Designing for Civil Society

Business isn't doing too well with tech either

It's not just nonprofits who are struggling with technology - as I was writing yesterday. The South West of England Regional Development Agency has just published research that shows businesses aren't doing too well either:

It appears on the surface that the region is embracing the digital age. Sixty five per cent of the region's companies use ICT - fifty seven per cent with a broadband internet connection. However, the new research highlights that although the region's businesses are adopting new technologies they are not adapting their practices to get the greatest benefit from it. Business benefits of ICT can be seen in increased efficiency, reduced costs and simplified process for companies. However, most organisations in South West England have no clear direction of how to develop their practices to optimise these resources. A staggering eighty nine per cent of companies have no strategic overview of how to use and develop their ICT. And this is matched by eighty six per cent of companies who have no dedicated ICT budget.

The Agency uses the findings to promote its ConnectingSW programme to encourage small and medium-sized businesses to realise the benefits of using broadband and ICT. In particular the programme is promoting business growth through better use of ICT; skills and e-learning; flexible working and E-government.
Via xPRESS Digest:

Putting a personable face on nonprofits

I joined a fascinating session at today's NCVO conference examining "Are voluntary organisations relevant in a digital society?" The idea was, of course, that we would all say yes... but ... and then go on to examine changes needed to ensure that was the case. I was part of a panel helping move the discussion along, and we covered a lot of ground from the need for a higher level of tech skills to the possibility that people would increasingly bypass nonprofits if they could find information, like minds and services online from a range of sources. Fortunately I had earlier spotted an article about this by Michael C. Gilbert, entitled The Permeable Nonprofit. Michael - writing mainly from US experience - warns that new models of organisation are needed as boundaries and allegiances shift:

The simple fact is that people don't really care about nonprofit organizations per se, unless they have some personal ego identification with them. Even staff and funder loyalty to an organization is fluid, transferring from one organization to another over the years. When I taught career management workshops for people who were first entering nonprofit work, I used to teach them that strategically they should think of themselves as working for a cause, not for an organization. And that reflects a basic truth: People care about causes.

Today's session, combined with chats with some nonprofit tech people at lunchtime, gave me a chance to check my perception of the state of technical development of most nonprofits. The consensus was that many were still struggling with the equivalent of appliances and plumbing - they were having difficulty with equipment and internal networks, and smaller ones often relied on someone's techie husband for support. The bigger ones - including NCVO itself - are better served, but even so staff skills may be limited to basic email and web. Nearly all organisations have web sites, and most people at the session had participated in an online forum (though not necessarily with enthusiasm), and bought online. A few were blogging ... though "wiki" wasn't a generally understood term.
Participants included some passionate enthusiasts for the reach the Net can give to organisations, and the improved information and other services that can be offered to supporters and the public. There was sensible agreement that online services had to run hand-in-hand with phone, print, face-to-face and other means of communication. Don't expect your print bill to go down, warned one contributor - it will increase.
At the end session chair and NCVO chief executive Stuart Etherington asked the panel of Will Davies, Milica Howell, Karl Wilding and me for a bit of advice to nonprofits in the digital age. Several of us said that blogging was likely to be important in reaching from inside the organisation directly to members, supporters and service uses. If people are increasingly expecting personalised services, nonprofits need to be personable, was the way that I put it.
Fortunately NCVO is doing its bit to help nonprofits meet the challenge. The ICT Hub, funded by Government to improve the tech capability of nonprofits, is developing a nationwide programme of support and holding its first conference on March 29. The ICT Foresight team, who organised the session, are practising what they explore through their own blog. My parting thought was that it might be a good idea if NCVO hosted a few informal get-togethers for people blogging in and about nonprofits, to spread the word. You know us, blog anything for a free drink ...

Conversations with Government: is there an ROI?

I'm a bit obsessed with conversations and stories at present, because they often provide greater insights than loads of analysis and report writing. And so it proved with another weekend breakfast chat with my wife Ann. I don't want to make these sound more intellectual than they are, but a previous one I wrote about prompted fascinating discussions with a member of the intelligence community about how agents do - or don't - share intelligence.
Anyway, this time Ann remarked on how over the past week she had chatted with managers in both public and private sector about change and the need to take account - of course - of what's happening in the wider world. That operating environment may be competitive, apparently collaborative, local or global ... but it will certainly change in unexpected ways. What Ann heard on several occasions was "a lot of my staff don't want to know about that... they say they just want to get on with their job".
I know this is the stuff of zillions of management books, and it certainly squares with my experience of a lot (not all, not all) public and nonprofit organisations.
It struck a new mental spark with me because I'm working at present on how to help public servants learn about public engagement, and also change the culture within government so that it is more responsive to citizens, service users and other interests. If your "customers" aren't in a position to take their custom to another supplier, you need good feedback to stay on track. There are also, of course, lots of other issues about why and how citizens may influence policy between elections - known as deeper democracy.
Geoff Mulgan, writing in the Involve pamphlet "Post Party Politics" launched last Thursday identifies three currents of change making democracy less passive and more involving. After examining changing attitudes to representation, and decentralisation, he turns to "New conversations".

