The incompatibility of Nudge and Co-Design as tools for policymaking

The use of nudge theory to inform policy interventions in response to COVID-19 has re-opened debates over the politically paternalistic nature of governing by ‘nudges’ and has given momentum to calls to include the more participatory elements of co-design into policymaking. Emma Blomkamp and Colette Einfeld suggest in seeking to combine mutually exclusive elements of each practice, academics and policymakers risk blurring lines of authority and public trust in policymaking

Mapping Public Sector Innovation Units in Australia and New Zealand 2018 Survey Report

Public sector innovation (PSI) units are increasingly being established and commissioned by governments in Australia and New Zealand to bring new insights and approaches to policy design and the delivery of public services. This report is part of an ANZSOG-funded research project, conducted by Melbourne University’s Policy Lab, to analyse the methodology of PSIs and their role within the broader policy environment. It found that while there is a wide range of structures to PSIs, they are generally small, reliant on contractors and consultants, located within a single department and focused on the early stages of the policy cycle. The survey notes that, internationally, the rise of PSI units has been framed as a response by governments to increasingly complex challenges, particularly in the field of social policy. In Australia and New Zealand the PSIs are focused far more heavily on areas of social policy and services, rather than areas such as energy and taxation. Only four PSI units reported that their establishment was an initiative of an elected official or member of government. This suggests that the emergence of PSI units within government in Australia and New Zealand is being driven by public managers and administrators, rather than by politicians or elected officials. The Policy Lab’s research team will continue this project and build on the survey results by carrying out five case studies of PSI units working on various policy and innovation domains at different levels of government. The results of this research will be available towards the end of 2018 and a public summary will be shared on the project web page: http://go.unimelb.edu.au/ix8

Meanings and measures of urban cultural policy: Local government, art and community wellbeing in Australia and New Zealand

© 2014 Dr. Emma BlomkampLocal government in Australia and New Zealand has long contributed to the cultural life of communities, particularly by providing services and infrastructure for creative activities. Through a historical literature review and four contemporary case studies, this research explores some of the many goals, values, techniques and traditions that are embedded in local government arts programmes and cultural policies. Drawing on the theories of governmentality and wellbeing as capabilities, this thesis argues that urban cultural policy in Australia and New Zealand is fundamentally driven by local government’s rationale of providing the conditions in which community members can live free and flourishing lives. Faced with increasing demands for accountability and evidence-based policy and planning, local government officers are endeavouring to articulate and assess arts programming and cultural policy in relation to broad aspirations. Their efforts are complicated by the multiple definitions of culture, competing rationales for supporting the arts and the difficulty of quantifying unpredictable and intangible results, not to mention the myriad other activities and agencies that shape cultural community outcomes. Cultural policy evaluation is important for learning and legitimation, but it presents significant challenges for local government. This thesis examines how municipalities in Australia and New Zealand develop and implement cultural plans and services in this complex environment. Exploring the problems of meaning and measurement that arise from certain discourses and practices, it demonstrates the value of an interpretive approach to cultural policy analysis. The case study research shows that local government officers require an array of skills and different types of knowledge to design, deliver and evaluate urban cultural policy. Their discourses and practices are shaped by overlapping traditions of local governance and multiple forms of cultural value. Community wellbeing indicators are put forth as a relevant tool for local government calculations, but evaluating the results of arts and cultural policy requires more than the careful construction of meaningful measures. Effective evaluation of urban cultural policy would recognise the significance of numerous policy frames and multiple forms of context-dependent knowledge

Introducing and Testing a Systemic Design Practice Framework

Bring your own project to this interactive workshop to test out a new practice framework for systemic design This participatory workshop introduces a new practice framework for systemic design, which articulates what to consider when tackling complex problems and designing for systems change. Its approach to systemic design follows Peter Jones’ (2018) definition of: ‘a design-led practice that integrates dialogue in co-creation for sensemaking and decision making’. The systemic design practice framework aims to offer an accessible, flexible and contemporary guide for practitioners and leaders working with communities and other stakeholders to consider the necessary components of systemic design. It does not set forth a rigid model or narrow recipe but recognises the diversity of contexts and circumstances in which this work takes place. Early sharing and testing of the framework suggest it could be a useful point of reference for planning and commissioning work, reflecting on practice, and evaluating process and impact. The practice framework brings together learnings from research, practice, evaluation and capability building experience. It is informed by ethical principles, ethnographic research on design practice in the public sector, practice knowledge from working in social innovation and strategic design consultancies in New Zealand and Australia, as well as analysis of case studies and theories of systemic design and related disciplines. This structured, participatory online workshop will include: - Presentation of the practice framework and its origins - Application of elements to participants’ own work (individual writing or sketching) - Discussion in small and larger groups Each participant is invited to bring a ‘case study’ of systemic design practice to the workshop. This could be an existing, past or future project or piece of work that you have led, participated in or are familiar with. You will not need to share or present any information about your case study with the group. Participants will be asked to reflect and discuss what the practice framework brought to light about their case/project. A final group discussion will focus on the following questions, with the aim of refining the framework to share with the broader community of practice: - How could the practice framework be used to teach or support practitioners of systemic design? - What might we add, change or remove to make it more useful? Following the workshop, participants will receive a written presentation of the practice framework and summary of participant contributions

