Much of my work has been working with government agencies who work with, or want to reach small business – in Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia. Sometimes I’ve been a public servant, sometimes I’ve been the small business.
Through work, and in conversations with my ole Design Partner and bud, Justin Barrie about our experiences of what business operations boil down to, and what Government targeting business struggle to get right I had some breakthrough thinking. It got me to synthesising on the business perspective of “what I do, have to do, want to do, and do do”.
Disclaimer: As a public servant, and ex-consultant with the Government I can’t help but have multiple mindsets hence multi-modal thoughts and the awkward title(s).
From a Business perspective – what the Government and Business struggle with is the difference in the nature of Government relations with a Business. Both entities see the other as one thing but, in reality, two experiences are at play – being in business means compliance, regulations, obligations; doing business successfully means growth, networks, support. For Government, both of these ‘domains’ benefit the economy and society. For Business, having to comply with government rules suggests a level playing field (as ‘unpaid’ compliance agents) but growth can come from Government-backed advantage (because of the potential economic benefit back to the country); with one hand the Government demands compliance, with the other it offers assistance.
It’s complex but not unexplainable, because the different perspectives and lenses are all correct. The thing is, what outcome are you seeking in understanding the differences.
The diagram represents
- The areas a Business needs to cover, which have experiential dimensions – I need to, I must do, I want to, I do do.
- Then comes the agencies, entities, services that play roles in addressing this coverage.
- This is all framed within ‘Life’ events and outcomes being sought or occurring; service and entity/agency relationships provide the content for analysis/diagnosis.
Since fleshing this out in this diagram I’ve been able to use it as a mental model for some of my work as a Strategy Designer to explore:
- What is the coverage of products a business accesses?
- What is the capability diagnosis against actual service delivery?
- What are the core business interactions – how can we define and describe them for agreement, for action?
- What are the transactions that occur from multiple perspectives and the potentials for innovation of services?
- As a whole, how can I use the Framework insights as a lever to more adequately describe a service offering – for a Business or as a Government agency?
- Further, for a Business, where am I spending my time in-the-business and on-the-business?
The Framework supports this kind of strategic thinking because it isn’t a linear ‘journey’ view – which is something that doesn’t really apply in the complex interactions between government and business.
In a subsequent discussion we realised that the application of a framework like this fits perfectly with a non commercial ‘business’ (but still service deliverers) entities such as a School. Particularly the concept we uncovered during research into Schools as complex adaptive (service) systems and ‘Organisational Management’.
It’s at this point that I am reminded of what a beloved and formidable former Senior Public Sector Leader client, Craig Fox, used to often say: “Anyone can create a model; models are no good unless their useful.” This one is proving very useful.