Find and Enlarge: New and Promising Actions Using Spur Evaluation

It is a good idea to find and enlarge what works inthe public sector. Then others can learn from it and get inspiration for new thinking. But we need to be as confident as possible that what we have found is having a positive effect. Otherwise, it is not spread-worthy. Here we have to weigh speed vs. safety of the evaluation. Indeed, large and lengthy evaluations that try to turn over all stones can delay useful dispersal. That is why we have developed a concept of 'sprint evaluation' in which researchers and practitioners work together to provide an evaluation over the course of three months.

“Find and enlarge” requires sprint evaluation

Both researchers and the media are good at 'finding five mistakes' in the public sector. While it's certainly important to find 'the hairs in the soup', we need to focus more on finding and magnifying what works. Criticism does not in itself provide inspiration for improving the public sector and its ability to create value for citizens.

There are plenty of small and large examples of public leaders and employees alone, in small teams, or together with relevant and concerned community actors creating innovative solutions. How can paramedics help to avoid hospitalizations? Can we work differently with children's well-being? How do we get a fossil-free heat supply? Can we increase recruitment of public employees? How to improve the dialogue between managers and employees? When some succeed, others can be inspired. The Find and Enlarge movement seeks to bring these solutions to light!

On the one hand, we need to be as sure as possible that new public sector initiatives produce positive results before we spread them. It is therefore important to evaluate what we find before enlarging it. On the other hand, large and demanding evaluations can drag on for a long time. We run the risk that they will either not be completed or that the measures evaluated will lose their relevance before the evaluation is complete. It may therefore be beneficial to try to do a sprint evaluation, which is a short, precise evaluation focused on rapid application.

Few new initiatives in the public sector are evaluated. If they are evaluated, then there are rarely scientists involved. Conversely, research-based evaluations can take several years, limiting their usefulness. Thus, the purpose of spurt evaluations is to promote research-based evaluation with shortened evaluation time.

The main questions of sprint evaluation 

Spurtevaluerunger examines whether new initiatives in the public sector have made a positive difference, which dictates that we enlarge and spread the action.
The key questions are: What is being done differently? What positive effects can be documented? What is the mechanism that has created the proven result? Under what circumstances can the measure be expected to have a positive effect? What does it take from another organization that wants to use the measure in a customized form?

Initiation and execution of a sprint evaluation 

A sprint evaluation can be initiated by researchers who have heard of or seen a promising action and therefore contact the responsible actors. Practitioners who experience success in making a positive difference can also initiate a sprint evaluation. The common denominator is that the promoters consider that the initiative can serve as inspiration for others, and that both researchers and practitioners contribute to the evaluation.

If the interest in doing a sprint evaluation is mutual, it is important that researchers and practitioners meet to reconcile their expectations and agree on the basis and procedure for the evaluation. The meeting can be either physical or online and should include a presentation of the action as well as a clarification of who is collecting the data and conducting the analysis. It is also useful to get into how, when and in what form the result is presented. Finally, it must be agreed how any costs will be covered. There may be situations in which a researcher conducts evaluation, as part of his or her own research, based on data obtained with the assistance of practitioners. Other times, one or more students may be interested in conducting the evaluation under the guidance of a researcher.

Typically, a sprint evaluation will build on the relevant documents, 5 to 15 interviews with affected informants (potentially supplemented/replaced in part by observation), as well as quantitative data illuminating the results. Data are analyzed and reported in a 5-7 page report, which is preferably presented at a joint meeting. The report is then made publicly available and the main points are communicated through digital communication channels or orally via submissions at conferences, seminars, etc.

Form and content of the sprint evaluation

The analysis of key documents, interviews with stakeholders, inventory of results achieved and observation shall clarify the background, form, effect and conditions of the new action.

In assessing the impact of a new measure, it is important to provide a comparative basis for the assessment. Does the new measure have a positive effect on one or more parameters in a given entity (organisation, municipality, region, government, etc.)? The comparison may be to other entities, previous actions or the situation before the new measure was applied. If the potential effect is examined via comparison with other devices, it is important that the devices are comparable. Similarly, there must be comparability over time (e.g. in terms of resources and difficulty of the task) if one looks at the results before and after the action.

In general, the more knowledge we have about the measure itself, the actual and expected consequences of the measure, measured through a comparison of past and present results in the given unit or between different entities, the stronger the argument for magnifying the possible positive effect of the measure.

It can be important to assess the effect on several different parameters. What does the measure mean, for example, for employee well-being, efficiency and user satisfaction? The negative effects must also be elucidated, while assessing whether some of these effects are compensated in one way or another.

In assessing the impact, it is important to take into account whether the measure has been implemented as planned and what factors contributed or hindered the achievement of a positive result. Other entities, depending on their own circumstances, will be able to benefit more or less from being inspired by the new measure.

The idea is that a sprint evaluation will be carried out and reported within three months of the first meeting of the agreement. This ensures that interest in the evaluation is maintained and that the result has good opportunities to be applied and useful.

Magnification of positive actions

Positive actions are magnified when others implement them in customized form. It requires them to disperse. This can be done, for example, through research publications in which they illustrate new theories or concepts. It can also be done through lectures where you can get in depth with different aspects, or through sample collections and digital communication.

Positive public administration

The effort to find and magnify new interventions that work, using spurt evaluations, is part of an international research group's effort to develop positive public administration research. There is still a need for researchers to take a critical look at societal developments and the public sector, but there is also a need to draw positive experiences from new initiatives to light. It allows research and practice to jointly create improvements for the benefit of citizens and society.