The third trend is closely associated with doubts about representation and the shift to decentralisation. This is the invention of new kinds of conversation that replace the monologue of politicians and parties with something more reciprocal, open and engaged. There are long histories of open conversations – notably in the Buddhist traditions of India and Japan – and all democracy rests on conversation, as parliaments are literally ‘parlements’ and are overseen by ‘speakers’. But increasingly the public have wanted to be participants in these discussions, rather than observers, so wider conversations have been institutionalised in local councils, panchayats, assemblies and citizen forums.

There are lots of methods aimed at promoting these conversations, many well documented by another Involve publication, People and Participation. However, there's no point promoting methods for engagement if those who have to deal with responses from the public are those saying "we just want to get on with our jobs in the same old way". They won't approach the task with much enthusiasm. There's even less point if agencies end up being surprised by the results they get, and unable or unwilling to deliver. As I've said before, participation often isn't working. Lee Bryant and I have written in the latest Involve pamphlet, that new technologies may make some difference as citizens and service users excert more influence, and change the environment within which government operates. It is certainly what Alan Moore is arguing when he writes about consumers Storming the Bastille.
Since we were in a slightly businessy frame of mind, another terms slipped into the breakfast conversation: return on investment, or ROI, which is the businessy way of checking "why bother?" This is certainly the killer question for engagement. Why should staff - or managers - bother with engaging customers and citizens if the benefits aren't evident? Why should customers complain, or citizens participate, if it won't make much difference?
We didn't reach a conclusion on that. It was, after all, only a breakfast chat, and we needed to get on with some weekend business as usual.

Involving with enthusiasm

My friends at Involve today launched their excellent pamphlet Post Party Politics ... OK, I'm biased as co-author of one chapter .... and also a splendid new website designed by social software specialists Headshift. Involve is only six months old as an independent outfit, fostered by the Environment Council, but is already establishing itself as a major influence in the field of participation. Having Geoff Mulgan as chair, and a distinguished board of practitioners helps ... but I must pay tribute to the indomitable director Richard Wilson pictured here encouraging us to finish up the nibbles (sorry Richard, all the other pics were a bit blurry). His youthful enthusiasm for the subject almost overcomes my tired old mutterings that much participation isn't working, and he says he is converted to engagement version 2.0. As he writes in a forward to the pamphlet:

Involve believes that for government to maintain its democratic legitimacy and efficacy it must go back to basics and start with the people. Whether they are community activists, strategic operators, time poor housewives or disenfranchised students, the government must be able to connect with these people, wherever they are. It is only through this process of connection that government can understand its citizens and serve them properly. Too often the method of establishing a connection, e.g. party reform, has been prioritised over a wider discussion of the politics for making that connection meaningful and effective. Lee Bryant and David Wilcox discuss the challenge in reference to the oft heralded savior of democratic renewal, e-democracy.
They make the point that simply providing technology to do old government online is inadequate. But what does work is understanding what relationships (connections if you like) are required and seeing if technology can support them.
Different people will always want to be engaged and connected differently. Some prefer meeting in church halls or conference centres some community centres, the pub or new digital spaces online.

Or indeed at launch event. The do was a great opportunity to make new connections, and was delighted to meet Paulie of Never Trust a Hippy . Paulie drops insightful comments on to some of my items and I can return the compliment by referring to his Dialogue item. He addresses the question of the difficulty many people find in communicating with those around them.

Here's an experiment that everyone can try at home. Ask someone that you deal with regularly (friend, neighbour, colleague etc) to get in touch with someone else (anyone!) to explain / ask / query something.
Almost every time, your request will not be carried out. Not because of laziness or poor faith, but because most people will not admit that they are nervous about communication.
Phone them up" you say. Promises are made. A day later, "oh, they weren't in". "Send an e-mail" you say. The excuses lengthen. Contact is never made. Where it is, little by way of useful information changes hands. Often, the problem isn't the person you have asked to initiate contact - it is the person who is contacted that is unwilling to engage.

