Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Low-fidelity policy design, within-design feedback, and the Universal Credit case

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Policy design approaches currently pay insufficient attention to feedback that occurs during the design process. Addressing this endogenous policy design feedback gap is pressing as policymakers can adopt ‘low-fidelity’ design approaches featuring compressed and iterative feedback-rich design cycles. We argue that within-design feedback can be oriented to the components of policy designs (instruments and objectives) and serve to reinforce or undermine them during the design process. We develop four types of low-fidelity design contingent upon the quality of feedback available to designers and their ability to integrate it into policy design processes: confident iteration and stress testing, advocacy and hacking, tinkering and shots in the dark, or coping. We illustrate the utility of the approach and variation in the types, use, and impacts of within-design feedback and low-fidelity policy design through an examination of the UK’s Universal Credit policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

(Source NAO, 2018, pp. 16–17)

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term policy relevant feedback is used to reflect the transmission of evaluative or informational inputs and signals in policymaking to the original or controlling source. As such, it differs from ‘policy feedback’ that focuses on how “existing policies can shape key aspects of politics and policymaking” (Béland & Schlager, 2019).

  2. Low fidelity connotes a design process where designs are not fully formed but rather are tentative with basic design features established but subjected to testing in applied settings to validate and specify the design iteratively. We adopt this term instead of ‘Agile’ which is a specific method with defined requirements (see Clarke & Craft, 2019) and to acknowledge that low-fidelity design can but does not always involve ‘real-time’ feedback.

  3. For exceptions see Burroughs (2017) on feedback in formulation and Tosun and Treib (2018) on implementation feedback, Hoppe (2018) on problem structuring, or Bobrow (2006) on policy design. These studies typically also apply a post hoc focus or deal with partial and discrete aspects or applications of feedback rather than systematic examinations of policy relevant feedback during design.

  4. We use the term ‘types’ to avoid further complicating the ‘orders’ that are used in studies of policy change, policy design, and slightly differently in the policy design mechanisms literature.

References

  • Bason, C., & Austin, R. (2021). Design in the public sector: Toward a human centred model of public governance. Public Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1919186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (Eds.). (2002). Policy dynamics. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Béland, D., & Schlager, E. (2019). Varieties of Policy Feedback Research: Looking Backward. Moving Forward. Policy Studies Journal, 47(2), 184–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, F., & Milar, J. (2022). Inflexibility in an integrated system? Policy challenges posed by the design of Universal Credit. Barnett Papers in Social Justice Research, working paper 22-0. Department of Social Policy and Intervention, Oxford University.

  • Bobrow, D. (2006). Policy design: Ubiquitous, necessary and difficult. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public (Policy, pp. 75–96). SAGE: B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boin, A., Brock, K., Craft, J., Halligan, J., & ‘t Hart, P., Roy, J., Tellier, G. and Turnbull, L. (2020). Beyond COVID-19: Five commentaries on expert knowledge, executive action, and accountability in governance and public administration. Canadian Public Administration, 63(3), 339–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burroughs, R. (2017). Positive and negative feedback in policy formulation. Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, P. (2021). The UK government’s COVID-19 policy: assessing evidence-informed policy analysis in real time. British Politics, 16(1), 90–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capano, G., & Lippi, A. (2017). How policy instruments are chosen: Patterns of decision makers’ choices. Policy Sciences, 50, 269–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9267-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cashore, B., & Howlett, M. (2007). Punctuating Which Equilibrium? Understanding Thermostatic Policy Dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 532–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A., & Craft, J. (2019). The twin faces of public sector design. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 32(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Code for America. (2019). Delivery driven policy: Policy designed for the digital age. http://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/codeforamerica-cms1/documents/delivery-driven-policy-code-for-america.pdf

  • Daugbjerg, C., & Kay, A. (2019). Policy feedback and pathways: When change leads to endurance and continuity to change. Policy Sciences, 53, 253–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Digital Transformation Agency. (2020). How services are assessed. 2020. Retrieved September 26, 2021, from https://www.dta.gov.au/help-and-advice/digital-service-standard/how-services-are-assessed

  • Dunlop, C., Radaelli, C., & Trein, P. (2018). Learning in public policy analysis, modes and outcomes. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dupuis, J., & Biesbroek, R. (2013). Comparing apples and oranges: The dependent variable problem in comparing and evaluating climate change adaptation policies. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1476–1487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eggers, W. (2016). Delivering on digital: The innovators and technologists that are transforming government. RosettaBooks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraussen, B., Albareda, A., & Braun, C. (2020). Conceptualizing consultation approaches: Identifying combinations of consultation tools and analyzing their implications for stakeholder diversity. Policy Sciences, 53, 473–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godbout, G., & Kunin, N. (2014). Hacking bureaucracy: Improving hiring and software deployment. 18F blog. https://18f.gsa.gov/2014/05/14/hacking-bureaucracy-improving-hiring-and-software/

