DESIGNING EFFECTIVE
PARTICIPATORY
POLICY-MAKINGDamien Lanfrey - Donatella SoldaMIUR - Ministry of Education, University and Research

TODAY
INTRO
• DONATELLA AND DAMIEN: WHO WE ARE, WHAT WE DO
DESIGNING ENGAGEMENT
• THE WIDE (SOCIAL AND LEGAL) ROOTS OF ENGAGEMENT
• THE CHALLENGES OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN THE DIGITAL AGE
• A FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGNING AND ASSESSING PARTICIPATORY POLICY-MAKING
HOW INSTITUTIONS APPROACH INNOVATION IN POLICY DESIGN
• BODIES
• PATHS, ROUTES AND MODELS
• CASE STUDIES + GROUP WORK

The Wide (Legal and Social)
roots of
Engagement

CONTEXT
• OpenGovernment policy: pro-active disclosure of information and for engagement with citizens and stakeholders.
• Stated goals: strengthen accountability of institutions, increasing legitimacy and efficiency of decision and policy making
• sought externalities: filling the democratic gap, reinforce social identity and attain social justice
PLANS AND PRINCIPLES
• US OpenGovernment Directive and the Memorandum for the OpenGovernment initiative (Obama, Feb 2009)
• EUTowards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue (2002), PlanD for Democracy (2005), Better Regulation
initiative (2005) and Smart regulation (2012).
BY SUBJECT AND INITIATIVES
• environment: [1991] ESPOO Convention on Environmental Impact assessment in a transboundary context; [1992]
RIO Declaration on Environment and Development; 1998 Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public
Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters; 2000 European Landscape
Convention
• constitution-making: India [1950], Bosnia-Herzegovina [1995], Uganda [1995], Poland [1997],Timor-Leste [2002],
Afghanistan [2004], Bolivia [2009], Kenya [2005; 2010]
• Peer-to-patent: remedying the information deficit of Patent Offices, such as in the case of establishing prior art which
is central to the quality of an examined patent.The peer-to-patent projects show that the Patent community - which is
a relatively clear and competent community with a critical view on the development of the patent system - is capable
of supporting the process (Noveck 2006)
The Legal Roots of Open Government / 1

The Legal Roots of Open Government / 2
STATED GOALS
• ACCOUNTABILITY “The Governments will be forced to act according to justice only if their actions could be
constantly challenged through the publicity: there won’t be any justice if the political action cannot be publicly known”
Immanuel Kant,“Perpetual Peace.A philosophical sketch” (1795).
• EFFICIENCY make use of shared and local knowledge, well adapted and needed decisions and rules
• LEGITIMACY increased acceptance and respect of the final decision/rule
SOUGHT EXTERNALITIES
• Reinforcement of local identity
• Promote timely disclosure of relevant information
• Make use of place-specific knowledge and social norms
• Learning and improving the quality of debate
• Create trust, strengthen institutional legitimacy and face democratic deficit
• Support in tackling conflicts
• Representing heterogeneity and attaining social justice
ENABLING FACTORS
• ICT evolution has opened a useful array of sources and tools
• Institutions recognize the need to involve iteratively interested parties and groups
• Citizens manifest increasing expectations from the dialogue with the institutions

Italian Constitutional Reforms
Devolution - Reform of TitleV
12.04.2013
First document
of the “wisemen”
2013
2001
20.01.1998
Draft legislation
18.10.2001
Legge Costituzionale
n. 3/2001
26.09.2000
Unified text
approved
08.03.2001
Final version
approved
07.10.2001
Referendum
turnout 34%
Yes 62%
No 36%
25.06.1944 Norm to call for a
consultation at the end of the war on
the form of government and to elect a
Constitution Assembly
02.06.1946
Referendum “Istituzionale”
[Monarchy v. Republic]
Election of the Constitution Assembly
31.01.1948
Publication of the
Italian Constitution
Monarchy v. Republic
Constitutional Assembly
1948
17.10.2003
Draft Legislation
2006
25-26.06.2006
Referendum
18.11.2005
Legislation
published
25.03/15.10.2005
Final version
approved
Part II of the Constitution
06.2013
extra-
parliamentary
working group
08.07.2013
Public
Consultation
opens
08.10.2013
Public
Consultation
closes
12.11.2013
Report to the
Parliament
turnout 52%
Yes 39%
No 61%
Part II of the Constitution

