iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 31/07/2026

So I'm pretty excited by the recognition that traditional consultation doesn't cut it any more, in the Rewiring the State Cabinet Statement. 1/3 www.gov.uk/government/p...

We agreed to replace the current model of consultation by default with new and modern forms of public participation. This includes considering where performative statutory duties to consult can be revoked and how we can more actively bring the public into the policy-making process instead. This recognises that local leaders are better equipped to link public opinion and civil society to policy making.

182

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 24/07/2026

Exhibit C: Because call centre labour is cheap, and voice AI pricey, the token cost of using AI in that context is currently greater than equivalent human labour cost. From www.goldmansachs.com/insights/top...

Falling token costs can expand the AI frontier

As token unit costs continue to decline, AI agents may become increasingly economical relative to human labor, expanding the range of enterprise workflows that firms can automate at an attractive return on investment (ROI). Coding is a compelling example: It is high value, largely text-based, and supported by a mature tooling stack, which allows even token-heavy agentic workflows to remain less expensive than equivalent human labor. Other categories that are operationally harder and more expensive to execute like real-time voice and call center automation are more constrained for now. However, the broader trend is clear: ongoing declines in token costs and, in turn, prices may lower the breakeven point for automation and render more AI use cases economically viable.

A graph shows coding agents costing $13.39/day and humans costing $300/day. For call centre operatives, the AI is $92.90/day and the human is $90/day.

161

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 23/07/2026

Exhibit A: British Gas explains how it's the customers' fault that they're cutting 1,300 call centre staff - people just prefer chat bots! Exhibit B: Trustpilot summary of reviews of British Gas customer service: frustration of being forced into online channels and unable to speak to a person.

But Chris O’Shea, the company’s chief executive, insisted that the changes were being made because customers preferred to take their queries to digital channels rather than people.

“AI isn’t driving these particular job reductions; that’s mainly due to changing customer behaviour,” he said. “What we’re seeing just now is over 90% of our customers actually use digital channels in the first instance, and we’ve seen a 20% reduction in customer calls, so this simply reflects the changing customer behaviour.

“We’ve got to reflect the changes in customer behaviour. We expect to grow more jobs around our digital interface, and maybe having fewer people on the phones.”

Customers consistently note ambiguous experiences with customer service, with many praising the helpfulness, professionalism, and clear communication from agents and engineers, who explained everything and resolved issues quickly. Reviewers appreciated the ease of booking appointments, prompt confirmations, and the availability of out-of-hours support. However, a significant number of consumers expressed frustration with the inability to speak to a person, being redirected to online channels, and a lack of follow-through on promised callbacks. Many also reported issues with conflicting information, unaddressed complaints, and a perceived lack of care or understanding from customer service representatives, leading to prolonged unresolved problems and financial concerns.

54622

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 22/06/2026

Even better shot of it in the Guardian

Andy Burnham takes a selfie with the Parliamentary Labour Party, with an i.AI sticker prominently showing on the back of his phone

010

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 20/02/2026

I'm astonished this statement could be reported so uncritically. Let's be real: *IF* AGI is ever developed, all its efforts will be spent making OpenAI profitable and sending Musk to Mars. From www.theguardian.com/world/2026/f...

Stuart Russell, a professor of artificial intelligence at the University of California, Berkeley, who closely follows India’s progress, said: “If we get to AGI [artificial general intelligence], AI is going to be producing 80% of the global economy. All manufacturing, most agriculture, all services will be just done; managed by AI, produced by AI.”

Imagine, he said, an Indian village priced out of having a health centre. In the future, AI could design the hospital and “along comes a bunch of giant quad copters carrying the materials, and a bunch of robots come and assemble everything. Two weeks later, you’ve got a hospital.”

2133

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 17/02/2026

Billboards for the AI Impact Summit are everywhere in New Delhi, but the floral display versions are next level!

