing a situation of the user's family circumstances which will enable a calculation of entitlement to be made but without any requirement to provide personal identifiers.
Full personal ID provided, allows use of data - a secure and digital signature. The use of an identifier, smart cards, digital signature etc. allows for ‘change of circumstance’ and 'what if' scenarios using actual data already known about the user.
Interactive Allows response and claims etc. A fully secure identified connection allows responses and claims, for example, to be made completely electronically.
Personal structured A document assembly technique making use of personal information which can be used to assemble individual documents such as wills.
Real time Which allows instant interactive communication between government and citizen and may include, for example, on screen video links and document transfer.
Many of these may be enhanced by use of facilities such as automated translation, timed requests, etc."
I think that this kind of division is still relevant. No-one is going to expect the robot rep. to appear as an advocate at a tribunal but the human rep might very well have electronic information resources.
The calculations of benefit entitlement and amounts is a long proven given, even though it was widely considered impossible in the late 70s and early 80s when I started working in the area.
It doesn't need to 'expert' in the human sense, it needs to have a sound collection of rules in place and to be able to apply them correctly. The expertise comes in capturing and producing those rules which will not all be be lifted from legislation.
The more difficult area of this proposal will be debt advice where tactics and strategies come more into play and personal circumstances, which are harder to map, will become important.
I wouldn't agree that "an e-advice service would be useful to a small section of the poulation only (those with better than average articulacy) and probably as a reference tool by advisers" If it's a decent tool then it should be useable to a large section of the population, at least 80%, and it ought to be inappropriate for advisers who would probably need a different sort of tool with an interface that was appropriate for experts.
|