  • Gofen, A., Wellstead, A. M., & Tal, N. (2023). Devil in the details? Policy settings and calibrations of national excellence-centers. Policy Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-023-09496-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goyal, N., & Howlett, M. (2021). “Measuring the Mix” of policy responses to COVID-19: Comparative policy analysis using topic modelling. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 23(2), 250–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenway, A., Terrett, B., & Bracken, M. (2021). Digital transformation at scale: Why the strategy is delivery (2nd ed.). London Publishing Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenway, A., Terrett, B., Bracken, M., & Loosemore, T. (2018). Digital transformation at scale: Why the strategy is delivery. London Publishing Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, R. (2021). Universal credit and automated decision making: A Case of the digital tail wagging the policy dog? Social Policy and Society. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746421000749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haelg, L., Sewerin, S., & Schmidt, T. S. (2020). The role of actors in the policy design process: Introducing design coalitions to explain policy output. Policy Sciences, 53, 309–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. (2018). Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermus, M., van Buuren, A., & Bekkers, V. (2020). Applying design in public administration: A literature review to explore the state of the art. Policy & Politics, 48(1), 21–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobson, F. (2021). Universal credit: Ten years of changes to benefit claims and payments. Briefing Number 9109. House of Commons Library, Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1986). The tools of government. Chatham House Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, R. (2018). Rules-of-thumb for problem-structuring policy design. Policy Design and Practice, 1(1), 12–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. (2019). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments (2nd ed.). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Cashore, B. (2007). Re-visiting the new orthodoxy of policy dynamics: The dependent variable and re-aggregation problems in the study of policy change. Canadian Political Science Review, 1(2), 50–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Cashore, B. (2009). The dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: Understanding policy change as a methodological problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 11(1), 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I. (2014). Policy design and non-design: Towards a spectrum of policy formulation types. Politics and Governance, 2(2), 57–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2023). Designing for adaptation: Static and dynamic robustness in policy-making. Public Administration, 101(1), 23–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Capano, G. (2023). The micro-dimensions of policy design: A key challenge for real-world policy practice (April 5, 2023). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4410177 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.441017

  • Jacobs, A. M., & Weaver, R. K. (2015). When policies undo themselves: Self-undermining feedback as a source of policy change. Governance, 28(4), 441–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A., & Matt, E. (2014). Designing policies that intentionally stick: Policy feedback in a changing climate. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 227–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kattel, R., Drechsler, W., & Karo, E. (2019). Innovation bureaucracies: How agile stability creates the entrepreneurial state. UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, working paper series (IIPP WP 2019–12). https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/wp2019-12

  • Kimbell, L., & Bailey, J. (2017). Prototyping and the new spirit of policy-making. CoDesign, 13(3), 214–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1989). Instruments of government: Perceptions and contexts. Journal of Public Policy, 9(1), 35–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marciano, R., & Craft, J. (2023). Theorising policy advisory system management: approaches and practice. Journal of Public Policy, 43(3), 490–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, G., & Reardon, L. (2017). Questions of governance: Rethinking the study of transportation policy. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 101, 238–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, P. (2003). Policy design and implementation. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (Chapter 17) (pp. 223–233). Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McGuinness, T., & Schank, H. (2021). Power to the public: The promise of public interest technology. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M., & Luetjens, J. (2016). Design Thinking in Policymaking Processes: Opportunities and Challenges. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(3), 391–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moyson, S., Scholten, P., & Weible, C. M. (2017). Policy learning and policy change: Theorizing their relations from different perspectives. Policy and Society, 36(2), 161–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Audit Office (NAO). (2013). Universal Credit: Early Progress, report by the comptroller and auditor general, Sept 5, National Audit Office. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/10132-001-Universal-credit.pdf.

  • National Audit Office. (2014). Department for work & pensions universal credit: Progress update HC 786. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Universal-Credit-progress-update.pdf

  • National Audit Office (NAO). (2018). Rolling out universal credit, report by the comptroller and auditor general, 15 June, National Audit Office. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Rolling-out-Universal-Credit.pdf

  • Noveck, B. S. (2021). Solving public problems: A practical guide to fix our government and change our world. Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, E., & Agarwal, R. (2023). Reducing the gap between rhetoric and reality: Use of digital service standards for public service innovation through digital transformation in Australia. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 82, 557–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G. (2018). Policy problems and policy design. Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pope, R. (2020). Universal Credit: Digital Welfare, Richard Pope Consulting Ltd. https://pt2.works/files/universal-credit.pdf.

  • Rotik, M., & Perry, L. (2011). Perceptions of welfare reform and universal credit, DWP research report no. 778. Department for Work and Pensions. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214563/rrep778.pdf

  • Rotik, M., & Perry, L. (2012). Insight to support universal credit user-centred design, DWP research report. Department for Work and Pensions, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/192592/rrep799.pdf

  • Salamon, L. M. (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skogstad, G. (2017). Policy feedback and self-reinforcing and self-undermining processes in EU biofuels policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(1), 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Standards and assurance community. (2019). Check if you need to meet the Service Standard or get an assessment—Service Manual—GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/service-assessments/check-if-need-to-meet-service-standard

  • Timmins, N. (2016). Universal credit: From disaster to recovery? Institute for Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tosun, J., & Treib, O. (2018). Linking policy design and implementation styles. In M. Howlett & I. Mukherjee (Eds.), Routledge handbook of policy design (pp. 316–330). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Villa Alvarez, D. P., Auricchio, V., & Mortati, M. (2022). Mapping design activities and methods of public sector innovation units through the policy cycle model. Policy Sciences, 55, 89–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welby, B., & E. Tan. (2022). Designing and delivering public services in the digital age. OECD Going Digital Toolkit Notes, No. 22, OECD Publishing, Paris.

  • Whittle, D., & Campbell, M. (2019). A guide to digital feedback loops: An approach to Strengthening Program Outcomes. United States Agency for International Development. www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/15396/A_Guide_to_Digital_Feedback_Loops.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Jonathan Craft & Reut Marciano

  2. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

    Reut Marciano

Authors
  1. Jonathan Craft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Reut Marciano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Craft.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Craft, J., Marciano, R. Low-fidelity policy design, within-design feedback, and the Universal Credit case. Policy Sci 57, 83–99 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09520-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09520-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation