Strategic design: from implementation to integration

Big problems... Big solutions?

‍
Just as joining the gym does not guarantee recurring attendance, buying a new technological solution does not guarantee that our problem will be solved.

Often, during the research phase of projects, we come across problematic processes and services that have already tried to be solved. Promising technological solutions that, far from providing an answer to the problem, have involved a large investment of resources and generated new needs. In other words, changing everything so that nothing changes. But how can this be? How can a tool that offers such a wide range of functionalities cause more problems than solutions?

One of the possible reasons is that the challenge was poorly defined at the root but, on many occasions, the real problem comes in the implementation of the solution. Proposals that initially seemed to revolutionize the work system and make processes more efficient become a burden that continues to generate costs and problems.

It is not enough to buy well.

It is not only about buying or testing a solution, we must analyze how it impacts on the organization as a whole, taking into account all the people involved. How are we going to prepare these people to integrate this solution into their work processes? How will it impact on other tasks? What benefits and inconveniences will it cause...?

Public services are perceived as an obstacle course where the usual thing is to ask for several appointments to carry out the same procedure; because when it is not the format of a document, it is the authorization of a third party or the lack of documentation that has to be obtained through another appointment in a different office.

All this generates invisible walls that turn the Administration into an abstract entity that seems impossible to access. The public sector is facing a loss of connection with citizens. But to break down these barriers, we must first eliminate the internal barriers generated by processes and solutions that have been implemented without taking into account the service as a whole.

Strategic Design allows us to think of problems as one more piece within a whole, being very aware that each small change will have implications within the whole system. If, on the contrary, we think of problems in isolation, we will design patch solutions that will generate another problem for which we will have to apply another patch, from which another problem will arise and another patch and so on until we generate a system of silos disconnected from each other. A system that will not allow changes or adaptations, preventing us from moving towards connected, simple public services that generate a seamless experience for users.

It is equally important to think about the before and after of a service.

As mentioned above, from Strategic Design we can integrate (not implement) a solution, thinking not only about how it will be executed, but also about what will happen before, during and after. It is just as important to prepare people for a new tool or service as it is to plan what will happen afterwards. Designing endings is essential to build bridges to the next action. They not only serve as closure but help us prepare people for the next step even if it is no longer up to us.

During govtech pilots, we test the application of a solution in a real but controlled space to understand the opportunities and impacts of using a technology in a specific context. But no matter how well a pilot has performed, it doesn't mean that, if we scale that solution, it will work just as well. We must take into account the new context, the work processes, the people on whom it will have an impact, the risks or the moments when the tool may fail.

A thorough understanding of people's needs, desires and behaviors allows for a holistic view.

‍
The truth is that it is difficult to take into account all the casuistry, which is why it is important to validate the new service with as many people as possible. In the end, it is they who have the expertise and who bring up situations that a priori had not been considered.

In addition, these design processes are iterative, i.e., we must continually rethink and test the service in order to improve it. Assuming these adaptation times will help us make decisions in a more agile way because we know that, even if it is not perfect at first, we have room to "polish" the solution. The piloting and scaling phase of govtech labs helps us with this integration because it gives us the opportunity to validate solutions in a scenario very similar to the real context but, only by putting it into operation, can we be sure that it really works.

Strategic Design allows us to think systemically, taking into account all parties to design, or in this case integrate, a coherent solution that makes sense within the organization as a whole and therefore has a better chance of working. If anything characterizes this discipline, it is the focus on people to meet their needs without generating new ones. The only way to ensure successful integration is to co-create the service with the users, both with those who will receive it and with those who offer it.