A sketch that pulls together bits of various literatures to try to make sense of why evaluating things like Policy Lab is hard (in the conventional terms of evaluation favoured by civil servants). It draws heavily on Roger Martin’s work in The Design of Business (2009) to connect the different logics required for innovation – abduction, deduction and induction – and combines this with other research in sociology and design.
Originally published on the Cabinet Office Open Policy blog on 27 March, this is my write up of an event I chaired during Open Policy 2015.
Increasingly on the agenda of policymakers is a need to understand the needs, capacities and perspectives of citizens, service users, beneficiaries and front line staff so that policies are fit for purpose and deliverable and public services are better designed. Ethnography is seen as one way to achieve this. Based on a methodology originally associated with anthropology, ethnographic approaches are now found within product development, innovation, strategy, marketing, and research and development in a wide range of organisations from Intel and Amazon to start-ups to central and local government. In the UK, the Government Digital Service (GDS) and government departments, as well as others such as Nesta and the King’s Fund have promoted ethnographically-informed approaches to doing user research.
But the value of ethnography is not simply that it’s a method for understanding people in the context of their own lives, although it does offer that. The real potential for ethnography in policymaking is to help reframe government’s understanding of its purposes and how the world in which it exists and which it shapes is changing. This insight emerged from a panel discussion organised by Policy Lab in the grand surroundings of the Churchill Room during Open Policy 2015, during which three people with different perspectives reflected on the opportunities and barriers for ethnography in government. An audience of over 50 people, the majority of whom were civil servants, gained a valuable overview from leading practitioners applying ethnographic approaches to contemporary organisational and social issues.
The first speaker, Dr Simon Roberts of Stripe Partners, set the scene, informed by his extensive knowledge of applied ethnography from consulting work and gained by twice co-chairing the international Ethnographic Praxis in Industry conference. He summarised what makes ethnographic research distinctive and illuminated the ongoing challenge of understanding its value and impact.
Next up was Lisa Rudnick from Interpeace, previously at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research, where she co-led the development of the Evidence-based Program Design tool and the Security Needs Assessment Protocol with Derek Miller, now of the Boston-based consultancy, The Policy Lab. Sharing perspectives gained from conducting ethnographic research in post-conflict contexts such as Nepal conducted with Ruth Edmonds, she highlighted the importance of not just using the parts of ethnography that generate local descriptions, but of engaging ethnographic analysis of those descriptions as well as the basis from which to design, or implement, policy for shaping local action on the ground.
The third speaker, Rupert Gill, is a policymaker within the Department of Work and Pensions, currently using ethnography as well as data science approaches on a joint project with the Department of Health and Policy Lab. He shared some of the challenges civil servants face when trying to make use of ethnography in a policymaking culture which values particular kinds of argument and evidence.
What ethnographic research is
- Today’s ethnographic research in organisations exists on a spectrum from hypothesis-free, exploratory research over several months into topics such as “ageing and mobility”, to targeted requirements gathering over a few days to inform the design of a service.
- As a kind of qualitative research, ethnography investigates worldviews, socio-cultural structures and the practices that shape behaviours. It’s not just finding out what people think, listening to what they say or watching what they do.
- Ethnographic research makes a commitment to being there with people in their worlds – which these days includes people’s digital lives. Its emblematic method since anthropologist Malinowski went to the Trobriand Islands a century ago is participant observation.
What ethnographic research produces
- Ethnography is not just descriptive fieldwork. It’s a theory-building endeavour that makes use of research from across the social sciences. While the data might include stories about people’s lives, in their own language and categories, or observations about what people do, what is just as important is the interpretive analysis of that data. Or as Lisa Rudnick put it, “It’s not the story that matters for policymaking. The value is in what makes the story make sense.”
- As a result, the output of ethnography is informed by people’s stories, and generates insights derived from people’s day to day experiences, but is better understood as an analysis of a social world within which people exist within and have relationships with others including organisations, governments and places.
The opportunity for using ethnography for government
- The value of ethnographic research is how it creates (re)framings of a social world and helps an organisation understand what it exists for. Reflecting on the impact on technology firms such as Intel, which have made extensive use of ethnography over nearly two decades, Simon Roberts argued, “Ethnography has created a space and a possibility for organisations to reshape their understandings of the world and their understandings of how they have those understandings.”