This has an uncanny resonance with the issues I was discussing earlier in the day with Paul Slater and Nick Booth. Both were at the Involve event ... I must find if they talked to Paulie. If not, I have their email addresses so it is easy to do a bit of practical Engagement 2.0 online.

Podnosh: the new recipe for conversations

I spent a terrific couple of hours today talking to Paul Slatter and Nick Booth from Birmingham Community Empowerment Network about .... well, on reflection, it was mostly about talking. There was more to it than that ... we did social networks, podcasts, storytelling and lots more ... but the basic issue was how to help people talk to each other.

Nick is a former BBC TV and radio producer who has moved from the high-end of media to the basics of helping people record conversations and put them on the Net. You can find his work at Podnosh. Paul made the contact because we had known each other from the time a few years back when he worked for People for Action, a network for housing and regeneration organisations. We shared an interest in how you could use technology to do good stuff at local level.
Anyway, we kicked off by sharing perceptions on what worked when you wanted to help people make a difference in their lives and those of others ... be active citizens in the jargon. We concluded that public meetings and committees could be a barrier, and people wanted mostly to get help for their projects and share their experiences with others. You can, of course, complement face-to-face conversations with web pages, emails and so on ... but that doesn't come naturally to many people. On the other hand sitting down and having a chat is pretty natural and people are amazed and excited when they find that podcasting enables them to broadcast their conversations very easily.
The real spark in the conversation for me came when Nick said that he was working with trainees for community radio, and encouraging them to do interviews with people who they were a uneasy about talking to. Maybe an official, someone from a different faith group, older, younger - whatever. Facing that bit of discomfort and overcoming it could build people's confidence, but it could also help develop a new relationship that would not otherwise be formed.
Since there is a lot of concern these days about community cohesion, developing local social networks and generally finding ways to re-establish community ties this seemed like something that would be fun, fruitful and low-cost. There seemed to be a good link to the ideas Kevin Harris and I had been developing with Stephen Clayton and Chris Baker just up the road in Birmingham, at Castle Vale. We are visiting in a couple of weeks, so I expect good things to happen in Birmingham.
Paul made a few reference in our conversation to The Lunar Society, a gathering place for 18th century luminaries like Matthew Boulton, James Watt and Josiah Wedgwood.

Centred on Birmingham, it started ideas which had (and still have) a significant effect on the development of both the city and the country as a whole. Science, Industry, Medicine and Transport were influenced by its members, who met to exchange information about experiments in the work-place, scientific discoveries and commercial opportunities.

Aha - conversations again. Apparently the society is still promoting cross-boundary networking, albeit with a membership limited to 300. I get the sense that Paul and Nick want to use relatively simple technolologies to spread those conversations out a bit.
Podthought: What we should have done was record some of our conversation, of course. Sounds like an excuse for a bit of Skypecasting.

Neighbourhoods, governance and games

I'm looking forward to the conference on neighbourhood governance and community engagement organised for CDF by Kevin Harris next month. If that sounds bit challenging, but be assured that Drew Mackie and I will aim to liven things up with our Neighbourhood Governance Game. As Kevin reported previously, we had a lot of fun with a dry run last November, when groups invented semi-fictitious neighbourhoods and then planned improvements together .... or not very together.

As a simulation it was uncannily realistic. The policy people struggled with the slight vagueness of their brief and worked away at trying to clarify it without going to talk to the service reps or the residents’ groups. In one locality, the service and community groups began by swearing undying mutual support but before long had drifted apart. The community group in this case struggled very realistically to agree on things. At the other locality, the reverse happened: they began deciding independently what they were going to do, but in due course came together harmoniously and creatively. And on one side we had this exquisite example as participants worked on the timeline: in one locality in the fictional year two, the residents came up with a stack of initiatives (orange post-its - click on the image to enlarge) while the agencies' sole initiative was ‘Progress report and evaluation.’

Drew and I have since produced a brief report, which you can download as a zipped pdf here, including my favourite observation:

One participant honestly reported at the end: “we found it so difficult managing internal stakeholders we never got round to talking to external ones; we started consulting people at the end of the process as a way to generate consensus, not the beginning as a way to frame the task. Personally I was appalled by own behaviour - I started off accusing my colleagues of slipping into policybabble rather than plain english, and yet happily charged through to the end of the process without once asking anyone in the other room what they thought”.

The conference takes place at the Resource Centre, Holloway Road, London, 14 March 2006. As Kevin says:

The event will be chaired by Carol Hayden, Associate Director, Shared Intelligence. Speakers include Mark Hitchen, ODPM Neighbourhoods Team, providing an update on the government proposals; the Young Foundation's Paul Hilder giving an update on the Transforming Neighbourhoods programme; and Susie Hay, regeneration and participation consultant, discussing the importance of informal networking at local level.

On that form, the rest of the conference will be both lively and enlightening. Bookings and enquiries: Cheryl.Roberts(at)cdf.org.uk, 020 7833 1772. There's a leaflet here.

Learning about web tools for collaboration

My friends at Ruralnet are running a couple of workshops next month to introduce UK nonprofits to the collaborative possibilities of Web 2.0 tools - although sensibly enough they are not using that term. They are starting off with some fairly basic tools that offer immediate benefits.

For those taking part in the project, there will be an online 'sandpit' where they can have a go at using the tools beyond the face-to-face activities and share their experiences of using them. There are also a limited number of places available on follow-up workshops focusing on practical ways technology can improve work efficiency and productiveness. Planned workshops include how online tools can help when organising an event, tricks and tools to help with finding and getting funding, and how technology can help to keep track of projects, people and resources.

There's an open invitation to register through the I-See-T project web site, that will also provide information and support.

The taster workshops will give attendees a chance to find out how technology can help with collaborative working. Novices are especially welcome - the tools being showcased - including shared calendars, 'weblogs' and news feeds are there to help, not hinder!

I suspect that this fairly cautious approach is appropriate, because in my experience many staff in UK nonprofits are generally, well, under-confident in the use of new tech tools. They are often pretty hard-pressed, with limited tech support and senior managers who aren't high-end users themselves. Of course, there are exceptions, and I hope to learn more about the current state of play at next week's annual NCVO conference where I'll be joining a workshop discussion with the challenging title "Are voluntary organisations relevant in a digital society?". I think fellow panelist will be warning that unless nonprofits do embrace new technologies they may find they are being bypassed by supporters and service users who increasingly expect organisations to provide online options offered by public and private sector.
If, like me, you enjoy using computers and the Net, it is easy to be a bit sneery about people who don't. Urging people to try harder, and scaring them with tales of being overtaken by the competition, doesn't work if they are in a field that values a culture of face-to-face communication, and the rewards of being tech-literate are not obvious.

Web 2.0, participation and e-democracy

Lee Bryant has now blogged a chapter we co-authored for Involve on how the latest web tools may help us re-think and re-energise public participation. Well, if I'm more honest, Lee took some items I've written over the past few months on that theme, together with much more from his substantial knowledge bank, and crafted a really excellent piece that ranks as the best (yet easiest) bit of work I've ever been credited with. Thanks Lee. Here's the intro.
The participation sector has spawned a large amount of research, methodology, and consulting services, but remarkably little new thinking about how to get better results from consultation and participation exercises. In the late 90’s, the Internet and related technologies were seen as a potential solution to these problems, but the majority of early e-government and e-democracy initiatives have been little more than old thinking disseminated using new media. However, the outlines of a new approach are beginning to take shape that draws on recent thinking in online social networks and the emerging culture of the World Wide Web to offer some lessons for the future.
Most research into why participation is not generating the hoped-for results and levels of engagement points to three key groups of issues:

• Conventional 'top-down' approaches to participation do not overcome the feeling of powerlessness that many participants experience, nor the political, economic, cultural and technical barriers to participation.
• People are much more likely to get involved if they think something tangible and worthwhile will come out of it, which is why it is better to support independent organisations run by people themselves.
• Capacity building to support empowerment and participation is lacking, especially among excluded groups - but this does not mean turning people into professional service users.

At the heart of these issues is the question of power and where it lies. Regardless of the quality of techniques employed or facilitation provided, if a participation exercise consists of a powerful body (e.g. a government department) inviting limited submissions on pre-determined questions from the disempowered, then the power imbalance built into the consultation will cast doubt on the results. Power is derived most obviously from being able to choose and frame the questions and the type of language used; but it is also important to consider who is asking the questions, when and how they are asked, and of course who can answer.

Read more here

High claims for e-democracy benefits

In Wider and deeper with e-democracy eGov monitor reports a somewhat optimistic view of the benefits of new online methods for both councils and citizens:

All local authorities can meet the challenge of citizen empowerment by using new e-democracy tools and techniques to raise levels of trust and engagement.
By using e-channels that appeal to young and time hungry citizens, councils can expect to buck the trend of falling engagement rates associated with traditional consultation methods. Local authorities can also make some savings by using e-channels and meet vital government targets associated with e-government and the newer agendas of CPA and neighbourhoods.