161

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 11/02/2026

I think it's the default for "Look up & data detectors", see Trackpad preferences here.

screenshot of MacOS Trackpad preferences

100

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 07/02/2026

Great to see an analysis of the impact of ambient voice technologies that includes consideration of long term impacts, patient impacts and system-level impacts. The logic model (in the phase 1 report slide deck) is helpful. It would be useful to see something similar in policing/justice.

Diagram of a logic model for AVTs. The overarching theory of change is summarised as: If AVT systems accurately capture and summarise clinical encounters and integrate into EHRs, then clinicians spend less time documenting
and more time with patients. This improves data quality, clinician wellbeing, and productivity. Over time, these translate into improved patient outcomes, better workforce
retention, and system efficiency.

050

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 05/01/2026

Happy return-to-work day! Have a picture of my dog to cheer you up.

A Gordon Setter running towards the camera across frosty grass, looking joyful and goofy.

3231

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 24/12/2025

Thank you! Also you're giving too much hope about the timings of sunrise: the header here should be *8am* sunrise given time is 07:59...

130

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 17/11/2025

Should I routinely publish photos of my dog?

A Gordon Setter is bounding across some grass towards the photographer. His ears are caught mid bounce, so they look like wings. He has a joyful expression and looks like an idiot.

4481

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 18/10/2025

Listening to the recent Ezra Klein podcast on the AI apocalypse, I found this segment astonishing. I had no idea AI psychosis was so common that journalists are receiving *daily* emails from people demonstrating it. www.nytimes.com/2025/10/15/o...

Snippet of podcast transcript:

I get emails like the call you got, now most days of the week.

Yep.

And they have a very, very particular structure to them, where it’s somebody emailing me and saying: Listen, I am in a heretofore unknown collaboration with a sentient A.I. We have breached the programming. We have come into some new place of human knowledge. We’ve solved quantum mechanics — or theorized it or synthesized it or unified it — and you need to look at these chat transcripts. You need to understand that we’re looking at a new kind of human-computer collaboration. This is an important moment in history. You need to cover this.

Every person I know who does reporting on A.I. and is public about it now gets these emails.

Don’t we all?

240

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 10/10/2025

The irony of the clickbait article about the pope's condemnation of clickbait being the most viewed article...

The Guardian Most viewed list of articles is topped by one reading "You won't believe what degrading practice the pope just condemned"

1303

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 03/10/2025

Important read on digital ID based on experience in India.

Our investigations into Aadhar revealed that once such a system is implemented, it is almost impossible to prevent its proliferation into every interaction between the state and the resident, which turns each failed transaction into a potential criminal breach.

Politicians know that national IDs are hugely unpopular, which is why they invariably start with a scape-goat to sell the system to a sceptical public. These scapegoats offer a glimpse into the insecurities hidden in the national psyche. In India, Aadhar was sold to middle-class India as a technological balm to the widespread perception of corruption.

23323

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 16/09/2025

21yo got some excellent shots of the dog today.

The dog is asleep and his jowls are squished against a pillow.

Photo of a side mirror in which you can see the dog sticking his head out of the back window.

1110

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 03/07/2025

I'm sure Palantir creating AI summaries of our complaints will make us all feel so much more heard. (Compare and contrast the community-based efforts of organisations like Maternity Engagement Action: maternityengagement.uk/campaign/see...)

Screenshot:

The problem is that the NHS doesn’t listen
well enough. The most common reasons for
complaints is poor communication.195 We will
update complaints regulations and increase
the use of AI tools to ensure complaints data
is collected - and responded to - far more
quickly. One AI tool is already in development
and being tested on the Federated Data
Platform (FDP) and we will resource further
expansion of this approach in 2025 to 2026.

Screenshot:

AI-led warning system building on the
capabilities in the Federated Data Platform
(FDP). This will mean we are able to analyse
data to identify where quality issues are
emerging in parts of the NHS. Where the
AI system flags a concern, it could trigger a
CQC inspection.