Failures and Debates
12.04.2013
First document
of the “wisemen”
2013
17.10.2003
Draft Legislation
2006
25-26.06.2006
Referendum
18.11.2005
Legislation
published
25.03/15.10.2005
Final version
approved
Reform Part II of the Italian Constitution
06.2013
extra-
parliamentary
working group
08.07.2013
Public
Consultation
opens
08.10.2013
Public
Consultation
closes
12.11.2013
Report to the
Parliament
turnout 52%
Yes 39%
No 61%
Reform Part II of the Constitution
--.--.20--
Referendum
18.07.2003
DraftTreaty
establishing a
Constitution
for Europe
2006
Consultative Referendum29.10.2004
Treaty signed in
Rome
04.10.2003
[IGC]
InterGovernmental
Conference starts
Constitution for Europe
Yes Spain, Luxembourg
No France,The Netherlands
15.12.2001
Laeken
Declaration
European Convention for the Future of Europe
Ratification period [by October 2006]
Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia,
Italy,Austria, Greece, Malta,
Cyprus, Latvia, Belgium,
Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania,
Slovakia, Germany, Finland
Ratification
suspended: Czech Republic,
Denmark, Ireland, Poland, Portugal,
Sweden, UK
COM(2005)494 final
Plan D
for Democracy
Dialogue Debate

The many conceptual
roots of
Engagement

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Political roots [Bennett, Coleman]: Participation as emerging forms of citizenship
Communication roots [Bimber, Shirky]: Every bit counts, communication = collective action
Organizational roots [Bennett, Earl & Kimport, Chadwick]: Collective action as organizational change
Philanthropic roots filantropiche [Fine, Kanter]: Reimagining our links to social causes
Conflictual and symbolic roots [Diani, Della Porta]: Social movement theories, alternative spaces in society, framing processes,
mobilizing structures, political opportunities
Macro-theories [Benkler, Castells]: Collective action as power-shifting (communicative and economic)
Techno-Legal roots [Bollier, Lessig]: Code as law, power of digital architectures/artifacts, remix
New media roots [Loader and Mercea, Manovich]: Social media, new modes of engagement, narratives, genres, new media theories
Design roots [various]: open design, p2p design, user-centred design, service design, design for policy
(Social) Innovation roots [Mulgan et al]: hybridity, iteration, social impact

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
As “ladder” of activities

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
By Mode of Production
Ladders can also be interpreted horizontally,
emphasizing varying degrees
in terms of modes of production

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
As Civic Tech Categories
As emerging “fields” of the civic tech sector,
defined by the proliferation of tools (Young
Foundation) or practices (Heller)

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
As Civic Tech Categories

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
As Civic Tech Categories

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
By Impact over System Vs Mode of Production
Melucci (1996) built a framework to
understand all forms of collective action

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Sifry (2014) summarized the
debates over frameworks for
categorizing public engagement
By Impact over System Vs Mode of Production

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
As “format work”
A Scuola di OpenCoesione, a 6-step lesson plan
for engaging students through open data in civic
monitoring of cohesion funds expenditure

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
By Leveraging Participation “Styles”
Take the example of kiva.org, the
online social lending platform.
It is way more than the lending
practice, leveraging many
“engagement paths”

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
By Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The “tight community” path

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
By Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The “loose community” path

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
By Leveraging Participation “Styles”
Leveraging existing communities

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
By Leveraging Participation “Styles”
Communities as distributed governance

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
By Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The Education Path

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
By Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The “instrumental” Path

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
By Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The individual/utilitarian Path

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
By Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The “Ambassador” Path

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
By Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The “every bit counts” Path

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
By Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The “Generative” Path
Case 1: Poverty2Prosperity
Created by Scott, KivaFriends member
Allows other Kiva users to make loans
automatically to safe funds
Fosters non-generative, simplified engagement
Case 2: 101 Cookbooks Blog
Created by Heidi , author of the Cookbooks blog
Posted on September 3rd, 2008 + instructions
763 lenders, 38,000$ in loans

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
By Leveraging Participation “Styles”
kiva.org, the online
social lending platform, is way more
than the lending practice, leveraging
many “engagement paths”

