Just over a month ago, the very excellent @davidwilcox posted another excellent piece on “Mapping the Big Society Territory” here. I recommend it to you.

So taken was I by it that I scribbled a humble response which I’ve copied below. It touches on similar points as my response to Elizabeth Moss Kanter’s blog post on “Leading Change” back in May this year.

I really need to commit to doing what I said I would and build out this model I have in my head showing a map of considerations (anchored in empirical evidence) when designing and leading a change effort. 

Anyway – thanks to David Wilcox for his piece and the chance to articulate this. It’s a bit more generalised than I’m entirely comfortable with but it was late and Mrs C was digging me in the ribs to “turn that bloody iPhone off!!”…

@davidwilcox Interesting post, squiggles and all.

Three points only and humbly submitted. 

First, although some will argue it’s “only semantics”, the point on naming convention is interesting. Any behavioural economist worth their salt will tell you that the very phrase “Big Society” is enough to disengage (or at least barely raise the inherently self interested/motivated pulse of) the general populace.  We know from years of research that even when our own very personal (e.g. Health, wealth) interests are at risk we often remain unroused to act appropriately (rationally) in the short or long term. So, when the long term aim is as impersonal, intangible and thematically vast as a “Big Society” then people won’t be roused. They’ll feel it’s “too overwhelming”, “too big for them to meaningfully contribute to”, “clearly not a pressing priority specifically for me to act on” (the latter is oft referred to as ‘the bystander effect’ in behavioural psychology) etc. It’s a similar challenge for Global Warming…So, although “Our Society” is still a little wooly (what do we think those we’d like to see more involved interpret “society” to mean do you think? I doubt many would respond positively on instinct alone..) it at least calls to the (shared) ownership instinct in each of us via “our”. Shame you didn’t mention our very own “Co-operative Society” here in Lambeth….It’s like the Big Society but re-labeled for Red Rose Authorities. Room for one of those on the diagram?  

In it’s effort to address this behavioural challenge – in part by setting up it’s own “Nudge nerve centre” (aka The Behavioural Decisions Unit) at No 10 and trying  to encourage behaviour change among the general populace from there, the Coalition appear to be overlooking the key principle of any effective change (diffusion) initiative: those in the “Early Adopter” and IN PARTICULAR those in the “Early & Late Majority” categories adopt the desired behaviours/engage fully not simply because of WHAT they see to the left of them on the diffusion model but WHO they see. And I’d suggest that those who the Government hope to engage in the Big Society (who currently aren’t) are least likely to respond to diffusion from Government/Civic Orgs and most likely to respond to diffusion from peers and role models from the “Our Society” bubble of your diagram. I hold out most hope for the Social Enterprise community but I’m not convinced alone that we’ll get to (and sustain) those hard to reach places where society of any sort – big or small – could do with a little pick-me-up.  Hence my second point – the role of the existing “Our Society” is most fundamental to this effort and why the work the RSA piloted in New Cross to understand and leverage existing social networks and influence is vital. If Tipping Point and the myriad of behavioural economic/psychology books that followed in the last decade have taught us anything, it’s that influence is not distributed evenly. And rarely are authority or establishment gifted with the large quota they might like to believe is the case.  Should all roads on your pic therefore start from “Our Society”? I’m not sure just yet but a more considered understanding of how to harness and embolden existing activists with genuine and breadth of influence across into your “BS” bubble seems like the best bet for Gov. I’ve seen little to reflect they grasp this and the meeting you describe (the inside/out or top/down model) confirms this. The call for a more “emergent” approach is a good one – and could ultimately prevail (though do we even have high level desired outcomes?) but it need not be entirely free form as I infer above if we target resources where the greatest return in diffusion can be earned.

Finally, if there is one thing that we know works more powerfully than peer pressure to encourage behaviour change, it’s loss aversion. The final, actual reality of withdrawal of local services and the gains that were previously derived from those services may ultimately be necessary to create the incentive to engage the hereto disengaged. But I’m not convinced. Given the discussion on Big Soc has largely focused on community services such as libraries, parks, leisure facilities and some non (or lightly) regulated local authority functions, I’d hazard a guess that those most likely to feel the greatest loss aversion to their withdrawal are those who are already reasonably socially active in the “Our Society” bubble. So back to point two I guess.

Longfellow once wrote: “I shot an arrow in the air, it fell to earth I know not where”. We Irish have a more optimistic take on that. As I’m often reminded: “if you don’t know where you are going, that’s where you’re sure to end up”.

I sense Cameron would prefer to locate his arrow (age of austerity etc) and I don’t think he’s a wandering Irish troubadour at heart. But without some future vision expressed in somewhat tangible outcomes for people to organise themselves around that may be his fate. At the very least the current vacuum on meaning and process was sure to open and much energy dissipated in the ensuing mudfight.

