Guest Blog by Mayank Grover, IPP ’25
When I applied for the Implementing Public Policy (IPP) program, the biggest doubt I had was whether this course would be too theoretical or academic. The problem-driven iterative adaptation concept seemed a bit alien to the public policy or economic regulation in which I have been working for most of my career. Then came day 2 at the Harvard Kennedy School campus, when the penny dropped. I discovered this was about the problem, getting to really know about it, discovering how to bring about change. A change where success isn’t just about making it better, it’s also about working with other people.
The problem I had been working on was about something that had been tried multiple times in the National Electricity Market (NEM, or the integrated electricity grid on the eastern coast) distribution networks in Australia. It has been called by different names, but the most popular one was the Distribution System Operator (DSO). It’s a role responsible for optimising the electricity distribution system, and usually the monopoly network business is considered best placed to perform it. But my policy problem wasn’t only about the DSO role, there was a separate process to develop an architecture. This had been tried multiple times before, although not with an agreed outcome. My concern was about what happens to competitive neutrality and consumer interests when monopoly network businesses, which are setup in a way to prevent harm to competition, start participating in competitive markets more than ever. This problem hadn’t been dealt with before in Australia at this scale.
Back to the approach, no matter how much we all had thought about our problems over and over again, the course helped us get a different perspective. The biggest aspect of it was where to start. And that was to stop thinking of public policy as a plan-execute-control project, and start thinking about it in terms of why does it matter?
My policy problem needed more than a one-shot fix. When it comes to protecting competition and consumers, the balancing act of keeping it competitive and efficient become a bit complex. The benefits we talk about and the potential long-term harm to ‘markets’, become uncertain and speculative. When I started constructing the problem, the narrative slowly became clearer. The problem I was working on mattered because ‘people’, the consumers of electricity, would be impacted by the potential harm. And that is central to the Australian Energy Regulator’s committed purpose.
By the time we came back from the campus, we certainly knew what a well-defined problem looks like. The one thing that we got to learn that I still carry with me today – don’t tackle the head first, get the bones (think fish-bone diagram). Just like chess, the trick is to start small (the pawns), and before solving the big problem (the other king) you think about how you can get the small pieces of the problem. Questions are key at this stage – what, why, who, how and when. The biggest pitfall is to not have questions and instead get straight to solutions, or the lack of them. Once happy with the first version of problem, think which part can change and how in terms of your organisation’s ‘Authority’ to support reform or policy change, the ‘Ability’ that you need vs what you have and the ‘Acceptance’ that you would get from the people or groups who will be affected by the reform or policy change.
Deconstructing my problem into small pieces was not easy, I needed to know why the monopoly businesses had been expanding their roles, and why getting an agreed model on a distribution system and market operations had been difficult. Is it lack of data visibility for other potential competitors, or lack of competitors, or just misaligned incentives? There were more questions than answers, but that is how I knew I was on the right path. But the more complicated task was to think about the AAA change space. It took multiple iterations to get them to make sense, thinking about all the agents or stakeholders, defining the assumptions that were there in my mind, and updating them one at a time.
The masterclass on 4P framework for strategic leadership helped with the rest of the task. It all started to come together once we learnt about perception, projection, process, and people. It was enlightening that both external and internal considerations should be given to each of the 4 Ps. Engaging with people is key to develop that understanding. I began to realise that in complex policy challenges there is no absolute solution, and you cannot solve everything for everyone. What matters is thinking as a team, focussing on small wins and learnings.
In my challenge this really redefined my next step, as I started to think about developing a shared understanding with my stakeholders and colleagues. This was to share my perception of the problem and my ideas, and getting their perception, and start to think about aligning them. This helped me get answers to some of my questions and move forward with how to align and adapt. I was able to create an opportunity for everyone to share ideas through different internal workshops, with an outcome to have an agreed gap analysis. The analysis eventually informed a paper that outlined everything driving the evolving and expanding role of monopoly businesses, and their impacts, in an organised way. This paper has now become our launchpad to start a wider reform in this space.
IPP has been the most exciting phase of my career development. The program teaches, more than anything, to develop an understanding of the entry points to change, before the change itself. The same approach seemed fit for all my peers, who are exceptional leaders in their fields and countries. This showed that PDIA extends to all sectors, geographies. PDIA enables practitioners to think more as a strategic leader in the general public sector space, rather than a specific policy. And we all know that problems evolve over time, and require adaptation. This is the core principle of PDIA, and makes it suitable for any issue or policy area where the underlying factors or drivers have different dynamics at different stages of implementation.
Finally, implementing public policy or regulation could be challenging where there is less precedence but high impact. The best attitude is to keep an open mind and a steady will. Change does not mean loss or failure, it is adaptation, and it is necessary in a rapidly evolving policy space.
The biggest asset was the friendship and bonding with all my peers, building and sharing some memorable moments. I am very grateful to the faculty and the program staff for bringing such an exceptionally organised course to us. Thanks Matt, Salimah, Jessie, Santiago, Ricardo, Alison, and Catalina.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy, position, or views of the Australian Energy Regulator. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the author. The Australian Energy Regulator accepts no liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this article.
This is a blog series written by the alumni of the Implementing Public Policy Executive Education Program at the Harvard Kennedy School. 36 Participants successfully completed this 5-month hybrid program in September 2025. These are their learning journey stories.