Uberfication of housing

I did promise myself I would never use the word ‘uberfication’. It’s swiftly become a word beloved of self-styled innovators and futurists to describe the adoption of the business model of Uber – a company who most of us had never heard of just two years ago.

It’s hard to accurately describe Uber – they are ostensibly a taxi company who don’t own any taxis. Just like Airbnb, where any of us can rent out lodging, they are two of the success stories of what’s known as the sharing economy.

Despite the hype, both continue to face significant challenges, with accusations they circumvent trading laws and erode wages. Nonetheless they have caught the public imagination – with many lauding the simplicity and relentless focus on the user.

Any of us can go into business these days. Whether it’s loaning out your ladder, a seat in your car, your parking space or advertising a spare desk in your flat. The digital economy is enabling a new breed of micro-entrepreneurs.

More than 18m Britons use eBay every month buying, selling and trading. Many of them will be housing association tenants - who not so long back were forbidden to run businesses from home.

In these online marketplaces, people find each other digitally and, based on rating and price, decide to do business together. They cut out the cost, and frequently the hassle, of the middleman.

The connected customer is becoming increasingly savvy at negotiating the right price for the right service at the right time. Trust, personalisation and efficiency are the attributes of successful sellers – all of whom depend on user ratings and social recommendation for survival.

Housing association customers – who for so long have had little choice beyond fairly limited options for involvement and influence – are not immune to this shift.

In this new economy are they going to be happy with a landlord procuring a five-year maintenance contract incapable of flexibility and personalisation? A system giving them little actual control over who they let through their front door?

What if people were able to spend their housing management and maintenance costs as they wished – and a new player emerged to help them do their own procurement? A Right to Choose rather than a Right to Buy.

Uber don’t own any cars. Airbnb don’t own any rooms.

Is it possible that a future dominant force in housing won’t own any homes? 

Last week I took part in a discussion with over 30 people to discuss ‘What if Uber took over social housing?’

It was a diverse bunch - future housing leaders, economists, social entrepreneurs – and despite the fierce debate we all agreed on one thing:

The system we have created is over-complex, anti-competitive and needs radical reform.

Colin Wiles has argued in these pages that there is a danger in genuflecting to the latest Silicon Valley start-up. He’s right, but it’s even more dangerous to risk doing nothing.

We live in an era of pervasive data – our costs, salaries and profits available for the world to see.

There are about 2.5 million housing association homes. They are served by about 1,500 associations employing 150,000 people.

Even ignoring the host of other people engaged in the welfare and care sectors that means there’s only 17 homes per employee.

If you looked at that coldly that looks like a lot of people not directly serving the customer. What’s everyone doing?

On the face of it, it sounds like we have too much complexity and duplication.

On the face of it, it sounds like an industry ripe for disruption.

It’s only a matter of time before some bright young thing starts doing the maths.

The discussion last week had some far-reaching suggestions:

• Housing associations should stop trying to do everything and become much more specialist. If there are only a handful of decent repairs services why don’t we scale them rather than try to replicate them? This would leave organisations that are excellent at development or community engagement to focus on what they are best at.
• Reimagining choice-based lettings as one platform: not just to obtain a social home but to procure and trade services within the home and community.
• Removing the tension between maximising development and helping the poorest by creating a new product range/rental options that people could cycle through dependent on their circumstances.
• Setting a 10-year trajectory for housing associations not to exist in their current form. They could be replaced with co-operatives – not as we presently know them but focused on sharing resources and assets in a digital as well as local space.

Nobody I’ve spoken to wants an Uber. The original values and purpose of housing associations must remain in our minds during a time of huge change.

Many of these discussions must be continued – most crucially with tenants themselves. Abandoning them without thorough exploration though would be a folly.

No one is safe from disruption, not least a sector with £400bn in assets. Asking difficult questions and testing news ways of delivering services is now part of the day job.

Paul Taylor, innovation coach, Bromford