Wednesday 8 February 2017

Components in Public Service Transformation - Component 2 The Ecosystem (Current and Possible)

In the second of four essays we explore current possible eco systems in public realm funded process and services
Appreciation of these ‘components’ provides us with clarity as to what we are trying to reform and new process / structures that can be utilised in any transformational process.  
This essay is still in draft format, when completed all the essays will be published on the RnR Organisation web site.
These essays will influence the focus and activity of RnR Organisation in the future.


To comment or discuss content please contact RnR.Organisation@gmail.com   
____________________________________________________________________________

Component Two – The Ecosystem (Current and Possible) 
INTRODUCTION
The first part Current process provides a more in-depth interpretation of the current decision making process, a basic outline as to how service decisions are made and current ‘transformation’ activity undertaken within this process.
This second part begins to explore the possibilities of a different view. Expanding on the principle of placing individuals, community activists (assets) at the core of any service provision development by providing an introduction to the concept of Asset Based Community Development (ABCD). ABCD traditionally  operates separately from statutory Deficit / deficiency model provision, focusing on neighbourhood / community need. The fundamental differences are outlined through Dan Duncans diagram and further references are provided.
The final part explores constructs of a Possible Ecosystem identifying two locally [Birmingham] designed models/initiatives to aid asset based involvement in service provision, RnR Organisation’s Three Field Development and Poc Zero’s Ring of Confidence. We appreciate that these initiatives are transferable to other areas, as well as acknowledging that other organisations may have similar processes.
PART ONE Current Process
A Linear Process. (fig1) Expanding on definitions expressed in component one, this part provides a wider exploration of the current process of decision making and service development.
We view the current process as linear in format, fiscally restricted and output driven. The process is initiated through political policy which, in turn is turned into strategic policy, strategic development and finally operational implementation, all developed within fiscal constraints, public funding. 
Delivery of identified ‘programmes’ by non public sector organisations is undertaken through a process of written tenders and commissioned work. Tender specifications and commissioned activity is driven by data - this data identifies the need, but is predominantly collated within public realm data sets and is, therefore, often restricted data and silo focused.
(fig1) Current Model, linear Process   

Commissioning is also fiscally restricted. Policy and process identify the amount of money available to fund services identified through the data.  The term ‘purchaser’  is used to describe functions within a commissioning and tendering process, attracting ‘products’ or services through tender applications, assessed against fiscal constraints and output expectations.
This process purports to encourage product development and innovation and, to this end, it may use these terms within any documentation.  However, because of fiscal and output constraints, any new product or innovation is either assimilated into the process, or fails to convince the ‘purchaser’
The linear process delivers a “we deliver what we can afford” mentality with groups, organisations or companies tendering against these measurements. New ‘products’, ‘innovative products’, have little chance of influencing commissioning if they do not fulfil the criteria of the tender specification which, in itself, is designed through restricted, institutionally based and biased, data.
Transformation in ‘Current Process’ (fig2)
‘Transformational’ activity, within the current process, focuses on the commissioning and tendering process.
There is a greater emphasis on the ‘open market’, the term ‘market’ being used to describe the ecosystem of external, non public sector organisations being involved in provision through the tendering and commissioning process. Delivery and output measures, and evaluation of providers entering this ‘market’ govern the products that enter the ‘market’.
The process assesses the form and structure of organisations who submit tenders, checking their governance, due diligence, cash flow, ability, etc. Funders only contract with regulated ‘incorporated bodies’ that fulfil due diligence tests within the commissioning process.
While this ‘transformational’ process has the potential to widen participation in delivery, community engagement through Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) Organisations, is often restricted through due diligence rules, and the ‘deficiency’ view of their capability to deliver.
The ‘ethos’ of the ‘transformation agenda’ is dominated by a reduction in public expenditure, augmenting a   “more bang for your bucks” philosophy.  VCSE engagement is drawn towards a ‘Big Society’, ‘volunteering’/ community responsibility/management process which posits replacing paid staff with unpaid volunteers.
While the ‘transformed’ current commissioning process has the facility to utilise other processes e.g. co-production and co-design, and to view the impact of funding on other agendas, community cohesion etc., the inability to view the community as ‘assets’ and incorporate support into service development limits its true transformational impact.
Fiscal management remains centrally controlled at a national and local commissioning level. Delivery outputs continue to be derived from restricted, organisational/institutional gathered data. This continued use of restricted data curtails any wider benefit that access to the widest range of data and information available might bring. The current ‘transformed’ process retains the deficiency model and, while some acknowledgement may be given to patient participation/stakeholder engagement, it is still within the linear, fiscal driven, output focused deficiency model.
The current process does not comply with any product development principles - it is not a market, as the funders retain complete control over the fiscal structure, quantity, circulation and therefore project/product delivery. Public realm expenditure, within the current process ‘open market’ principle, has an enormous impact, on other sectors of economic activity. This impact is neither incorporated within the design of services nor managed strategically to support any outcome / output process. This is explored in greater depth in wave impact, component 3,
Current public realm liaison with ‘community partners’
The ‘open market’ principle within the current process entails the development of a supply chain, partnership or community development process within the commissioning and tendering process. This process takes place within the deficiency model - it does not acknowledge the skills within a community or target group that may aid some or all of its objectives and outputs. Instead, ‘capacity building programmes’ are developed and provided in order to ‘ensure’ that VCSE organisations or community groups develop skills to be ‘efficient’ in delivering within the linear process.
 (fig2)- Transformation in ‘Current Process’