So, engagement can be interpreted in many ways
As “ladder” of activities
By “mode of production”
As civic tech “categories”
Impact over the system Vs Mode of production
By leveraging “participation styles”
As “format work”

Engagement in the
DIGITALAGE

E-Participation Dilemmas
“VOICES FAILING TO BE HEARD” (Keen, 2007; Hindman, 2009)
“LARGELY UNCHANGED HABITS” (Bimber, 2003, 2009)
“PSEUDO PARTICIPATION” (Noveck, 2004)
“THICK COMPETITIVE ELITISM” (Davis, 2011)
“SLACKTIVISM” (Morozov, Gladwell)
“CYBERPOLARIZATION” (Sunstein, Dahlberg)

Online consultations, “no longer an exotic experience” (Shane, 2012)
BUT: failure to deliver (various scholars, at various stages, 2005-2014)
Two recurring problems:
“[...] few online forums for political expression are tied to in any ascertainable, accountable way to actual governmental
policy making” (Shane, 2012).
“most most exercises in online deliberation attract relatively small numbers of participants” (Shane, 2012)
A negative spiral
Weak link to policy
Low numbers
Low impact in policy
Low trust, apathy
Low attention from polity & policy
Lower trust, numbers “A recessive spiral”

A Democratic Gap
E-DEMOCRACY FROM BELOW [A TALE OF POTENTIAL]
• [Bimber, Shirky] communication = collective action
• [Bennett, Earl & Kimport, Chadwick] Online collective action as
organizational change
• [Fine, Kanter] Reinventing advocacy, link to causes
• [Diani, Della Porta] Online mobilization potential, alternative spaces
• [Benkler, Castells] Online collective action as power-shifting
(communicative and economic)
• [Bollier, Lessig] Code as law, power of digital architectures/
artifacts
• [Loader and Mercea] Social media, new modes of engagement
BUT [Morozov, Gladwell] Slacktivism
BUT [Sunstein, Dahlberg] Cyberpolarization, cybercascades
E-DEMOCRACY FROM ABOVE
• LOW NUMBERS
• NOT COST-EFFECTIVE
• LOW IMPACT IN POLICY
• LOW TRUST
• “GOV AS PLATFORM” VISION NOT
FULLY REALIZED
E-DEMOCRACY: A “HIGHLY
VULNERABLE POTENTIAL”
“NO DETERMINISTIC PROPENSITIES
OF ICT” (Coleman)

Case Study:
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
IN THE ITALIAN CONTEXT

The “Attempts” Phase
OGP - Action Plan
Numbers: very low,“usual suspects”
Impact: minimal
low diffusion for the theme
a detailed report
Main Issues: lack of debate, closed networks,
numbers not sufficient to legitimate the policy
Spending Review
Numbers: very high, but mostly useless
Impact: very low (“complaint box”)
not demonstrable, low accountability
negative on tools
Main Issues: the tools used, too simplistic, and low
accountability
Valore Legale Titolo di Studio
(Legal value of degrees)
Numbers: high, but negative debate, and results
Impact:“unfortunately” for the Gov, very high:
Activism from various groups
Policy was interrupted and Gov “lost”
No accountability on the process
Main Issues: how the debate was managed, the
relationship between tools and objectives
35.335 questionnaires in 30 days 550.000 messages in 28 days few dozens of comments

The “Tools” Phase
HIT2020: Horizon 2020 Italy - 2012
Numbers: good, but partisanship and lack of
attention from non-research world
Impact:
Over the policy drafing
Rich analysis (report)
Higher participation than EU equivalent
Clarity of the process
Main issues: partisanship, lack of attention from
non-research world
Italian position on Internet General
Principles (IGF) - 2012
Numbers: decent, but, low engagement across
networks besides info-tech world
Impact:
co-drafting
(partially) international credibility
issue awareness
good value of physical workshops
Main Issues: tools, lack of literacy, timing, short
policy window
Digital Agenda (AdiSocial) - 2012
Numbers: decent, but lack of communication
Impact: multiple
Influence over working groups
Leveraging diversity
Consistency with auditions
First innovations with tools
A rich report on the process
Main Issues: lack of time, low inter-ministerial
coordination, communication, accessibility
3000 users, 343 ideas, 1967 comments,
11.000 votes in 35 days
760 users, 159 ideas, 480 comments
3500 votes in 44 days
4272 questionnaires + 3500 users, 133
ideas, 500 comments, 7500 votes in 35 days

