The government doesn’t do Beta
Beta vs. Pilot Project
Which one is sexier? And which one is preferred by bureaucrats, politicians and heads of the civil service?
We’re back to our old discussion about risk.
When you’re in beta, there’s a tacit acknowledgment that the whole experiment could go sideways. You’ve hit upon a good idea, your idea is based on solid analysis and an understanding of the market … but you’ve got crazy eyes.
In beta, people are willing to bet that your crazy eyes are a strategic advantage. Your funders, your mentors, your underpaid employees - they all believe that the end result will outweigh the risk.
In a pilot project, the entire process is built around eliminating risk. That initial spark of insight and creativity may have found a backer and some money, but let’s not get out of hand here folks!
The fundamental weakness is right there in the name: pilot project. The expectations have already been raised: colleagues and bosses are expecting big things.
A beta is allowed to wander. A beta is allowed to make a mis-step or two. A pilot project has already been enrolled in engineering school.
For the older members of my readership, a beta is Tweety Bird. A pilot project is that nerdy chick, the one Foghorn Leghorn used to push around.
It’s a fundamental problem: how does a government bureaucracy, built on ensuring stability and rational order, accomodate risk?
Unfortunately, many government organizations shy away from any risk that cannot be modelled and quantified.
If it cannot be quantified, it must be controlled. It must be boxed in. It must be measured, evaluated and reported on.
Talk about setting up ol’ crazy eyes for failure. It’s a real poke in the eye.
