Atul Gawande in “Better” mentions the APGAR test, which is performed on newborn babies.
It has helped save the lives of many.
I realised that I use a checklist that is, for all intents and purposes, similar.
Over the years, I’ve used it with NGOs and Industry to help bring files back from the political dead.
This is my APGAR test for Ordinary Legislation.
|
APPEARANCE
|
PULSE
|
GRIMACE – LOOK
|
ACTIVITY
|
BREATHING
|
|
Turned up to IA,PC, Targeted Consultations. 2
|
Respected & Trusted by Key Players in EU & National Capitals – known on the issue . 2
|
Speaks to the New Agenda; Zeitgeist aligns with interest. 2
|
Active in the technical, scientific, and policy circles – you frame the debate .2
|
Seen as the go-to expert. Called in for advice by all sides. Bring solutions to the table. 2
|
|
Have an internal position & evidence . 1.
|
Known by a few as credible. 2
|
You can only frame your issue with policy priorities when poked/asked for. 1
|
Do a drinks reception & TikTok Policy ad.. 1
|
Irregular activity turns up when targeted. 1
|
|
No evidence, data, credible written case 0
|
Not trusted, vilified, and no visibility in EU 27. 0
|
You offer no response to the new Political Priorities; reject them .0
|
You think influence is through telepathy sessions at internal meetings/seances 0
|
No activity in Brussels or National Capitals . 0
The AFD backs me, I will win -1
|
This is taken from my basic checklist.
- 1. Is there a plan – is it written down?
-
Is there credible evidence that has been shared with the key decision makers?
-
Is this issue new, out of the blue, or lingering around for a decade or so?
-
For the identified issue, are they offering a politically viable solution?
-
Have they turned up to the inception impact assessment, public consultation, and targeted consultations?
-
Do they know the key decision makers on the file: Task Force, ISSG, Cabinets, Key Group Advisers, MEPs, Member State experts, key people back in the national capitals (beyond their own nationality).
-
Are they trusted, liked and respected by the vast majority of the key decision makers or vilified
-
Is what they want clear for the intended audience – decision makers
-
Is what they want aligned with legally feasible
-
Is what they want politically feasible
-
Do they have cross-party, cross-country support for their position
-
Do they have the capacity, people and resources to get over the winning line
-
Have they woken up too late in the day to make a difference
-
Do their asks speak to the New Agenda
-
Is the policy/political Zeitgeist in their favour or against
I have similar checklists for many of the other procedures I focus on (CLP, REACH Restrictions,etc.).
I have worked with clients – both industry and NGOs – who would have scored an APGAR score of 10. After sitting down with them and assessing their situation, I said, ‘You are fine, and you are going to get most of what you want.’ They still wanted to work together.
I’ve worked on files that looked DOA. After some invasive treatment, they were brought back from the brink and got a good outcome. Strangely, they never realised how bad things were.
Some files can’t be saved. They are rare. It is often something I see after another practitioner’s misdiagnosis and botched procedures. They’ve said that the light at the end of the tunnel was salvation, but they did not clarify why that salvation was in the afterlife.