What Pete Buttigieg Has to Say About Data-Driven Decision Making

This article was first published on Medium.

Pete Buttigieg, former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, gained US-wide popularity when running as a presidential candidate for the 2020 election.

He was able to secure robust fund-raising and achieved surprisingly good results in the states of Iowa and New Hampshire. After not being able to hold up his momentum, he dropped out of the Democratic race. Still, I was intrigued after first hearing about his story.

Being born in the Rust Belt, he earned degrees from Harvard and Oxford, worked as a consultant for McKinsey, served in the Afghanistan War, and became mayor of South Bend at the age of 29. Although facing controversies during his two terms as a mayor, he has convinced residents and stakeholders that his hometown is more than just a former manufacturing location.

I picked up his book Shortest Way Home and was surprised to find out that he is a firm believer in data-driven decision making. Instead of making decisions based on gut-feeling, he argues that analytical analysis helps the city become more efficient and fact-driven.

Coming from consulting, he first assumed that more data and analytics would always be beneficial for his administration. But soon, he realized that many resources could be wasted due to data generated either not being used or only giving information that is already known.

He had to make sure that data was not only generated but that it also served a purpose.

Pete Buttigieg has come up with six crucial learnings from his terms as a mayor that I want to share with you.

1. There is a difference between reporting and solving an issue.

Sometimes reporting and solving an issue can go hand in hand.

For example, Pete Buttigieg’s administration installed ShotSpotter technology that uses microphones to spot gunshots in the whole city. On the one hand, the administration got reliable data on where shots were fired. This was essential because some neighborhoods did not call the police when gunshots were fired. On the other hand, police officers could get much faster to cases of gun violence.

But often, knowing more about the problem does not help in solving it.

For instance, the former mayor attended a conference in which a startup introduced a product that could automatically detect opioids’ patterns in sewage. The administration was well aware of the problem of opioid usage in South Bend but lacked funds to take care of the mental health and addiction resources. In acquiring the opioid detecting product, the administration would have gathered more data on this problem. But it would also have taken away valuable resources from initiatives solving this issue.

Therefore, he argues in his book that when one is already aware of a problem and has the means to fix it, one should focus on resolving the issue. This does not mean that reporting an issue is unnecessary, but it is also not sufficient to solve the problem.

2. There is a difference between responsiveness and efficiency.

During Pete Buttigieg’s term as a mayor, he had to decide various times between being responsive or efficient.

In the case of snowplowing, he could have decided that the snowplowing crews had always been driven to the streets first for whom residents called in. This would have made these streets residents indeed very happy, but this had not been an efficient approach.

Why? Because these crews would zigzag through the city. By using a zone-based approach, snowplow crews can take care of all streets much faster. But this means that not every impassable road is directly taken care of.

At other times, Pete Buttigieg argues that being responsive is the most efficient thing. For instance, graffiti should be taken care of as soon as it is reported because other people could be motivated to imitate or surpass this graffiti. Also, if it is directly taken care of, graffiti sprayers are discouraged from defacing public property.

3. Be honest whether you are willing to follow the data where it leads.

For this learning, the former mayor had to decide on how he could keep waste bill rates under control.

He asked one of his public work directors for help. He got presented various ideas: selling ad space on trash bins, charging customers based on the amount of waste, or introducing automated trash trucks that use a robotic arm.

The automated trash trucks were the best solution, partly eliminating human garbage collectors and reducing injury rates. The data was clear that this new technology would lead to lower waste bill rates.

This is a tough decision. Replacing humans with machines often means that some people will lose their jobs.

He decided to go forward with this proposal, and half of the workers laid off were able to switch jobs to other employments offered by the city.

At other times, Pete Buttigieg was not ready to follow the data.

Offices, where people can go to pay their water bills, seem to be of another time. People can pay online, by phone or email. So why is it still necessary to have this costly infrastructure? Because especially residents with low income do not have bank accounts. They need a place where they can pay in cash even if it is costly for the city.

Sure, one could follow the data on this case, but this would mean severe harm to these low-income residents. So are you really willing to follow the data where it leads?

4. Data can show you answers to questions you never even asked.

Sometimes, searching for an answer can lead to an answer to another question.

Remember the example with the gunshot technology? Gathering this data and getting faster help for gunshot cases helped in answering another crucial question. To which extent do neighborhoods trust the police? The fewer neighbors called (if any), the lower would be the perceived police legitimacy.

Also, this enabled officers to show up even if nobody bothered to call. Neighbors were expecting that the police would not care about gunshots in their area. By coming to these neighborhoods, the police were able to increase trust.

Therefore, it can be helpful to ask yourself the question: “Is there another issue that I can solve with the data?”

5. Confusion between technical and moral questions.

Answering technical questions seem so easy because often they are right or wrong questions. But when it comes to moral issues, it is often impossible to make someone better off without making another one worse off.

For example, the city decided to get these new automatic trash trucks. Although this decreased waste bills rates, it led to layoffs. Instead of keeping the trash bins in the alleys, residents were now pressured to haul their trash bins to the front curb. Of course, the workers and residents were not happy with this change.

What Pete Buttigieg stated for this decision is that there was no mathematical formula to solve this trade-off. Therefore, they had to make the decision and explain to those affected why they took this decision.

6. Exceptions are important.

Data-driven decision making is centered around rules. And if a rule is not sufficient, a sub-rule can be implemented. But sometimes that is not enough. Instead of following the rules, a better direction is to make an exception even though one cannot explain or defend this exception.

So, for example, an older man called the city to ask for help with a dead raccoon. Following the rule book would have had a clear answer: The city has no obligation to help the man because the raccoon is on the man’s private yard.

But obviously, the man was calling because he could not help himself. Instead of following the rule book, a council member drove to the man’s house, dragged the raccoon onto the street, and made sure that the case was handled.

Conclusion

Ultimately, Pete Buttigieg is a believer in data-driven decision making. He believes that it can enable people to make smarter and fairer decisions. And yet he is well aware that data has limitations and that not every problem can be solved by it. Also, he is determined that there are decisions in which one must follow his or her intuitions.

I enjoyed reading his book for several reasons. Although I was excited about his chapter on data-driven decisions (Chapter 11-Subconscious Operations), I also learned much more about American politics and the Rust Belt’s struggles.

If you have any questions or comments, feel free to reach me via the contact field or LinkedIn.

Stay tuned, and see you in the next post!

References

[1] Pete Buttigieg (2019), Shortest Way Home: One Mayor’s Challenge and a Model for America’s Future, Liveright, pp. 388–418.