Part of me hopes for the best. Part of me fears the horse has bolted, unhoved, unsaddled and with no direction. Part of me thinks that the true discussion can only commence when we understand the gaps the big society has/will need to fill when the CSR dust settles. I know that’s not the ultimate point but it may be it’s ultimate test.

And part of me thinks he should have just published one of those “Change the World for a Fiver” books with 50 no cost ideas for contributing to the local community with a foreword which explains that research from the past fifty years suggests that levels of social connection and philanthropy are better predictors of life expectancy and mental health than most any other measure (incl alcohol and tobacco consumption). Long life and happiness you say?! Sign me up. I’ll start soon, honestly….

Related articles

• Oh, Mr Cameron, do stop all that annoying nudging | Catherine Bennett(guardian.co.uk)
• Andreas Whittam Smith: The idea of Big Society is beyond left and right(independent.co.uk)
• ‘Big society’: Giving just that bit more | Francis Maude, Jeremy Hunt and David Willetts(guardian.co.uk)
• Cameron’s hijacking of Nudge theory is a classic example of how big ideas get corrupted | Aditya Chakrabortty(guardian.co.uk)
• First goal of David Cameron’s ‘nudge unit’ is to encourage healthy living(guardian.co.uk)
• Thaler Nudges the Brits (and the Swedes?)(marginalrevolution.com)
• Rory Sutherland’s quiet behavioural revolution gives the status quo bias a nudge(telegraph.co.uk)
• ‘Big society’ – where’s the opposition? (newstatesman.com)

Image via Wikipedia

As David Cameron prepares for his two day visit to China (commencing tomorrow, Tuesday 9th November) at the head of the largest-ever official UK delegation to the country, I thought this might be a timely post.

See below for a short insight into how the 24 year travels around China by Marco Polo (as well as his lesser reported father and uncle) changed the very nature of life itself in Europe.

I wonder if DC (or we) dare expect his visit to prove just as seminal?! I’d personally doubt it though given his Bullingdon Club background, the odds on him too returning with a Mongol servant called “Peter” are probably quite short. Could make an interesting addition to the historical catalogue of PM gifts. Certainly better than a box set of 25 American films and certainly more useful around the house.

Anyway, hǎo yùn Mr Cameron.

“[Upon their return from China], the three Polos received respect from their fellow citizens, with Marco singled out for special attention. ‘All the young men went every day continuously to visit and converse with Messer Marco,’ Giambattista Ramusio claimed. ‘who was most charming and gracious, and to ask of him matters concerning Cathay (China) and the Great Khan, and he responded with so much kindness that all felt themselves to be in a certain manner indebted to him.’

“Paper money, virtually unknown in the West until Marco’s return, revolutionized finance and commerce throughout the West.

“Coal, another item that had caught Marco’s attention in China, provided a new and relatively efficient source of heat to an energy-starved Europe.

“In all, it is difficult to imagine the Renaissance – or, for that matter, the modern world – without the benefit of Marco Polo’s example of cultural transmission between East and West.”

Extract taken from Laurence Bergreen‘s excellent book ”Marco Polo” (2007)

Related articles

• Diageo and Alliance Boots hope to ride on David Cameron’s coat tails to China (guardian.co.uk)
• Business heavyweights bolster David Cameron’s trade mission to China (telegraph.co.uk)
• David Cameron: Building British Cooperation With China (online.wsj.com)
• Cameron to sign trade deals in China (topinews.com)
• UK’s Cameron Visits China Seeking Trade, Influence (abcnews.go.com)
• Activists call for David Cameron to press Beijing over human rights record (guardian.co.uk)
• David Cameron goes to China with eye on mutual benefits (guardian.co.uk)

Turn on your light - an excerpt (by Ben Okri)

The new era is already here:
Here the new time begins anew.
The new era happens every day,
Every day is a new world,
A new calendar.
All great moments, all great eras,
Are just every moment
And every day writ large.
Thousands of years of loving, failing, killing,
Creating, surprising, oppressing,
And thinking ought now to start
To bear fruit, to deliver their rich harvest.  

Will you be at the harvest,
Among the gatherers of new fruits?
Then you must begin today to remake
Your mental and spiritual world,
And join the warriors and celebrants
Of freedom, realisers of great dreams.  

You can’t remake the world
Without remaking yourself.
Each new era begins within.
It is an inward event,
With unsuspected possibilities
For inner liberation.
We could use it to turn on
Our inward lights.
We could use it to use even the dark
And negative things positively.
We could use the new era
To clean our eyes,
To see the world differently,
To see ourselves more clearly.
Only free people can make a free world.
Infect the world with your light.
Help fulfill the golden prophecies.
Press forward the human genius.
Our future is greater than our past.  