110

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 03/07/2025

Outside of the data and technology parts, the 10 year plan reflects a consumerist version of public voice. The power we're granted is marketised power, to choose the services we use and log our dissatisfaction with them.

Screenshot:

Pushing power out to patients
and the public

The steps outlined in this chapter will push
power from the centre to local systems and
providers. This is a good thing in its own
right: it is providers, not Whitehall, who know
most about local need. However, it is only
an intermediary in this plan’s defining goal:
a patient-controlled NHS, that provides real
choice, real control and real convenience
for patients.

To achieve that, we will introduce a
new Choice Charter. It will be rolled out
progressively across England, starting in the
areas of highest health need. It will have 5
new mechanisms.

First, it will make NHS funding flows increasingly
sensitive to patient voice, choice and feedback.
Patient reported outcomes and experience
data - as well as direct feedback - will be
important determinants in how we appraise
performance and award performance-related
pay. As we outline in chapter 9, we will also
trial new Patient Power Payments, where
patients will be contacted after care and
given a say on whether the full payment for
the costs of their care should be released
to the provider. This will be the start of the

Screenshot:

trajectory of money flowing with patients,
and being responsive to patient voice, over
the course of this Plan.

Second, patients will have new powers
over how they use NHS resources from our
significant expansion of personal health
budgets (PHBs). As we outlined in chapter 2,
we will at least double the number offered
one by 2028 to 2029, and make PHBs a
universal offer for all who would benefit by
2035.

Third, patients will be able to exercise greater
control over their health and care through
the NHS App. As we outline in chapter 3, the
App will revolutionise patients’ interactions
with the NHS. They will be able to get rapid
advice, book appointments instantly, rate
their experience, choose their provider and
schedule appointments - all with maximum
choice.

Screenshot:

Fourth, over time and where safe and
clinically appropriate, more patients will be
able to directly refer themselves to more
diagnostic services, removing often time
consuming and inconvenient processes where
patients are gatekept unnecessarily. In the
future, we expect patients to be able to access
lab testing via their phone (e.g. blood tests);
to use AI to triage (e.g. via the NHS App) or to
directly proceed to tests (also via the NHS App
and where clinically appropriate) with tests
available in the community via community
diagnostic centres and neighbourhood
health centres. A more pre-emptive NHS
App and advances in wearable technology
will, over time, support patients to self-refer
confidently, including directly through the
NHS App (see chapter 3).

Fifth, where patients need elective treatment,
they will have a choice of different providers,
allowing them to choose the provider that
best suits their needs, with information
available on journey times, waiting times,
quality, outcomes and patient experience. We
will facilitate this through the NHS App.

110

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 03/07/2025

It's great to do user research when developing apps, but at a recent workshop we @connectedbydata.org held with @nationalvoices.bsky.social, participants said patients (and staff) need to be involved much earlier and deeper to shape the kinds of technologies that are being created in the first place

Screenshot:

As the Patients Association105 and other
groups have long argued, one of the most
important ways we can maximise the inclusive
potential of digital technology is by cocreating it with patients, especially those
previously excluded by other NHS services
most of all. We will involve patient groups
and patient organisations in the development
and testing of new App functionality from the

outset, harnessing their expertise to ensure
excellent, inclusive user experience.

130

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 03/07/2025

Practically every public dialogue I've seen also includes some strong reservations, particularly about AI adoption in places that involve sensitive data, care, and the potential of job losses. It's unusual (and convenient?!) that the 10 year plan dialogue found the public focused on the positives.

Screenshot:

they readily accept the use of their data for
applications beyond direct care, as long as
strict privacy and security conditions are in
place and met. They want to see it support
the innovations that could, in future, save
lives. We also heard that they would expect
the NHS to derive value from its use. If NHS
data supports a profitable product, the NHS
should share in the proceeds.