- The opportunity is for government to address the complexity of society by understanding people better in the context of their lives, and then changing the focus of policy responses, especially when things are changing. Rupert Gill said there was an appetite for this within the civil service. “We hope to get insights we wouldn’t get elsewhere and use them to create interventions we wouldn’t otherwise have thought of.”
Barriers and challenges
- The culture within which policy making takes place is dominated by the need to produce evidence that is statistically valid, and not “policy by anecdote”. The small sample sizes associated with ethnographic research may not be seen as valid in this context. Minsters who have to give an account to parliament about their policies feel more confident about analysis from large data sets. But there is a contradiction here, in that ministers also get first hand access to, and are influenced by, stories from their constituents – a kind of field data with very small samples sizes.
- What’s needed is to combine quantitative data with other approaches, recognising what each brings. “It’s real depth that we need and we can’t get this from numbers,” argued Rupert Gill.
- Within the UN and peacebuilding contexts in which she works, Lisa Rudnick shared how the approach she co-developed (with Derek Miller) makes managers accountable for the data they use (or don’t) to shape their decisions. Like the policy tests being used in the civil service, this involves asking managers considering a proposal if they have the right kind information for the question at hand, enough information and whether it’s reliable. Posing such questions makes any commitment to action rest on research findings, not on data points or methods.
Policy Lab, GDS and government departments continue to explore ethnographic approaches in practical projects in policy making. If you are a civil servant, look out for guidance on the Open Policy Making Toolkit, Civil Service Learning short courses and Policy Lab workshops to try using the approach yourself.
This post discusses what agile approaches can bring to policymaking. It is based on my recent participant observation in a “policy sprint” organized by the Policy Lab in which I am embedded as an academic researcher. The sprint took the form of a two-day workshop held in Whitehall, followed the next day by a half-day stakeholder workshop, during the early phase of a larger, ongoing project involving Policy Lab, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Department of Health (DH).
The focus of the project was better supporting people in relation to their health and employment outcomes. The activities involved a co-located, cross-disciplinary and cross-government group of people including policymakers and specialists skilled in ethnography, data science and design research, in exploring a policy issue and working out collectively what research and design activities were needed to move the project on.
Inspired by and drawing on the “sprints” used in agile software development, this event brought a new way of working to policymaking. A recent blog post by Lisa Ollerhead of the Cabinet Office Open Policy Making team, drawing on her experience of GovCamp, in which she adapted the principles of the agile manifesto discussed what agile approaches might bring to policymaking. She concluded that one significant challenge is establishing what the deliverable or output of a sprint is.
As part of its remit to try out new tools and technique for policymaking, Policy Lab decided to use an agile-inspired approach within one of its demonstrator projects to see how these principles could be adapted to the challenge of developing policies, rather than software. A blog post published right after the event by Cat Drew of Policy Lab, who led the sprint, summarised what happened in the January workshop and how it worked.
The purpose of this post is to analyse what the sprint did for the project. The data on which it draws are notes and photographs from my participant observation, emails and documents, as well as interviews and responses to a survey distributed to participants after the event.
Background – agile, lean, design thinking for policymaking
The concepts and activities used by Policy Lab to shape its policy sprint are not new. Within government, many of the principles and activities associated with agile software development inform the work of the UK Government Digital Service (GDS). For example the GDS approach to designing government services that are “digital by default” is shared here, including a discussion of using sprints. Some of GDS’s terminology and approaches are also found in government departments, especially that have in-house digital teams. The space that Policy Lab is exploring bringing this approach to the early stage of making policy, not building digital services.
Internationally there are other examples of bringing design and digital approaches to policymaking, which share lineages with agile software development. The Helsinki Design Lab, part of Finish innovation agency Sitra which was active between 2008-2011 organized “studios”, typically week-long collective inquiries into an issue such as ageing in Finland, the outputs of which included a roadmap of strategic improvements (see Steinberg 2014). These approaches are closely related too to design-led innovation. For example, innovation consultancy IDEO organizes “deep dives” into issues such as the one on the shopping cart filmed by ABC television in 1999, which involved multi-disciplinary teams collectively inquiring into a problem area, generating ideas and creating rough prototypes of potential solutions.
Related principles such as looking at the bigger picture and systems thinking are also found in other UK policy initiatives like the Total Place programme run by the Leadership Centre for Local Government. The Troubled Families programme takes a “whole person” perspective on families and their interactions with public services.
