The Better Scrutiny by Design framework
This is a framework that I have developed to help improve the process of scrutiny. It’s been produced with local government in mind but can be applied in any public body that includes scrutiny within its governance arrangements.
The aim of the framework is to take advantage of the similarities between the processes of local government scrutiny (or any other scrutiny for that matter) and design thinking. I don’t think it takes much of a leap to see that the design thinking process can, with a little adaptation, be helpful for scrutiny practitioners.
The Design Thinking Process
If you are not familiar, this is a process that comes from the world of engineering and design. The aim is to create great products that meet genuine needs with an emphasis on understanding the user perspective, seeing problems differently, imagining a range of solutions and testing and retesting until things are right.
There are many different versions of the process but two commonly used are the Stamford d-school process and the Design Council Double Diamond.
Applying design thinking to scrutiny
Many of of the features of design thinking will feel familiar to scrutiny practitioners. I think the process maps across well and looks like this:
Empathize —perhaps the most unfamiliar stage for ‘traditional’ scrutiny but this emphasis on really understanding things from the citizen perspective before doing anything else is key to design thinking and will really help scrutiny improve its impact.
Define- otherwise known as scoping in the scrutiny world, this is the stage where insights gathered from the first stage are used to help scrutineers focus in on the area that they can have the greatest impact for citizens.
Investigate — whether holding decision makers to account, undertaking in depth inquiries or running quick fire activities; asking the right questions is at the heart of how scrutiny adds value. In design thinking this is the stage where ideas are generated.
Recommend — proposals for how things could be better are the products produced by the scrutiny process — the key thing here is to prototype recommendations and user test them with the people who will be affected. In design thinking this is the prototype stage where one solution is settled on.
Review — in design thinking this is the test stage where products are released into the real world and refined as people start to use them. In scrutiny terms this is the follow up stage. Perhaps it might be helpful to consider a more flexible and iterative approach at this point.
Benefits
This design thinking approach has a number of benefits for scrutiny. It’s an established process and should give scrutineers confidence as they seek to make the maximum impact.
Dividing the process into different stages is helpful because different activities and different mindsets are involved at different points. So, for example, the empathize and investigate stages are divergent — you are trying to collect a wide range of information. The Define and recommend stages, on the other hand are convergent — you are trying to synthesize down what you collected in the previous stage.
Taking a design approach also opens up the possibility of borrowing from the rich seam of tools and techniques available to designers. Whether it’s user stories, empathy maps, journey maps or user testing, there is a world of new things for scrutineers to try.
Finally, this framework reinforces the need to take a user perspective and, wherever possible, to involve users at every stage. Something that scrutiny does plenty of but there is definitely scope for pushing it further.
