‘You like music, why don’t you try this’ and I thought it would be awesome!

Slide20Sometimes a destination is never a place but a new way of looking at things.

Ok. So I’ve paraphrased Henry Miller. But its true isn’t it?

This week two things have come together. A session organised by Goodmoney on Community Organising (the link is a helpful resource on some digital tools) and our evaluation report on Gig Buddies. A project that enables people, with and without learning difficulties, to build a relationship based on a shared enjoyment of music.

Both initiatives use the power of shared interest as a positive driver for change. They identify communities of interest and then act as a catalyst or support to make stuff happen. Good stuff. They both move from what can we do to people, to what can we do together? It’s that approach that provides a new way of looking at things.

I’ve been lucky enough to be involved in the Stay Up Late campaign and Gig Buddies since its inception. It’s a testament to the power of communities of interest and, although we didn’t know it then, it uses Community Connecting to marry people’s skills, talents and aspirations to opportunities in their communities. The emphasis of connecting is less on supporting people to be ‘in the community’ or to do activities, and more about them building relationships based on reciprocity – shared interest. It works. Really well. So well in fact that, like all good ideas, it leapt to the other side of the world and Gig Buddies Sydney was set up in February.

If you want read the Gig Buddies evaluation report its here – do read it, think about the power of shared interest and then, maybe, reflect on the things you want to change in your community. Its more than possible –  find people with a shared interest and you have the best chance of making it happen.


‘Look mate you can like me on Facebook – what more do you want?’

Wickenden Butchers

It’s a good point and one that lots of businesses are going to ask as super-fast broadband rolls out thanks to local councils and BDUK. Everyone wants better connectivity, or for some, connectivity full-stop. What if you are a small or medium-sized business? Will you watch more YouTube? Send faster email? Allow people to order on-line? When everyone has it, where is the competitive advantage? It just becomes a hygiene factor – it’ll be a competitive disadvantage if you don’t have it. Perhaps.

I’ve had lots of discussions this week about small businesses and the digital world. The first was about better connectivity and what it might mean for SMEs. The second was about how some SMEs, particularly in retail, can compete with Supermarkets. The third was why did I care?

So, what if you aren’t a digital business (whatever that means)? What if you don’t build websites or aren’t a social media agency. What if you haven’t got a huge warehouse, trading website, and complex tax arrangements covering most of the world? While connectivity will undoubtedly help your access to markets, effectively reducing that cost to zero, it wont necessarily mean more business. If everyone can get their shopping on-line, all of it, would I get one type of produce from elsewhere? I might – if its special enough. Would it be enough for me to attract more customers, diversify, or sustain what I already have? Would it help me regain something from the supermarkets?

Years ago I worked in retail. It was a friend’s shop who now has very sensibly moved to renting cycles in Cornwall. The thing I always remember was how we saw the same faces. Some week in week out. Others when they returned from working or studying away. Others because they’d been recommended the shop. We didn’t have the internet. We had a phone. We did however have great relationships with our customers. We were social. It was fun. Customers came back.

So how might his apply in a connected world? Lets say you are a butcher. Why do you want access to markets in Dubai? You sell sausages and cuts of meat. It’s just not economic. But what it might help you do is strengthen the relationship with your customers. Become more of a socialised business – not only off-line but on-line. Effectively build a community of interest, or place, around what you do and sell. You could get some brand champions – they could influence their friends to buy from you. You might find people don’t just want to buy your produce, but your expertise as well.

You could ask customers for recipes and, if enough ‘liked’ it, offer the cuts at a discount. You could incentivise that behaviour and have a more reliable link between supply and demand – negotiating better discounts with your suppliers. You could encourage your customers to share those incentives and offers. Most have no idea what happens in a butcher’s behind the counter where stuff gets chopped up. Some don’t know how to cook or cut certain types of meat – perhaps they’d value learning? What if you posted some short videos about how to prep some common cuts of meat? Would your customers then have more interest, connection, with what you do?

None of this is radical or new. But if you haven’t been involved in the social web then these things might not come to mind and for those local businesses struggling in the current economic climate it could make a difference to cash flow when that is what strangles retail.

Why do I care? Because.

People care – don’t they?

participationPeople don’t care. They are too selfish, stupid and lazy to try to make a difference in their community.