Additional community engagement is undertaken in the current process through a variety of ‘customer’/patient, community liaison activities. The majority of these practices, Housing Liaison Boards,  Stakeholder experience consultations, ‘Expert by Experience’ ‘Expert Patient’ activity, Ward Committees etc. are professional-led consultation processes, following an organisational, service or  ‘medical’ model method of engagement. Each of these processes treats the community participant as a recipient of services only, with no cognisance given to any of their skills in their ‘real life’ beyond the consultation process.
The terms co-design/co-production are frequently used to describe wider participation in the development of services but the terms of engagement are strictly within the parameters of the funders. Organisation participation is couched in a consultation process, and as mentioned above, development of community partners is undertaken through ‘capacity building’, a deficiency model process, designed by statutory organisational staff, that aims to enable VCSE organisations, community groups or individuals to increase their ability and involvement in public sector procurement.
The current process, as well as the ‘transformed’ element, retains the deficiency model, resolving issues identified through the closed data linear model. (ref#). Participants in community participation activity are not seen as assets, but rather are expected to ‘buy in’ to the linear model of decision making, fiscally restricted and output driven.
PART TWO  - Asset Based Community Development (ABCD), People and communities
Individuals, and therefore communities, are the core of public realm funded activities. The majority of ‘welfare’ provision perceive such individuals, through their restricted data, as having needs that need resolving, the ‘deficiency model’.
This section explores a different default position for community engagement, that of ‘everyone is an asset’
An ‘asset based’ approach to communities, target groups etc can have a much greater impact, acknowledging the skills and experiences of participants, identifying learning and training needs, engaging in decision making utilising locally-sourced data and intelligence, and accommodating these resources in a new decision-making process could have a measurable impact on outputs and outcomes.    
The welfare element of public sector expenditure, health, care (and education) tend to view, and therefore plan, services for ‘people and communities’ as those with ‘needs’, as only recipients or beneficiaries of services. Services are planned within a deficit model, identifying ‘problems’ to be resolved and skills for the programme participants to learn or acquire. Problems and issues are identified through closed data analysis with services provided for individuals by ‘professionals’ 
An ‘asset based’ model, where communities play a more active role in the design and delivery of services from which they and others will benefit, is potentially far more productive, but this requires a paradigm shift for effective community impact.  Such a model provides an opportunity for statutory services to be enriched and enhanced by acknowledging and harnessing inherent and/or latent skills within communities. It changes a deficit model, of resolving perceived ‘deficiencies and difficulties’ into an asset based model, acknowledging the role that individuals and communities collectively can play in designing, developing and delivering programmes to address mutually agreed issues. (ref##)
As a point of clarification we use the term ‘community’ to describe a common bond of interest, issue, culture or geography. We acknowledge that such ‘communities’ are diverse in skills and engagement as they are broad in interest and culture. They may be organised in ‘constituted groups’ (charities, incorporated voluntary organisations etc.), faith based or unincorporated groups, etc. They may wish to deliver services, be involved in the planning or just to support people in their ‘community’. We believe that all individuals bring some skills, knowledge and experience to any transformation, and that needs to be acknowledged and utilised.
The paradigm shift required by statutory organisations and institutions in modifying their approach to identifying issues and designing an amelioration process requires identification of difference, to the deficit model as well as to potential system models to deliver such activity within.
The first model is provided by Dan Duncan’s ‘ABCD, Toolkit’  - a practical manifestation of Asset Based Community Development. The New Paradigm for Effective Community Impact (ref3).
(ref3) New paradigm for effective community impact, Dan Duncan


This table provides a clear distinction between a Needs/Deficit Based model, as delivered within the Current Provision ‘linear’ model, and an Asset Based process. While this approach is more often associated with community engagement provision, it is not beyond the bounds of reason to believe that such principles can be incorporated into a new design process for public realm services.
Two additional articles provide more insight into the principles of Asset Based Community Development 

Part three of this component outlines two potential models, Three Fields Development and Ring of Confidence, of compartmentalising and clarifying the roles within a new design process; which is itself outlined in Component 5 of this series.
Appreciating the potential role of true asset based development is essential if the paradigm shift required within a change to public realm systems thinking as part of a transformation of service delivery is to be achieved. This appreciation must clarify the role of ‘assets’ (community individuals) within service provision.
While the ‘assets’ will be unpaid volunteers, their role in any development should not focus on the ‘free staff’ that may be available to a service with the potential to fill gaps created by cuts to services. Neither should the emphasis on community engagement focus on the role of community development staff, or staff with a ‘community brief’, as in traditional public realm community engagement programmes; which in themselves have focused on service delivery.
The emphasis should be placed on the development or engagement of individuals who live in, or have a connection to, a community of geography, interest or culture. The process should utilise and acknowledge the skills and knowledge of the ‘assets’ in developing support and activities within communities, neighbourhoods/localities playing an active role in service identification, design and delivery.

