From “So What” to “Sense Making” - Research and Analysis in the Policy Cycle
This article is part 2 in a series.
In the first article of this series, I began my journey to explore municipal policy development, starting with the policy cycle’s issue identification stage and examining three important questions – Why, Why Now and So What?
As part two in this series, I will investigate the next stage in the policy cycle – Research and Analysis.
Sense Making
The issue identification stage seeks to confirm what issue is being addressed and why it is important to address it at this time. The next step is to better understand and articulate[1] the issue through sense making. Accordingly, the research and analysis phase is about gathering intelligence to help inform options, alternatives and solutions to address this issue.
In the municipal context, intelligence gathering can take the form of different methodologies, or a combination of methodologies, depending on the scope of the issue. Research and analysis methodologies can include, but are not limited to:
Backcasting root causes
Conducting a current and/or future state analysis
Undertaking an environmental scan
Completing a gap analysis
Examining signals, trends, wildcards, and drivers[2]
Analyzing data and information
Conducting internal and external engagement
Let’s walk through an internal issue some organizations may be facing in the post-covid world – noncompliance with post-covid hybrid work arrangements – and how the research and analysis stage can uncover important context to support option development going forward.
Scenario:
An organization has implemented a pilot hybrid work program, allowing employees to attend work, in-person, three days a week and, work from home two days a week. The days of the week are pre-determined and remain constant. The organization has experienced some employees adjusting their work from home schedules (e.g., changing days they are home and at work). This has resulted in other employees questioning the fairness of the program.
Before deciding on solutions (e.g., rescinding the pilot project and returning to a full time in-person work policy), the organization may decide to undertake employee interviews to better make sense of the issue and then apply the findings in a fishbone diagram, or Ishikawa diagram[3], to identify root causes of non-compliance.
In the case of this scenario, the organization may find that employees believe they can be more supported working virtually and, in-person work is not achieving the intended outcomes of productivity and collaboration. Based on this understanding, the organization may decide to undertake further research and analysis (e.g., conducting an environmental scan of other organizations, reviewing workplace trends, reviewing employee data, etc.) to identify how to support productivity and foster collaboration in a way that is meaningful for the organization and its employees.
It is not uncommon for organizations to expedite the research and analysis stage or skip it all together. Time, resource and budget constraints and pressures can impact the capacity to gather intelligence needed to support decision making. However, taking the time to understand and articulate an issue will better support organizations for the third stage of the policy cycle – option development, and will be explored in the next article.
If you are interested in learning more how the policy cycle can support your work, please contact:
Dana Garner Senior Consultant at Emerge Solutions, Inc.
dana@emergesolutions.ca
emergesolutions.ca
[1] Pal, Leslie A. “Beyond Policy Analysis: Public Issue Management in Turbulent Times” 2001.
[2] Saritas, Ozcan and Smith, Jack E. “The Big Picture – trends, drivers, wild cards, discontinuities and weak signals.” Futures. Volume 45. Issus 3. April 2011. Page 292-312.
[3] Markovitz, Daniel. “How to Avoid Rushing to Solutions When Problem-Solving” Harvard Business Review. Retrieved November 8, 2022