On shiny objects, agile & lean start-up for public problems
This past week, I shared Paul Taylor’s post, “The Problem With Finding Answers” via Twitter with a comment and a quote:
For the record, I don’t have anything against agile or lean start-up. Like other methods and approaches, my assumption is that they can be considered, adapted and effectively applied (perhaps in combination) with the right mindset, capacity and conditions to understand and address needs in a given context.
Social Innovation Generation Fellow and colleague, Jason Pearman, weighed in with a caution and critical question:
Mindset, practice and context all matter. Jason reminds us that purpose and results do too (e.g. public good and value). Perhaps most importantly — and related to capacity — we can also add people, as in, who’s engaged, their perspectives, skills, relationships, roles and responsibilities are all important if any method or approach is to enable meaningful change.
Among other things, the rhetoric of agile, lean start-up, and I’d add, design thinking has informed and followed the drive for public sector innovation with the aim of enabling government to be open, social and digital for better outcomes. We’re making progress on what that means in principle. Demonstration projects and pilots are popping up too, but what might it mean in practice, not just in the innovation lab or digital service, but in the belly of the bureaucracy and the spaces among, between and beyond? And that’s what prompted me to respond to Gray O’Byrne’s observation of our system wanting (innovative) solutions and action now:
Similarly, Taylor writes, “Many of our organisations have a bias towards getting quick answers” and raises a related issue:
…addressing wicked problems is never going to be fast. It’s not just about launching a new app, or customer ‘portal’ (cough).
We need to question some fundamental assumptions about how our businesses interact with citizens. And that may require unearthing some entirely new problems.
The ‘bias towards quick answers’ plays out in government too. When prompted, we converge on announceables, shiny objects, “quick win” opportunities, Policy Ignite! presentations, Dragon’s Den offerings (and sacrifices?), new policy, program and operational ideas and pilot projects. On-line portals invite citizens and stakeholders to share their “actionable ideas and solutions” to address complex challenges with limited framing and shared understanding.
Sometimes we need or have an opportunity to act now (like going to this week’s Policy Ignite!), but is a tendency to call for actions without shared understanding of contexts and needs problematic?
For new and existing policies, programs & services, a question on my mind is how to avoid what WellAhead calls the “program trap”, which is described here in relation to their efforts to improve mental health and wellness in school communities:
In the research and design phase of WellAhead, one of the key challenges or ‘holes’ identified was that mental health and wellbeing was approached as a ‘program’ to be implemented in the school setting rather than as a way of being, a cultural shift. Such programs had a range of efficacy, and were costly and difficult to scale across all schools. In addition, because programs were often developed and delivered by people outside the school, they were not being integrated into school communities. There was a sense that districts and communities needed to be part of the visioning and action towards change rather than simply recipients of solutions. From this, it was hypothesized that engaging a range of stakeholders in an emergent, participatory process might be more effective than imposing a highly defined program.
The WellAhead experience reminds me of a Steven Hodas post from 2014 on InBloom and the Failure of Innovation 1.0 in the U.S.:
inBloom was a textbook example of what I call “Innovation 1.0”, which thinks of innovation as a noun, a thing with transformative transitive properties that magically make its recipient “innovative.” It’s the cargo–cult theory of innovation: I give you this innovative thing (a tablet, a data warehouse, an LMS) and you thereby become innovative yourself.
We (“the system”) can unintentionally enable and reinforce the program trap and Innovation 1.0. As Gray mentions, when it comes time for proposals and funding, “Inevitably they will ask: “how are you going to solve it?””
To be clear, effective programs are critical and some are dedicated to continuous improvement to amplify their reach and impact. Understandably though, existing policy, research and program functions, and enabling services, focus much, if not all, of their efforts on existing delivery. That’s important, but if we engage others through the lens of marketing what we currently do or are proposing to do for them, we may miss out on innovation opportunities with them.
Related to that, our tendency towards “innovative” quick wins and actions perpetuates Innovation 1.0 behaviour. Again, there are exceptions, but pilot projects that are launched with a limited understanding of context and needs and an unwillingness to adapt and let go might too be on a program trap trajectory (if they make it that far).
The existence of program trap and Innovation 1.0 behaviour in the public sector might be symptoms of a deeper problem: the lack of dedicated time, space and capacity for meaningful engagement and informed actions that are forward-looking and boundary pushing, but also grounded in context and responsive to needs.
So what to do?
Hodas provides a counter take on lean start-up and an Innovation 2.0 mindset:
True, durable innovation, “Innovation 2.0” is not some thing I can give to you, do to you, or even do for you: it must be a process I do with you. Lean Startup theory — with its emphasis on iteration, an assumption of the innovator’s fallibility and limited perspective, and the importance of low–cost, low–stakes discovery of product–market fit…— is essentially a cookbook for baking empathy into the development of products, services, or policies.
From a continuous improvement of existing delivery perspective, we have the mandate, funding & responsibility to ensure what we’re delivering is relevant & responsive. We can consider open, social and/or digital methods and approaches that suit the given context and needs with the intention of improving design, delivery & results. As part of that effort, we can surface and test the assumptions that underpin our existing policies, programs and services, and be open to adapting as needed and possible.
If we’re serious about public sector innovation, experimentation and transformation, we’ll need the capacity to enable it. And that includes leading and supporting people and teams who want to understand what the improvement and innovation opportunities might be, including from the perspectives of users and stakeholders, before jumping to actions.
For example, a distinct, but interrelated, policy and service R&D and experimentation track and function could enable the co-creation of both new and improved policy directions and services. Along with building relationships with citizens, partners and stakeholders and new skills in novel policy and research methods, the intent would be to co-create a pipeline of researched and tested policy and service options where needed.
Innovation labs and digital teams already provide some of that capacity. But we can’t let them fall into the program trap or down the slippery slope of Innovation 1.0 shiny object production. They too need support, capacity, and willing partners to co-create the new and improved. They can’t do it alone.
Let’s also involve strategic policy, planning and reporting, evaluation, program policy, service delivery, communications, economic and statistical research, legal, privacy and IT (among other) shops in the process of continuous improvement and innovation. The scope and scale of the task at hand requires it.
Avoiding the program trap and innovation 1.0 means placing value on understanding contexts and needs from various perspectives to inform possibilities and co-create actions.