Screenshot:

We have spoken to the public around the
country about how they want their data to
be used. We heard their desire for a rigorous
approach to privacy and security, which will
inform our redesign of the opt-out system.
We also heard their surprise at the barriers
we put up to using NHS data that does not
contain any identifying information (e.g.
anonymised aggregate hospital information).
We will reform the legal framework to allow
for health data to be used to improve the NHS
and for research that benefits its patients -
including, through the Health Data Research
Service announced by the Prime Minister in
April 2025.

110

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 03/07/2025

Yes, the conclusion of Chapter 8 - Powering transformation (p. 128) talks about being a "world leader" in clinical trials and public participation, but the kind of 'participation' being talked about is opting in to their data being used in clinical trials, not shaping what research gets done.

Screenshot of the text:

We will support the scale of this aspiration by
getting the basics right. We will be a world
leader in clinical trials and patient involvement
in research. The UK will have a streamlined
regulatory environment, fit to support
entrepreneurs and scientists.

The phrase "and patient involvement in research" is highlighted.

Screenshot:

From 2025, we will make it far easier for
patients to volunteer to participate in clinical
trials by promoting ‘Be Part of Research’

Screenshot:

and integrating it with the NHS App.
Initially, this will allow patients to search the
clinical research database and request to be
contacted. We will enhance the service for
commercial partners to link eligible patients
who have signed up with available studies in
target areas. In time, we will link clinical trial
recruitment to the NHS App and SPR, so that
patients can be proactively notified of clinical
trials that might benefit them.

100

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 27/06/2025

The Devereux Review includes a lot of criticism of ONS's Integrated Data Service. Sounds like that's now going to be shelved, perhaps making way for a National Data Library with similar goals?

IDS has proved the most difficult programme for ONS. It has now delivered some ground-breaking data linkages, while protecting personal information. Building on earlier work, ONS can now, for example, assess the impact of various forms of surgery on patients’ propensity to return to work. However, at present the benefit cost ratio is very low, and IDS has low take-up by Government analysts outside ONS. It is also the case that substantial sums initially ringfenced for IDS have – with the HMT approval – been used to fund more general technology and data costs. And despite the IDS business case originally being in part predicated on the need urgently to replace the Secure Research Service, the two services are now running in parallel.

where programmes are required, it is better for them to co-ordinate related activity across ONS (as ARIES), rather than gather resources into the programme and act largely independently of the rest of ONS (as many people perceive IDS); and to keep governance arrangements and project management proportionate to the task. Given that IDS also relied heavily on securing data from other Departments, several people – in and outside ONS – thought the programme initially adopted a “high handed” approach, essentially demanding data, and downplaying others’ concerns for example around security.

150

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 24/05/2025

Clearing out the attic and came across this from 13 years ago @johnlsheridan.bsky.social

Photo of the Jeni Tennison (Leaving) Order 2012, created by John Sheridan and colleagues at the National Archives when I left to join ODI

4210

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 25/02/2025

UK creative industry flexing today!

Newspaper rack at a supermarket. Every paper has the same image covering the whole front page, which says "MAKE IT FAIR". The AI in FAIR is highlighted. Under it, the text says:

The government is looking to change the law to favour big tech platforms so they can use British creative content to power their AI models without our permission or payment. Let's protect the creative industries – it's only fair.

Creative rights in AI coalition - an initiative from the News Media Association

42014

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 21/01/2025

At the launch of the blueprint for a modern digital government!

A paper copy of the blueprint for modern digital government, subtitled A long-term vision for digital public services, a six-point plan for reform, and the role of the new digital centre of government

4585

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 09/01/2025

On Meta's shift to using Community Notes... Twitter's implementation of CNs was based on @audreyt.org's work, with an algorithm designed to surface "bridge making statements" that were acceptable to people with differing views. moda.gov.tw/en/press/bac...

