Thursday, July 20, 2017
Case Study: Exploratory research project on the 1290 expulsion of the Jews from England for the Migration Museum Project
The Migration Museum Project (MMP) are planning a new London-based exhibition in September 2017 called “No Turning Back.” The UK charity, which aims to create a museum on migration for Britain, is working with volunteer researchers on six different moments of significance in Britain’s migration past and present to build their knowledge of these moments and develop a public exhibit that is accessible to all ages and a range of audiences.
OPM Group’s Corporate Responsibility Working Group (CRWG) volunteered to contribute to this exploratory research with the MMP. Research on one moment, “The 1290 Expulsion of the Jews from England” began in March 2017 and was completed in June 2017.
OPM Group provided a team of eight volunteer researchers to gather data and manage the collection of facts, images and stories relating to one of six moments the MMP will feature in “No Turning Back”. For the research, we also identified key artists and experts for the MMP to gain additional insight and resources. Volunteer researchers used Google searching and contacts established through the MMP to develop an initial scoping of extant information on the moment.
We then wrote an interim report for the MMP and received guidance on areas for further exploration from the its research and curatorial leads. Volunteer researchers completed additional research on the moment and a final report was submitted to the MMP in June 2017.
Our detailed and accessible report has allowed the MMProject to incorporate an exhibit on the 1290 expulsion of the Jews because of the information we collected. The MMP is pleased with the result of this voluntary work:
“Thank you so much for all your hard work on our account and for your beautifully presented and detailed document. It has helped us a great deal, saved us a huge amount of time and we would never have managed this without you. I hope we can do you justice in the final exhibition.” – Museum Curator.
Monday, June 12, 2017
Smart Cities Need Smart Consultations
Future Glasgow. Smart City Bristol. Digital Birmingham. Pilot smart city projects are growing exponentially across the UK – and we’re barely keeping pace with the rest of the world (In 2014 India announced a plan to build 100 smart cities). However, while big data and small technology is enabling us to design our infrastructure to be more efficient, responsive, and environmentally friendly, it’s unclear as to whether we’re able to envision the social impact of these changes.
In many cases, Smart City planning is informed by the latest methodology in service design. Traditional methods of “let’s plan it and then ask what people think” have been replaced by human-centred design methodology and co-creation approaches. End-users are involved throughout the process. Nesta’s “Rethinking Smart Cities from the Ground Up” emphasises the need for collaborative technology and a focus on human behaviour. owever, these
In this sense, Smart Cities should be more people-centred than any other kind of urban planning previously undertaken.
However, while citizens may be involved in the design of a project, that doesn’t mean that there is a common understanding – or even any understanding – of what some of the overall impacts of Smart Cities and SMACT (Social, Mobile, Analytics, Cloud, Internet of Things) technologies might be in terms of quality of life and citizen well-being.
Those implementing and affected by traditional infrastructure and public policy projects are well-versed in communicating the balance of impacts of a project and asking for public feedback. Changes to health services, noise impacts from new roads, or threats to ancient woodland – while they can be complex – are familiar topics for people to digest and offer opinions on. In many ways, the whole idea of Smart Cities is to make all of these things better. If technology is enabling everything to be quieter, cleaner, and safer then what could the negative impacts be?
Nobody really knows the answer to that question, but we can take some guesses at what important considerations could be:
- Increased automation results in a reduction in day-to-day personal contact and increased isolation and loneliness;
- An unrelenting need for personal data in the name of responsiveness and efficiency leaves individuals and communities vulnerable to an erosion of personal privacy and self-determination and raises problems for democracy as a whole;
- Increased reliance on OS systems makes cities more vulnerable to sharp shocks – whether through systems failure, crime, or terrorism; and
- A departure from the creative chaos and diversity of organic cities that gives a city personality and identity. In the words of Adam Greenfield, author of Against the Smart City ‘it erodes the development of savoir faire; it eliminates the risk, but also everything wonderful, that arises in the confrontation with difference.’
These potential impacts are relatively intangible, and difficult to imagine, but we need to make more of a concerted effort to start doing that. While there are some sophisticated solutions (such as creating an interactive AI simulations for people to experience), it’s unlikely that these are going to be within the budget of a local authority any time soon.
There is a challenge for organisations passionate about embedding local voice within policy decisions and infrastructure development to shape the future of Smart City consultations. How might we best help city-dwellers understand how their lives could change in the next 10 or 15 years and articulate their opinions on that? How might we design creative, open engagement and consultation solutions which enable frank discussions around possible impacts? And how can we ensure that these comments and opinions are fed into the Smart City movement to ensure that our future cities are fully human, and not just “smart”?