You might be forgiven for thinking that although local political decisions hit us where we live, impact our lives on a daily basis, we really don’t care. Recent elections in the County I work in had an average turnout of 33%. In 2009 it was around 45%.

There is just apathy and uninterest.

Or is there?

How we involve people in decisions about shaping public services is one of the main barriers. People do care – but we live in a world that actively discourages engagement – that puts barriers in the way, forgets that people have views, even before we solicit them. There are two issues I’d like to explore here. Firstly, we (I’m a public servant) use language that might be technically and legally right but often doesn’t explain what is proposed so its easy to have a view. We don’t always communicate, engage, and consult in a way that lets people know what those personal stories are – what it actually means for people’s daily lives. Secondly, even when we do we often hold the arguments and discussion close to our own chests – rather than let others have them openly while we listen and contribute in their space.

If we really wanted interest and engagement or to communicate with people – then we’d do it differently wouldn’t we? We would use different language. When a large company wants to interest people in their product – to go to a shop or on the internet – what do they do? They don’t this…..

Notice of Retail Opportunity

Our South East Regional distribution centre has received notice that product 3432F (Recreational Running Shoe) will be available for retail purchase at specified locations from June 3rd 2013, providing sufficient stock ordering. Product 3432F has a mesh and synthetic nylon material shell with a polyurethane outer sole with a waffle tread for traction on tarmac surfaces. This product is available in men’s and women’s specific styles. A spokesperson said:

‘These are very good running shoes.’

Now are you interested?

Most organisations who want to reach their audience think about how best to do it. They work on where to find them, what words their audience is using, how to hook them to find out more or encourage them to act.

I can’t think of anything government does, locally or nationally, that doesn’t affect someones life. For example, last year I was looking at some work to improve traffic flow. We consulted on the technical drawings – what could and couldn’t be done – as we always have. The big gap though was why we were doing it – what it might mean for people stuck in busses, or trying to get to the hospital, or trying to get to college? There are personal stories behind traffic flow but the way we consult doesn’t often get those real stories out or support people in telling them. NESTA recently published a paper on futurology, and perhaps unsurprisingly they found stories play a key part in understanding what the future might be like. It’s these same stories that will help people understand what problems are trying to be solved and how it might affect them.

When dealing with deeply uncertain and emotional futures, stories say more than surveys.

Making these stories more transparent and available will help more people get involved and understand what proposals might mean for them. Stories, often personal, are a way in to helping people make decisions. It’s where in really effective community involvement people share their experiences, their aspirations, and get involved. Personally I’m less interested in technical drawings and more interested in whether Jane, a small business owner, thinks it might help her team get to work more easily and cheaply. That might help me decide. I want to see these debates in the open. I’m happy to send in my views – but I’m really interested in what others are saying  and I want to know now – not when someone decides to summarise it. I might even want to discuss it the views and develop my own.  While I understand the consulter will want to collate consultees views and let me know how representative mine are – I’d also like to understand the debate.

The challenge will be ensuring we use the language of those communities, those audiences – otherwise we’ll just be left with a host of creative ideas and no innovation. It wont necessarily mean apathy and disinterest, it will mean an increasing disconnect between government, at all levels, and us – the public.

Some ideas and innovations

As people become more digitally aware and connected the opportunity to widen participation, to merge online and offline networks will increase. Opportunities to share stories and therefore encourage participation will undoubtedly be there. A range of work is now coming to the fore that begins to shape these opportunities. I’d love to hear your examples – here are some I’m looking at now.

Wrangl is an example of how open argument might look.

Share a Smile Sussex is a developing example of curated content about MMR to establish online and offline communities.

Missing the point: The Guardian – ‘Councils embrace social media’

I recently read this Guardian article about a survey into Councils’ use of social media. As seems common these days it gets around to questioning the return on investment of social media activity. It approaches social media from the angle of customer contact. It identifies that the financial benefits are hard to justify.

It’s not necessarily wrong – but it really misses an important point.

What it fails to recognise is that social media is not just a channel, it’s also a means of identifying, building and involving communities.  These communities are the lifeblood of local democracy, they always have been. Social media is another route to join them. It helps to get access to some of that messy and essential space where conversation happens, where understanding is sought, and given. It’s also the route where local government can work alongside communities. It could be information, skills, knowledge, it could be sharing views and opinions.

