This piece was written by Margaret Hagan, director of the Legal Design Lab at Stanford University. For more like this, see our government innovation newsfeed.
Last week our Legal Design Lab ran an experimental summit of various policy lab leaders, researchers, lawyers, designers and technologists to figure out: can we bring a spirit of prototyping into how we make policies?
(What does prototyping policy mean, exactly? Read more about it. But basically — how do we run more experiments and involve more stakeholders in how we craft policies?)
We ran the summit in part to spot methods, templates, case studies, and other useful strategies that we can be teaching our students — to be better leaders. When they go to work in government, advocacy groups and tech companies, how do we help them make more intentional, impactful, human-centred policies?
• Want to write for us? Take a look at Apolitical’s guide for contributors
And our other motive was to build a network of people working in these new civic tech, innovation labs and “‘new creative” spaces in government. Where they are trying out new ways for governments to understand people’s needs, to redesign how services and policies are set up, and how to plan for new data sources and emerging tech.
So we organised our Prototyping for Policy summit to be an unconference and a workshop — to let people network, propose sessions and questions and to actually do design work together. In this way, we were setting up experiments to see what lessons and methods emerged as the most promising ways to prototype policy — and then try them out together in policy design workshops.
Here are some quick reactions and thoughts I have.
1. Policy design is not a separate area of design, as much as a layer on top of all kinds of other design
Oftentimes we group design into different branches or layers of a pyramid. Are you doing service design? Org design? Visual design? What we saw at the summit were groups prototyping new policies by crafting new products, wireframes, service journeys, and organisational maps — and then using that more traditional kind of design prototype to discuss, interrogate, and refine what the ‘policy’ should be.
2. People in a design setting do not want to craft text of a policy
We ran our second day of the summit as a Policy Prototyping design workshop. I was expecting to see teams craft policy statements, regulation text, new legislation. I had hypothesised that teams (especially those working on the regulation of legal profession, or how to regulate machine learning, or how digital companies should present better data transparency), would be wordsmith-ing new policies.
But instead, we saw the groups all gravitate to more traditional forms of prototyping. They drew timelines and diagrams of how new services and event-series would operate. They drew wireframes of new consent/data transparency interactions. They drew menus of new options and types of professionals.
None of the teams spent much time on the exact words of what the policy was
None of the teams spent much time on the exact words of what the policy was. They’d rather spend time on the more “material” parts of policy: people involved, process involved, screens and digital displays.
This is kind of obvious looking back. It is more fun to craft these more visual and human parts of policy. It is exhausting and contentious to get text exactly right. Since the teams had just formed on the day, there wasn’t necessarily enough trust and commitment to invest in that kind of textual prototyping.
In future classes and policy design sessions, we need to figure out how to make teams excited to invest in this wordsmith prototyping, though. We know how important the actual text of laws, rules, and policies are — so we in design need to be able to prototype in that material to have influence.
3. There are a handful of key moments to do policy prototyping
- During the roll-out of a new civic design/tech intervention. When civic designers and technologists are crafting a new intervention , can they intentionally reflect on what policies might inhibit this vetted innovation? And then widen their design process to also begin prototyping changes to these inhibiting policies?
- When regulating digital experiences. Policymakers are increasingly interested in addressing people’s experiences with technology —to promote their control and transparency over it. So they decide to craft legislation about how people interact with digital services (see the GDPR or California’s new privacy legislation). At this moment, can interdisciplinary, public-private groups run prototyping sessions on how this legislation would play out in specific interfaces — in specific wireframes? This test-run of how the policy would translate into reality could let the group inquire into whether the legislation will play out to give more meaningful consent — or if it will make for worse/status quo experiences? It is prototyping as stress-testing new regulation before it’s released.
- To determine the risks in removing/changing a highly regulated space. How do we re-regulate a highly regulated group of professionals (like those providing legal services) to allow for greater access to these services at more diverse price points? Right now, not much change happens because of invocations of “risk”. Prototyping, like through regulatory sandboxes, can be a way to run small controlled experiments to determine what risks actually will emerge if regulation is taken away or restructured. The experiment can allow for observation of how customers and providers in a market will actually behave, and not just how we speculate about how they’ll behave.
- To get more public voice and priorities in how we regulate emerging tech and harness new data. Prototyping sessions are a way to get a crowd involved in policy. By running games, simulations, models and other interactive design sessions, prototyping is a way to educate the community about the policy choices, and get their input about them. Prototyping sessions can open new democratic spaces.
4. Designers need to be more intentional about their power
We’ve seen a rise of designers with influence in the corporate setting (see The Rise of the DEO). But in government, designers have not necessarily found their political footing when in collaboration with legislators, economists, lawyers and other policymakers.
At the Summit, we had a great mix of creative people (some who call themselves designers, but not all) who are working in government. There was a general take-away that it’s not just about getting initial buy-in to design from fellow policymakers. There are now established shared strategies about how to run a design process in a government setting. Now the challenge is how to get more positions of leadership and how to influence the culture.
How can design not just be tolerated inside the government, but flourish and influence? — Margaret Hagan
This was first published on Medium.
(Picture credit: Unsplash)