The conclusion is based on a report of the benefits of e-democracy published by the local e-Democracy National Project, which has identified that all types of councils should be using e-democracy to improve community engagement work. Publication co-incides with a series of regional conferences for officers and councillors to encourage take-up of e-democracy products. According to the report:

the tangible benefits include:
* Meeting government targets (CPA, PSO etc): HIGH VALUE
* Service improvement / added value: USEFUL
* Cost and efficiency gains: SMALLER but will add to business case.
The study also makes the case for e-democracy from the stakeholders point of view. Councillors can expect to improve their role of scrutiny and representation with tools such as: councillor websites, blogging and online surgeries. Officers can expect to better inform citizens, gather views and feedback findings into service delivery using tools such as, e-petitioning and e-panels. While citizens and communities can expect to organise and campaign more effectively with tools such as Issues Forums and BBC Action Network.

As I reported last year, in How to sell e-democracy - engage the local e-Democracy National Project is running a major marketing programme following up on its £4 million programme developing e-democracy tools. It's quite a tough job because many councils - and citizens - are yet to be convinced. A survey for the national project concluded:

Most councils view engaging local residents as one of their corporate priorities (77%) and most have a written strategy in place (76%). This has yet to translate into a similar level of support for e-Democracy, with only one in five (19%) authorities so far having a written e-Democracy strategy. A further third (36%) do have plans to draw a strategy up, suggesting that we are still in the process of e-Democracy being implemented by local authorities.

The latest report of benefits includes an appendix with a comprehensive run-down on which tools are likely to provide what benefits. Some tools have estimate of financial savings and increased engagement.
I hope the report gets good coverage - although I think it just a touch over the top in what's claimed. Unfortunately it isn't very e-friendly ... the blog reference on the main site is pretty brief, and the report is only available as pdf download.

Sustainable engagement: more conversations, less committees

Kevin Harris has come up with a rather good model of neighbourhood change that ties in neatly with our recent discussions about Governance with the grain. Kevin's prescription comes down to more conversations and less committees, leading to stronger networks and, well, neighbourliness.
We had been talking with Steve Clayton and Chris Baker about the Castle Vale estate in Birmingham, where a housing action trust has successfully used over £300 million to bring enormous improvements since the early 19090s. The challenge now - as in many similar renewal programmes - is to shift from a committee-heavy style of doing things that may be necessary to handle money and big projects into something else. The "something else" still has to provide ways for residents and local interests to influence how the neighbourhood is run, not least because the UK government is pushing control of public services down to local level. However, a small and usually aging group of volunteers probably aren't going to continue to turn out to committees, forums and scrutiny panels now the big problems have been tackled, and the big money is gone. As Kevin writes:

It's obvious that neighbourhood governance makes huge assumptions about people's readiness to commit to community action. But I've stood in community centres watching people come in to find out what's happening and see who can help them; and I know they will sense and avoid any situation where they might be pinned to the wall and coerced into being treasurer of this or that committee for the next four years. If your everyday life is a complex muddle of errant kids and dodgy health, malevolent housing conditions and unpredictable income, you're probably not up for a 24 month committee commitment. If you can see how it relates to your problems though, you might be up for collectively organising something where you can see a beginning and an end. Is that obvious? Good.

What Kevin suggests, as shown in his diagram (click to enlarge), are actions that will help build people's confidence, increase the use of public places in ways that work for all, and more social interactions.

I think there are actions we can focus on to influence those conditions: dealing with disorder, promoting attachment, promoting walkability, stimulating social networks, and organising events and occasions - and maybe some others that I haven't thought of yet. Again, policy hasn't come up with this sort of list - disorder certainly, walkability occasionally, and organising events sometimes at local level. But what would policy look like if it sought to promote attachment to place (eg by addressing high levels of geographic mobility) and helped to stimulate social networks and encourage more conversations?
It does seem to me that certain outcomes are likely if we use these influences on the specified conditions. Boosting what I've called community confidence, local presence, and the frequency of conversations between residents will have a positive effect, I would argue, on getting sustainable community engagement (which of course has to be a rich mix of participatory opportunities, not a string of committees) and on community cohesion.

Put like that, it all seems blindingly obvious, but it isn't the sort of thing that you see in the action plans. It is difficult to chunk up into projects that can be neatly budgetted and tendered to consultants. It involves local groups and agencies giving a lead in the ways that they relate to local people, and to each other with a strong emphasis on openness, accessibility, delivery.... getting out there and living it, not just attending yet more meetings to talk about it. I know many groups and agencies are good at that ... but quite a few aren't. From what I've heard of Castle Vale they may be just the people to show how to do things a bit differently. Kevin and I have been invited over to talk some more, and I'm looking forward to that.