The work on the Networked Councillor and Made in Lambeth are good examples of where online and offline worlds are combined to create more value than they could alone. Social media complements and builds on the physical networks that have always existed making them increasingly transparent and accessible.

That’s a huge return on investment.

Will greater transparency lead to, errrrr, greater transparency?

Simon's Blog

Dick Cheney has yet another memorable quotation – no, not that one – this one:

‘I learned early on that if you don’t want your memos to get you in trouble someday, just don’t write any.’

The Government is keen on transparency – especially if it’s about what money is spent on or how much public servants are paid. Increasingly data is being published on-line in usable formats, Council meetings are on YouTube, and politicians blog and tweet. Transparency has certainly had some impact but will it lead us to a greater understanding of why decisions are made or enable us to hold decision makers to account?

While I hope that transparency will increase accountability I have a nagging, and growing, doubt. Those invoices over £500 that are being published, let’s be honest, it’s difficult to know if the expenditure represents value for money without understanding more of its context…

View original post 517 more words

Innovation – problem, idea, prototype, iterate.

ImageEveryone is talking about it. Businesses need it. The public sector needs it. Google has a lot of it. People are blogging about it (the irony isn’t lost on me here). It’s really big and disruptive, it’s iterative and small. Only some people can do it, while everyone can contribute to it. We all need more of it.


Over the past year I’ve studied innovation, read about how social enterprise/high-tech business/Apple/Samsung/GDS all bring innovation, been told to be more innovative, and written about innovation. It’s a huge subject, a lot of money is thrown at it, and it risks becoming perceived as the domain of the few.

Over the past weeks I’ve read a few things and had a few exchanges on Twitter that, for me, capture the essence of innovation. It’s not to say this is everything, but just that at its heart, innovation can be brought down to a few simple things and supported by a very simple process.

But what is innovation?

Its applied creativity. Its more than just an idea – an idea without implementation is just that – an idea. It usually comes from an idea that stems from a problem or a belief there is just a better way of doing something.

So where do these ideas come from – its hard to start innovating unless you have them?

In May the Guardian published an article by Rachel Burstein a research associate at the New America Foundation California Civic Innovation Project. She found that in local government strong personal networks help promote and develop ideas into innovations. This shouldn’t be a surprise to us. You only need to look at Silicon Valley. Yes there were skills, from Stanford Industrial Park, and yes there was money, from the defence industry. But critically there were social roots that fed the information technology revolution and allowed it to take hold. People knew each other, shared and pinched ideas.

So how do you apply those ideas and implement them?

After #ccbt @pdbrewer @reformattday @Heavy_Load @demsoc discussed how innovation is hard. Not the ideas part but the implementation bit. Recently Kirsty Elderton posted on the FutureGov blog her experience of working as a Prince2 practitioner and then also working with an Agile approach to developing a project. At its heart the development and implementation process can be simple. You have your idea, you kick it around with people, you prototype (and keep prototyping), then implement and continue to iterate. Makes sense doesn’t it?

But of it makes sense why can it be hard to do? As Kirsty says, there are ‘tensions’ especially in a world where often your commodity at work has been your professional background. The challenge is often that we have a lot invested in how we’ve always done things – some call it path dependency and I’ve posted about this before.

What’s changing, and arguably has been for some time, is that in a highly connected world needing new approaches to old problems, it’s not your professional background that matters – it’s knowledge and how this connects with others’ knowledge and creativity to promote and share ideas. That’s not scary – it’s common sense – and that’s innovation.

Market churn, innovation, and the experience curve


There are a lot of articles about savings in local government about how much has been delivered and just how much more can be done? Has local government really been innovative in redesigning services or is local government reflecting its journey along the experience curve and there just isn’t much more room to save more.

The other common topic today, economic development, might hold some clues. National and Local Government often measure the success of their economic development strategies on the numbers of startups that are created. If we build a new business park they will come. If we fund startups more employment will result. This will be good, this means more confidence in the economy. The presumption is that more startups means more entrepreneurs seeing opportunity, which means more jobs, which means the economy is growing. Or does it?

