Government Social Research
Trying It Out - The Role of 'Pilots' in Policy-Making Report of a Review of Government Pilots (PDF)
by Roger Jowell,
Chair of the Review Panel
This report has relied on a number of important contributions. Although the primary responsibility for its final shape and content is mine, I am aware of how much I have depended on others for important information, data and ideas.
Before the Review Panel had even met, the Strategy Unit invited a distinguished
group of academics, practitioners and civil servants to a seminar whose aim
was to guide our agenda. Looking back, that seminar not only raised many of
the key issues we subsequently attempted to tackle in our deliberations, but
– as importantly – helped us to avoid tempting cul de sacs.
We are grateful for the time and wisdom of those who attended (see Annex 1).
As soon as the Panel (p.4 and p.40) began its deliberations, it confirmed my impression of how much more many of its members knew about the detail of the subject than I did. Some had written influential articles and books about policy pilots. Others had personally overseen the implementation of one or more pilots within departments. All had a clear picture of the advantages, disadvantages and potential pitfalls of piloting. I am indebted to them for the cogent ideas and arguments they brought to the table and for their later criticisms and proposed edits of early drafts. This report comes from the full Panel.
We drew on a number of sources, including a literature review, a postal survey of policy makers and researchers in nine departments, and face-to-face interviews with a selection of these respondents, as well as a handful of Ministers. We concentrated on people who had themselves had personal experience of one or more policy pilots. As expected, these questionnaires and interviews produced intriguingly different perspectives of the process itself and its inevitable tensions. On the basis of these data and the literature search, we then assembled a series of illustrative case studies that appear throughout the body of this report.
The smooth implementation of all this work was entrusted to staff within the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit. The project was initiated by Sue Duncan (whom we subsequently co-opted onto the Panel itself) and Phil Davies. Initial support was provided briefly by Stephen Morris and for a longer period by Rebecca Stanley before both moved on to other roles, but not before making valuable contributions – particularly to the shape and structure of the work. This left Annette King to see most of the project through with great energy and skill, acting both as the Panel’s secretary and the Chair’s ‘ankle-biter’ until our work was well and truly done. She played a vital role in bringing this report to fruition. A special tribute is also due to Phil Davies under whose watchful, observant and knowledgeable eye Rebecca, Annette and the Panel itself all worked and learned.
Tess Ridge of the University of Bath joined the team temporarily to undertake the excellent literature review, and Lucy Woodward – also a temporary member of the team – skillfully assembled the case studies. Their work greatly eased ours.
Finally, although they must as usual remain anonymous in a report of this kind, we are deeply indebted to the civil servants and Ministers who patiently and frankly answered all our questions, providing us with unique insights into the provenance, conduct and aftermath of policy piloting in a range of different circumstances. Their thoughtful insights helped not only to inform the report as a whole but also to influence our recommendations (p.5).
RJ (December 2003)