(S)warming to collaboration

Something I’ve learnt is how important “permission devices” are — i.e. tools or techniques that make people want to take ownership of a space and feel at home — whether that was an exhibition space where people could relax and meet people while browsing the physical artworks or have a nap in the tent. The most famous “permission device” is probably the watercooler.

When I was working in a co-working space, the way the it had been designed is a permission device in its own right, from how the coffee area is at the heart of the space, how people can work anywhere and how you need to walk right around the space to get out (joking aside, you’d be amazed at how more likely you meet people that way!).

What tools or methods help you take the initiative in a space?

As a Hub Scholar, I started to "swarm" with others on particular issues — where 1:1 chats over a cuppa turn into groups of people meeting on resilience (and coming up on alternative finance and open source policy making).

The Hub also brought together members working on similar impact areas to think about how it can support us and how we can support each other. From social startups working on very specific needs to organisations working across the continent, I took part in the meetup on the impact area around youth employment.

These behaviours are not dissimilar to bees swarming around a tree, to extend the metaphor of @owenjarvis and @ruthbmarvel report “When Bees meet Trees” around the relationships between small and large social sector organisations. Maybe these informal self-organising groups are the prelude to “swarm cooperatives”, in other words “temporary social structures we create to solve problems, explore new ideas, and make the most of opportunities” or the “mini labs” that Social Spaces are developing in Lambeth around systemic issues.

When Bees Meet Trees

The RNIB model described in Owen and Ruth’s report wouldn’t necessarily work in this scenario. You wouldn’t want to dilute brands as powerful as @roomfortea and @up_reach as that could dilute their impact in the process.

“RNIB and their partners are unusual amongst large charities in that they operate a Group structure, more commonly seen in private sector companies and housing associations. They have merged with, or acquired, multiple sight loss organisations, including Action for Blind People, National Talking News and Magazines Braille amongst others. The catalyst for this was RNIB’s development of the ‘UK Vision Strategy’ which describes a set of common goals around sight loss prevention and support for people living with sight loss, which is recognised by Government, professional health bodies, and charities. This collective vision provided an impetus for greater collaboration between organisations and in part led to the creation of the RNIB Group. Mergers and acquisitions were used to align different organisations under a common strategy and enabled the RNIB group to streamline and widen access to services and support for visually impaired people across the UK, while reducing duplication and unhealthy competition for resources between organisations with similar missions.”

However, there is an advantage that the nascent network of Hub Impact areas have. By being based at the Hub, we share a similar working culture. It’s why in the “When Bees meet Trees” workshop I took part at @esmeefairbairn, the group I was in proposed that big organisations open up their unused office space for smaller organisations dealing with similar issues to work in.

Would this run the risk of those organisations swallowing up the identity of their new tenants? Would it necessarily create a culture of collaboration and openness just by having different groups in the same space? What other “permission devices” would be needed to get to a stage where it felt natural to collaborate within the space?