There are also overlaps with lean start-up, popularized by books by Steve Blank and Bob Dorf (2012) and Eric Ries (2011). Key concepts here include rapid experimental cycles in which entrepreneurs articulate their hypotheses, build software in chunks known as “minimum viable products”, test them with customers and then, depending on the results, “pivot” by switching to a different product or business model if necessary.
Within agile software development, a sprint is usually understood as a time-limited set of activities which result in delivering working software. Used more loosely in the context of policymaking, here this policy sprint was an intense burst of activity that focussed on the early stage of a project – called “discovery” in software development, which will be followed by other short, intense bursts of co-design and prototyping over the months to come.
Principles in the policy sprint
In the preparation, design and facilitation of its policy sprint, Policy Lab recombined principles borrowed from agile, design and lean start-up as follows:
- Recognition that a project’s context cannot be fully understood or defined. Instead, the focus is on enabling a team to form and to work together to achieve something meaningful in a short time frame. Instead of trying to do a definitive analysis, the emphasis is on generating provisional accounts of an issue, and on an orientation towards repeated cycles of collective learning, idea generation, prototyping and synthesising.
- Staging a collective enquiry into the issue. The sprint event recognised that there is already considerable data and analysis within the two departments involved and beyond. The design and facilitation of the workshop enabled a range of participants from different backgrounds collectively identifying “what we know” and “what we don’t know” to synthesise current knowledge and identify gaps relevant to the project at hand – albeit without being fully comprehensive – in order to move forward the project’s goals.
- An orientation towards cycles of practical work. The development of new products or software should be based on trying things out with real customers (lean start-up) or via cycles of iteration based on defining user needs, delivering software and testing it with users (agile). These partial, temporary placeholders for solutions are termed minimal viable products (in lean start-up), which is the minimum set of functionality that is of value to end users. Agile software developers use the terminology of alphas and betas, which suggests evolutionary development. The policy sprint was positioned as the start of a project structured with fast learning cycles.
- A holistic approach to understanding the experiences of the target population and those around them. Lean start-up aims to identify customers’ needs and test hypotheses by engaging them directly. Agile starts by identifying user needs and builds software solutions for them. However the context of policymaking is systemic: there is no single customer and nor should the focus just be on only service users. Instead a holistic agile approach for policymaking acknowledges citizens and service users, but also family members, other members of the public such as neighbours, front line staff and managers in delivery agencies, volunteers, but also ministers and other actors in the wider political and policy environment. For example in the case of this project, the sprint brought into focus the role of GPs, HR personnel and line managers as well as family members, friends and colleagues shaping the experience of people becoming ill.
- Less emphasis on producing definitive documentation, and more emphasis on co-articulating just-in-time knowledge. The emblematic artefact associated with design thinking and agile software is the post-it note. Along with whiteboards, flipcharts and other such low-fi organizational technologies, post-it notes emphasise the provisionality of ideas and knowledge because they are easy to write on, stick up, move around, edit, or remove. Further, the collective activity of writing things down on post-its and sharing and clustering them on a wall makes collective knowledge and ideas visible to everyone – at least those who are in the room and able to see. Collections of post it notes stuck on to flipchart paper, which are then photographed and shared offer repeated snapshots of the current status of a project. In contrast to the highly polished, formal reports produced by government, such arrangements of small fragments of ideas and knowledge highlight policy making as a work-in-progress.
Blank, S. and Dorf, B. 2012. The Start-Up Owners Manual: The Step-by-step Guide for Building a Great Company, Volume 1.
Steinberg, M. 2014. Strategic Design and the Art of Public Sector Innovation. In Bason, C. (ed). Design for Policy.
Reis, E. 2011. The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses.
This is an edited version of a post first published on the Cabinet Office Open Policy Making blog
A room full of people making Play-Doh shapes of ducks and monkeys might not seem an obvious way to start a conversation about prototyping in government. But asking people to do this as part of a workshop for policy makers allowed the speaker, Andrea Siodmok, head of Policy Lab, to surface at once three of the key principles of prototyping. The workshop for civil servants was part of Open Policy 2015, a series of events across UK government departments in February 2015.