Research suggests that his approach mainly produces market churn and it is only a small number of businesses that create most of the jobs. New companies set up and create jobs and these displace jobs in other companies who are less competitive. Churn is a mechanism by which labour markets reallocate workers towards more efficient ends. In this way, the churning of the labour market contributes to growth in the potential output of the economy. Or at least it would if those businesses were in a growing market. It doesn’t mean there a more jobs, or even that disruptive innovation is happening and new models of business or services are being found. When the market is maturing, or even reducing, businesses learn to do things more efficiently. That generally begins with making successively larger improvements and then successively smaller ones.

The exception to market churn, those businesses that create more net jobs, are those that are innovative and disrupt exising markets. They do something radically new that is significantly more efficient and/or meets the market’s needs more effectively, or even creates a new market. Interestingly evidence suggests these businesses are also more resilient though a downturn.

But how does this apply to local government and the impact of austerity? Have we seen a similar journey in how local government has delivered savings. A lot initially and then they get harder to find. The experience curve begins to flatten. What we may be seeing isn’t the creation of anything really different, we are just seeing market churn that pushes public services along the experience curve. Its just getting cheaper to do what has always been done. Costs are going down, salaries below inflation, jobs are being deskilled though the introduction of technology and changing practice, systems and processes are getting leaner. Simply, people doing fairly similar things for less and probably for a different employer. Will this improve services? If improvement means cheaper then probably not. If it means reducing demands, finding better ways of doing things then maybe, but its not looking promising.

This isn’t to lay the blame on anyone. NESTA, in their study on innovation in Whitehall found, for many valid reasons, public services have typically not been subject to the same kind of creative destruction seen in some private markets. The risks are high, decommissioning services isn’t cheap, writing off sunk costs is hard politically, and considerable social harm would result from the breakdown of the public services. Service closures could push demand elsewhere, undermining the actual efficiency and legitimacy of any cuts.

A lot is stacked against radical innovation, and so transformation, in public services. Is it just too much?

How hard is it to do something differently?

This week I went to Brighton CityCamp #ccbtn to hear about the progress the winning entries have made. I was also there to get valuable help and advice on how we can develop Gig Buddies so it becomes the obvious thing to do.

We got talking about how things change in organisations or, more accurately, why they don’t. And often, despite what people think are the levers for change being pulled, still nothing happens. Sometimes they just don’t appear to connect to anything despite what even those pulling them think. All this often when the reasons to change and do differently feel overwhelming. It feels like inertia, even obstructiveness, or that we’ve failed to convince people of the case for change and our ability to deliver it.

Today, as is often the case, serendipity stepped in, and I had a conversation with Dr Josh Siepel about Path Dependence and imprinting effects.  I wont cover the latter (yet) but the former explains how a set of decisions faced for any given circumstance is limited by the decisions made in the past, even though past circumstances may no longer be relevant. Often its applied to a phenomenon where an economic outcome is the result of a historical path or series of accidents rather than current market conditions. It helps explain VHS verses Betamax, the Qwerty verses the Dvorak keyboard, and Britain’s small coal wagons.  It helped me to understand why doing something very differently, despite the obvious benefits, can be hard for organisations to do. It explains why we can all be uncomfortable with even doing, what others may perceive as, small things differently.

On a basic level its why I still have discussions about why putting a link on the Home Page of a website today doesn’t really mean more people will see it as it would in the past. Despite the evidence (thanks Google Analytics) they will still argue it needs to happen. The circumstances of the web and therefore SEO tactics have changed. Things that worked brilliantly years or even months ago don’t work as well now. Search engines know how to weed out the obvious SEO tactics to get at the meat of a site’s content. Because of this, old SEO tactics are becoming less and less effective. But nonetheless that link needs to be on the Home Page because that’s what we used to do.

But knowing this – how does it help? A strategy is to find new combinations of existing ideas and work through how to present them as solutions – all the time resisting the temptation to revert back to a previous behaviour or solution because of the security and relative surety that offers. This may feel safer for those who have investment in how things have been done and see a very different way of doing things as just a step too far. Its an incremental strategy. However, the risk is also that an incremental approach takes too long to get to the rewards. What is true, whatever strategy is taken, is that finding new ideas requires a range of voices to exist, a pluralism that can be absent when the risk of doing something differently feels so alien and threatening. Pluralism comes with the potential benefit of making organisations, markets, and sectors more secure and innovative, more able to find an appropriate answer to changing demands (that begs the question – does this exist sufficiently in the public sector, or really are we just seeing market churn?).

