Problem > Reaction

Just been reading the latest version of the Australian Journal of Public Administration which has some good examples of the Policy Cycle and the approach that should be evident in Government.  In the journal there are a couple of papers around the state of Policy in Australian Public Service.  The articles pick up on my view that the traditional policy cycle is not nourished.  The question is what is the policy development framework that is appropriate to the here and now.

My version of the policy cycle is problem > analysis > policy development + outcomes > policy implementation > policy evaluation (maybe I should have paid more attention to the sessions on The Policy Cycle or pulled out the book).  My view is that we now have something like problem > media attention > reaction.  So question #1 is this the case?  Question #2 is what is the alternative?

In relation to question #1 I have an example where there was backlash against a management decision (poorly done maybe) that ended up an obvious problem and then a reaction.  Maybe not a good example.  I believe that most public servants may be able to relate to a similar situation.  In theory it should have gone through a lengthy policy development process that would have had at the end of it... "enough just make the decision and get on with it".

With so many interest groups with access to social media and the traditional media plus the different ways to puff up power the traditional process can get chopped of at the end because policy people stay in the traditional mould. So that with management expectations of quick cycle times for policy development and the lack of capability and capacity means that we are in some in-between place.  A fair chunk of senior management come from outside government with different ways of working with a board on the development of policy/strategy with clear outcomes (profit).  Obviously heading for a clash of cultures from which only one will survive. 

If in doubt get someone external in to do a review or a consultant to make recommendations and it is easier for all.  Easier is an interesting concept as someone has to do the implementation and often the logic chain in the review of the findings through to the recommendations is a pit hard to follow (maybe just my personal view and not reality for others).  That, as highlighted in AJPA, may not address the background policy issues and their proper consideration and could be tainted by overt political ideologies (divorced from any understanding of the situation). 

So I am stuck on question #2 what is the approach for 2015 - 2020?  There are so many areas where I see that good policy development is required but we are not policy people and I have a reluctance to go to policy people (because my distorted view on how long it takes and how it changes over its life from what you initially set out to achieve) along with it being impossible to get a joined up government approach (in my view due to career public servants using their positional power).  So a stalemate that does not get the issue addressed.  So I can understand how we get to "problem > reaction".  When an issue blows up it gets attention and until then we will pretend that it does not exist and just let people muddle and do whatever they think is the right thing.

I have some hope though that the current focus on innovation is at least bringing issues onto the agenda and somewhere in an organisation they are getting some air time and attention and maybe by some stealth some policy work is being done.  So maybe there are new policy management pathways emerging that are bottom up being raised by practitioners who have a genuine concern for the outcomes for their customers.  How the support for that is set up and how the organisation owns it is another question.  So in any case ends my Sunday night musings.  I will blame the Institute of Public Administration Australia for it, they should not publish articles that make you think about things.