Evaluating policy design sprint outcomes: A Proposition for a Novel Tool

Abstract

Policy Design Sprints are increasingly used in public policy development, but their long-term impacts are often unclear due to the lack of systematic evaluation frameworks. This thesis addresses this gap by developing and testing a structured evaluation tool (the “Better Outcome” tool) for sprint outcomes. Drawing on interdisciplinary literature (Service Design, Innovation Studies, Legal Design, Systems and Futures Thinking, and Behavioral Economics) and government practice, the tool evaluates outcomes against multiple criteria, including implementation feasibility, systemic alignment, behavioral uptake, and future adaptability, to determine their viability and value. Using a qualitative approach, data from participant surveys, interviews with practitioners, and expert walkthroughs were collected and used to iteratively refine the tool. The empirical findings confirm a persistent “last-mile” gap: many promising ideas stall after the sprint. Applying the framework helps participants to clarify and score proposed solutions on the defined dimensions, facilitating discussion of strengths and weaknesses. Experts reported that the tool improved clarity in outcome assessment and alignment with institutional objectives. Overall, the research demonstrates that a multidimensional, criteria-based evaluation framework can bridge creative ideation and policy implementation. The Better Outcome tool offers Policy Design Sprint participants and facilitators an actionable method to rigorously assess and guide design-led policy interventions, thereby enhancing accountability, evidence-based decision-making, and the sustainable impact of public-sector innovation.