Policy Lab’s workshop highlighted three principles. First it’s about making ideas tangible. Second, it makes them shareable and discussable, so that they can then be improved upon. Third, it is a collective activity that many people can contribute to. This fast-paced session kept these principles in view as it enabled people to explore what prototyping in government might mean at the earliest stages of policymaking.
The UK Government Digital Service has championed within the Civil Service both understanding of the value of prototyping and the skills and processes to do it in the context of digital services. Nesta has promoted the approach through its prototyping framework. The Design Council has worked with several government departments to generate and prototype service improvements. The Cabinet Office Open Policy Making team argues for the importance of early stage experimentation in policymaking. Policy Lab’s demonstrator projects with the Home Office, HMRC, Department of Health and Department of Work and Pensions, some of which are described in posts on the Open Policy blog, are working out how prototyping can take place in policymaking and what impact it has.
As a result, in government the idea of prototyping is now spreading beyond digital services. I’ve heard policymakers refer to their policies as “alpha” and “beta” versions.
This is where Lab’s Open Policy 2015 workshop came in. Participants included policymakers from areas such as tax and pensions as well as the Scottish Government and UK Trade and Investment intrigued to find out more. Sharing examples of work from previous roles in local government, Andrea showed how practical, low-cost prototyping helped reduce time to delivery, reduce wastage and costs from rolling out ideas that don’t work, and improve the likelihood of take-up of a policy.
Having excited people about the possibilities in the first hour, the second hour was even more hands on. Andrea set a challenge – but gave people an opportunity to work on their own policy area if they wanted to (none did). The challenge was to respond to the brief “What if visiting a GP was based on the idea of ‘The patient will see you now’? How would this change the whole primary healthcare system?”
Participants then self-organised into three groups, found somewhere to work in the basement conference room where the workshop took place, and got stuck in. They helped themselves to craft materials arranged on a table as well as flipchart paper, post it notes and pens. Policy Lab staff were on hand to help with practical advice and encouragement, for example suggesting looking at three phases – making appointments/arriving, seeing the doctor, and after the visit, and focussing in on one persona representing a particular user segment and their needs. Policy Lab also gave each team one ‘challenge card’ to provide an extra focus, for example “What if the service was people-powered?”
Over 45 minutes participants moved from analysing what did not work in the current patient experience of GP surgeries, to generating ideas about how to redesign the service based on the principle of ‘the patient will see you now’, and giving it physical form. What was striking was how people who had never met before managed to work together to explore a complex area, generate and realise and share their ideas in an open, creative way.
The workshop ended with a two-minute presentation by each team – all of which involved some degree of role play and performance, bringing their ideas to life and helping the rest of us understand how patients would interact with the new service. Their service concepts were rough-and-ready but complex, combining organisational processes, people’s behaviours and interactions, established technologies (such as buzzers, digital devices or wifi) used in new ways, as well as communications and spatial design.
The takeaways from this workshop were
- A sense that prototyping is not a technical jargon, but an approach to exploring ideas and taking action to move a project on
- Understanding that prototypes can take many forms, from physical models, to role play or digital mock ups and that prototyping involves interacting with things as well as telling stories
- Recognition that users of government services experience policy through their interactions with places and digital and material things
- The benefits of working collaboratively with people from different backgrounds and perspectives to generate and co-design ideas together
- The appetite among some policymakers to try out new things and work in a more open, generative way. Policy Lab is currently developing materials for policymakers to be shared via the Open Policy toolkit and also specialist courses for Civil Service Learning.
Set up in April 2014, the Cabinet Office Policy Lab brings new tools and techniques, new insights and practical experimentation to policy-making. Embedded as a researcher in the Lab, my role is to help with evaluating Lab’s impact on policy making. This post summarises one of Lab’s demonstrator projects from its first year.
Policy Lab’s second demonstrator project has over the past three months resulted in learning about how policy professionals can work in a more open, user-centred way to engage with others and generate novel solutions to policy issues. (For a quick overview of Policy Lab, see this slide share.) Working in partnership with the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) on a project concerned with family mediation during divorce and separation, Lab has new findings about the opportunities, implications and practical issues associated with bringing this approach into policy-making. This post captures some of what was learned.