The “Paths” Phase
Destination Italy
Numbers: decent, but negative agenda
Impact:
very direct: policy was “adjusted” in various parts
clear priorities from participants
stakeholder engagement (e.g. think tank)
Main Issues: political instability, lack of debate
PartecipaGov: Constitutional Reforms
Numbers: very high (largest in Europe)
Impact: debatable, ongoing, soft, DELAYED
Keeping constitutional reforms high in the agenda;
educational, knowledge development; very detailed
report; very clear findings from citizens
Main Issues: political instability, limited offline
debate
Social Innovation Agenda co-design
Numbers: low, but significant stakeholder
network
Impact: limited, but high intangible value
Co-drafting of the agenda; Institutional working
groups launched and few projects launched;
International attention; Cultural impact
Main Issues: political instability
85 stakeholders involved,
250 inputs in 5 areas, 1 month
131.676 Q1 + 71.385 Q2 = 214.000 contributions
77000 textual comments, 595 ideas, 1763 comments
475.000 visits, 9:34 minutes per visit, 3 months
278 comments , 369 questionnaires, 167 ideas, 23 position
papers, 30.000 participants, 2 months

Designing the Participation process
200k people involved
largest online consultation by a gov in europe
PartecipaGov (Public Consultation on Constitutional Reforms) has
been organized around a multi-phase process designed through a range
of participation means, media campaigns and engagement occasions.

Case Study:
La Buona
Scuola

Designing “La Buona Scuola”
La Buona Scuola (a comprehensive
school reform proposal +
engagement plan) involved the design
of a 6-months policy process
including expert groups, a public
consultation, a national tour, a
communication and media strategy.

Designing “La Buona Scuola”
La Buona Scuola (a comprehensive school reform proposal) consultation involved 3 main participation “paths”: 7-section questionnaires,
16 co-design themes and a strategy for live debating.

Designing “La Buona Scuola”
La Buona Scuola (a comprehensive school reform proposal) consultation: every participation path underlies a thick organizational process,
including administrative regional offices, stakeholders’ engagement and political liaising

Designing “La Buona Scuola”
1.8M people involved
DEBATESTOUR STAGES
300 people per debate POSITION PAPERS
Rapporti degli
Uffici Scolastici Regionali
207k
1.3 M
20 115204040
200k
documented online
1.5 M
documented by Regional Offices

A Learning Curve
• Innovation/expansion in tools
• A shift from tools to processes
• A wider variety of processes put in place
• Organizational thickness
• Stronger, more directed impact
• Much more variables involved in design
• Demonstrating that Government can also handle participation
• A (mildly) positive public debate, or at least a public debate

A FRAMEWORKFOR
DESIGNING (AND ASSESSING)
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Why A Framework?
• Too much focus on technologies (technocratic approach) and on designing “the perfect
software for the perfect citizen”
• Too little focus on organizational and institutional aspects, need for more “inside the box”
approaches (Chadwick, 2011)
• Need a better focus on information dynamics (i.e. attention scarcity)
• Inability to locate e-participation within a wider social context, too much focus on “online
interactions”
• A need to fill the e-democracy from below and above mismatch by better understanding the
many dimensions of civic engagement
• Need for multi-dimensional, context-aware and staged approaches
• Multi-disciplinarity (Dawes, 2009)
• Raising the bar (practice), enriching the debate (intellectual)
• Designing for impact (thus, innovation?)

A Framework for designing engagement
outcomes and externalities
outputs
media and symbolic space
modelling and organizational dimension, participation process
pre-conditions to participation and motivations
participation
culture
digital
culture
social needs
and interests
trustinformation
organizational and institutional fitnessreachlivenessrichness
activism and
advocacy
occasions
& eventsdebate
1
2
3
4

A Framework for designing engagement
1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations
participation
culture
digital culture
social needs
and interests
trust
information
dialogue
democratic behavior
netiquette
access to relevant information
content clarity
clear explanation of the process
clear link to facts, sources and
policy contents
participatory pact
(static or dynamic)
clear link to policy cycle
centrality in policy
security of the platform
Information management
openness to challenge
relevance
urgency
link to current debate
opportunity
framing processes
identities
e-skills
digital divide
netiquette
a pilot model - 1