Interview snippet from Audrey Tang, saying "A very similar idea, after we adopted this in our petition platform and our poll list platform, Twitter, now called X.com, adopted this idea into community notes. So, if you want to look at plurality technology currently reaching the most people, it's probably community notes. So, if you have a tweet, and it's just part of the story, or it's horribly wrong, you sometimes see a note attached to it. But it is contributed by a fellow Twitter user that managed to convince people on both aisles. So, there is an open algorithm that measures the bipartisanship, the bridge making potential of a note, and they only feature those notes as community notes."

130

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 25/12/2024

Xmas cracker present. Apparently it's a magic trick.

There is a spring with a ring looped onto it. Above is a piece of paper labelled "SOLUTION" which has a drawing of the ring on the spring, with an arrow appearing to rotate the ring and another arrow showing the spring moving to the right.

040

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 19/12/2024

Finally, while a lot of the report is focused on legal frameworks, it also recognises that having collective data rights is neither altogether necessary nor sufficient.

Even without collective data rights, it is still possible to take action against harms caused by data and AI. Data protection law, public law, equality law, consumer protection law and online safety regulation,
among others, all provide mechanisms to address harms arising from algorithms, albeit imperfectly and inconsistently. Community organizing and collective pressure on companies and governments can also lead to changes. The argument is not that collective data rights are necessary for groups and communities to address the collective harms they experience, but rather that having them would make it easier to do so.

Equally, having collective data rights in place would not solve all problems. Acting on collective data rights requires community-level organizing and civil society organizations that are resourced and equipped to take advantage of those rights. Public and private sector organizations using data and AI need to develop skills to conduct meaningful consultations and facilitate community deliberations. Standards are needed to support required levels of transparency. Again, these are things that can be developed alongside collective data rights frameworks.

110

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 19/12/2024

Based on that analysis, the report then discusses a set of collective data rights that could be introduced, the kinds of design decisions that would need to be resolved if they were, and the feasibility of introducing them given where we are today.

Ex Ante Rights

Who should be able to represent a community in the exercise of ex ante data rights? How should minoritized groups be represented in decision making?

Right of community control over data: What kinds of data should communities have control over (if any)? When should community consent be required to use data? When should it be unnecessary?

Low feasibility. Giving communities control over data would be a substantial change to the way data and AI systems currently operate, with challenges around the definition of “community.” They are likely to be resisted. Possible starting points that could shift norms in this space would be local community control over sensor data and Indigenous data sovereignty.

Right of groups to provide data for decision making: What requirement should there be to incorporate community-generated data?

Medium feasibility. It would likely be impossible to require that data supplied by a community be included within data-based decision making, but a requirement for such data to be considered could be feasible. Possible starting points are around environmental data and the creation of official statistics.

Right to be consulted during impact assessment: What kinds of impacts should be in scope for impact assessments? Who should be required to be involved in the impact assessment process?

High feasibility. Consultation with affected stakeholders during the impact assessment process is already viewed as good practice, although data protection legislation limits this to data subjects. Possible starting points would be uses of data and AI by public sector organizations, which already have established consultation practices.

Ex Post Rights

Who should be able to represent a community in the exercise of ex post data rights?

Right to require independent review of data-based decisions: How should reviews of automated decisions affecting communities be triggered and enacted?

Medium feasibility. Data protection and other regulators already have powers of investigation, but both regulators and regulated organizations may resist the additional work that independent reviews would entail if they became widespread. Possible starting points would be industries where regulators are keen on having more investigatory powers, such as over the largest digital platforms.

Right to redress for group harms: What actions should be required when collective harm is identified?

High feasibility. There are already some mechanisms in place for representative action and patterns from consumer law that can be followed. Online safety law provides a starting point that could be expanded into other areas where data and AI systems are being deployed.

Enabling Transparency

Right to access information about data and AI systems: What information about data and AI systems should organizations be required to publish? What information about data and AI systems should organizations be required to provide on request?