© Ben Okri, 1999.
Found in Ben Okri, Mental Fight, Phoenix House: London, 1999  

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ed Miliband is a radical leader for a radical new era (guardian.co.uk)
• Ed Miliband Edges Brother to Take Over Labour Party (newser.com)
• Ed Miliband elected new leader of Labour Party (independent.co.uk)
• Ed Miliband elected Labour leader (newstatesman.com)
• Ed Miliband Elected as U.K. Opposition Labour Leader (businessweek.com)

Regular readers of this blog (?!?!?) will be well aware of my interest in all forms of human/social psychology and in particular my interest in the role of behavioural and social psychology in managing change.

It’s an area of study that’s become quite sexy of late, perhaps with the poster child being Steve Hilton himself, stripped bare and holding a well thumbed copy of “Nudge” in a strategic position for the annual Conservative Party’s WI calendar.

It’s all rather simple really. Just a recognition of what psychologists have been telling us for some time. How we make decisions/choices is a much more subconcious and often malleable process than we might like to imagine – a process which might be influenced (deliberately or otherwise) by a myriad of  subtle (or not so subtle) factors including deliberate commercial or political “nudging”.

No point in me regurgitating a century of study here. Just pick up an one of: “Nudge”, “The Tipping Point“, “Blink”, “59 Seconds: Think a little Change a Lot”, “Freakonomics” or “How we Decide“ (the list is potentially enormous) and indulge yourself.  In my opinion anyone embarking on a career in advertising, political policy, sales, marketing, change management, branding or religious outreach (Amen) should be forced to read all of these tomes and a few others besides before they darken the door of any self respecting employer in any one of those “industries”.  An interest in and understanding of the psychology and subtlety of human behaviour should be de-rigour for all.

I’ve been interested in the varied work of the http://www.theenginegroup.com/ in London for some time. Not least because I get to spend hallowed time most weeks in the company of one of it’s leading brand thinkers – Sean McKnight. At the end of last week The Engine Group (EG)  had this little piece on their web-blog: http://www.theenginegroup.com/news-and-blog/?p=1985&cat=-3 on the subject of behavioural psychology (or behavioural economics if you will). I thought it was good that EG are exposing more of their disparate teams to this discipline (although I’d blithely assumed they’d all be light years ahead in their public reflections) but more importantly it did make me think about a lovely example of behavioural nudging in action which I saw on Friday in London.

Opposite Gabriel’s Wharf on the South Bank, you will, during the course of the year, find a group of folks who use the small sandbank there to sand sculpt. They’ve been dong this for years. I’ll occasionally throw 50p down into the circle they’ve drawn in the sand to collect tips but never more. But of late they have adopted a new tactic to nudge us into giving “more generously”. They have set up two yellow buckets with a small portable bicycle bell set inside each one. There is a little note beneath each bucket inviting onlookers to throw some tips and “See if you can ring the bell”.

I invite you to pop along and watch what happens. Based on the last two five minute visits I’ve made, I  predict their tips are up maybe 300% minimum.

But why?

Because now not only are people throwing coins (tips) to reflect their appreciation of the sand sculptures; they are throwing coins to – much more importantly (and in some cases it seemed, exclusively) - see if they can make a small bell, in the bottom of a yellow bucket go ‘Ding’. It is a nudge to one of our strongest instincts and motivations – to succeed in a task that should be eminently achievable but is often frustratingly not. Add the public setting (no one likes to look bad in public and the ‘herding’ influence of others on our behaviour is more powerful than we may accept!), the fun atmosphere created as we try (and try) and the satisfactory feedback/reciprocation provided by the simple “ding” of a bell in the bucket and you have the ingredients for the perfect nudge.

I watched today as one lady asked “What happens if I hit the bell?”.  Having been told – “nothing, it makes a “ding”", she spent 3 minutes throwing coin after coin at the bell in the bucket to no avail; I threw a sum total of £1 in coins trying to hit said bell, as did my lowly paid companions.  Even more interesting was watching how a group of 6 people, who had almost walked past the sandbank, turned on hearing a faint “ding” (followed by great cheering from the friends of the aforementioned lady who, £5 down I reckon, had eventually hit the “jackpot”). Said party then each proceeded to throw coins at the yellow bucket with barely a glancing appreciation of the sand sculptures and so on until we decided to leave.

I bet if you asked 50% of those people 5 minutes after they’d left the scene what the two sand sculptures were that day, they wouldn’t even be able to tell you*. It was one of the most simple and stunningly effective applications of behavioural nudging that you’ll see in a social context in London today. For any male readers – it’s bit like those little flies on the back of certain “progressive” urinals (a subliminal target for you to aim at to reduce the amount of “splash-back”)…simple, yet deadly effective.