Bringing citizens and users into policy-making
First, some background. Having a focus on end users of public services and the outcomes of policy-making within people’s day-to-day lives is an increasingly visible agenda in the UK and internationally. Lab is one of a number of UK initiatives that brings citizen-centred perspectives to central government. The Government Digital Service champions designing digital government services by starting with user needs. The Behavioural Insights Team uses knowledge from the social sciences to improve the effectiveness of public services based on understanding how individuals make decisions in practice and how they are likely to respond to options.
Having a focus on users is not the only area in which Policy Lab is experimenting, but it is one area it is targeting to support the policy profession to develop and make use of this capability. As the UK civil service moves towards open policy making by default, Policy Lab uses user-centred design methods such as design ethnography, co-design and early service prototyping to help civil servants bring citizen and user perspectives into the early stages of designing policy. As a result, this Lab demonstrator placed a strong emphasis from the outset on understanding and making use of the experiences of people going through separation and divorce.
The policy context around divorce and separating families
Second, a brief summary of the issue that Lab demonstrator addressed: family disputes during divorce and separation. These are not necessarily matters requiring extensive engagement with court or public services. Much of the MOJ’s own data relates to its services such as how many cases come to court and activities that it funds, rather than the bigger picture of people’s journeys towards dispute resolution via mediation or court. For example, 47% of divorcing couples do not seek any legal advice and only 10% of couples use alternative dispute resolution. Public funding has been available for mediation since the late 1990s. Since the early 2000s both people in the dispute have been funded to attend a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM), if one person was eligible for Legal Aid.
Until April 2013, there were three routes into mediation:
(i) voluntary referrals to a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM)
(ii) as a requirement of obtaining Legal Aid for legal representation, and
(iii) as a result of compliance with the pre-application protocol (April 2011) which placed an ‘expectation’ on couples to consider mediation before making a court application.
In April 2013, the implementation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) removed the availability of Legal Aid funding for people to access legal advice and representation by a solicitor when they get divorced or when families have disputes over money and/or children. It was expected that mediation volumes would increase following these changes but, possibly due to the removal of the main referral route to mediation (via a Legal Aid lawyer), there were actually 17,000 fewer MIAMs and 5,000 fewer mediation starts in 2013/14 compared to 2012/13. A further development was that there were 30% more family cases (18,500 cases) in 2013/14 (post-LASPO) where neither party had representation, compared with 2012/13 (pre-LASPO). In the first quarter of 2014, 80% of all new family court cases had at least one unrepresented party. There is concern that people representing themselves in court delays proceedings. It can make the experience more stressful for families and may reduce equal access to justice.
Two recent policy responses tried to address these concerns. Firstly, it became mandatory in April 2014 for separating couples to have a mediation information and assessment meeting (MIAM) before going to court to settle disputes. Then in November 2014, funding became available to pay for both parties at this first meeting if the one of them is eligible for Legal Aid.
Using an open policy making approach
Within this context, the MOJ family mediation team had two goals for the Lab demonstrator. They wanted to understand the experiences of people going through separation and divorce, and they wanted to use these insights to explore how family mediation services could be redesigned to better meet people’s needs.
For Policy Lab, this demonstrator was an opportunity to try out three things: commissioning ethnographic research and using it to shape policy making; engaging a broad network of stakeholders in creating policy; and accessing expertise from a specialist agency, the Innovation Unit, experienced in collaboratively developing innovative solutions in policy contexts.
A project team including the MOJ, Policy Lab and Innovation Unit staff worked together closely over the 12 weeks of the project. The key activities included:
- Around 30 interviews, site visits and mystery shopping with people directly involved in family mediation, separation, divorce, court and related public services, complemented by desk research
- In depth ethnographic interviews with six mediators and six people using or thinking of using mediation services
- Sense-making to analyse the qualitative data leading to reframing the issue away from going to mediation to avoid court to crafting new family arrangements in a positive way
- A workshop with issue experts to sense-check the emerging findings and approach
- Articulation of an emerging vision for 2020 based on making mediation the social norm for family disputes and divorce, significantly reducing the number of people going to court, including via self-representation, supported by a high quality, valued mediation sector with better measurement of the outcomes, process and quality of mediation services when funded publicly
- A collaborative workshop held in early December with 33 mediators, policy-makers, judges and other stakeholders. Together they explored the experiences of people getting separated or divorced captured in six detailed personas and user journeys based on the Innovation Unit’s research. Grounded in these perspectives and the problems, opportunities and insights they generated, participants then defined principles they thought would lead to better individual, family and policy outcomes. They then articulated visions for helping people reach agreement about family disputes. Participants selected three visions to take forward and then sketched roadmaps to work towards prototyping and piloting aspects of these visions.
