
A Better Government, One Tweak at a Time - dean
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/upshot/a-better-government-one-tweak-at-a-time.html
======
Johnie
The way I read this is that the key is the difference between running
government at the macro level versus the micro level.

Traditionally, government policies and lawmakers create laws and regulations
with broad brushes expecting the people closer to the ground to execute it.
This type of centralized authority rarely works.

What they deem A/B testing is executing at the micro level down to almost
individual choices. This gets you better and more immediate feedback.

The same thing happens in large companies. When there are so many layers
between management and the consumer, it is hard to make the right decisions.
But if management is talking directly with the consumer, they get better
feedback and better decision making.

~~~
boxy310
Technology has disrupted and continues to disrupt many industries, but those
focusing around human relationships have been the hardest to automate. As
technology gets better, you _will_ see more disruptions to how government goes
about its business. The main obstacle to this is that governments don't have
natural competitors, and need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the
future.

------
rmason
This is such an obvious idea you have to wonder why it is even news. Why
shouldn't government be constantly iterating and ever so slowly getting
better?

What isn't so obvious is that government developers should design from the
viewpoint of their users.

[http://www.citylab.com/tech/2014/01/what-really-happens-
when...](http://www.citylab.com/tech/2014/01/what-really-happens-when-you-
sign-food-stamps/8094/)

------
codyb
It's amazing how much of this boils down to "If you make sure people know
about things, people know about things!".

I mean it happens over and over in the article "Remember, you can default to
double sided", "Did you know about this savings program?", etc.

Still, love the idea, and I hope they keep it up. It sounds like it's had some
really positive effects so far and what's the point of the scientific method
of testing and evaluation if you never use it?

------
irq-1
> eight text messages at a total cost of about $7 a student

lol dumb government wasting money!

> The text intervention was particularly cost effective: the messaging
> campaign cost $7 per student, inclusive of the expense of hiring school
> counselors to support students who needed additional assistance.

This is from the study[0] linked in the article, and makes it clear that labor
is the expense, not sending text messages.

This isn't just an error or a bad story, it's the deliberate removal of
defining information. Moreover, I'd argue that it's not only intentional but
systemic at the New York Times, and has been for decades.

[0]
[http://curry.virginia.edu/uploads/resourceLibrary/9_Castlema...](http://curry.virginia.edu/uploads/resourceLibrary/9_Castleman_SummerTextMessages.pdf)

------
sageabilly
"Certainly eight text messages are a more cost-effective way of promoting
college than offering thousands of dollars in grant and scholarship aid."

I do not understand how in the world the person writing this article came to
this conclusion unless they just straight up have zero clue how people that
did not grow up with a college fund pay for college. Doubly so when paired
with "The effect was particularly large for low-income ... students." How do
they think that low-income students pay for college?

~~~
boxy310
The point is that adding _more_ grants is less effective than making students
aware of grants that already exists. For low-income students whose information
through local social networks isn't getting the message passed about potential
grants, trying to shake the pot around harder isn't going to attract the
attention they want.

~~~
sageabilly
Ah, that makes a lot more sense. I did not think that was very clear in the
article, however.

------
vinceguidry
Can't be any worse than the way they do it now.

~~~
masterleep
I admire your optimism.