These are some of the questions we enjoy wrestling with at the OPM Group. Through our work with the FLOURISH project on autonomous vehicles, with the Arts Council England on Envisioning Libraries of the Future and in the health sector with simulation of future events we’ve become ever more interested in considering how to engage members of the public in possible futures. We believe that evolving Smart Cities is the next crucial area for effective engagement and consultation.
If you’re interested in joining these discussions – get in touch! Drop an email to Lucy Farrow firstname.lastname@example.org
Thursday, May 25, 2017
Why, in whole systems, is it so hard to move from papers to action?
This is a shorter version – full version of the above is available here: full version.
One of the strangest experiences in whole systems change in the public sector is observing how much energy is spent writing papers that are not acted upon, attending meetings that don’t make decisions, and holding workshops that lead to elaborate diagrams but no agreement to proceed.
Ron Heifetz coined the phrase ‘work avoidance’ to describe the way leaders are distracted from the difficult conversations that need to take place if we’re to achieve ambitious outcomes in tough times. Work avoidance is quite the opposite of laziness, indeed to avoid the real leadership work we often exhaust ourselves with back-to-back meetings, and slave over hundreds of pages of data and vast action plans.
Work avoidance, says Heifetz, can take a number of different forms:
- Defining the problem as technical and apply a technical fix.
- Turning down the heat – deny the problem exists
- Taking options off the table
- Shooting the messenger
- Delegating the work to people who can’t do anything about it
- Creating a ‘proxy fight’ to avoid grappling with the real issue
It can feel discomfiting to talk about deep feelings and intentions when we are used to an impassive managerial style in our meetings. It can seem like ‘not proper work’ to discuss fears and worries. A flurry of meetings gives a reassuring sense of activity, while difficult conversations can get stuck, or go backwards for a while. But real leadership takes time and self-conscious effort – it involves telephone calls, and meetings in coffee shops, reflection and self-examination, looking into our own hearts to find our values and priorities. It can seem destructive to challenge work avoidance activity, since people are clearly working very hard. Finding ways to do so without blaming individuals is an important part of leadership. But, just as an experiment, if you suspect your ‘system’ is locked into work avoidance, try some of the following:
- Agree the outcomes you care about, identify the real risks and talking honestly about difficulties.
- Commit your own heart and soul: ‘What I really care about is – and I will work hard to make this happen.’
- Instead of suggesting that consultants or more junior staff in ‘work-streams’ solve a problem – get the right people round the table and try to do it yourselves.
- Name the underlying problems – make sure all the elephants in the room are identified!
- Sit with discomfiting truths – and find ways to talk about them.
- Create alliances – a phone call before or after the meeting: ‘ I wondered why you weren’t there – thought I’d let you know what happened’ – or ‘ did you feel that we got anywhere – what can we do between us to help make more progress?’
- Speak up if the right work is not being done – “We need to stop and think about this or we will create something that can’t be implemented’.
- Design creative spaces where many brains can help solve a problem – including front line staff and service users.
This is an extract from a longer article that can be found on our website. For more information about OPM’s work on system leadership – contact Sue Goss, Principal in whole-system change and integration – email@example.com, 020 7239 7800
 See, for example, Ron Heifetz: Leadership Without Easy Answers, Harvard University Press, 1994
Friday, May 12, 2017
Bake My Day!
I recently discovered a new facilitation tool. Bread making. When in doubt, if you’ve got a tricky subject matter, or disparate group of people, bake a loaf.
As part of Marmalade 2017, Arts at the Old Fire Station, Camerados, and Mayday Trust hosted a workshop called Bread and Butter Services. This workshop intended to explore the value of relationships in addressing problems caused by isolation and loneliness. There were about 45 participants; a mixture of organisations providing services for homeless people, service commissioners, and people with lived experiences of homelessness and times of crisis.
You can watch a film about the whole day here.
OPM Group’s “Dialogue by Design” team supported the design of the event, and facilitated the day. Aside from the endless supply of fantastic(ally awful) puns that come with bread baking as a workshop activity, there are a host of reasons why it really works. Here are my top 5:
1) It gives people something to do other than talk to each other. This may seem an odd thing to say when often successful workshops are built on the quality of the conversations that take place. However, sitting across a table from someone else, aware that you need to reach some sort of outcome by a certain time of the day, can produce a very forced conversation. This is especially true when working with a group of people who may find it difficult to interact with each other. Giving people an activity to do together takes the pressure off and allows people to interact more naturally. The conversations that need to happen can still happen, but in a much more relaxed way.
2) It builds trust. Providing an activity that has nothing to do with the subject matter of the workshop encourages people to see each other as people – not as their job titles. Power dynamics and tensions in the room quickly diffuse as people come together over a simple, fun activity, in which everyone can easily participate. As a result, conversations become more human, more honest, and more productive.