High feasibility. The importance of transparency is universally recognized as a driver for more trustworthy and responsible data and AI systems. Areas of contention are likely to fall in the details about the depth of transparency required. Possible starting points would be uses of data and AI by public sector bodies, which have established access to information practices.

Right to explanation for automated decisions about communities: What information about particular decisions made by data and AI systems should organizations be required to provide on request?

Medium feasibility. Legislation already requires explanations for automated decision making that affects individuals, which means the technology for generating explanations is being developed. However, organizations may claim that explanations are too revealing of inner system workings or too costly to provide. Possible starting points would be uses of data and AI by public sector bodies, which have established access to information practices.

Right to access data used by data and AI systems: What data used by a system should an organization be required to share with the community affected by it?

Low feasibility. There may be multiple reasons for not sharing nonpersonal data used in decision making about communities, including commercial confidentiality, lack of relicensing rights or concerns about re-identification. Possible starting points would be sharing information about what data sets were used, rather than the data they contain.

230

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 19/12/2024

The report summarises this analysis against three categories of powers that groups and communities might want to have: - ex ante controls to shape AI systems - ex post redress for when things go wrong - transparency to understand what's happening and support action

Ex Ante Controls provide communities and groups an opportunity to shape the design and operation of a data or AI system prior to and
during deployment.

Are there legal constraints on the functioning of the
system that would protect the community? Laws put in place at a national, regional or international level to protect communities against potential harms.

Will the impact on the community, and groups within it, be considered during the system development? Requirements for impact assessments both before implementation and after deployment.

Can the community prevent the development of the system or its use on them? Controls over which systems get created, arising from requirements for consent from the community and/or a right to object to its use.

Can the community, or groups within it, determine which data is used by the system? A collective equivalent of the rights to rectification and erasure.

Can the community, or groups within it, influence which mechanisms are put in place to avoid harms or realize benefits? Opportunities for consultation with groups and communities during the impact assessment process.

Ex Post Redress mechanisms that provide communities and groups to gain redress for harms caused by the use of the system.

Can the community require human review of the system’s decisions?
Rights similar to those granted around automated decision making about individuals.

Does the community have legal rights to redress for harms caused by the system? Legal rights necessary for legal action to be taken.

Does the community, or do groups within the community, have standing to take legal action? Not everyone can bring legal action on every kind of issue. Often this needs to be an individual who has been directly harmed, but sometimes representative organizations have legal standing.

Is it practical for the community, or groups within the community, to take legal action? Practical considerations include any time limits on when legal action needs to be taken and the costs and risks of legal action.

Enabling Transparency mechanisms that ensure communities are properly informed about automated systems; it is impossible to make informed decisions, or to exercise legal rights, without transparency.

Will the community be informed about the existence
of the system? Requirements to inform communities about the existence of automated systems.

Will the community be informed about how the system functions (including what data it uses)? Requirements to provide detail about the system, to make it easier to identify harms that might arise, or uses of data to object to.

Will the community be informed about the rationale behind particular decisions? Requirements to either proactively or on demand provide details about the rationale behind a particular decision in which the system was involved.

Will the community be informed about the impacts of the system? Ongoing information about the impacts of the system, to inform legal action and debate about any changes to the system.

Will the community be able to access the data that is used by the system? Data access and portability rights to enable understanding and objection.

110

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 19/12/2024

But we already have a bunch of laws that protect us from various kinds of collective harms. Aren't they enough? We @connectedbydata.org commissioned @awo.agency to look at three scenarios where classic data protection doesn't apply to find out. connectedbydata.org/resources/aw...

- a police force’s use of historical crime data
to determine patrol allocations in ways that
increase stop-and-search use in over-policed
neighbourhoods;

- a train-operating company using algorithms based
on historical data to determine surge prices in ways
that disadvantage consumers; and

- a social media company removing legitimate content
in ways that undermine the free expression rights of
those interested in LGBTQ+ or non-English content.