A Framework for designing engagement
1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations
information
access to relevant information
content clarity
clear explanation of the process
clear link to facts, sources and
policy contents
a pilot model - 1
clear link to facts, sources access to
relevant
information
content clarity

A Framework for designing engagement
1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations
a pilot model - 1
trust
participatory pact
(static or dynamic)
clear link to policy cycle
centrality in policy
security of the platform
Information management
openness to challenge
participatory pact / social trust
technical trust / security
centrality in policyinformation
management

netiquette
A Framework for designing engagement
1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations
a pilot model - 1
participation
culture
dialogue
democratic behavior
netiquette“participation day”
rewarding democratic behavior

A Framework for designing engagement
1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations
a pilot model - 1
digital culture
e-skills
digital divide
netiquette
digital divide digital literacy

A Framework for designing engagement
2 modelling participation and organizational dimension
a pilot model - 2
organizational and institutional fitness
reach
liveness
organizational micro-politics
boundary work
partnering
richness
enhancing participation styles
ladder of engagement
flexibility of participation paths
customization
social technographics
ability to produce
step-goods, remix,
transcoding
communication efforts
virality and diffusion
mechanism, partnering
appeal
storytelling
media presence

A Framework for designing engagement
2 modelling participation and organizational dimension
a pilot model - 2
The digital economy moved the richness/reach (quality/quantity)
threshold, but attention scarcity keeps it relevant

A Framework for designing engagement
2 modelling participation and organizational dimension
richness
enhancing participation styles
building ladders of engagement
flexibility of participation paths
customization
social technographics
54% of respondents
to Q1 (8 questions)
also completed Q2
(24 questions)
Building ladders of engagement
light weight v. heavy weight
production models
Flexibiity of participation paths
a pilot model - 2

A Framework for designing engagement
2 modelling participation and organizational dimension
communication efforts
virality
partnering
appeal
storytelling
media presence
mobile
tablet
Desktop
designing for
mobility
partnering
digital storytelling
reach
communication
efforts
a pilot model - 2

A Framework for designing engagement
2 modelling participation and organizational dimension
liveness
ability to produce
step-goods, remix,
transcoding
GOV.UK/performance
analytics dashboard
participation
mapping
semantics and argument
visualization
debate mapping
a pilot model - 2

A Framework for designing engagement
2 modelling participation and organizational dimension
liveness
ability to produce
step-goods, remix,
transcoding
a pilot model - 2

A Framework for designing engagement
2 modelling participation and organizational dimension
a pilot model - 1
Main reasons for e-participation failure
(Chadwick, 2011)
Budget Constraints and Organizational
Instability
Policy Shifts
Political Ambivalence
Legal Risks and Depoliticization
Outsourcing / Insourcing
organizational and institutional fitness
organizational micro-politics / hierarchies
boundary work
institutional and political partnering
understand the
organization
get ready for policy shifts
budget
constraints
political
ambivalence

A Framework for designing engagement
3 media and symbolic dimension
a pilot model - 3
activism and
advocacy
occasions
& events
debate
contribution from public debate
fostering democratic
occasions
design thinking
social innovation
agonistic dimension

A Framework for designing engagement
3 media and symbolic dimension
a pilot model - 3
debate
contribution from public
debate

A Framework for designing engagement
3 media and symbolic dimension
a pilot model - 3
occasions
& events
fostering democratic
occasions
accreditation
design thinking
social innovation
Social Innovation Agenda 2013
IBAC 2014 (Destinazione Italia)
Design jams as goal-setter

A Framework for designing engagement
3 media and symbolic dimension
a pilot model - 3
activism and
advocacy
leveraging the agonistic
dimension

A Framework for designing engagement
4 outputs, outcomes and externalities
a pilot model - 4
outcomes and externalities
accountability efficiency legitimacy
awareness identityconflictsheterogeneity social justicetrust

A Framework for designing engagement
4 outputs, outcomes and externalities
a pilot model - 4
outcomes and externalities
accountability efficiency legitimacy
awareness identityconflictsheterogeneity social justicetrust
quantity vs quality of debate
who is saying what/how groups behave
turning noise into meaning
cost-effectiveness,
completion rates, user satisfaction
actual feedbacks

