Insights
We’d be hard pressed to find a policymaker who doesn’t agree that it’s important to use evidence to inform decision making.
But good intentions don’t necessarily lead to implementation.
Consistently using evidence in economic development decision making, as in any other policy area, requires a whole range of factors – plans to ensure evidence is collected, someone with the responsibility to maintain that evidence and make sure it’s up to date, systems to store monitoring data and commissioned reports so people can find what they need, when they need it, and leaders who value evidence alongside other priorities.
Our new maturity matrix is a tool to help teams assess factors critical to consistent use of evidence, and measure where a team or organisation is on the path to consistent use. It’s easy to use – LA officers and teams who tested it found that it typically took 30 minutes.
With lots of discussion about the capability and capacity of local government officers, this is a useful addition for teams looking to identify specific areas for improvement.
Laying a foundation to be there when it’s needed most
For teams who face tight timescales—when preparing funding applications, responding to elected members, or as one LA officer told me “for absolutely everything”, it’s important to be able to rely on good systems.
Having these elements in place – processes, templates, training, and folder structures – lays a foundation for finding evidence quickly when it’s needed. But that requires an honest assessment of the current position, and what needs to change.
The aim is to make this business as usual, rather than relying on colleagues remembering at the right time or scrambling around for evidence.
A systems-wide look
Use of evidence isn’t the responsibility of one person, and there isn’t one single action that will improve its use. Teams need to consider the wider system in which evidence is used.
Many local authorities are in the midst of transformation, which can be an opportunity to embed these considerations within other changes.
Gather multiple views
Like our logic model guide, we recommend collaboration when completing the maturity matrix. Since evidence means different things to different people, it’s useful to have several people complete it. Not everyone will agree on their assessment. One data and evaluation officer I spoke to had a member of senior leadership who felt that evidence was always prioritised in decision making, but their comms officers felt that was rarely the case. Those differences in maturity levels of individual criteria will help identify areas for improvement.
Getting buy-in
Changing internal processes and strategies can be difficult. The maturity matrix can strengthen reasons to review the way business cases are developed or to create a template for commissioning reports. Many individual improvements won’t need a budget but will require commitment. Being clear about what needs to change, and what progress looks like, is always useful for making the case.
Steady progress
We have four maturity levels – basic, early progress, substantial progress, and mature. We’re not expecting any local authority to be mature in every category. In most places, it will be a mixed picture. The guidance document recommends looking at the difference with the next maturity level to identify next steps, but it’s also important to look at the preceding levels and celebrate where progress has been made.
Using this maturity matrix for self-assessment is an opportunity to help narrow the gap between intentions and implementation. We welcome feedback on the tool, either by e-mail or on our forum on Knowledge Hub.