All those industries I listed, but most importantly, political policy, are (it would seem and we should hope) learning much from moving behavioural psychology and economics to the heart of what they do in both Policy formulation and execution. In an era when we have scarcer resources with which to encourage, facilitate and deliver some Big Society shaped national scale behaviour change then every arsenal in our weaponry much be drawn down.

There is of course more, much much more, to facilitating large scale human change than dropping a few bells in the bottom of a bucket (another blog on that subject is due) but it does demonstrate that for all our self congratulatory sophistication, we are simple animals in so many ways, driven by a few fundamental primitive instincts. The challenge is to harness that simplicity and those instincts to assist society in making smarter decisions about our health, wealth and happiness. In all those industries a fundamental question we must ask in shaping products, offerings or policies is this: which of our basic human instincts/longings/aspirations does this play to and therefore how best shall it be framed to lead “customers” to the most “appropriate” response.

There is a fascinating debate to be had about whether subliminal nudging is enough (or even immoral) or whether “customers” need to be granted a more active understanding of and participation in how certain choices impact both ourselves and others if behaviour change is to be sustained (and moral) but that’s for another day. For now, I’m off to sort out my bell and yellow bucket. You can find me outside the Ritzy in Brixton between 10am – 4pm; making daisy chains for tips….

*A rather fetching lady’s face and a starfish like creature were the order of the day….once you saw past those yellow buckets.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Nudging is not enough (redux) (herd.typepad.com)
• David Gurteen: Herd: How to Change Mass Behaviour by Harnessing Our True Nature (amazon.co.uk)
• The kindly words of Nudge are Cameron’s ideal veneer | Peter Wilby (guardian.co.uk)
• Neuromarketing Explained (zeitgeistandstuff.wordpress.com)

With June slipping past and an enforced blogging hiatus likely in the coming day(s), I thought I should provide an update on my post from early June in relation to the progress of Lambeth Council’s much vaulted ‘Co-Operative Council’ White Paper and associated Citizen Consultation.

An extremely heavy duty blog post had been planned on this, but thankfully the ever excellent @Jason_Cobb came up trumps yesterday morning with a really good interview with Sophia Looney, the Council Officer running the “co-operative consultation”. You can listen to the conversation via the power of Audioboo as part of another enjoyable and detailed blog post by @Jason_Cobb himself here.

While the interview reassures in parts (and saved me ranting too much!), I still feel there are many lessons that could be learned and more importantly changes/improvements that could yet be made to the planned co-operative consultation process.

So I’ve provided a quick update on progress (as I see it) based on the six recommendations I provided in my blog post prior to the publication of the White Paper.

Be warned – this is long. Very long. Almost as impenetrable as the White Paer in question in fact . So unless you are Jason Cobb or maybe Sophia Looney I’ll be mightily impressed if you make it to the end.

Recommendation 1: Be prepared – technically and operationally

The good:

• The White Paper was immediately available online and was easy to download
• There is a consultation presence across all the main electronic/online channels: Council website, dedicated eMail address for all co-operative enquiries, Facebook, Twitter and even a well meaning Wiki
• All entries – including critical comments submitted on both Facebook and the Wiki have been left, uncensored
• Responses to questions on Facebook have been getting a more prompt response in the last day or so
• The Council website is made up of three pages and although hard to locate and limited in content, what is there is reasonably clear. A useful FAQ page is also now in place and thankfully provides some guidance on what we mean by a co-operative Council and examples of where the co-operative model currently works in Lambeth.

The not so good:

• The Wiki is pretty poor and as it stands promises to offer little to the council of value – more on that below 
• While my eMail was answered in just a few days, others have had to wait much longer for a response. There is no auto-receipt confirmation/holding message which would be an easy fix and would pacify many
• Twitter. As with the wiki and Facebook initiatives, it’s nice to see this being embraced but there is relatively little yet of real value from the LC team on the twitter hashtag with most traffic driven by observers/folks interested in co-operatives (many of whom seem to believe that the idea of a Lambeth co-operative is already in place and doing great things – does anyone read anything these days?). The high point of the Twitter feed was http://bit.ly/bpuFOe one person being asked to be part of the “commission” which turned out to be a false alarm because remember folks: there are no citizens on the commission!!
• Facebook. Good to have as an info source but I haven’t seen any additional value apart from a minimal broadcast uplift. As with the website it’s a true shame and creates an unnecessary image of “secrecy” that the Facebook page didn’t have the 17^th June “Citizens”/Council Commission meeting on as an “Event” so people on the group can be alerted and follow up. No future events are shown and there is nothing on the site to explain the purpose of the Facebook group in the context of the consultation or the other channels (website, eMail account, wiki etc). The Council could/should also provide more structure for discussions by setting up specific discussion threads on topics they wish to receive commentary/consult with the public on. This could be easily done. See comments on how the wiki might be revamped for inspiration
• The Council webpage’s are ok but still no clarity on how the consultation will work, how citizens will be engaged or the timetable it will work upon – Sophia Looney’s useful responses in today’s interview should be written up into a digestible format (What? Who? Why? When? How?) and posted to avoid all this confusion. There are still no minutes from the first two Commission meetings in spite of promises to do so. These need to go up ASAP as promised as again, they are unnecessarily adding to a sense of secrecy around the process
• It is clear (as confirmed in the eMail response I received from the Lambeth co-operative team) that there is no schedule or timetable for any of the planned consultation events – either those in the local community or the “public commission meeting” (I do hope there will be more than one!). I think this absence of any timetable is incredibly alarming given that this has been on the cards since February and the White Paper suggests that by September/October the “final commission report” (not sure what that will include) will be published. It’s summer, almost the end of June and I’m really now concerned that timetable makes such a wide ranging and important consultation possible. If the best we can do is to confirm that a public meeting of the commission will be held in “late July” then I do worry.
• The White Paper. The White Paper itself caused me all sorts of concern. I’ve tried to limit the points below but I could have added several more…. 
  • White Paper Concern 1: The White Paper itself is a curious document. A mixture of general “principles” Lambeth believe will underpin a shift to a co-operative council which in turn they believe will realise a host of positive outcomes for Lambeth and its citizens. Which in itself is an interesting assumption given the admission Lambeth would be the first co-operative council..hence the lack of precedent to base either the principles or expected outcomes upon. The principles range from the general and sometimes banal e.g. “The Council as a strong community leader” to the very precise and often not at all related to any idea of a co-operative council. Principle 7 for example is a very clear and non-co-operative statement of intent on shared customer services: “Simple, joined up and easy access to services –location and transaction…providing visible value for money”.  So while there is a strong theme on co-operation as a ‘desired’ model of improvement, it appears that Lambeth are actually after a much broader discussion on how service delivery can be improved across the borough – otherwise why include sections on “shared services” as a means to improve local government by 2014?. If that is the case then why this disproportionate focus on “co-opting”. The only real clear questions being asked on the website, Facebook, Twitter and the Wiki relate to “which services could be co-opted” or “co-operative stories”.  Why such a narrow focus? The principles are not all related to a ‘co-operative’ model of Government so why has the “consultation” been so far? In the same way that the sexy “co-operative” headline could potentially narrow the discussion and blind us to other ways to improve Public Services by 2014, so too is the current invitation to citizens/partners.  So – let’s clarify what the ultimate aim of this consultation is (an exploration of all/any means to improve services or a pure and exclusive pursuit of mutualisation?), change the language of engagement, open up the debate and while by all means continue to recognise co-operation as one possible model of improvement, let’s not cut our noses off to spite our face….there are many ways to skin a cat. If we knew the true nature of the challenges Lambeth faced we might even determine that co-operation isn’t actually the best solution at all. That might be embarrassing for Guardian loving officials of course but…
  • White Paper Concern 2. For many of Lambeth’s citizens the language of “co-operatives” is meaningless and more needed/needs to be done up front to enable as many citizens as possible to engage in this consultation with a sure understanding of what exactly the desired end point is for Lambeth Council.  The useful summary description and examples in the FAQ section of the Council website should be added to an updated version of the White Paper, the Wiki site and the Facebook group to aid comprehension. A quick call to the IDeA or FutureGov or The New Economics could assist in this I am certain. It’s not too late for this – with a better social media approach a ‘body of evidence’ / case studies could be posted online/published as a supplement to the White Paper and made available to all citizens to guide and inspire.
  • White Paper Concern 3: Why is all this necessary and what is the nature of the challenge we are facing? All we are told is that “ the scale of the challenges ahead and our ideas which seek to address them, mean that our current approach to service delivery will not be fit-for purpose”. But what exactly is the scale of the challenge? How bad are things for Lambeth? What is at risk? Without some sense for the gap that needs to be closed it is surely impossible for interested citizens to engage deliberatively and in a productive manner in this exercise.  Ideally the council might have recognised that the first step in many of the most positive developments/examples of Public Sector/citizen co-production/mutualisation/co-operation are based on the availability of Council data which can be used by citizens to provide useful insights, tools and services.  So what about publishing the Council financials including a breakdown of revenues/receipts, spend by department/service and an assessment of what this might look like in the next 4-5 years so the scale of the challenge is clear and we can start to make some informed recommendations on the basis of the data rather than waste our (and LC’s) time in making uninformed if well meaning recommendations. This contextual information should be made available on the council webpage’s, on the Facebook Group and the Wiki to aid contributors in their deliberations/contributions
  • White Paper Concern 4: is this the right time to launch such a commitment to overhaul the way Lambeth deliver its services? Is there any genuine understanding as yet how the new “ConDem” coalition intend to engage with Local Government – what will the nature of that partnership be and how does that fit into this co-operative (aka Lambeth 2014 vision)? What impact on Lambeth Council budgets will initiatives already in flight such as the Free Schools and Academies Program have on the boroughs balance books and strategy? Is the council engaging with initiatives like The Big Society or groups like the IDeA to ensure that they benefit from thinking on co-production/citizen empowerment/co-operation at a national scale or are we at risk of setting off on our own course to prove we are “cutting edge”?
  • White Paper Concern 5: What does this mean for the extensive range of Government/Citizen/Social Enterprise partnerships that already exist in Lambeth? Where do they fit into this model? What services are currently supported and provided by them and do these offer the ideal starting point for any discussion on a full co-opting of service? As I will continue to stress, without any understanding of the current landscape of Local Government service provision then how can I even begin to make a valuable contribution to this debate. An understanding of current partnerships in this area might provide inspiration and guidance as a minimum. In her interview, Sophia Looney provides some useful insight on this – why it isn’t provided in both the White Paper and on the various online consultation channels I don’t know but it’s not too late to rectify
  • White Paper Concern 6: Are all Council Services “up for grabs”? If not, which ones? If so then are all up for grabs as far as potential “co-opting” goes? And for those members of the public, who may not have memorised the lot, why not provide a complete list of services with a short notation on whether they are open to consideration for co-opting.  While I understand the fad for listing sexy “principles”, in effect many of these are so banal and general that they border on meaningless. The other problem with using “principles” (aside from the fact it potentially constrains a creative discussion) is that it is not a good framework to engage the public in a discussion about Council improvement. Citizens’ experience Local Government not in terms of principles, but services and that is perhaps how the public consultation – both online and offline – should be re-structured (at least in addition to the principles listed). As above – this can still be easily added to various channels/points of contact to aid contributors.  An idea might be to produce a one stop “Additional Information/Briefing Pack” containing all the suggested contextual information outlined in the last few points.
  • White Paper Concern 7: As mentioned above, the paper itself is very dense and even this 10 year veteran of Public Sector policy documentation with a sad interest in the subject matter struggled to wade through it. This represents a real risk to the success of the consultation. I suggest that Lambeth Council produce an executive summary that can be made available both on and offline to those who either won’t have the time or the inclination to wade through the entire 50+ pages of the White Paper. Appropriate versions for young people and the physically impaired should be produced post haste and made available at Local Government and Community Hubs such as Youth Centres, Municipal Buildings, Customer Contact Centres, Volunteer and Social Enterprise organisation offices. I haven’t seen any hard copies of the report anywhere as yet. As mentioned earlier – if our agenda is truly to consult on how to improve local services by 2014 then wider the debate and how it is presented in these documents. As it stands I fear it appears we are on a mission to explore ‘co-operation’ to the exclusion of all else.

