Why this practice exists

I've spent twenty-five years working with Canadian institutions. Public healthcare, public services, transit and postal systems, utilities, performing arts organizations. Different sectors, different mandates, different scales. The common thread is that they all serve multiple objectives, often in tension, with resources that are stretched. The work of prioritizing what to do, what to invest in, and what to defer is harder than it should be, in part because the tools for thinking it through were built for narrower situations than these institutions face.

This practice is where I work through the project that gives it its name. I believe the tools and approaches I am building contribute to strengthening institutions I care about: healthcare, public services, the arts, the systems that hold them together. The Public Goods is the place I explore what strengthening these institutions actually requires. What works, what doesn't, what I'm learning in active engagements, what I'm learning from other people doing related work.

Most of the tools institutional leaders have for measuring what they produce are partial. They count one ledger at a time. They were built for settings where one set of metrics was the right set, and they get applied in settings where the right set is multiple, includes incommensurable goods, and lives outside any one ledger. The result is decisions defensible on the metrics they use, with everything outside those metrics held outside the decision. That is part of what strengthening these institutions requires: better tools for thinking through trade-offs that real institutions actually face.

The work concentrates in three domains: healthcare, including northern and Indigenous health systems where the conventional capacity math produces wrong answers; the arts and performing arts, where brand value and audience economics determine whether institutions survive; and public services, where the gap between mandate and delivery is often an experience and capacity problem before it is a funding problem. Reconciliation runs through all three.

Three frameworks

Much of the work draws on three frameworks built through practice. Experience Economics, Capacity Economics, and Branded Economics each ask a different question of the same institution, and read together they produce a more complete picture than any one of them alone.

Framework

Experience Economics

What an organization produces for the people it serves, what the gaps between intention and delivery cost, and where the highest-return actions sit.

Learn more →

Framework

Capacity Economics

What an institution can do with what it has, what trade-offs it makes across populations and over time, and what evidence advocates need to make a structural case for doing things differently.

Learn more →

Framework

Branded Economics

How an organization can predict the value of brand as an amplifier of its objectives, so investments in brand can be defended on the same terms as investments in capacity or operations.

Learn more →