# Phase 1: Preparation– Policy purpose and authority Phase 1: Preparation– Policy purpose and authority The goal of this phase is to establish a clear and measurable policy intent, backed by hypothesis-led exploration, research and multi-disciplinary collaboration (with community and with experts, to bring values, experience and expertise to the process), leading to a decision point by the relevant authority to progress to implementation. The policy instruments identified (and ideally tested) in this phase are simply the starting point for implementation, not the only or final policy instruments. Throughout the implementation phase, policy interventions should be constantly tested, explored, added and removed to maximise and optimise the intended policy outcomes. The small upfront cost of test-driven policy design, and of monitoring for impact to inform ongoing policy optimisation, are far less costly than guess-driven design and static implementation that is not outcomes driven or responsive to real world effects. 1.1 Context Before you even start thinking about the policy itself, take a moment to review and reflect upon the context of your work in three specific ways. 1. What is the jurisdictional context of this policy? Consider what authorities are relevant, the broader policy context (including any relevant Foundational or International Policies) and what other jurisdictions may have an intersecting interest. This should inform and provide some useful inputs to when you start planning out the policy purpose and authority (phase 1). For those in Australia (federal, state/ territory and local), please see the latter chapter on Washminster to understand how the jurisdictional context should shape your actions and efforts as a public servant. 2. Consider and understand the policy trigger, that is, the reason for this work commencing. Is it in response to an urgent issue (for example, COVID-19, national security)? A political or ministerial imperative? A response to a market failure (such as, electricity grid issues, banking failures) or economic/social emerging issue (for example, rising unemployment, housing crisis)? Or is it a proactive policy agenda trying to anticipate and capitalise on an opportunity (such as, AI economy, quantum)? You want to try to understand why this policy response has been prioritised above other agendas, as this will help you to understand the intrinsic and extrinsic pressures, players and stakes involved. This will help you to shape a meaningful policy response in a timely way, that has a chance of a sustainable public good and long term impact. 3. Identify any potential existing initiatives by exploring all relevant policies (including legislation and regulation) that are likely to intersect with, depend upon, complement or contradict your intended policy outcome, revisiting regularly. Even a quick initial environmental scan might identify a policy or program that already achieves or is intended to achieve the same high level outcome, and it might be worth modifying that program rather than starting up a whole new policy agenda. A suitable home for the agenda might exist in another area (or another department). Even if there isn’t a holistic approach or willingness to extend that program to this outcome, it is still worthwhile providing this advice to the relevant decision maker before starting something new, as it may provide an opportunity to deliver the policy agenda more efficiently and/or effectively, or to partner and avoid duplicative policy efforts. Document your answers to these for future reference and to ensure the knowledge is accessible to everyone involved in the whole policy lifecycle, including previous policy attempts or interventions which haven’t worked, to ensure these learnings inform future policy delivery. See the Evidence section for more ideas and guidance on finding and using good evidence for policy. It is worth noting, you will rarely, if ever, have full jurisdiction over the entire policy environment for your policy agenda, and may not even have full jurisdiction over your entire policy journey. This heightens the need to identify and collaborate with parallel policy actors early, and coordinate as best you can to achieve the policy objectives. Distributed policymaking is common across jurisdictions in Australia and requires coordination, alignment and power sharing between departments and/or jurisdictions. It is also worth considering when you want or need to engage in genuine power sharing and partnership in policy areas with communities, especially where governments have to authentically shift towards greater self-determination (for example, in Indigenous affairs). 1.2 Purpose/Intent Create a policy purpose statement, including the intended outcome or change, problem or opportunity being addressed, the likely scope, partners and who will benefit and why. Actively try to differentiate the policy intent from solutions. Try to ensure any proposed solutions are put to the side, and treated as only potential at this stage, not assumed as effective or suitable until they can be tested. Especially in the case where new regulation or legislation is being proposed–we can’t yet assume legislation or regulation are the right mechanisms until we go through a robust process of understanding the purpose/intent, and conducting analysis of what is feasible and desirable. This process also provides a means to identify and table any assumptions which can be tested throughout the policy preparation. The policy purpose sets the north star for the entire program of work, which in turn provides the basis for improving, scaling up or stopping policy interventions into the future. The policy team should also define a future state that is clearly and measurably different (and better) than today. Any policy agenda that cannot identify an intended future state should seriously consider the need for a policy at all. At this stage, the policy purpose and future state created should be treated as a hypothesis, something to test and be flexible about throughout the policy preparation phase. Once the hypothetical purpose/intent statement is developed and after authority is established, it should be clear, relatively unchanging and confidently applied over the life of the policy, used to guide and support change and decision making throughout the navigation phase. If significant change to the purpose is required in the life of the policy, it is helpful to return to this purpose/intent step. The Adaptive Policy Lean Canvas (in Policy Journey Templates at the end of this chapter) provides a useful tool for exploring and capturing purpose, as well as the raw assumptions and ingredients of your policy. 1.3 Outreach With the draft purpose/intent statement in hand, you should be able to identify those who will be affected, aligned to, experts on, or acting in contradiction to your purpose. Map out the relevant policy actors (using the Actors Environment Map in Policy Journey Templates), taking into account those affected by the policy purpose as necessarily high importance. This map should be revisited throughout the policy journey as new actors are identified, as there will always be unknown unknowns. Extend the policy team to include a reasonable representation and diversity of expertise and experience (including if possible, those affected by the policy) to robustly test the purpose hypothesis and assumptions. Establish or leverage a policy advisory group with a diverse range of relevant expertise and experience, ideally a group that is aligned on the policy purpose and intent. An advisory group that is independent to the policy team provides a helpful review mechanism, a check and balance for what the policy team produces, and a useful means to help surface, sequence, pace and cushion the loss or disappointment that is inevitable for someone somewhere entangled in the policy domain who will not benefit or will not be aligned with policy purpose and intent. If possible, work in the open (publicly) throughout the process, so as to attract peer review, ideas and relevant expertise over time from a broader audience, creating transparency and opportunities to attract partners, build public trust and support from the community. The extended policy team should also look for global examples, evidence and organisations that have had similar policy intent/purpose, to see what has worked or not in other jurisdictions. This will also identify relevant external bodies and independent experts that might be useful to engage with or test ideas down the track. You can add new ideas and insights to the Adaptive Policy Lean Canvas throughout the process. 