Once upon a time, in a former life, I worked for a Fortune 500 company. They trained me in Project Management and sent me through Six Sigma certification, and I eventually became a member of the Global Business Process Team (as the most junior member).
I think I can say, with some confidence, that no business would make policy the way Congress does. I'm not talking about the kinds of decisions they make; a government is NOT a business and has entirely different goals and capabilities. I'm talking about the decision-making process itself.
A bill represents a change in policy, sometimes a major change. Such a change should only be undertaken after appropriate analysis, and analysis can only be based on data.
Right now, bills are introduced higglety-pigglety, at the whim of the sponsors. Some bills are pet projects, some are unimportant, and some will affect every person in this country. We trust that things will muddle through, that bills with merit will pass, and those without will get stuck in committee, or at least do no harm. Meantime, the attention of our legislators is drawn equally to all projects. It's a massive case of ADHD institutionalized as standard operating practice.
Government should do what any organization should do before implementing policy changes.
First: Define the problem. Is there a need for a change (bill)? What is the scope of the problem? Define metrics that measure the problem. Collect data to supports the idea that change is needed. Make projections as to how the problem will persist or worsen if no action is taken.
Second: Propose a change. Explain how the proposed change should affect the metrics you are using to measure the problem. How will you know if the change is working?
Third: Identify possible consequences. As far as possible, identify all stakeholders, both for the original problem and for the proposed solution. List possible side effects and analyze their impact.
ANY proposed bill should include these elements. In essence, you are doing a Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis. The word "social" indicates that neither the investment nor the return is necessarily monetary. But it should still be possible to provide metrics, otherwise you will not know if you are making an effective change.
If bills had to have this sort of analysis to qualify them for introduction, I suspect a lot of bills would never be introduced, or be instantly revealed as political posturing. That might be fine; unimportant bills get passed all the time. Schoolkids might submit a petition to name the bald eagle in the National Zoo George, and there is nothing wrong with congress considering and passing such a bill. There is little need for such a change, but the cost primarily consists of our legislators' time, and the social benefit in terms of PR and political education may make it worthwhile, especially since such a lightweight bill acts as comic relief to the legislators themselves.
But bills such as the voter ID laws may be stopped. (Or perhaps not -- I don't have the data, and that's the point.) A need has not been demonstrated. If there is data (and not just rhetoric) to support such a bill, then it should be provided as supporting documents for the bill's introduction. However, perhaps the current problem is small, but the consequence of not acting is anticipated to be large. If that is the case, provide projections and a well-supported argument. Balance that against the cost of other consequences -- the disenfranchisement of certain voter blocks.
All of this should be hashed out in committee (including the ability to return the proposal for more data or analysis), and only if the proposal is satisfactory should the bill actually be introduced on the floor.
I think it implementing this one administrative change would redeem the entire governmental decision-making process.
It is essentially a conservative move, in the truest sense of the word. It maintains the status quo unless there is demonstrated need, and ensures (as much as possible) that only effective programs are instituted and financed. And it limits time wasted on political posturing. It is also essentially liberal, in that it identifies need and encourages effective action to address those needs.
Now, if this were a business proposal, it would be implemented first in some sort of test bed, so the entire company is not committed until there is some evidence that the anticipated benefits will materialize. That requires additional metrics -- how will we know this is working? -- and a back-out plan -- if it's not working, how can we cancel its implementation? The way our legislative system is set up, this isn't really possible. Ideally, each bill would have a standard escape hatch clause-- that is to say, a bill that is passed could be easily revoked in say, a year, if the metrics show that the anticipated benefits are NOT occurring, or that unanticipated consequences ARE occurring. But that's a topic for another day.
