One of the biggest misconceptions about strategy is that it can remove uncertainty upfront.

Governments face issues that are characterised by ambiguity, competing perspectives and incomplete information. Public servants often need to act before a problem is fully understood while trying to find the best path forward.

It’s a familiar dilemma for public servants: a complex policy issue or high-profile priority arrives, and staff need to respond quickly with limited information, competing priorities and finite resources.

In these situations, there can be pressure to provide answers quickly and demonstrate certainty. It's tempting to manage ambiguity by prematurely moving into solution mode or over-analysing things in the hope that it will disappear.

A more useful approach is to create enough clarity to move forward while remaining open to changing conditions. Strategic thinking helps people make sense of ambiguity, develop a shared direction and adapt as new information emerges.

In my work as a designer across a range of public-sector projects, I've found that teams that manage ambiguity well tend to follow four principles.

1. Build shared understanding

People can hold surprisingly different views about what they're trying to work on together.

They may use the same language to mean different things or make different assumptions about the problem or the people affected. There may also be several valid perspectives on what the problem is and how it should be approached.

Sense-making helps surface these differences. It gives people an opportunity to compare perspectives, test assumptions and develop a common view of the issue. Without this, people may work from different interpretations of the problem and different ideas about what success looks like.

This doesn't mean everyone needs to agree on everything. The aim is to have enough common understanding to answer basic questions: What problem are we trying to address? Who's affected? What matters most? Where should we focus our attention?

Once teams have enough shared understanding of the issue, they need a way to translate that understanding into action.

2. Start with outcomes, not outputs

There's often pressure to move quickly from a broad idea or set of recommendations into detailed planning to demonstrate decisive progress. However, detailed plans don't always provide enough direction when circumstances change. Teams first need a shared understanding of what they're trying to achieve.

Outputs describe what will be delivered. Outcomes describe what will be different as a result. Clearly defined outcomes help create alignment by giving people a shared reference point for decision-making.

When teams understand the outcomes they're working towards, they can make better decisions about priorities, sequencing and trade-offs. This is particularly important when new information emerges or circumstances change.

A shared view of the intended outcomes helps people review priorities and assess whether new decisions align with what the team is ultimately trying to achieve.

3. Surface assumptions and knowledge gaps

Having a shared direction doesn't mean the team has all the information it needs. Ambiguous situations often contain assumptions and knowledge gaps that need to be made visible so the team can decide what to do with them.

For example, the team may have assumptions about how different groups may be impacted by an issue. They may need policy or legal advice, citizen feedback or a better understanding of the wider ecosystem or operational constraints.

Some gaps and assumptions will be significant because they could alter the direction of the work or reveal unintended consequences people may not have thought of. Others may be important but not urgent. Making these gaps visible helps teams decide what to investigate now and what can wait.

This doesn't need to be a lengthy exercise. Teams can gather enough information to move ahead while returning to unresolved questions as the work develops.

Teams may also find that further research isn't what's needed. Sometimes the real challenge is making decisions about priorities, scope or risk.

4. Clarify decisions and dependencies

Creating clarity isn't only about understanding the problem and direction. Teams also need to understand what could affect their ability to make progress.

Work may depend on approval processes, funding, technology or input from other teams or organisations. These dependencies influence what can move forward, what needs to happen first and where delays could occur.

Understanding these dependencies helps teams identify key decision points and see how different parts of the work connect. It clarifies who needs to be involved, where decisions are required and what could affect progress.

It also helps people consider the consequences of delays or changes in direction. Decisions made later may still be the right ones, but they often affect priorities, resources and timelines.

Understanding these relationships early gives leaders and teams an informed basis for making trade-offs and assessing risks.

Takeaway

These principles aren't a silver bullet for resolving ambiguity, but they can help teams create enough shared understanding and direction to make informed decisions while remaining open to learning and adaptation.

The goal isn't to eliminate ambiguity, but to create enough clarity to move forward while recognising that understanding will continue to evolve.

When dealing with ambiguous issues, progress often comes through learning as the work unfolds. Teams that balance direction with adaptability are better equipped to respond to complexity while maintaining momentum.

Berenice Chong is a senior service designer who has worked across government and with startups. She works with teams to design services in complex environments that balance users, business and technology needs.