In short there is a lot of work here which ideally would have been done/in place at the launch of the consultation period so that the Council were prepared (technically and operationally). This consultation has clearly been in the pipeline since February and the period for consultation over the summer is short so every day counts. However it is not too late to put many of these points right and I hope Lambeth take the time to do so.

Recommendation 2: “Ensure a there is a representative sample of citizens consulted”

Rather than re-hash what Sophia Looney told the good @Jason_Cobb re plans to ensure a representative sample of citizens/interested parties I suggest you listen to the Audioboo interview itself.

I was reasonably reassured by what she said but I’d recommend two key action items:

• Draw up another simple table which shows a breakdown of which groups are going to be consulted, why and what role they will be asked to play. This should be easily done based on what Sophia told Jason today and this in turn can be posted to the Council Website so that all interested parties understand the groupings who are being engaged (Commission, the mystery “500” who have been actively invited to participate etc). This will again help dispel this ongoing sense (hopefully misplaced) of secrecy that surrounds the process.
• Related to the point below I don’t think there should be any data protection issues in publishing individual names and their capacity/expertise in this consultation.

If we are to have any confidence in the outcomes of this process then Lambeth’s citizens deserve to know who will be potentially influencing the future of the Public Services we depend on. Many of these are unelected officials and it is only right and proper that we should have complete visibility of who these potentially very powerful individuals/groups are. I cannot see a case to withhold that list.

I disagree slightly with Jason Cobb in his scepticism re the proposed 300 person “deliberation” focus groups. As per my previous post on this – empirical evidence suggests that when done properly, deliberative polling at this scale can actually work extremely well, resulting in both a representative and considered set of policy outcomes.

But more on that later.

Recommendation 3: Is a Wiki the best approach to online consultation?

