Six things (German) politics should learn from product development

And why conservatives destroyed my lust for the future.

Disclaimer: I am fully aware that the following methods and concepts are not necessarily originate in product development or only applied here — they are just very common in this domain.

1. Objective & Key Results

What it is about: You set some inspiring, long-term goal (“I want to be an accomplished writer”) and define some key results, measurable outcomes which define this goal, like “I won the XYZ award for the newcomer of the year”. Important, OKR’s are not a to-do list, they don’t actually speak about how you achieve your goals, but only about the impact your successes should generate. Key Results must be SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound.

Germany is a many-party-system, thus it’s very unlikely that one party can rule on it’s own. Therefore coalitions are a very common thing. Mostly is the conservatives with the so called socialists which in English sounds very different, then what the reality is. Anyway, since the late 90’s each coalition drafts a so called coalition-contract, a document with no legal relevance. Yet, its regular (mis)used to rule out certain actions. “That’s not part of the coalition contract!” is something we hear very often, whenever the slightly more progressive partner of the conservatives want to do something, which couldn’t be foreseen when the paper was drafted. Coalition contracts a very long, boring documents. The current one has 175 pages. Guess, how many people have read it …

Instead of such abstract and boring contracts, the government should work with OKR’s. Clear objectives like “We close the gender-pay-gab by the end of the term” and some concrete key results. Of course this OKR set cannot and should not be a strict document. In four years, things change. When the last contract was signed, no one would have thought something like Corona would dominate the world for two years (let’s hope it’s only two years in the end). So this document (which can be also reflected online very easily, there are tools for that) could make politics much more transparent and comprehensible. It could help to engage people much easier with politics, and — God forbid! — inspire.

2. Cross functionalities

What it is about: Many organisations work in a so called matrix structure. Most known is maybe the Spotify model, which of course also changed over time. It basically means that you have several functions, like product management, engineering, marketing and so on. For each function you have functional (disciplinary) leader. Product now uses resources from the function it needs. If the functions are vertical aligned, the initiatives, projects products are horizontal. Within the product there is no disciplinary only functional leadership. An engineer who is engaged today in product A can easily switch to product B and gain new experiences, while still being an engineer.

Like most government systems Germany has clear responsibilities, ministries like Economics, Environment, Defense and so on. All in all there are 14. Of course, for certain initiates, they cooperate but not really. Economics does their thing and they don’t really want to be interrupted. Since years, we are discussing if we should create a ministry for Digitalisation. Some say yes, way too late, others say, no not a good idea — digitalisation should happen in every branch. The result is, that nothing really happened so far.

Instead of ministries, we should maybe define capability based units. Finance, Science, Environment, Defense, Education and so on. And then, based on the defined OKR’s we are forming cross-functional teams, working goal driven on their objectives. Instead of minister, we would have unit leaders as well as initiative responsible, which are not the same people. Shared responsibility, clear focus and autonomy.

3. Post Mortem’s

What it is about: Whenever something bad happens, a fuckup, a post mortem or retrospective is held up. The goal of this initiative is mostly to learn from what happened, to understand why something happened and how it can be prevented in the future. It’s not about blaming, but about using the chance to accumulate knowledge. Turning something bad which can’t be undone anyway into something useful.

Germany has no error culture. If one thing became clear during Corona, then it’s that. Even though we have our problems with outspoken patriotism, we are pretty arrogant when it comes to learn from others and to realise we are not good at certain things. I don’t believe it’s that much different in many other countries, but I only can speak for Germany.

The sharpest weapon the opposition in Germany has, is the so called commission of inquiry. Currently we have three active inquiries ongoing. All in all we had more than 60 of those in our history, so it’s actually something that happens quite often. These inquiries are extremely costly in terms of money and time. In the end, the consequences are mostly zero, besides a political bashing. Mostly, once the thing is over, no one really cares about the result anymore, as this is usually years later. Learning is not so much a goal of these inquiries as political consequences (someone is forced to resign) or at least, blaming.

While this might be a useful thing, what I’m missing is something like Post Mortem’s. Our government did a lot of mistakes during Corona. Partly, that’s understandable, their was no handbook for this (actually, kinda, yes, there was …) but we should learn from this. And not just behind closed doors. We need open discussions about this, with the participation of all relevant groups, and not just some political figures which have no error culture anyway. I would like to have a socially relevant discussion at the end of which clear knowledge and learnings are generated. Political consequences can be part of this, but that’s not even the main objective here. It’s about learnings, using a crisis, grow and get better. Together and not behind closed doors through the eyes of some journalists which are too often biased anyway.

4. Data Drivenness

What it is about: Easy, decisions based on facts, not opinions.

In politics, facts seem to matter less and less. So many things are opinion driven. Even though the Corona deniers are an absolute minority, they and others seem to dictate the agenda. The loudest groups are the ones, which get the most attention. Scratch that, not just the loudest ones, the ones which are aggressive and violent. Every day, someone is blamed to say something which is pure populism. Being a populist is a strange accusation when being a politician. Of course you want to be popular, you need to be, otherwise you won’t be voted for again. That’s kinda natural. And as this is the case, we need different mechanisms. If I have clear goals, I have very clear evidence when something is achieved, or not (SMART). Not so much for the objective, but for the key results. The need to be, otherwise they are bad. The job of a politician is complex. There are hardly easy choices. If you only listen to climate scientist it’s super clear you have to exit the coal-based power generation better yesterday, than tomorrow. But that’s not the only perspective. You also need to consider where the energy is coming from, jobs that will be lost, how massive investments in green energy are financed and so on. It’s not black and white. Also here, data drivenness can help. It’s in itself goal driven. It does not dictate you have to do this or that. You want to reduce the CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 70%, okay, check your options. Which areas that can be realistically adapted short and mid term offer the most impact? Okay, there you go. The one industry doesn’t want to, because it’s expensive. Well, too bad. You are the biggest driver of the emissions, so do your job!

