Page 1 of 2

Reflection on Storytelling

By Zakir

Challenge

I have been working at government institution for some years. Along with the team, I developed  regulations particularly in tax issues. We encountered many challenges in the regulation drafting process  from both internal and external stakeholders. I limited the scope of challenges to internal stakeholders.  Why was that? It consumed significant amount of energy, time, and resources to involve in a long period  of meeting and debates just to make a regulation. Unfortunately, after reaching internal consensus, we  could not implement the regulation because external stakeholders resisted it. In the worst case, we had  to withdraw the regulation to avoid more conflicts. How could such a long process of making the  regulation be useless in no time? As we knew, we could not predict the response of external  stakeholders. That was why we focused on making internal consensus fast and cheap. Because if  external resistance happened again in the future, then we could fail cheap too.

Selection

How could we reach internal consensus fast and cheap? I tried to make a list regarding the most likely  sources of disagreement by doing observation and interview on experienced regulators. I found insights  such as lack of information and poor assumptions, use of highly technical terms that could not fit into  diverse background within the regulator forum, inconsistency of the participants involved in the drafting  process, and inadequate holistic point of view to tackle the problem. We chose Storytelling to tackle  these issues because we needed to create the drafting process became simple, holistic, and interesting.

Application

We made a proper plan to make the discussion clear, concise, and to the point before entering each  step. We prepared a set of relevant and reliable data as a baseline. We also ignited ideas and delivered  guidance through a series of question to make a common point of view regarding the problem, the  purpose of the regulation, the scope of the regulation, and the default structure of the regulation. We  prepared a separated whiteboard to put any rare words if anyone told them in the discussion. In the  first step, we shared the main idea and relevant data source. We created questions: were there any  problems? how significant was the impact if we could address the problems? This triggered all  participants to involve in a discussion and we limited the discussion to develop 3 top problems (we used  to be familiar with The Power of 3) with the most significant impact. Then, we entered second step in  which we described how we can address each problem through a specific regulation. We shared a  holistic point of view by converting comprehensive data into a form of identified trend, ranking list,  comparison, and contradictive fact, for each problem. We created questions: were they holistic enough?  which problem with the highest possibility to be solved? We triggered a discussion again to reduce the  problem only to one. In the third step, we displayed time constraint data to guide the forum to be more  specific about which side within the chosen problem needed to be addressed in a short term and long  term? This triggered the participants to discuss about the scope of regulation. We encouraged  participants to vote. In the fourth step, we delivered storytelling consisted of the summary of steps  taken to confirm the problem and convinced participants to commit into the drafting process. In the

Page 2 of 2

fifth step, we began to draft the structure of the regulation by using the holistic point of view for the  chosen problem provided in the second step as the starting point and worked according to the time  constraint. In the drafting process, we use storytelling to emphasize on how important the participants  to discuss only substantial matters to avoid misunderstanding (to convince them to be fast and cheap).

Storytelling brought positive insights. It was effective to create a sense of belonging and avoid  misunderstanding. The participants felt easier to understand the purpose of each step since we  storytold the essence of the data through trends, rankings, comparison, and contradictive fact. These  could lead to a faster and cheaper regulation making process. But in the contrary, storytelling was  difficult to implement if we could not find insights within a complex data, define the critical questions,  and communicate effectively to convince participants because we wanted to be clear and concise, not  too talkative.

Insights

Since we initiated the Storytelling process, we had been able to increase our creativity and maximize  collaboration with diverse background outside our institution. We had to learn on how people could  reach consensus, how to communicate effectively, and how to use a simple visual aid to make the  discussion more interactive. Storytelling should be capable of convincing external stakeholders.  However, many people already build a gap even if they were able to understand the purpose of a  regulation, because naturally they do not want to be regulated. This could be more challenging than  internal consensus issues. This confirmed me that we could not apply design thinking to solve every  issue. We need a proper Reality Check first.

Approach

In the future, the ability to understand the essence of a data will be a huge advantage to make a proper  Storytelling. We have to collaborate with IT division first to gain a better approach. Storytelling could be  more successful if we were able to combine it with other tool such as Mind Map. We will use Learning  Launch on other regulations which are already drafted but not being published yet to test the water on  some predetermined respondents.