This is the sort of pluralism that City Camp brings by putting together, businesses, community organisations and academia to reimagine the ways in which collaboration and web technologies will shape the future. Its the sort of pluralism that helps to do things differently.

The Value of Social Networks – they are very helpful aren’t they.

There are a few things I’m working on at the moment. They are erm, interesting and challenging.

The value of the social networks I’m involved in is coming to the fore. The range of knowledge, expertise and experience is remarkable. But the real quality of those people is their willingness to share their knowledge – actively. But it doesn’t stop there. I’ve been looking for opportunities for people across my organisation to gain different skills and perspectives – and share their own but in a different context. It’s partly to build interest and motivation – but also so that those staff can improve what we do, and look outward more to benefit the communities and people we work with. So it’s not just about connecting virtually – it’s about just talking, shadowing opportunities, placements, mentoring – all stuff that takes time and investment. Those networks? The people in them? Still up for it. These are people across business, the public and voluntary sectors – who see sharing knowledge and experience as a mutual benefit.

I’ve a draft post I’ve been working on – I left it for a while and now I’m going to finish it – it looks at trying to shift organisational culture to a more networked one – where we have a better chance of connecting what we do, the people doing it and the communities we work alongside. Why? Lots of reasons and because isn’t it better to use all the skills and knowledge at hand? Isn’t that just a better place to work?

So if you are reading this and are helping – thanks it’s much appreciated – a lot more than I’ve probably let you know.

A word I hear a lot at the moment


Its often used by Senior Managers in times of change – or more accurately when jobs are being lost. ‘How can we help our workforce cope with the impact of all this? Lets help them be more resilient.’ It’s easy to dismiss this as just something to settle the conscience of senior managers – ‘lets give people a bat so they have a chance of hitting the stuff we throw at them.’ So you run a resilience workshop – that’ll do the trick, or you give people ‘Who moved my cheese?’ – ‘That will help people cope with the change. But it won’t work – not as much as it could anyway.

If resilience is the ability to adapt well in the face of adversity, threats, and from sources of stress such as work pressures, health, family or relationship problems, then a resilient person is not only able to handle the crisis more effectively, but they are also able to recover and get back on their feet more quickly.  It’s at times of significant change when any organisation needs resilient people to contribute and shape those changes. Lovely words, but lets be honest – it’s just not how people feel at those times. If your job is on the line then you feel ‘done to’ – you certainly don’t feel empowered to challenge and shape. So how can organisations or managers pull off this trick? Clearly many don’t. Some are either so set on the change, or nervous of showing perceived weakness, that they drive through changes at all costs. Others pull back and get into trouble delivering nothing and ultimately putting that service or organisation at risk. They are not resilient.

Obviously, it would be great to ‘not start here’ – ideally we want organisations and therefore people to develop and innovate – to keep relevant to what needs to be done and then big structural changes wouldn’t necessarily be needed. But sometimes things come at you that you just have to respond to and they are not incremental. If you have to take 25% out of a budget and it pays for people, how do you work with those people so that the remaining 75% can still deliver what’s needed – or ideally lead on what might be needed? How much better for those who remain to be a team proposing the next change or development rather than waiting for it. You probably can’t convince everyone this is a more positive way to go. But you can increase your chances the more resilient people you have – but critically that includes those who are ultimately accountable for the changes.

To gain organisational resilience you need the capability to respond rapidly to change. It is the ability to bounce back — and, in fact, to bounce forward — with speed, grace, determination and precision. It’s no different from personal resilience. It’s why managers have to encourage and support resilience in their teams. To actively ensure they encourage challenge, listen to it, and act on it especially in times of change. Not to shut it down. Some preferred options will change – suggestions will be taken adopted . Some things won’t change. Deftly managing this is hard and obviously not everyone will recognise it might help in the long run. To come through the other side with some people more resilient than before will help the organisation and those people significantly in the long run.

It would be great if those people were managers too.