1.4 Definition Now that you have a multi-disciplinary policy team in place with a wide range of expertise at hand, you can start testing your hypothesised policy purpose/intent, success criteria and assumptions with the people identified throughout the outreach stage. Identify and develop a range of policy personas and relevant user/life journeys (see templates), and conduct user research with a representative range of people (and organisations) who are either likely to be affected by the policy, or who will need to implement the policy. The primary goal is to produce clearly defined, tested and evidenced foundations for the policy, with new insights being added to the Adaptive Policy Lean Canvas. Your policy purpose statement should be tested, and probably improved. Throughout navigation you should also be able to identify: - the likely population(s) who will be affected by the policy - the success metrics - potential harms or conflicts to watch for - potential policy interventions - he feasibility, desirability and sustainability of the policy intent and position - the best partnerships and - a sustainable (naturally motivated) model for policy coordination 1.5 Options Once you have your definition, it’s time to investigate your policy’s options or interventions. 1. Test the hypothesised solutions and interventions with the advisory group and actors identified throughout the outreach step, and identify at least six strategically differentiated options for decision makers, including a “no action” option, and where possible, options to extend existing programs or policies where they are relevant or aligned in purpose, even from outside the portfolio or jurisdiction. Note: public servants need to resist the temptation (or pressure) to only offer one acceptable option amidst a cluster of undesirable or unfeasible ones. All options presented should be feasible and aligned to the intended policy impact, with analysis of pros and cons, public good, likely impact, etc. There will be occasions where the best advice is no action: perhaps the policy intention itself is unlawful or harmful. This is when public servants most need to exercise stewardship and provide this advice without fear or favour. 2. Conduct concept testing, and apply the potential options to the personas and user/life journey maps developed earlier. 3. Create a Policy Intervention/Solution Lean Canvas for each proposed intervention (there may be one or several interventions in an option) to describe the likely timing, resourcing, actors and comparative analysis. 4. Document the preferred options based on best likely measurable realisation of the policy purpose, balanced against the best possible public good (applying a wellbeing framework can help this to be a measurable but broad approach). It is possible the policy impact might be achieved through a detrimental impact on public good, so it is important to present the potential negative impact so that decision makers don’t choose the policy outcome option where it would have a predictably negative public impact. This phase should also involve some early costings of different options and the management of the policy agenda as a whole, taking different coordination/collaboration models into account. 5. Ensure relevant or requisite authorities are explored and defined as part of policy options and decision making, such that the policy team (or other relevant party) has what they need to confidently and adaptively deliver on the policy intent throughout the Policy Navigation Phase. 1.6 Trial(s) If possible, conduct actual trials of top options identified with real people, or collect evidence of trials that have been done in the past that might be relevant and time-and-context appropriate. 1.7 Decision point At this point, or indeed at any later point for those who inherit policies, here are some useful questions to test preparedness and to support policy implementation and outcomes. - What happens when/if it is realised the policy settings are wrong or ineffective? - Will the policy implementation team have the delegated authority they need to proactively manage and optimise policy settings over time? - What independent oversight mechanisms exist and how is this independence maintained over time and throughout political or operational pressures? - With the benefit of policy planning, what are the ideal skills and capabilities needed for this specific policy team?How has stewardship and public good been built into the policy planning? - How sensitive is this policy area, and what is needed to uphold public trust and confidence in the public sector? - How can the “policy team” best interact with the environment (partners, vendors, stakeholders, politics/Minister, government/ parliament/people)? Once you’ve had a final chance to consider these questions—and take any necessary action—you are ready to secure a decision and, if relevant, the authority to move forward. The policy authority depends on the policy type, so ensure you are proposing options to the appropriate authority for your policy type. The decision maker might be a Minister, Secretary, a governance body or a Senior Executive, which will also determine the mechanism to secure a decision and authority. Preparation phase templates Templates are meant to help guide your thinking and work, but should never be treated as outcomes themselves. We encourage you to use these templates to help create clarity, identify your assumptions and any areas of ambiguity, and to engage with a broad range of stakeholders to test (and adapt) your approach throughout, complemented by initial and ongoing testing. Please find some templates and tools after the chapter on Phase 2 to assist you, including: - The Adaptive Policy Lean Canvas template (for ideating on purpose/intent) - The Policy Interventions/Solutions Lean Canvas template (for designing specific solutions) - An Actors Environment Map template (for outreach to identify relevant parties) - An Actors Intent Map template (for mapping the values, factions, losses, loyalties, pain points and incentives) - Policy Intent Scenarios template (to test and articulate intended outcomes) - Policy Personas template (to create a representation of real people affected, their needs, aspirations, challenges and ideal outcomes from the policy agenda) - User/life Journeys template (to identify user/organisation needs and existing policies). The Adaptive Policy Lean Canvas and the Policy Interventions/Solutions Lean Canvas templates for Google Docs (tabs 1 and 2) and all other templates (from Canva) are available online for free reuse. We also recommend you check out policy templates from organisations like The Australian Centre for Social Innovation (the TACSI toolkit) Nesta (Map the Gap) and the doteveryone’s consequence scanning kit.