3) It introduces a little chaos. Not everyone is comfortable with highly formal, organised processes. While other elements of the day were more standard design-workshop style activities, the bread-making ensured there was always an element of unpredictability running throughout. This was reassuring for those for whom a workshop or conference-style environment was new and intimidating, and conversely was stimulating for those who may have been dreading the standard flip-chart and post-it-note workshop routine.
4) It doesn’t take over the day. At first, I did think we may have bitten off more bap than we could chew by trying to get to the end of the day with solid workshop outputs AND edible bread products. However, bread baking can really be timed around the other activities, and actually doesn’t take too long. Our participants probably spent a total of an hour on bread-related activities, and the time that was spent doing that was invaluable in terms of ensuring points 1 and 2 above happened early on in the day.
5) You can eat the output of your workshop at the end. Once we had finished for the day we brought in the baked loaves, with some jam and cheese and drinks, and invited everyone to enjoy what they had made together. This provided not just a great metaphor for collaboration and building positive relationships, but also facilitated exactly that.
The event was well received by all participants. Seven subject-specific outcomes were developed during the day, as well as five key behaviours to embrace (for more information see the event report produced by the Arts at Old Fire Station and this blog post from Lankelly Chase)- so the bread was certainly not the only positive product of the event. For more information about Marmalade, please get in touch with Arts at the Old Fire Station – and check out the video wrap up for this year. For information about the process design for the workshop, (bread making and otherwise) contact firstname.lastname@example.org
Dialogue by Design
Monday, October 10, 2016
Care Quality Commission Annual Public Awareness and Sentiment Tracking Survey 2016
OPM Group was commissioned by Care Quality Commission (CQC) to carry out the latest iteration of its Annual Public Awareness and Sentiment Tracking Survey. This is a nationally representative online and telephone survey of 1,000 members of the public, designed to provide CQC with a clear understanding of how its brand, reputation and mission are perceived by the public.
What did we do
The survey questions, developed in discussion with the client, had dual purpose: some of them were repeats from previous years which allowed for data to be compared while others looked to obtain new information and insights.
Fieldwork was carried out in April 2016 and we conducted a mixture of telephone and online surveys. Participants’ data was purchased from an accredited consumer data supplier to parameters that enabled us to survey a representative sample of adults (18+) living in England.
For the telephone surveys, researchers were provided with a survey script, and data was collected using an online system, therefore providing time and cost efficiencies.
Our approach allowed us to complete the field work one week ahead of schedule.
We provided rigorous statistical analysis, allowing CQC to understand how their reputation is perceived by different demographic groups, those with different levels of experience in the healthcare systems and in different geographical regions.
The findings were summarised in a powerpoint report that was commended on its engaging and user-friendly presentation techniques.
Monday, October 10, 2016
Care Quality Commission Strategy consultation
Between 25 January and 14 March 2016 the Care Quality Commission (CQC) consulted on its proposed strategy for 2016-2021. The consultation document Shaping the future described CQC’s vision for regulation of the quality of health and adult social care services, and identified six themes that would be central to the delivery of the vision. The strategy proposals built on results from earlier engagement, which took place throughout 2015.
OPM Group was commissioned by CQC to advise on the design of the consultation, complete the analysis of all responses and produce an independent report for another round of consultation on a further draft of the 5 years strategy.
After discussion about their data requirements we also agreed to set up a Client Review site so they could interrogate the data first hand, this was particularly important as the strategy drafting timetable meant that the CQC Strategy team needed to start developing the next draft of the strategy alongside our analysis and reporting period.
What did we do
The consultation process included an online questionnaire as well as a series of consultation events hosted by CQC. A total of 304 people participated in the consultation events, including care providers, strategic partners, national sector organisations, other regulators and members of the public.
The consultation questionnaire consisted of both open and closed questions seeking respondents’ overall opinion on each of the six themes of the proposed strategy.
- CQC’s vision for quality regulation
- Improving CQC’s use of data and information
- Implementing a single shared view of quality
- Targeting and tailoring CQC’s inspection activity
- Developing a more flexible approach to registration
- Developing methods to assess quality for populations and across local areas.
- The total number of responses to the consultation was 768. Almost half of the responses were from care providers or professionals; more than 140 responses were from members of the public.
CQC also used other engagement methods to talk with the public, its staff and its external stakeholders, including targeted focus groups, online discussions and internal events. Outputs from these activities were included in the analysis.
We set up straightforward and secure mechanisms to transfer to response data from CQC and OPM Group, clearly documenting the process to ensure all involved could follow the process. We developed a coding framework to analyse the qualitative responses to the consultation, and used descriptive statistics to analyse and present the quantitative responses.
The project manager had weekly telephone calls with the project team at CQC so that we could keep CQC updated with the emerging themes from the analysis, address any issues or questions quickly, and find out about any relevant activities taking place at CQC that could influence the content or numbers of responses.