The next steps of this project are for the MOJ family mediation team to work with Policy Lab and the Innovation Unit to make sense of the large volume of insights, problems and opportunities generated in the workshop, as well as other research findings. This will require prioritising which ideas to take forward via prototyping to explore and test aspects of the future visions in more depth. The MOJ will also host a follow-on workshop to engage with stakeholders within the family mediation sector to advance a collective discussion about ways forward – continuing the department’s move towards towards a more open, engaged way of making policy.
What Lab learned from this demonstrator
The main findings from the Lab’s perspective are in three areas.
Clarifying what user perspectives bring to policy-making. Open policy making recognises the importance of bringing citizen and user perspectives into researching and analysing an issue. But what are the best ways to engage with and use qualitative evidence such as analysis from ethnographic interviews? And what effect can it have?
- In this project, the focus on the lived experiences of families going through divorce or separation was the thread that held the project together. The way the Innovation Unit crafted the project, in collaboration with Policy Lab and the MOJ, centred the project around people’s experiences of divorce and separation, not just their interactions with specialists such as mediators, lawyers and the legal system.
- Finding out what recent policy changes meant for families and for the professionals they worked with, grounded policy in practice. The research into the current state of affairs explored what it was like for people now, and the creative activities in the workshop proposed what it could be like for people in the future.
- Semi-structured ethnographically informed interviews generated unexpected insights. For example, researchers discovered that some people going through separation and divorce lacked confidence in their ability to make decisions about their futures. They also concluded that people’s satisfaction with the mediation process rested on setting realistic expectations for mediation based on likely outcomes of mediation. This has implications for how mediation services are designed and communicated to the market and to others in the sector, training and assessment for mediators, and how the outcomes of publicly-funded mediation are evaluated. Insights such as these may not have emerged from using other research methods such as surveys.
- Using person-centred techniques in the workshop made participants accountable to the users – even if they were not in the room. The collaborative workshop began with participants sitting in mixed teams. Each table focused for half an hour on one of the personas and his or her journey through separation and mediation. This was achieved by reading, interpreting and discussing the visual and written research materials. From then on, participants regularly referred to their table’s persona throughout the rest of the workshop. Through so doing, individuals were brought into view within the policy discussion by participants creating a collective account of their experiences of separation or divorce. Further, participants repeatedly raised questions about what a proposed new solution might be like for these personas. It was as if these participants were now accountable to these individuals.
Reconstituting the issue of family mediation. Another result of this project was to shift from seeing policy-making as primarily as the province of the MOJ towards a collective activity in which many actors and different kinds of expertise needed to be involved. The project constituted policy-making as a complex configuration of socio-cultural, organisational and technological actors, processes, data and resources – more of a living system than a mechanical object with inputs, outputs and policy “levers”.
- Careful preparation about who should be involved in the research and invited and encouraged to attend the workshop, and how to best use participants’ knowledge and expertise, highlighted how open policy making is partly an activity of curating and staging collective conversations. As the MOJ family mediation policy lead Kate Shiner put it, the workshop created a different tone for the conversation between the department and stakeholders in the sector.
- During the workshop, the Innovation Unit’s activity of asking participants to create roadmaps towards system change to achieve their visions presented change-making as a shared responsibility that a wide range of actors, including but not limited to participants in the workshop, could contribute to and have responsibility for.
- The design of the collaborative workshop created new interpersonal and organisational relationships between actors in the sector. Through co-creating accounts of a persona’s story, defining principles, articulating visions and sketching out roadmaps participants became temporary teams bound together through their creative and analytical work.
Starting and ending with people’s lives, not government-funded or delivered services, as the driver to innovate. Finally, this Lab project looked broadly at people’s lives, not just as users of mediation or court services. The ethnographic research focused on people’s relationship breakdown stories. This starting point allowed the researchers to discover a range of actors, activities and identities involved including family, friends, colleagues; professionals such as solicitors and mediators; other public services (such as the police, in one person’s story or a GP, in another); as well as material and digital artefacts such as bank statements, and resources such as Wikivorce or Netmums where families and professionals share knowledge and opinions. Taking people’s lives, not services, as the starting point led to three findings. All three highlight how this approach to policy making is oriented towards innovation rather than service improvement, where innovation is understood as reconfiguring societal and public resources to achieve outcomes for the actors involved.