A Framework for designing engagement
4 outputs, outcomes and externalities
a pilot model - 4
outcomes and externalities
accountability efficiency legitimacy
awareness identityconflictsheterogeneity social justicetrust
conversion rates
- Direct + Search = 62% of total Q1 completed
- Campaigns + Referrals = 38% of total Q1 completed
- Mobile + Tablet contributes for 14% of Q1 completed
- Facebook + Twitter = 7% of of Q1 completed
- Main institutional websites = 18,4% of Q1 completed
11%
1%1%1%1%1%1%
2%
4%
4%
4%
6%
17%
45%
Direct Google Facebook
Agenzia Entrate Governo.it INPS
ACI Comuni MIT
TiConsiglio.com Province INAIL
Twitter Other
capturing moments
stickiness

A Framework for designing engagementa pilot model - 4
outputs
citizens’ input
expected impact
in the policy cycle
weak
strong
type of input
simple
complex
co-management
co-design
resource allocation
e-deliberation
endorsement
feedback gathering
information - awareness
outcomes and externalities
accountability efficiency legitimacy
awareness identityconflictsheterogeneity social justicetrust
4

A Framework for designing engagement
4 outputs, outcomes and externalities
a pilot model - 4
decision and
policy cycle
implementation
design
evaluation
adoption
endorsement
monitoring
solutions
issues
identification
ex ante impact
assessment
ex post impact
assessment
resources
allocation
emerging
societal needs
drafting
co-design
e-deliberation
sustainability
buy-in
visualization
feedback-
gathering
e-deliberation

2 Challenges for Group Work
• Reach and engage Italian researchers abroad, leveraging their potential as
strategic community for MIUR, italian society and Italy’s productive system
• strengthen schools as community centers, opened after hours as meeting point
for families, society at large, public administrations, entrepreneurial bodies
design a policy solution to
Keep in mind the framework you learned
today. Your solution must address as many
variables as possible

END OF
PART 1

PART 2A broader perspective on
innovation in Policy design

how institutions approach innovation in policy design
AGENCIES, DEPARTMENTS, PROGRAMS,
INDEPENDENT ENTITIES

how institutions approach innovation in policy design
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs - US
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is located within the Office of
Management and Budget and was created by Congress with the enactment of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA). OIRA carries out several important functions,
including reviewing Federal regulations, reducing paperwork burdens, and overseeing
policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.
Behavioural Insights Team - UK
The Behavioural InsightsTeam, often called the ‘Nudge Unit’, applies insights from
academic research in behavioural economics and psychology to public policy and services.
In addition to working with almost every government department, we work with local
authorities, charities, NGOs, private sector partners and foreign government, developing
proposals and testing them empirically across the full spectrum of government policy.
The Presidential Innovation Fellows (PIF) program pairs top innovators
from the private sector, non-profits, and academia with top innovators in
government to collaborate during focused 6-13 month “tours of duty” to
develop solutions that can save lives, save taxpayer money, and fuel job creation.
Each team of innovators is supported by a broader community of interested
citizens throughout the country.
Independent charity that works to increase the innovation capacity of the UK.
The organisation acts through a combination of practical programmes,
investment, policy and research, and the formation of partnerships to promote
innovation across a broad range of sectors.
Originally funded by a £250 million endowment from the UK National Lottery,
now kept in trust, and its interests are used to meet charitable objects and to
fund and support projects.
AGENCIES, DEPARTMENTS, PROGRAMS, INDEPENDENT BODIES

how institutions approach innovation in policy design
PATHS, ROUTES AND MODELS

how institutions approach innovation in policy design
- political polarization
- democracy dilemmas
- process foul
Participation: good governance practice (not compulsory)
- internal decisions: specialized information held by diverse people
within the executive branch
- public comment: draft rules undergoing analysis and feedback from
other levels of gov, businesses, interest groups
- substantive, technical, non
political, agreeable
Efficiency: evidence based policy making
Test, Learn,Adapt:
Developing Public Policy with Randomised
Controlled Trials (9 steps)
- short terms costs vs major long
term benefits
- Moneyball regulations: substituting empirical data
for long-standing dogmas, intuitions, anedocte-driven
judgements
Simplification: nudges, paths, framing
Choice Architecture:
default rules vs active choice
information on consequences together with
clear, explicit and actionable instructions
[Sunstein-Thaler] Positive reinforcement
and indirect suggestions to try to achieve
non forced compliance

