So why then, with the desired result in front of them and knowing the problem they want remedied, do policymakers get the gap in between - the set of actions that need to be executed - so wrong.
The recent mess when changes were made to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act is a good example.
I was pleased when the Government announced changes would be made to the Act.
It knew for a long time that poor, often desperate families were getting into deep debt caused by the unscrupulous behaviour of loan sharks.
Horror stories abound of families needing loans, often relatively small ones, having no other option than to seek the services of dodgy money lenders.
The interest rates charged were crippling, and with interest amounts being added to the loan balance every day, families got locked into a vicious debt cycle they couldn't hope to get themselves out of.
In less than four months after the changes were introduced, we now hear stories of personal loans and mortgage applications being unreasonably turned down.
Lending appears to be drying up compared to recent years. People well capable of servicing loan repayments are being refused and for the feeblest of reasons.
How did that happen? It seems lenders must now pore over bank statements to discover exactly what we do with our money.
Even what we eat and drink is causing alarm. I believe this degree of due diligence is unreasonable prying into personal spending habits and I don't think that was ever the intention of changes to the Act.
I can't help wondering if civil servants weren't pushed out of the way on this one and some lucky consultant, one of the myriad the Government has hired, got the job to fix the problem.
The changes missed their mark. I don't see the usual high standard of civil service workmanship in this piece of work but note the Government is now making changes to address concerns raised.
The New Zealand civil service has recognised that New Zealand society has undergone significant change in recent years.
They work hard, striving to address multiple specific problems that need resolving.
Career bureaucrats are appointed to their positions on merit, free from political interference.
They are well versed in the rules and regulations that guide their performance and work expectations.
Whether it was lack of wider consultation and collaboration with banks and money lenders, who knows?
But effort should have been made to ensure their knowledge and experience was heard early on when drafting the changes.
I don't believe for one moment their thinking was to create fairer lending opportunities for one group of consumers at the expense of decreasing loans and mortgages to another group - those financially stable with the ability to service their commitments.
The changes in the areas of certification, due diligence, disclosure, responsible lending and advertising, and fees were to specifically raise the standard of lenders and to better protect all consumers from harmful lending practices.
In the past, in developing a Bill to make changes to an Act, that bit in between - the strategies to address the gaps - would have had input, and the combined knowledge and experience, from senior staff from other government agencies.
In this case obviously, the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment but also other ministries would have contributed too. I would have expected they included Pacific Affairs, Māori Affairs, Internal Affairs, Work and Income - and I would have included Health as well.
They would know at a glance when finally served up whether or not the amendments would deliver what was intended.
The bit in between is never easy. The civil service knows this.
Special advisers, consultants and externals are here today, gone tomorrow.
They don't have to wear the fallout that comes from work produced that dents the reputation of a Ministry or the State Services.
This has been the case with the recent changes to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act.