- This approach recognized that mediation and digital services are elements in the mix of things that people who are separating or getting divorced access and use. The project demonstrated that users’ needs at particular points in time exist within journeys towards new family arrangements. Focusing on people’s needs can result in improvements to services during specific stages of the separation process, but may not significantly reshape the journey overall. Instead, the person-centred approach looks at the whole system within which digital or face-to-face services exist, opening up the possibility of combining resources and activities in new ways.
- The six visions for possible solutions created in the workshop to help support people craft new family arrangements proposed interconnecting elements of a new system such as: a skilled, accredited, trusted and valued mediation profession; responsive, child-centred, accessible and cost-effective services that enable people to find and engage the support they need including mediation, legal advice and other specialist services; socio-cultural shifts towards valuing mediation rather than confrontation; and increased readiness for the work involved in mediation during separation and divorce.
- Starting with people’s lives, rather than existing services or institutions, highlighted the diversity of resources available to people going through a major life transition such as separation or divorce. One of the projects captured in a horizon scan shared at the workshop suggested how people getting separated or divorced might benefit from connecting with others going through it, similar to platforms in other policy arenas such as Patients Like Me. This approach recognises that people going through such transitions develop expertise and grow in confidence as they craft new arrangements. This informal expertise is a societal resource that can be accessed and shared. One possibility is to design and deliver services through which people can support and learn from one another, accessing expert professional help from mediators and solicitors when they need it.
To conclude, this demonstrator helped Policy Lab experiment with new tools and techniques in relation to one complex policy issue.
It demonstrated how open policy making takes practical steps to broaden the range of actors involved in researching and analysing an issue. It also engaged people directly in coming up with principles and visions shaping new policy and service solutions.
This changed the conversations with stakeholders in the sector, who were rendered as collaborators in a collective innovation process.
It showed how using ethnographic analysis resulted in new insights, which reframed the policy issue from the perspective of people’s experiences. These insights highlighted the contexts shaping their needs and attitudes towards specialist services such as mediation and legal advice and their behaviours during divorce and separation.
Finally, this project generated principles and visions for supporting people going through separation and divorce. These underpin the next steps of the project, to prototype services and system changes through which people can craft new family arrangements.
At the beginning of September I began a one-year research fellowship in the UK Cabinet Office’s PolicyLab, created by an open call by the AHRC and ESRC.
The Policy Lab was set up in April 2014 by the Open Policy Making team of the Cabinet Office, part of the UK Civil Service. It aims to experiment with bringing creative problem-solving, design thinking and user centred design approaches to policy-making in central government by undertaking projects with the 17 government departments funding the lab. Led by experienced designer Dr Andrea Siodmok, this is a one-year experimental pilot that aims to bring creative approaches to the early stages of generating policy, by focussing on people’s experiences, using data analytics, digital tools and prototyping to engage a more diverse group of people in policy-making.
The Policy Lab builds on similar activities elsewhere, notably in Denmark, which set up a cross-ministerial innovation unit MindLab over a decade ago, as well as Nesta’s Public Innovation Lab, France’s 27e Region, and The Australian Centre for Social Innovation. It sits alongside other related Cabinet Office initiatives such as the Behavioural Insights Team and the Government Digital Service.
Most of the existing literature on these initiatives currently comes from reports, conferences and blog posts. See for example the recent report on i-teams (innovation teams) by Nesta. There is comparatively little academic writing about using “design” approaches in policy making in central government. This research fellowship will draw on academic research in design studies, participatory design, participatory governance, participatory action research and management research to provide a thorough review of this emerging initiative. It will present an account of what such approaches do within central government policy-making, aimed in the first instance at the PolicyLab’s key stakeholders.
My research will anchor the Policy Lab’s activities within a strong evaluative framework supported by academic research and co-designed with its major stakeholders through a collaborative process. This framework will enable the Lab to evaluate and analyse the impact its approach and methods have on developing and implementing policy.
My two main outputs will be a report summarising the evaluation framework and a literature review that combines different fields to support further academic research into this emerging area.