how institutions approach innovation in policy design
A PROPOSED CASE STUDY:
#GOODLAW

how institutions approach innovation in policy design
#Good law Participation Efficiency Simplification

how institutions approach innovation in policy design
Participation
Efficiency
Simplification
Improving Parliamentary and public scrutiny of
legislation has been a government objective in
recent years, seeking to improve both
democratic engagement and legislative quality.
Setting out policy targets in legislation can be
“a low-cost way for governments to give the
appearance of vigorous action” and a way to
strategically influence (or limit) the decision-
making of future governments
consultation and engagement are important. But traditional
consultation exercises can feel burdensome and
unrewarding; and generic questions asked in a consultation
may generate cluttered feedback that is difficult to analyse
and to integrate into the policy or the draft bill.
In an increasingly complicated policy- making context,
consultations that are not predominantly reactive
often work better than the traditional model.
- Volume (number and length of statutes and
regulations)
- Quality (addressing political and social
objectives, harmonious, clear and well-integrated,
in time and efficiently
- Perception of disproportionate complexity
(layered and heavily amended, ambiguous or
contradictory provisions)
- unnecessary (target unachievable, redundant,
unnecessary burdens)
- ineffective (it does not achieve intended
objectives, fragmented or problematic
implementation, substantial negative outcomes)
- inaccessible (difficult to identify and access
up-to-date versions, language and style, lack of
guidance)
necessary, effective, clear, coherent and accessible legislation
It is about the content of law, its architecture, its language and its accessibility – and about the links between those things.
#Good law

how institutions approach innovation in policy design
#Legislate?!
The Cabinet Office has brought out a board game "Legislate?!":
a fun way to learn about the passage of laws from Bill to Act

how institutions approach innovation in policy design
A PROPOSED CASE STUDY:
MIUR’S NEW NATIONAL PLAN FOR
DIGITAL SCHOOLS (2015)

how institutions approach innovation in policy design
WHERE WE
COME FROM
1st phase (2007-2012)
classrooms as labs,
rather than in labs
• Classrooms 2.0: 416
• Schools 2.0: 14 schools
• Interactive whiteboards:
35.000
• Digital publishing: 20 schools
2nd phase (2012-2014)
• Classrooms 2.0: 905
• Schools 2.0: 21 schools
• Interactive whiteboards: 1.931
• Plan for “Isolated schools”: 45
• 38 “digital training centers”
created
• Wi-fi in school
In total…
• Roughly 130M investments
+ 20M from Regions
• 90,000 teachers trained
• 25% of secondary schools
with fast broadband (15% of
primary schools)
• 78% of labs connected, 56%
with LIM
• 46% of rooms connected
(32% with LIM)
• 58% of electronic registers

how institutions approach innovation in policy design
WHERE WE
COME FROM
Starting point:
a critical analysis of the context
• We trained 90,000 teachers, but don’t
know about impact (and snowballing
effects)
• Inconsistent policies over time
• Lack of systemic vision and, especially,
impact
• Hard technology rather than soft
• No support for school (cultural issues)
This means:
• Our training schemes weren’t effective
• The “classroom as labs” vision proved too
tech-centered, and too expensive
• Teachers tried to absorb innovation, but
mostly couldn’t deliver to students
• Skills policy mostly linked to tech rather
than a comprehensive vision on literacy
• Fragmented projects, low impact: what to
incubate?

how institutions approach innovation in policy design
WHERE WE NEED TO GO
1. Not true that digital natives know it all: digital literacy is broadening, and formats are (e.g.
MOOC). We need to develop a strategy/service to involve the private sector, civil society and
creatives to leverage the “engagement as format work” path.
2. Teachers’ training needs to become permanent and structural: it needs to regard almost
800,000 teachers. How do we organize it, leveraging innovative schools and teachers.
3. We need to create a link between digital skills and the kind of careers they produce
(entrepreneurship, emerging jobs, science, research).
4. We need to develop schemes that leverage public + private investments in school
infrastructures, connectivity in particular
5. We need to modernize school labs and school spaces, and change the way we think of them
as linked to digital education

THANK YOU!
@damienlanfrey
damien.lanfrey@istruzione.it
@dskutz
donatella.soldakutzmann@istruzione.it