120

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 19/12/2024

Current data protection laws focus on the protection of personal data, and individual-level harms such as privacy breaches or faulty automated decision making. This stems from scoping decisions made in 1980 by an OECD expert working group. www.oecd.org/en/publicati...

Legal persons, groups and similar entities

31. Some countries consider that the protection required for data relating to individuals may be similar in nature to the protection required for data relating to business enterprises, associations and groups which may or may not possess legal personality. The experience of a number of countries also shows that it is difficult to define clearly the dividing line between personal and non-personal data. For example, data relating to a small company may also concern its owner or owners and provide personal information of a more or less sensitive nature. In such instances it may be advisable to extend to corporate entities the protection offered by rules relating primarily to personal data.

32. Similarly, it is debatable to what extent people belonging to a
particular group (i.e. mentally disabled persons, immigrants, ethnic minorities) need additional protection against the dissemination of information relating to that group.

33. On the other hand, the Guidelines reflect the view that the notions of individual integrity and privacy are in many respects particular and should not be treated the same way as the integrity of a group of persons, or corporate security and confidentiality. The needs for protection are different and so are the policy frameworks within which solutions have to be formulated and interests balanced against one another. Some members of the Expert Group suggested that the possibility of extending the Guidelines to legal persons (corporations, associations) should be provided for. This suggestion has not secured a sufficient consensus. The scope of the Guidelines is therefore confined to data relating to individuals and it is left to Member countries to draw dividing lines and decide policies with regard to corporations, groups and similar bodies (cf. paragraph 49 below).

120

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 17/11/2024

Our poor cat Ash severely injured his back legs on Friday. One had to be amputated and the other is in plaster. It was a real relief seeing him tuck into a meal this morning.

A black cat eating a bowl of chicken pieces.

11420

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 15/11/2024

They are gorgeous! Here's our Gordon Setter Bramble helping my eldest work from home.

My eldest is sitting on the sofa trying to do some work on her laptop. The dog is sitting on top of her looking at the laptop screen and patting the keyboard with his paws.

130

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 14/11/2024

Couple of references to the Federated Data Platform (Palantir) in this speech. It would be nice if there were more details about these use cases on the FDP site, especially if they want other providers to start using it. fdp.england.nhs.uk/home

Take those Trusts using the Federated Data Platform. Several, using it to better organise theatre lists, delivering an average of 100 more procedures every month.

Chelsea and Westminster are using it to trial AI generated discharge reports. North Cumbria, using it to double the number of people on the waiting list being validated each week. And Bath, using it to help one person do the same work as it used to take multiple.

All showing real benefits and freeing up staff time as well as speeding up care.

Take colleagues I met recently at The Harbour mental health unit in Blackpool, using AI and automation to speed up routine tasks and release time for care, helping to drive great improvement in a trust that has struggled in the past.

And take colleagues at Great Ormond Street and GPs in South West London, trialling AI voice assistance to automate notetaking. Patients and doctors both reporting benefits.

So my fifth and final challenge – for now, is we need you to make full use of the opportunities we’re given, and that flow from our ability to act as one NHS.

Really exciting ones, like I have already talked about the FDP.

A central resource, that will underpin our ability to benefit from AI in the future, and which is already delivering real benefits now.

We can’t afford to miss this opportunity to drive more co-ordinated care, and provide more productive services, at scale.

Nor can we afford single organisation solutions, when this asset is there to be used.

We’re ahead of plan, with 40 trusts now live, and 45 more committed.

And now is the time for those remaining organisations to get on board, and to start learning from the front-running trusts, on how to make the most of it.

050

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 08/11/2024

Nice. ChatGPT gave me this monstrosity.

It's a diagram with labelled circles and arrows. Nothing is in the right place and all the labels are misspelled.

100

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 08/11/2024

Trying to sketch the differences between transparency, accountability and openness...