I hate to say “I told you so” but….It’s a mess

• There is no ‘Beginners Guide’ for those who haven’t used this sort of tool before. That’s poor if we are to ensure all voices are heard and people are to be encouraged and enabled to participate

• There is no ‘How this wiki will be maintained/monitored/used’ for those who do engage so there really is no sense of direction for how to contribute in the most efficient way. What is the desired output of this wiki for the Lambeth co-op team? Is it actually set up to support that (or any) specific outcome? Certainly at the moment there is no clear sense for that desired outcome and therefore how the wiki should be used/structured. That’s a shame and should be rectified

• I’d assumed that the wiki might be first and foremost focussed on asking citizens to collaborate and provide potential answers to the key questions the White Paper poses. Instead we are only offered the chance to edit/amend the incredibly bland/general and ultimately less relevant (to citizens at least) element of the White Paper – the set of “principles”.  Get the questions on there as a minimum if we are to continue with this limited tool.

• Even therein – in some of the principles, the text in the wiki is actually different from the text in the White Paper! Honestly! Get it fixed…

• Having the focus of the wiki on the principles raises an interesting question re the White Paper and the timing of this wiki consultation in its current scope – to “edit” the principles and submit ideas on services that could be co-opted. For if the wiki project fundamentally changes the proposed “principles” then are the questions associated with those principles – as posed in the White Paper – still valid and if not then how can the Commission be undertaking its consideration of these questions with any confidence before the consultation on principles is complete? The questions in the white paper actually – in the main – had some relevance. Surely the prize here is to answer those questions in tandem with the commission considering the same so the two groups might inform one another? This is another missed opportunity for the “wiki”. Even better would have been to have had a page set up for each question with the commission’s opening attempt to respond/outline ideas/suggestions which the public could then add to/comment on

• A page has been set up entitled “What services should become a co-op”? As outlined in my previous post and in my concerns on the White Paper above this is truly inadequate as a question. On what basis are we to respond to this question? What services are “in scope” for consideration? What is the scale of the challenge? What will the co-op model be? What is the objective of co-opting a service: improved delivery; cost savings etc – that will influence which services should be considered. If Lambeth want this question answered properly – not just online, but offline as well then they need to do the hard yards and put in place the contextual briefing documentation that characterises a true deliberate democratic consultation

• If we accept how the Wiki has been set up – however limited – it’s very difficult to make sense of already and that’s from someone who is reasonably tech savvy and interested in the content. The Wikispaces software is limited and not sure well set up for this purpose. The editable principle pages are fine re editing but the other two open pages (outwith the” ideas for co-opting” page)  seem to be dumping grounds for commentary related to some aspects of the co-operative council or commission but in no particular order or with any clear delineation between submissions/authors. 

The page titled “Local Leadership” contains (what I assume to be) commentary/questions on about 10 different subject areas related in part to the White Paper. Some great points of course but by the time I got to the bottom of the page I really hadn’t a clue what on earth was going on – who had added it, why it had all been lumped under “Local Leadership” (or what the local leadership page was set up to capture), where one post ended and another began and in some instances what on earth it had to do with a cooperative council or consultation thereof.

The page titled “Co-operative Council Commission or citizen’s commission” was much the same with no clear delineation of who was asking/responding to what or on whose behalf. This is where a wiki falls down – if you have too many disparate voices without a shared understanding of the desired outcome and no context/content to work with the wiki is no longer a wiki and just a set of comments, questions and occasionally ideas left floating in space

• The wiki has no editorial leadership. Apart from a well meaning administrator clearly working behind the scenes at a technical level there seems to be no one from the Council team engaged on the wiki at all. This is entirely evident on the Discussion page – not a single question posted on the Discussion section has been answered by LC. That’s just rubbish and will dissuade visitors for engaging. I decided it wasn’t worth posting anything on there as it seems to have been left to run its own course by the consultation team. But maybe that’s the point – sexy story using a wiki……

A good wiki works when there a clearly understood expected outcome, the structure of the wiki is set up to support that and there is someone with overall editorial control who understands what the desired output needs/should be (I mean – I’m assuming someone decided to set up a wiki because they hoped that the public would collaborate ad create something of value?) and therefore can provide structure, guidance, prompts etc to keep content and contributors moving in that direction. That “guiding hand” isn’t here and beyond getting some comments on the generic principles I’m not sure what on earth the current objective is. I think it’s a misuse/misunderstanding of how to use a wiki.

