“Respond to dissatisfaction with creativity:” Insights from innovative New Zealanders
Two months ago, often over flat whites, more than 70 kind New Zealanders chatted with me about how they blend policy, design, tech and data. They were based in five cities across the North and South Island, from 40+ different organisations (public, private or a mix of the two). Most were managers or executives.
This research was to help me understand the landscape for public sector innovation as a new Edmund Hillary Fellow. The fellowship provides a unique visa to champion the well-being of the country in ways that could be scaled globally. The “Opportunities” sections below are all questions. Anyone curious in answering them with me should reach out to start a conversation.
Three Takeaways
1. Among those who spoke with me, “co-creating” with diverse stakeholders was widely discussed across sectors. Several people, however, expressed frustration that its practice in government can be more focused on research or attempts to get stakeholder buy-in rather than creating and implementing change. Prototyping public policy was mentioned as a promising way forward if demand/permission for it grows.
2. Across sectors, some people described their workplace culture as focusing more on how people are evaluated than the intended results of a policy, service or product. Challenges with data governance, quality and infrastructure seemed widespread. Some organisations appear to treat data in the way tech used to be understood: as an additional consideration to strategic planning and implementation, not something that’s integral to working effectively.
3. Māori-informed design processes are used by some organisations to co-design and implement policies as well as provide ethical practices surrounding data. These approaches can help all New Zealanders with complex, national challenges in a more holistic and reflective way. It can be a model for governments and companies elsewhere to partner with their indigenous peoples, among others, who blend their expertise and culture together to design better products, services and systems.
Research Ethics
I tried to anonymise people’s identity, a challenging task in a country with two degrees of separation. Anonymity can encourage some to “speak truth to power.” It can also reduce unintended pushback from that power. Links to organisations doesn’t mean they communicated with me. Many people pointed me towards others whose work they admire.
Ethnographic research is an ongoing lesson in humility. It takes times to understand the historical contexts in which we insert ourselves as researchers. But being aware that those contexts are shaped by power, privilege, discrimination and trauma can help one to be a kinder, better interviewer. It was my intention to be kind at all times though sometimes my curiosity may have gotten the upper hand in the delivery of what I was trying to communicate.
Researchers also enter projects with our own assumptions and biases. Reflecting on and calling attention to them helps us to be aware of what we thought we would find, and how this informed our analyses. My previous experiences working in government sensitised me to the power of metrics to shape policy design and implementation as well as the value in co-designing better services. Something I didn’t expect is the extent to which many New Zealanders value and apply indigenous knowledge and practice.
Pricey Policy Boxes
Public sector employees and contractors shared how they can struggle with the lack of coordination between teams who create policy, those who implement it, and the intended “end user” of the policy. Hurdles to bringing these groups together include mandates, competing priorities, and limited resources as well as concern around risk or failure.
Prototyping policy is used to narrow these gaps by applying a design approach throughout the policy process. Examples include teams from different ministries co-developing regulations that are machine readable. Auckland Council also has a Co-Lab with a history of success that partners closely with community stakeholders, not just different public sector units.
A public sector consultant told me a couple of years ago that co-design in government done poorly contributes to “the million dollar box.” A place where expensive reports are put to rest shortly after being created. I learned how some ministries use a design process heavy on research and light on making, testing, measuring and implementing change across digital and non-digital service channels. Some people who spoke with me felt their efforts were contributing towards their organisation’s million dollar box.
Opportunities
How might the new Public Services Act reduce the number of million dollar boxes by increasing co-creation and -implementation of policy?
What timely and cost-effective methods for policy prototyping would be welcome at the national or local level?
Does the current practice of “fit for purpose” in government encourage adaptive, iterative design approaches to policy where the underlying problems may not be fully known at the start?
How could the robust evaluation model used for Lifehack (a creative project to improve mental health among New Zealanders) be adapted to measuring the success of policy prototypes?
How are Māori-informed, design processes being applied to co-develop policy intent and associated success metrics with stakeholders?
Data Cultures
Collectively, those who spoke with me described data in their organisation as a way to be more effective, efficient or profitable. It wasn’t something they seemed comfortable reflecting on deeper with me, because they didn’t feel their expertise allowed it. Some mentioned data quality, governance and infrastructure as a serious, widespread challenge to public and private organisations.
Workplace cultures may shape the way public and private organisations think about and use data.
The problem is not measurement, but excessive measurement and inappropriate measurement — not metrics, but metric fixation […] is a cultural pattern […] It affects the way in which people talk about the world, and thus how they think about the world and how they act in it. (Jerry Z Muller 2018:4 & 17).
Take the example of performance management, and the challenges it can bring. A consultant shared how their organisation’s performance management tool was largely about what service was sold, to whom, time spent, and cost. How well they did their work and whether their customers were better off (impact) was missing or hardly measured. The internal dashboards and success metrics of this company didn’t align with its mission and values around customer service.
This is less a criticism of one organisation and more an example of the way a commonly used management tool (dashboards) limits thinking about what success is or could be. Performance measurement dashboards privilege certain easily identifiable metrics. In my experience, they don’t often display how long measures have been used, and to what effect (e.g., how people interpret and act on them differently, even within the same organisation). And, by their very nature, they don’t call attention to what other important metrics are missing.
Opportunities
Māori thinkers and their collaborators are championing data sovereignty as an alternative ethical practice for gathering, using and monetising data. How is this approach being applied to lessen metric fixation in public and private organisations?
How is the Wellbeing Budget and the Living Standards Framework lessening the “corruption pressures” of metric fixation? These new frameworks for budgeting and evaluating policy success are being placed on top of long-standing workplace cultures or rituals surrounding data (e.g., current design, interpretation and use of dashboards). What is being done to acknowledge and align these differences in producing the intended results?
Social enterprises across the country have models for measuring impact. Are other types of companies as well as ministries applying these ideas to their own success metrics?
Who partners with frontline employees and their clients/customers/residents to understand what “measures of a successful service” mean in their lives?
How are “evidence-based practices” and “practice-based evidence” evolving in the public, private and other sectors?
Beyond Human-Centred Design
Indigenous designers and their allies in Aotearoa New Zealand and overseas have been encouraging us to expand the way we design policy, products and services. They urge “designing with, and for, the more than human.” Meaning: community, society, the environment and all its creatures, as well as spiritual or ancestral considerations.
People told me in English and te reo Māori, “I am the mountain and the mountain is me. I am the river and the river is me.” In this country, there is a Zero Carbon Act. Rivers, forests and mountains can have legal rights. These policies invite design processes beyond focusing only on an end-user to meet the complex challenges shaping our collective future. “Respond to dissatisfaction with creativity,” a local designer advised me. How can we respond together?
Opportunities
What are the successful use cases of applying Māori-informed design practices to national priorities, such as climate change, housing and mental health? In what ways could these successes be scaled through existing public sector funding?
A government executive shared with me how design processes evolved in the public sector from talking about stakeholders’ needs to asking them about their needs to involving them to meet their needs. How do rural and urban communities experience public sector design process today?
Co-producing policy, services or products in the public sector can take time. What parts of the process lend themselves to a faster approach without significant costs to quality, budget and impact? Who is doing this work?
Next Steps
Questions rather than statements are used here as an invitation for collaboration. They are also meant to help me learn more about how policy, tech, design and data are bundled together in different contexts around Aotearoa New Zealand.
A holistic design practice, prototyping policies, co-developing better success metrics, and other “evidence for innovation” are all areas where New Zealanders are poised to experiment and test their way towards better global models. How could we do some of this together?
