Good Research: The Key to Defining Effective GovTech Challenges

After more than 50 definitions of govtech challenges, we have found that researching the causes and context of the problem is essential for a good definition of a challenge and attracting appropriate solutions that respond to the needs detected.

In this article we want to delve into three rules that we take into account when carrying out the first phase of exploring challenges in govtech laboratories (and in all projects): the three commandments of research processes.

In projects, time spent on research is a topic of constant debate. It is true that public administrations usually have in-depth knowledge about the needs of citizens or specific users of a service or procedure, but this knowledge can become a double-edged sword. Over time, we tend to take certain “truths” for granted without questioning them, basing our decisions more on assumptions than on proven facts.

This is where research into the design processes we use to define challenges demonstrates its value: it allows us to question what has been established with a fresh perspective. Especially if we have external researchers who can reveal aspects that we have normalized out of habit.

Although this is not usually the case, there are specific cases with very limited problems and where the team manages all the relevant information. In this case, we can carry out more agile investigations and, therefore, shorter in duration. But, most of the challenges are complex and multifaceted. These require gradual and methodical analysis, breaking them down into manageable parts without losing sight of the big picture.

First Commandment: You won't assume that your user's problems are the same as your own.

“I have the solution to all our problems”, but beware! Are you sure you know the problem and all its dimensions? Is this a real problem for your users, or are you perceiving it as such because it would be for you? Just as we worry about things that will never actually happen, we sometimes try to solve problems that don't exist.

When launching a new product or service, it's common to feel uncertain: Will it work? Will it really be useful for users? Will they adopt him? Will they like it? Research allows us to gain a deep understanding of the people involved in the service. Your user is not you; what you like doesn't have to be liked by them, and what frustrates you may be indifferent to them. Well-conducted research helps us discover the true needs, desires, frustrations, and behaviors of users.

But can we put all users in the same bag? We won't know until we investigate. Only then can we identify behavioral patterns that allow us to segment our users and offer them a service according to their needs.

Second Commandment: You will ask why until you get to the root of the problem.

“Why is this a problem?” This question allows us to delve into the situation, decomposing the problem as if we wanted to remove layers from an onion. The Magic Formula: Why? Let's look at an example:

Ana has been arriving late to work on a regular basis. Why is it a problem? Because they'll fire her if she's still late.

If we are left with only this superficial view of the problem, the solutions we can think of tend to be reactive, such as setting an alarm to go out before home or asking someone to drive it. However, these answers don't address the root of the problem. Let's see what's behind this situation:

Why is Ana late for work?

• Because he doesn't have enough time to get ready in the morning.

Why don't you have enough time to get ready in the morning?

• Because he wakes up late.

Why do you wake up late?

• Because she stays up late watching TV.

Why do you stay up late watching TV?

• Because you feel like you need time to relax after a stressful day.

Why do you feel like you need time to relax after a stressful day?

• Because he has a very heavy workload and he can't find time to relax during the day.

As we have seen, we have gone from an apparently simple problem, that Ana was late for work, to a more complex reality, the heavy workload she faces, prevents her from finding time to relax and rest.

Now, do you think that any of the initial solutions would have really helped Ana?

If we limit ourselves to applying surface solutions, such as alarms or transportation, we could lose sight of the true cause of the problem. By tackling the problem at its root, we can create more effective and sustainable solutions that not only solve the immediate problem, but also improve Ana's overall well-being.

In the Administrations we also see examples of this type, such as the one that Beth Noveck collects in her book Solving Public Problems. In this case, a team of professionals from the public sector sought to propose a solution to reduce school absenteeism. To do this, they decided to send an SMS to parents reminding them that class attendance is mandatory and that holidays during the school term do not justify absences.

However, when asked about the real problem, they answered that parents were asking for vacations in the middle of the school year to get better prices at Disneyland. As they continued to investigate, they found that absenteeism was directly related to neighborhoods with a lower income level.

It's a clear example of how, upon perceiving a real problem, they jumped straight to a solution without considering all the necessary factors. They lacked context, so that solution might not have been effective. If they had done a little more research, they would have found an answer adapted to the situation.

Third Commandment: You will make people participate in the process.

The investigation is not a secret process. We don't seek to surprise users with our solution, but rather to create something that solves their problem. To achieve this, it is essential to continuously validate our hypotheses with them. This approach will allow us to adjust and ensure that we are on the right track.

Involving users not only increases the chances of success of our final solution solving the problem, but it also ensures that real value is provided to people. Having users will make them feel part of the process and of the solution and, therefore, they will be more open to adopting the new tool or service.

Without research there is no learning.

As we have seen, research is a fundamental part of govtech laboratories, since it allows us to define challenges that attack the root of the problems. However, sometimes, there is reticence due to uncertainty about the findings we will obtain. Everything new is scary, but if we don't research we don't learn, and without learning there is no progress or innovation.

When we verify what we know and contrast it with our new discoveries, that's when learning occurs, opening up a range of possibilities where we can innovate and impact in a positive way. A good understanding of the problem attracts a good solution, and that, in essence, is innovation: finding new solutions that generate a positive impact on people's lives. Many public administrations are defining challenges to improve public services and we trust that this article will contribute to moving in this direction.

‍

‍