I suggested in my pre consultation post that a wiki was not appropriate or valuable for this consultation effort. I am now certain that is the case. Surely the value here is to create an online resource where:

1) Citizens and interested parties can review, comment on and ask for clarification on the entire White Paper – with the paper divided up into clear sections and each comment/question posted publicly so that others can follow (just in the same way as the ConDem coalition posted it’s “Programme for Government” document. Ideally people could vote for an idea or a comment or question to be included or responded to in the way Virtual Parliament or Yoosk enable

2) Citizens and interested parties can provide ideas/submissions on how the council can improve its services and their delivery by 2014. As with the review of the White Paper, all submissions would be public, documents could be posted as attachments and those visiting the site could vote/add commentary on the submissions and connect with fellow participants to discuss/collaborate on ideas. Much in the same way Your Country Your Call worked or the new US Education Innovation portal is set up. This would also help ensure that all potentially valuable ideas are captured for critical analysis and posterity. The current Wikispaces is just too limited to support all of this – certainly based on the limited structure/support currently in place

3) The council can post supporting documentation (guidance on what they mean by a “co-operative council”, lists of all services currently delivered and associated outcomes that would have to be maintained in any future co-op model and data sets that allow visitors to understand the current allocation of spend/resources across services to establish opportunities for consultation which are suitable/valuable in this context).

That feels to me like something more considered than a Wikispace with the best will in the world. That might have required more up front effort but then we had our front page headlines in February so surely not too long to get something in place. As the links I provide above demonstrate, it’s not as if this hasn’t been done before. And given the importance Lambeth Council seem to be putting on this I would have thought a much more important use of resources. Again – it’s not too late if the team leading this want to truly support the best possible online consultation.

Recommendation 4: How to ensure a deliberate discussion?

This is my biggest concern for the Lambeth Co-op consultation.

As I wrote in my last post on this topic, successful public consultations typically rely on the participants having a shared and clear understanding of the context of the debate and are fully briefed on the various proposals being presented for their commentary - so they can make a more reasoned/informed contribution. How will those consulted be informed in this instance?

I asked if Lambeth have considered adopting the “deliberative democracy” model for this consultation. It might lead to a more considered, less populist outcome. This may be an additional overhead on the process but empirical evidence suggests that it could result in increased savings, improved service provision and higher voter satisfaction with their local councils.

Following my original post, none other than Matthew Taylor  (Chief Executive of the RSA since November 2006 prior to which he was Chief Adviser on Political Strategy to the Prime Minister) posted an eerily similar piece to his RSA Blog on the challenges of Government run “public consultations”.  And he’s a man who knows having been responsible for “The Big Conversation”. Remember that? He confirms this particular approach as possibly the only genuinely valuable strategy to engage and gain endorsement from the public on tough policy decisions.

And so another plea to Lambeth Council – how are you going to ensure this is a truly deliberative consultation? Just in case you don’t have the time, I’ve provided 5 invaluable (IMHO) links to resources that not only provide evidence of the power of this approach but provide advice and tools to actually undertake such an exercise here. Other than this I can’t do much more than suggest you just get on the blower to James Fishkin himself:

• The Centre for Deliberative Democracy
• Deliberative Polling in the UK Case Study
• A Deliberative Democracy FAQ set
• How good is Deliberative Democracy?
• Deliberative Democracy Down Under

Recommendation 5: Consistency across channels

My fifth piece of advice in the original post was to ensure consistency across consultative channels.

It’s early days on this but not promising thus far given, for example, that not all of the White Paper is on the wiki, some of the wiki text differs from the original paper text and there are no clear structures set up on either the Wiki or Facebook to ensure a consistent set of outputs.

The lack of sight on questions/suggestions posted via eMail means there is a possibility that duplicate questions/suggestions are being made.

Ideally all this would have been managed in a single portal so that some measure of consistency and transparency could have been supported.

Recommendation 6: Be clear on how the consultation will work and keep your promises:

This was my final piece of advice and I think I’ve said enough already. There is work to be done but it is not too late to put those things right. It is obvious to anyone browsing the wiki page or Facebook Group or reading Jason Cobb’s blog/twitter updates that there is frustration with the process.

All of us want only the very best for this consultation. Our future life experiences in Lambeth are intrinsically tied to it. And so I simply repeat the closing lines of my initial post on this topic…

I really don’t mean to be obstructive or negative – all these points are made in the spirit of someone who welcomes this attempt at public consultation. But I am also wary. For what we are being consulted on is in fact a strategy that will require individuals and groups across Lambeth’s civic society to take on responsibility for the delivery of public services. And that is a construct that requires an engaged population who trust in their elected officials to support them in their endeavours. How this consultation runs might well influence how engaged we are in the ‘co-operative Lambeth’ and certainly the trust we can place in our elected officials as part of a mutualised local government.

In a way then, this consultation is the first test of the Lambeth ’co-operative model’ and so the stakes are high. I (continue to) wish them well.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Labour invites residents to help run Lambeth as ‘John Lewis council’ (guardian.co.uk)
• Lambeth: a council of co-operation | Steve Reed (guardian.co.uk)
• Lambeth’s co-op council is empty rhetoric | Jason Cobb (guardian.co.uk)
• Lambeth Mutual – the co-operative way? (leftfootforward.org)