Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation Minutes - Advisory Board Meeting 4
Updated 12 October 2023
© Crown copyright 2023
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/board-meeting-agendas-and-minutes/centre-for-data-ethics-and-innovation-minutes-advisory-board-meeting-4
26th July 2022
Hybrid Advisory Board Meeting
Attendees:
- Edwina Dunn - Interim Chair (ED)
- Dr Rumman Chowdhury
- Jack Clark
- Martin Hosken
- Prof Neil Lawrence
- Dr Marion Oswald
- James Plunkett
- Baroness Kate Rock
- Richard Sargeant
- Dr Mimi Zou
Apologies:
- Eddie Copeland
- Jessica Lennard
- Dr Adrian Weller
CDEI Staff:
- Felicity Burch (FB)
- Louise Sheridan (LS)
- Sam Cannicott (SC)
- Team Leads
- Secretariat
Item 1: Welcome
FB welcomed attendees to the meeting and set out the agenda. No new conflicts of interest were declared.
Item 2: Cost of Living
FB opened a discussion to explore whether there are areas where greater responsible data-sharing can help to address issues related to the cost of living crisis. The Advisory Board agreed that data sharing is a potential tool that could support cost of living interventions. In smaller groups, Advisory Board members explored particular areas and use cases where greater responsible data sharing across government, industry and the third sector could tackle areas related to the cost of living.
Item 3: Programmes Forward Look
The team updated the Advisory Board on the various programmes that the CDEI is developing and delivering. In response, the Advisory Board:
- challenged the team to be clearer about programmes’ impact and objective, while saying that the work itself was very strong, particularly regarding the algorithmic transparency standard;
- reflected that CDEI would continue to bolster its credibility by focusing on many small, direct operational interventions, so long as they contribute to an overall narrative about why people should trust public sector use of data;
- noted that public trust in government can be increased by public awareness of how their data is used which relies on the government using data and AI appropriately and communicating about it clearly.
Item 4: Monitoring and Evaluation
The team updated the Advisory Board on the CDEI’s progress in setting metrics to measure the impact of our work. In response, the Advisory Board:
- noted the difficulty of measuring quantitative metrics for impact, for example, number of report downloads is a broad and shallow measure. They provided information about projects outside government that have developed unique approaches to this challenge. The Advisory Board flagged one organisation that deploys a range of surveys and interviews to generate data on their work’s impact as a potential source of learning for the CDEI;
- recommended limiting the number of Key Performance Indicators so that the CDEI can target its impact;
- recommended existing approaches that measure the monetary value of data, conceding that while not identical to this challenge, the methodology could be a useful analogy for the CDEI to compare against. They provided access to recent work on this that compares various methodologies for valuing data and suggested the CDEI team make contact with the authors.
Item 5: Meeting close
FB closed the meeting.