Mapping Public Sector Innovation Units in Australia and New Zealand 2018 Survey Report

Public sector innovation (PSI) units are increasingly being established and commissioned by governments in Australia and New Zealand to bring new insights and approaches to policy design and the delivery of public services. This report is part of an ANZSOG-funded research project, conducted by Melbourne University’s Policy Lab, to analyse the methodology of PSIs and their role within the broader policy environment. It found that while there is a wide range of structures to PSIs, they are generally small, reliant on contractors and consultants, located within a single department and focused on the early stages of the policy cycle. The survey notes that, internationally, the rise of PSI units has been framed as a response by governments to increasingly complex challenges, particularly in the field of social policy. In Australia and New Zealand the PSIs are focused far more heavily on areas of social policy and services, rather than areas such as energy and taxation. Only four PSI units reported that their establishment was an initiative of an elected official or member of government. This suggests that the emergence of PSI units within government in Australia and New Zealand is being driven by public managers and administrators, rather than by politicians or elected officials. The Policy Lab’s research team will continue this project and build on the survey results by carrying out five case studies of PSI units working on various policy and innovation domains at different levels of government. The results of this research will be available towards the end of 2018 and a public summary will be shared on the project web page: http://go.unimelb.edu.au/ix8

Innovation labs and co-production in public problem solving

Governments are increasingly establishing innovation labs to enhance public problem solving. Despite the speed at which these new units are being established, they have only recently begun to receive attention from public management scholars. This study assesses the extent to which labs are enhancing strategic policy capacity through pursuing more collaborative and citizen-centred approaches to policy design. Drawing on original case study research of five labs in Australia and New Zealand, it examines the structure of lab’s relationships to government partners, and the extent and nature of their activities in promoting citizen-participation in public problem solving

When design meets power: design thinking, public sector innovation and the politics of policymaking

Responding to the need for innovation, governments have begun experimenting with ‘design thinking’ approaches to reframe policy issues and generate and test new policy solutions. This paper examines what is new about design thinking and compares this to rational and participatory approaches to policymaking, highlighting the difference between their logics, foundations and the basis on which they ‘speak truth to power’. It then examines the impact of design thinking on policymaking in practice, using the example of public sector innovation (PSI) labs. The paper concludes that design thinking, when it comes in contact with power and politics, faces significant challenges, but that there are opportunities for design thinking and policymaking to work better together

The rise of public sector innovation labs: experiments in design thinking for policy

Governments are increasingly turning to public sector innovation (PSI) labs to take new approaches to policy and service design. This turn towards PSI labs, which has accelerated in more recent years, has been linked to a number of trends. These include growing interest in evidence-based policymaking and the application of ‘design thinking’ to policymaking, although these trends sit uncomfortably together. According to their proponents, PSI labs are helping to create a new era of experimental government and rapid experimentation in policy design. But what do these PSI labs do? How do they differ from other public sector change agents and policy actors? What approaches do they bring to addressing contemporary policymaking? And how do they relate to other developments in policy design such as the growing interest in evidence-based policy and design experiments? The rise of PSI labs has thus far received little attention from policy scientists. Focusing on the problems associated with conceptualising PSI labs and clearly situating them in the policy process, this paper provides an analysis of some of the most prominent PSI labs. It examines whether labs can be classified into distinct types, their relationship to government and other policy actors and the principal methodological practices and commitments underpinning their approach to policymaking. Throughout, the paper considers how the rise of PSI labs may challenge positivist framings of policymaking as an empirically driven decision process

Graffiti vandalism prevention: insights and case studies

Auckland Council commissioned innovate change to lead a social innovation process to develop a new education programme for graffiti vandalism prevention in 2014. This work supports Auckland Council’s vision of a city free of graffiti vandalism. Graffiti vandalism refers to writing, drawing, painting, spraying or etching done without lawful consent on a wall or other surface in a public space. innovate change undertook a four-phased process of social innovation from February to April 2014 to gain an understanding of the issue, generate and validate ideas, and design a new graffiti vandalism prevention education programme. This document presents 11 key insights and four case studies that innovate change generated and tested during this process. The insights emerged from a targeted review of selected literature and interviews with people who have knowledge and/or experience of graffiti culture, urban design, vandalism prevention, public art, youth development or community education