Page 1 of 2 Reflection on Storytelling By Zakir Challenge I have been working at government institution for some years . Along with the team , I developed regulations particularly in tax issues . We encountered many challenges in the regulation drafting process from both internal and external stakeholders . I limited the scope of challenges to internal stakeholders . Why was that ? It consumed significant amount of energy , time , and resources to involve in a long period of meeting and debates just to make a regulation . Unfortunately , after reaching internal consensus , we could not implement the regulation because external stakeholders resisted it . In the worst case , we had to withdraw the regulation to avoid more conflicts . How could such a long process of making the regulation be useless in no time ? As we knew , we could not predict the response of external stakeholders . That was why we focused on making internal consensus fast and cheap . Because if external resistance happened again in the future , then we could fail cheap too . Selection How could we reach internal consensus fast and cheap ? I tried to make a list regarding the most likely sources of disagreement by doing observation and interview on experienced regulators . I found insights such as lack of information and poor assumptions , use of highly technical terms that could not fit into diverse background within the regulator forum , inconsistency of the participants involved in the drafting process , and inadequate holistic point of view to tackle the problem . We chose Storytelling to tackle these issues because we needed to create the drafting process became simple , holistic , and interesting . Application We made a proper plan to make the discussion clear , concise , and to the point before entering each step . We prepared a set of relevant and reliable data as a baseline . We also ignited ideas and delivered guidance through a series of question to make a common point of view regarding the problem , the purpose of the regulation , the scope of the regulation , and the default structure of the regulation . We prepared a separated whiteboard to put any rare words if anyone told them in the discussion . In the first step , we shared the main idea and relevant data source . We created questions : were there any problems ? how significant was the impact if we could address the problems ? This triggered all participants to involve in a discussion and we limited the discussion to develop 3 top problems ( we used to be familiar with The Power of 3 ) with the most significant impact . Then , we entered second step in which we described how we can address each problem through a specific regulation . We shared a holistic point of view by converting comprehensive data into a form of identified trend , ranking list , comparison , and contradictive fact , for each problem . We created questions : were they holistic enough ? which problem with the highest possibility to be solved ? We triggered a discussion again to reduce the problem only to one . In the third step , we displayed time constraint data to guide the forum to be more specific about which side within the chosen problem needed to be addressed in a short term and long term ? This triggered the participants to discuss about the scope of regulation . We encouraged participants to vote . In the fourth step , we delivered storytelling consisted of the summary of steps taken to confirm the problem and convinced participants to commit into the drafting process . In the Page 2 of 2 fifth step , we began to draft the structure of the regulation by using the holistic point of view for the chosen problem provided in the second step as the starting point and worked according to the time constraint . In the drafting process , we use storytelling to emphasize on how important the participants to discuss only substantial matters to avoid misunderstanding ( to convince them to be fast and cheap ) . Storytelling brought positive insights . It was effective to create a sense of belonging and avoid misunderstanding . The participants felt easier to understand the purpose of each step since we storytold the essence of the data through trends , rankings , comparison , and contradictive fact . These could lead to a faster and cheaper regulation making process . But in the contrary , storytelling was difficult to implement if we could not find insights within a complex data , define the critical questions , and communicate effectively to convince participants because we wanted to be clear and concise , not too talkative . Insights Since we initiated the Storytelling process , we had been able to increase our creativity and maximize collaboration with diverse background outside our institution . We had to learn on how people could reach consensus , how to communicate effectively , and how to use a simple visual aid to make the discussion more interactive . Storytelling should be capable of convincing external stakeholders . However , many people already build a gap even if they were able to understand the purpose of a regulation , because naturally they do not want to be regulated . This could be more challenging than internal consensus issues . This confirmed me that we could not apply design thinking to solve every issue . We need a proper Reality Check first . Approach In the future , the ability to understand the essence of a data will be a huge advantage to make a proper Storytelling . We have to collaborate with IT division first to gain a better approach . Storytelling could be more successful if we were able to combine it with other tool such as Mind Map . We will use Learning Launch on other regulations which are already drafted but not being published yet to test the water on some predetermined respondents .