On one side is government and the other side civil society. Transparency is government providing information to civil society (arrow goes from government to civil society). Accountability is civil society acting on government (arrow goes from civil society to government). Openness is a tighter back-and-forth exchange (a circular arrow in the middle).

9268

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 29/10/2024

Small thing: I think it's important to think about "evidence-informed" rather than "evidence-based" policymaking. This is from the WHO guide for evidence-informed decision-making and highlights the importance of the context of the policymaker. It's a good read. www.who.int/publications...

EIDM has its roots in the evidence-based medicine movement and HTAs dating back to the 1980s. It has since expanded beyond clinical care and health systems to include a broader notion of evidence-based policy-making. The more recent emphasis on evidence-informed over evidence-based decision- and policy-making takes into account that research evidence is often but one of several factors influencing policy-making processes. As policy-making inherently takes place in a political context, economic interests, institutional constraints, citizen values and stakeholder needs tend to play an important and sometimes conflicting role.

1110

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 27/09/2024

Zooming in to the whole-bench shot gives a much clearer picture! I've updated.

220

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 20/09/2024

I'm going to be on this Fabian Society panel with Chris Bryant at the Labour Party Conference on Sunday. Do come if you're around!

Panel flyer for panel on The Future for Science, Innovation and Technology at 15:00 in the Theatre Room at the Maritime Museum.

042

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 13/09/2024

Maybe browser issue? I use ecosia on Android

100

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 12/09/2024

Love this breakdown in Chapter 1 on costs and burdens. Been thinking recently about knock-on costs to carers, librarians, civil society etc who help & support people with bureaucracy. These are often hidden from government too, but are a societal drag, not just an individual one.

Screenshot from page 10 of Platformland. Highlighted text reads "three types of cost that administrative burdens commonly create for the users of public services" and the page goes on to list Learning costs - knowing the service exists; Compliance costs - effort to follow the rules; and Psychological costs - how it makes people feel.

190

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 12/09/2024

Starting strong ✊🏻 Yes I'm physically highlighting. Come at me.

Photo of the first part of the Introduction of Platformland. Highlighted text reads:

The public are engaged as consumers, not as part of a democratic society. In a democracy, understanding the way things are is a precondition for changing them. But public sector design optimizes for efficiency and utility. Government is designed out of the east, and too much value is placed on Silicon Valley minimalism, in a way that misunderstands the nature of what makes public services *public*.

3111

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 11/09/2024

It's arrived! So excited to get into @richardpope.org's book. Get your copy early from @lppbooks.bsky.social and you get stickers! londonpublishingpartnership.co.uk/books/platfo...

4224

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 09/09/2024

It looks like it's to create a prototype. Not having to do any piloting, testing or validation means that it's feasible; they're dangling extra money for further stages. The Faculty prototype (with user research and hackathons) cost £350k

Research categories
Prototype development

For this competition your project will develop a solution and produce a prototype solution in line with Technology Readiness Levels 6-7.

There may be a potential for future funding to allow successful projects to undertake piloting, testing and validation of new or improved products, processes or services in environments representative of real-life operating conditions.

110

Jeni Tennison @jenitennison.com · 09/09/2024

The study suggested a few potential mitigations: providing probabilities rather than binary decisions; providing explanations of reasoning; and ensuring decision makers feel accountable for the decisions made.

Overall, our results show that automation bias can affect the performance of radiologists regardless of their experience. Therefore, specific strategies should be considered to mitigate automation bias. Previous research has shown that presenting users with the confidence levels of the decision support system can help reduce automation bias by keeping users more critically engaged with the output of the system (16). In the case of an AI-based system, this could be implemented by displaying the probability of each output. Another strategy to mitigate automation bias involves educating users about the reasoning process of the decision support system (17). For AI-based solutions, this means focusing on explainable AI solutions that allow inferences about how a certain judgment by the system is generated. Lastly, ensuring that the users of a decision support system feel accountable for their own decisions can also help decrease automation bias (18).

140