When you have the wrong people looking for solutions
Brexit is a big area of uncertainty for so many. Politicians have found themselves with more questions than answers. The country does not have much time to come up with workable solutions to what is the most controversial change for the country in decades.
Take for example the Northern Ireland border with the Republic of Ireland. The two sides do not want to have a ‘hard border’ – i.e. no physical checkpoints between the two countries. They also want to have a workable way of ensuring that smuggling / customs avoidance doesn’t become a major issue. The politicians don’t have the answers to meet all the criteria of what the two respective areas want. So, what now?
There are suggestions that technology can help provide solutions. These bring concerns though that time is an issue and therefore may not be able to be implemented in time. Most sensible people see that technology can bring many solutions when the right people are involved with coming up with a solution.
Trusting politicians to come up with tech solutions is like trusting elephants to come up with crossword puzzle answers.
What needs to happen is that the right people who can come up with creative, realistic, pragmatic and timely answers need to be brought in to play here. Politicians won’t come up with an answer that meets all the requirements. You need to have people who know what they are doing involved.
What would the business world do?
You would get people in who are working to a goal. They would work through concepts and ideas to meet the needs of the stakeholders. You get people in who know what they are on about!
Technical Architects, Business Analysts, User Researchers, Project Managers – all these need to be involved if you are going to get a solution that meets all the user needs for the scenarios involved. When you get politicians involved with designing systems, you get flawed systems. When you get agile teams of specialist experts involved, you get systems that meet the user needs.
The users in this case are all the stakeholders involved. They each have different user stories, and each have different requirements that need to be worked through end to end until the acceptance criteria are met.
Even if you didn’t go that approach, you could incentivise the solutions engineering. If the government set out all the criteria of the task involved, no matter how hard it may seem to do so. Then you can set the task for people to solve the problem as if it was one big logic puzzle.
- If you do Action A, then you must consider Consequence B and C.
- If you do Action B, then you must consider Consequence D and E.
- If you choose not to do Action A, but to do Actions C and D, then Output X and Y are met, but not Z.
And so on…
There are many great minds in the country, let alone worldwide who would love to be set a massive challenge like that. By involving the great minds in solving great problems, then you end up with great solutions. You also don’t have the ongoing issue of things seemingly not thought of.
Why should the government look to do something different?
By just continuing down the same path as previous, you end up with the same results. If the first lot of ideas came up short, then chances are if you don’t change your approach, then you will carry on not delivering.
Time is running out and the government need to do something drastically different in the way of coming up with solutions and remedies to problems and difficulties. The vague, blurry grey ideas that have come out from all sides of the argument, and those who don’t know what side of the argument they are on, have given everyone a sense of no confidence in the future as it currently stands.
Our country has faced many difficulties before, but it is the innovators who look to shape the future rather than look at the past. It is time our government and leaders of all parties looked to bring in the innovators and the ideas people before time runs out and people are still left scratching their heads. It is time to let the thinkers do the thinking.