So today I gave a talk on what makes for a good strategy function in government, drawing on (in my view) the lessons of the UK’s Strategy Unit. My magically neat recipe of 10 ingredients was:
- Have a clear commissioning structure: responsive to needs and priorities but also two-way exchange (‘intelligent customers’)
- Be flexible in recruiting: control of recruitment, flexible on T & Cs, mix of backgrounds, international experience, analytically superb
- Keep a flat structure with few hierarchical chains, mostly relatively senior roles, commission out work, regularly bring in new staff
- Manage a mixed portfolio of work and try to balance over time (surges/ troughs)
- Invest in intellectual capital and have clear knowledge management processes
- Prioritise quality control (e.g. red-teaming, critical friends, steering groups)
- Have a consistent and long term approach to stakeholder management
- Clear about the need to both master the analytical trends but also see the big-picture (i.e. tradeoffs, narrative, framing of choices)
- Be inclusive and outward-looking to avoid group-think (e.g. think-tanks, academia)
- Be forward-looking: anticipate the future trends and policy challenges in short/medium/long term (e.g. horizon scanning)
Against these the Strategy Unit probably got better over the years in relation to its commissioning structures, analytical capacity and knowledge management processes. It probably slipped a bit on actually generating the ideas in the first place, and is arguably, though perhaps necessarily, more introspective and short-term focused than ever.
Overall though I think the UK’s Strategy Unit is still the premier organisation of its type anywhere in the world; if Rudd does want to beef up capacity here he would do no harm drawing heavily on its model.
2 comments:
Very good David... but I would have a slightly different take on 'commissioning' - your first point.
The real challenge with commissioning is:
+ to have a sponsor with authority and power who wants the work done and will press for implementation
+ to ask the right question(s) by taking advice from a commissioning board or equivalent that is well aligned with the agenda of the sponsor - time/analysis should be invested in defining the question.
+ to secure buy-in from other powerful players by involving them and making it worth their while
+ to ensure that those whose everyday job is in the area under scrutiny do not obstruct, do not feel threatened or sidelined and actually co-operate
So in the UK that would mean a commission from the Prime Minister, following advice from his commissioning board. The PM would ask a minister to oversee the steering board of project and report back personally. Some exchange of officials into the strategy team would help with buy-in.
...
PS. respect for devolution / federation?
Yes, agree with these - though arguably some might fall under points. Actually when I reflected afterwards I thought there may be a smaller number of key criteria. First, commissioning and all that comes with it. Second, brand management and quality control. Third, depth and breadth in policy capability. The others are probably a subset of these three.
Post a Comment