Tools of the trade: building science and technology policy to enable public purpose

Discussing my efforts here at the TAPP project with fellow fellow Rebecca Williams, she noted that all my different projects connect to the same basic theme: the tools for enabling public purpose in technology. On reflection, I think that connects deeply to who I am as a person – an engineer of solutions. So today’s blog post is focused on what I’ve learned regarding building pathways for solutions and the tools we have available to enable public purpose in technology. 

A framework for enabling change 

I'd like to cover some of the things I've learned about building and implementing effective science and technology policy in these notes. This can cover many lessons, but if I were to distill it down, it comes down to a few key things. Before I begin, I should mention I learned these concepts and approaches both from reading the work of others before me, and through conversations and mentoring from great folks within the executive branch. A related, though different, take on these concepts can be found here, written by Tom Kalil: https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/inov_a_00253 

• Build a stakeholder alliance. You need to get your key voices across many related communities engaged in a positive flow and a unified direction. Kumar Garg likens this to ``steer, don't row''.  

Often communities are brought together by a significant challenge or opportunity. For example, in quantum computing, the challenge is building the damn thing – it is as hard, or harder than, pretty much anything humanity has done to date1. This corresponding community encompasses a wide variety of researchers and engineers, who are intrigued by the challenge this presents. At the same time, there is a substantial set of opportunities enabled by quantum computers, in fields as diverse as national security, climate, and transportation. Thus the community comprises investors, entrepreneurs, and (more) researchers and engineers who are drawn to the scientific and economic landscape quantum computers may help unveil. These combined elements lead to a broad (in areas of expertise) but focused (on a specific technology and its applications) community that can be a force for change. 

Another example is COVID-19, which I wrote about in the context of building a consortium of companies to help in the fight in my earlier blog post: https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/research-communities-strategic-reserve-times-crisis 

• Enable commity. You need to develop the tools for running effective meetings and engagements, from one-on-ones to small groups to committees to summits. There are many tools in the toolbox; each needs to be brought to bear appropriately and regularly. 

In many respects, if community building and engagement is strategy, commity is tactics. If you bring together communities but cannot build towards a positive outcome, you will have negative direction. Every time you bring together disparate members of different communities, plan for enabling a conversation space and a means of dialogue. Provide frameworks, materials, and other prepared elements to ensure each member of your community comes to the table on an equal footing and sees a clear role for themselves at the table. 

• Maintain the pace. A steady diet of small steps forward, medium wins, and big advances is much more effective than just the big advance itself.  

From the number of news cycles you can shape to the scope of the stakeholder alliance you build to the political buy-in needed to make progress, points on the board and wins in the year are the visible symbols of success and means of reward that drive your doers and community forward. You always have to be able to answer, “what have you done for me lately” in an effective manner, to be clear about your relevance and to ensure that different aspects of the community move together, as one. It is helpful to recall 

• Only surprise yourself. Plan, refactor, reenvision, shape, and build with many. Each step should work outward, slowly, towards a larger body, integrating smoothly with the community over time. 

As my mentors Ted Wrackler and Rachael Leonard stressed upon arrival at the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), “Start with the end in mind.” Understand what are, in broad strokes, the change you want to see. Work backwards from the change and the timetable you have available to build a path toward success.  

However, be careful not to over specify the goal or the paths – life, and your community, have many lessons to teach even the prepared. A quote from the physicist Niels Bohr resonates here: “Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.” It is critical to let your suggested direction, goals, and pathways for solution be clear in target but fluid in character. This recognizes that the stakeholders will change; that the dialogue will shape the goals; that the ideas will modify as small steps are realized; and that the final product will refactor and refactor again. Nonetheless, a flexible but clear final goal can take all of these elements into account.  

For example, in my work on the National Quantum Initiative, I set a simple goal soon after starting at OSTP at the end of 2017: advance American leadership in quantum information science; across the Nation, across sectors, and in relation to the world. One year in, after initial successes such as passage of the National Quantum Initiative Act, the goal shifted: sustain American leadership in the field. The frameworks and pathways developed in the first year could be leveraged in the following year to ensure long-lasting, institutional approaches for sustaining the effort. 

The policy toolbox (an executive branch perspective) 

Given this advice, what are the tools that we bring to bear to enable change in science and technology policy, particular those policies that enable or ensure a public good arises from the development and changes that research outcomes enable? I call these the elements of the S&T policy toolbox, and each plays a role in enabling change. To wit: 

• Strategic plans. These are consensus building exercises from within the government that can catalyze long-term changes in how agencies behave and how the community interacts. These plans codify and reflect the compromises across the stakeholder community, and their success relies upon the ability to build and maintain commity through their development. In many respects, the process of developing and approving the plan is as important or more important the plan itself. Community engagement and buy-in makes the plan succeed, more than any other option. 

• Convenings and workshops. Shorter term, more topical approach for community engagement, that can lead to external stakeholders doing critical work. This also is an effective way to leverage key members of the community into discussions with legislative and international stakeholders. Workshops are a way to get detailed, cogent feedback and dialogue from expert stakeholders. See, however: 

• Requests for information. A lifeblood of interactive and responsive policy, RFIs enable deep input and a more general sense of inclusion. Some unique opportunities are often underleveraged, but one I particularly like is encouraging key members of the community to gather input in, e.g., short topical workshops, and then submit the workshop reports to the RFI. This enables some consensus building before it becomes an official input, and also encourages shaping simply by using the platforms available to a given policy team. 

• Legislation. The best tool for long-term planning and sustained effort. If you want things to develop and prosper for decades, to last between administrations, and to represent the will of the people, the elected representatives are the go-to choice. This path is the hardest, as many who will attest to the challenges of 'bills becoming laws' can say. 

• Interagency bodies. The National Science and Technology Council is a classic example of the type of institution that enables all of the above actions to reflect the specific means and capabilities of agencies within the executive branch. In this particular case, it convenes leaders from agencies that will be asked to implement changes to help in all of the above steps. In other organizations, related bodies are a critical place for moving forward the agenda on the month-by-month basis. Furthermore, having and sustaining these bodies, in the form of committees or other entities, ensures long-term knowledge and understanding of the different mechanisms that arise in the above elements. Finally, having a standing body of decision makers and experts enables their operationalization when necessary, and provide a key opportunity for the informal coordination work that underlies decision making and program management. In the coronavirus case, operationalization of members of the NSTC group that brought together the revision of the National Strategic Computing Initiative strategic plan also enabled week-by-week decision making and focus for the stand-up and execution of the COVID-19 High Performance Computing Consortium. 

• The public. Communicate! Talking to the public via mechanisms such as the press, twitter, and other outside engagements helps solidify support. I am not a fan of trial balloons; the public is the last place, not the first place, for consensus building. 

Applying the tools: determining public purpose 

Throughout this year at the TAPP project, I have continuously wrestled with the critical question: who determines public purpose? Within the executive branch of the U.S. Government, the above mechanisms provide pathways for ensuring that technology development reflects the stakeholders who both implement and use the technology, as well as those impacted by the technology’s consequences. I feel that these reflect the inherent reality: public purpose arises from “small p” politics.