The report was produced within 4 weeks of the close of the consultation.
Our work fed into the development of the final strategy for 2016 to 2021. We enabled CQC to incorporate all of the feedback into their thinking, despite extremely tight timescales.
Our summary report is published on the CQC website alongside the strategy and their response to the consultation.
Monday, October 10, 2016
North London Waste Authority – Heat and Power Project
The North London Waste Authority (NLWA) is responsible for arranging the disposal, recycling and composting of waste collected by seven North London boroughs. In order to meet future waste management demand and minimise the amount of waste sent to landfill, NLWA proposes building an Energy Recovery Facility to replace the existing plant at Edmonton EcoPark by 2025.
As part of the DCO pre-application stage for the project, NLWA conducted a public consultation on the proposed development to ensure that the community and other interested parties have a chance to understand and provide feedback on the proposals.
OPM Group worked with NLWA to provide robust and transparent consultation and engagement with stakeholders and the public.
What did we do
OPM Group’s role involved providing strategic advice on the approach to community consultation, supporting event and materials design, developing and hosting the consultation response website and conducting analysis and reporting.
We liaised closely with NLWA and its technical consultants to ensure that our consultation outputs allowed the project’s technical team to hear, act upon and respond to the issues raised by respondents.
A summary of responses from the two phases of public consultation was made publicly available, along with NLWA’s response to the issues raised, so that those who participated can see how their comments have informed the next stage of development.
NLWA’s application has now been accepted by the Planning Inspectorate and is awaiting a decision.
Monday, September 5, 2016
Want to know more about participation in transport planning?
As one of our experts in planning consultation and engagement, Lucy Farrow is co-delivering a course on Participation in Transport Planning, hosted by the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport on the 11 and 12 October 2016. Focussing on the principles and practice of participation, this two-day course is aimed at transport planners, managers or those that work in a profession that contributes to the transport planning process e.g. a highway engineer, development planner or land use planner. For more information either complete the application form or contact email@example.com.
Monday, August 15, 2016
Unlocking Local Capacity – four years on
Let’s start with the scene-setting – the introduction you hear at every local government conference you’ve been to for the last five years. Money is getting tighter and tighter. Demand is growing – particularly in areas like adult social care. Five years from now – short of some miraculous windfall – councils won’t be able to deliver many of the services they do at present, at least in the way they’re used to, and maybe not at all.
Next, you hear something about citizens and communities. Wherever we look for solutions – localism, behaviour change, channel shift, technology, better partnerships and so on – sooner or later relationships with communities crops up as crucial to making at least some of this work. That could mean getting better at co-designing services with citizens, as opposed to calling them out to dull consultation events every few years. At the other end of the spectrum, it could mean local organisations – or even just groups of residents – taking on a service or an aspect of a service that otherwise would no longer be sustained. Both of these activities are happening already, of course, in different places and according to different challenges.
This much we know – and have known it, talked about it and predicted work around it for over the last five years. But what we know less well is how far everyone’s got on in actually doing something about it. And that is what I want to find out.
So, if you work in a local authority, what is your organisation doing to build, nurture or unlock the capacity in your communities? How have you been trying to genuinely, deeply involve local people in redesigning services, or in helping them to change their lives/neighbourhoods for the better in ways that might not involve traditional council services at all? We asked these questions to 30 local authorities in 2011-12 when we researched our publication ‘Unlocking Local Capacity: why active citizens need active councils’. We made the case that empowering citizens didn’t just mean councils ‘getting out of the way’, but that on the contrary, it demanded that councils play a very direct, active role – just working in a different way than many had been used to.
Four years on, we want to revisit those same questions and take stock of what councils are doing or planning now. For some, the constant pressure on budgets and ever-increasing demand will have put innovation around community involvement firmly on the back-burner. For others, those same challenges have been a spur to action, driven by the ambition of certain members, senior managers, officers at the coalface or other local partners to try new things. Are we seeing real, tangible results, or is it all still a work in progress?
Over the next few months I’ll be holding a series of telephone interviews with strategy and policy leads in local authorities to hear about their successes, frustrations, ambitions and plans to build local capacity and move into new, dynamic and impactful collaborations with community partners. I would love to hear from people delivering different things across a range of local authorities across England to build up a picture of what’s happening and what works. So if you’d to add to the debate, please do get in touch.
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Focus on water: PR19 engagement
Starting to think about the 2019 Price Review period? So are we! Ofwat recently released a policy paper on their expectations for the PR19 period, emphasising the importance of customer engagement and linking it clearly to pricing. To hear more about how we can help you put in place a strategy that meets regulatory requirements and delivers value for your company get in touch with our water specialist Amelie Treppass or check out what we offer.