Develop communities of practice around the ideas you’re developing
https://www.slideshare.net/Openpolicymaking?utm_campaign=profiletracking&utm_medium=sssite&utm_source=ssslideview

Develop communities of practice around the ideas you’re developing

Even if you’re testing ideas in different ways, keep developing the community around them. Help them spot the connections, spillover effects, or unintended consequences of testing one idea on another.

Help them be inspired by the different methods you’re using, opening their imagination to how they could apply them in their context and helping them learn where in the change journey these methods are most effective.

The Policy Lab has developed a valuable set of categories of the different communities you can create around issues:

a

Design in Policy, Policy Lab

4. Continue researching even while you’re prototyping

When you’re developing prototypes based on the insights of the initial hypothesis, make sure to create sub-hypotheses to make the prototype even more focused.

Think about how you will assess the prototype, mainly if you’re testing more than one. This could be desirability, viability, or feasibility. Don’t think that you shouldn’t do more research because you're now prototyping. Prototyping isn’t just about making stuff you can see and touch; it’s about testing different ways to achieve an outcome, and that can be through.

Share with people why you’re prototyping and be open about the hypothesis so that people know why you’re resting the idea. Be open about how you’ve had to pivot so people can see why you’ve changed and what lessons you’ve learned, and so they can see that they can challenge the idea because you have yourself.

a

The 'double diamond' is a concept developed by @policylabuk that illustrates the divergent and convergent stages of the design process. It is a useful tool for understanding the iterative nature of prototyping and systems change in policy and design.

Sanjan Sabherwal adjusted the Double Diamond to focus on what happens “in-between” the diamond, the space for speculation and provocation .

Be open about how people are responding to the idea or prototype so that you’re creating a conversation, not just between you and a service user, but between people so they can feel collective responsibility in tackling the issues.

Use journey mapping and multiple cause diagrams to see the world through people and the system. This can help you see issues that can’t just be resolved through improving provision, i.e., residents who are in work poverty not having the time to access retaining no culture of continuous learning, compared to a changing and automated jobs market that will require this, and challenges faced by small businesses to provide more flexible work.

5. Don’t just meet people’s needs, challenge what they need

Don’t just accept the system's status quo and focus on what you can do as an organisation and what the user can do. This can be tempting, but it further individualises people’s situations and evades the collective responsibility other players in the system must take.

'Nudge or behaviour change' refers to the use of subtle, indirect suggestions to influence people's decisions and behaviours. While it can be effective, it should not be the sole focus of your efforts. For instance, making the application process for Personal Independence Payment easier is a form of nudge, but if the criteria are still causing suffering or affecting dignity, the issue still needs to be fully addressed.

You need sometimes to be provocative. Challenge what people need and understand their needs. Working out won’t work as much as it will.

Test the different layers of the system. By testing change at a geographic level, like a neighbourhood, at a sectoral level, at an organisational level, or at a systemic level, you can make a strategic and impactful difference.

a

Citizens Assembly on Climate Change, Camden Council

6. Test different social norms

Instead of sanction-based accountability, which is pervasive across the welfare system, why not test collective accountability through a peer support network, like family group conferencing, Circle, or Lambeth Living Well Collective have shown.

a

Lambeth Living Well Collective

Instead of just focusing on a service meeting a need, how about the support that can flex, helping understand broader issues (three causes) or support other issues (Life)?

Reframe what suitable means based on what’s important to residents; “good work” may only mean money but more.

When you’re working on a project that wants to design with residents, start from their needs & motivations and test ideas that meet those. It cannot be easy when there is no consensus. There are examples of ways to come to a consensus, but it can be helpful to reveal the trade-offs that may be needed, i.e. between focusing on a targeted cohort or service for all and prioritising a particular need over another.

Design and systems change share sufficiently similar values that there is space for them to mingle and collide at the edges. What we can learn from both is that it’s often in the “in-between spaces” that change happens. Why not between these two disciplines? For those interested in this subject, the Design Council are working with The Point People to “host a series of workshops and events to bring together designers working in systems change, designers who are interested in how they could play a part, and funders who need their help and aims to develop a set of principles and practice around design for systems change”.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Noel Hatch的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了