Since years, since the far-right is rising again in Germany (and around the world) we hear “We must take the fear of these people seriously. They are not all Nazis. We must talk with them instead of ostracise them”. Have you ever tried to talk to a racist? It doesn’t make any sense and what should we talk about? Of course, not all of these people are Nazis or fascist. But why should I take irrational fears serious? This way, I legitimise them, I admit this is a topic when numbers tell me, no that’s not a topic. We paved the way to so called alternative facts, by not debunking strictly refuse them, but taking the fears of a minority serious. I want fact based discussions. I want common ground. I’m sick and tired of opinions and alternative facts — lies, that’s what it is.

5. Prototyping

What it is about: A fast and cheap method to generate learnings and insight with little effort, before creating the real thing with a lot of uncertainties and unclear outcome.

Almost 20 years ago, the German government decided to reform the health system a bit. Not by making it better of course, they only tried to achieve that people make less use of it. What they came up with was the so called “Praxisgebühr”, basically a 10€ fee which was due every quarter, when consulting your doctor. The hope was, that people want to spare this extra fee (besides the taxes we all pay anyway) and treat so called patty cases on their own. Latest after one year it was clear, that’s working. If so, people where consulting their doctors even more often. Now that they paid for it, you know? Even though it was clear pretty fast that the initiative failed, it took another seven years until the law was finally abolished. We never heard anything about it, but I wouldn’t be surprise if the whole thing in the end cost way more, then is saved. Instead of rolling it out as a law for the whole country, some small scaled field test could have been installed. If the data would have been promising, take it to the next stage.

Politics in general is too slow. The democratic process of bringing something into law is slow by design. We believe that if a lot of people (functions) are allowed to speak up their mind, then this is democracy at work. During the Coronas crisis we saw how fast laws can be signed off — but not as fast as making a law to save a “system critical” bank, that was possible within 24 hours. While treating a rape in marriage the same way then outside of a marriage was a discussion for years until this finally became a reality.

Making laws is a critical process of course. In Germany, it regularly happens, that laws made by the government are years later abolished by the Federal Constitutional Court. Partly, I feel that’s happening because the people drafting these laws are just not very good at it (understanding how our constitution or laws in general work), but partly also because they hope they get away with it. In general move things in a democracy, is tough. Slow. Partly the reason is because we try to make things perfect. And in terms of laws, well there is good reason for trying. But for other things … During Corona we saw that the saying “Perfect is the enemy of good” is very true. What mattered, was (is) speed. Something Germany is not really good at. While other countries just did certain things, producing outcomes, Germany was still at the drawing board. All of this, comes to one big problem Germany has: we are not visionaries, dreamers, entrepreneurs. We are industry captains. Manager. Administrator. We do things, we know. We are not so good at trying things out, prototype, fail and learn. I’d wish for experiments, for excitement about trying things out, gather data and learn.

6. Vision

What it is about: An idea where you want to go, what you want to achieve long-term. An ideal, a better version of what you have.

In Germany we are 4,5 months away from the next big election. The ruling party, which is in power since 16 long years, has no program yet. Well, they are just not a program party ha ha — some say. I don’t thing that’s funny. One of the most depressing things Angela Merkel ever said was “Politics is always what is possible”. That’s it, that’s the sentence. It says “We are not visionaries, we don’t have dreams, we don’t have ideas, we are administrators. Things happen, we react. But we are not makers. Pro activity? Doing things before we must? God forbid! We do, if we have too.” This depresses me beyond the point I am able to express it.

What I wish for is an idea, a narrative or an ideal where this country should head. If there are different visions, you can chose. And yes, one vision is “like it was in the 50’s” — boring, but okay. I can at least decline this stupid narrative. But besides the longing of the right-wing idiots for the past, we have nothing really. Of course, every government is only elected for four years, it would not be very reputable to campaign with a detailed plan for the next fifty years, but on the other hand: that’s what they do. When Helmut Kohl back then (1972) decided to not invest in fibreglass but keep bury copper in the ground, he made decisions we still suffer from and will so for some years to come.

Designing a vision and put it up for discussion, is actually making yourself honest. Share what you have in mind, where you want to go. People then can engage with it, support it or not. Change it, adapt it- The reason that this does not happen is I believe two things: conservatives have no fantasy, they don’t have the tools to develop an inspiring utopia people can discuss. And the second reason is exactly this: if you position yourself you must be ready to discuss your ideas, explain it, defend it, pivot it — everything above actually.

Since I’m 14 I am very interested in politics. Being a huge Star Trek fan, I was hoping to see the beginning of such utopia. Things moving in the right direction. Meanwhile, I more or less lost all hope that this will ever happen. Conservative politics worn me out, robbed me of my lust for future. I crave politician with a vision, with an inspiring story to tell, but all I get are these gray, mindless, interchangeable administrators. Realists. Yes, great. Because it has been realist that changed the world.

Conclusion

Politics could be so much better. Faster, more transparent, comprehensible, approachable and actually fun. Something you like to engage with. And it could be way better, qualitatively. The tools are all there. But we keep what we have because yes, that sucks, but at least we know what we get.