The launch of the Accenture Global Cities Forum website marks a milestone in the first phase of this ongoing public engagement study, and more importantly, gives people around the world the chance to review and interact with the results of our groundbreaking research. When public officials leverage the data and information we gained from the forums, they will be better able to tailor their services and spend their limited budgets more strategically – ultimately enabling public service organizations to achieve high performance and to deliver greater value to their citizens.

We believe we’re the first in our industry to engage directly with our clients’ clients in this way. We did so through a series of daylong citizen panels in eight world cities: London, Sydney, Singapore, Berlin, New York, Paris, Madrid and Los Angeles. Each Forum included 60 to 85 local residents randomly selected to represent the city’s demographics – providing strong, qualitative insight into what people think about government and public services and how they judge public value. We’ve published eight city reports and an executive overview that present our key findings and the critical outcome of the effort: the Accenture Public Service Value Governance Framework.

This framework provides a model for more publicly engaged governance – supporting deeper, more collaborative relationships between governments of all levels and the people they serve and, ultimately, helping organizations achieve high performance. The results of the Global Cities Forum provide rich insights for public-service managers and officials at all levels and in any location.

I’ve spent more than 30 years in this industry, and I personally learned a great deal through the Global Cities Forum. Early on, I expected participants to rely on their own personal experiences with public services to make critical judgments, and I feared that some of the discussion might become overtly political. Neither concern proved valid. People talked about their own experiences, but they also listened much more than I expected. They consistently elevated discussions above the role of public-service delivery – focusing instead on what government should be doing to help their wider lives. And they seldom mentioned politics; they seemed to understand that improving social and economic conditions crosses any partisan divides.

Among my other observations:

• Participants voiced concern that instead of supporting fairness and equality, improvements to public services often widen the gap between “haves” and “have-nots.” They believe that people with more education, skills and money are better able to exploit such enhancements.
• Participants frequently demanded more “connected” or “joined-up” public services. Participants also explained what they want as a result of such an approach – for example, schools that cover not only academic subjects, but also health, citizenship and other life skills.
• Those of us in this industry probably underestimate people’s potential as “co-producers” of public value. Individuals are willing and able to play a more active part in improving their lives and communities – and around the world, governments have an opportunity to better engage, educate and interact with the people they serve.