PART THREE   - Three Fields Development / Ring of Confidence
ABCD can be, and often is, developed separate to statutory strategic, public realm, service development. In order to facilitate ABCD within service development we have provided an outline of two models that explore two structures that explore the role of community constructively in the development design and implementation of services, compartmentalising specific supports that encircle an individual as they come into contact with support services.
Compartmentalisation of services enables more specific categorisation of activities, enhancing programme planning activity, clarifying the specific role, and constructive role which assets and community organisations can play.
We acknowledge that these two structures are local to our activity and that there may have been other structures designed by other organisations in other areas. In later components we identify baseline processes that should be adopted in developing community engagement processes within an ABCD ethos.
Three field Development – The Three Field process was outlined within a document published by RnR Organisation in July 2015, http://www.rnrorganisation.co.uk/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/01-3-Field-Development-July-2015.pdf
The Three Fields (ref4).
Field One formal public sector (statutory sector) intervention - including Health provision, Care, Local Authority Services etc. These are developed and lead by ‘public sector’ professionals delivering statutory provision or essential services.
Field Two – the structured supply chain, including activities and services that support statutory services. Projects receive funding from a variety of sources, public realm  as well as  additional sources e.g. Big Lottery Fund, charitable trusts etc.
·        Projects are delivered predominantly through VCSE organisations.
·        Projects and organisations form part of the statutory service supply chain and support  partners. Projects are not standardised or enveloped by legislation [statutory provision] as are services in ‘Field One’.
·        Additional/external funding is however, increasingly related to needs identified through public sector data and delivered with agreed milestones and outcomes. 
Field Three - community activists and volunteer support, as individual assets, within community organisations or service provision. Individuals are involved as volunteers, providing support to beneficiaries of programmes, and they may also be beneficiaries of a service, linked to and supported by a community focused service provider.
Ring of Confidence(ref 5).  - The Ring of Confidence developed by Poc Zero acknowledges the ‘support’ surrounding an individual at any particular time in their life. In diagram below, the blue circles denote statutory services while the others denote community services.
At any particular time an individual may receive support from a variety of services, or they may receive none at all, but the services are considered to be available.
Such services and support will alter throughout the lifetime of an individual so while the titles attached to the circles (components) within the ‘ring’ may change, the relationship between the components and the support offered to or received by the individuals will not change.

(ref4) The Three Field Model.



Ref 5 Ring of Confidence .  (Diagram to be added) http://www.poczero.com/ 

BOXES OF SUPPORT
Linking these two separate developments are what we call boxes of support. These ‘boxes’ represent statutory and community support identified in both the Three Field and the Ring of Confidence Models.
The boxes of support acknowledge and compartmentalise support available to and /or required by individuals throughout their life or at specific stages within their life. The boxes identify ‘cogs’ to the ‘components’ identified within the Ring of Confidence and a clarity to constituent parts of each of the three fields.
The ‘boxes’ offer the basis of a ‘supply chain’ to be developed  as part of a comprehensive ‘offer’ of support to individual throughout their life. While the Three Field Model and ‘ Ring of Confidence’ represent the nature of support  for individuals the ‘Boxes of Support’ identify specific elements of that support, statutory, community, family or volunteer.
Boxes outlined in fig 6 are not comprehensive but indicative of the type of support that is available. The ‘Boxes of Support’ concept acknowledges that throughout an individual’s life engagement and support with agencies and ‘communities’ differs therefore the content of the boxes changing or undertakes a different role at different or specific stages.
It is crucial, in any development or transformation provision the support to individuals is the acknowledgement of the role of the ‘content’ of all the boxes and the potential co-ordination of some of the boxes and an acknowledgement of communication between the boxes supporting the  individual.

(ref 6 Boxes of support ).


Words and images ©  2017 

Components in Public Service Transformation - Component 1 - Definitions and issues

This is the first of four essays that explore components in a public realm provision transformational process.
They are published here in draft format for discussion. When completed all the essays will be published on the RnR Organisation web site.
This first essay provides an outline of definition and issues within a transformational process. Subsequent essays will explore the Current and Possible public realm ecosystem, Component Two, Supply chain development (Wave Impact) within public realm funded programmes, Component Three and the link between term used within commissioning and tendering and the ‘absolute’ definition, Component Four.
We have used the term component as a title for each essay as we believe to identify transformation within public realm activity we need to identify specific ‘components’ within the current activity as well as clarifying terminology used.
A fifth, and final essay will bring together all the issues outlined in the first four, exploring how they can influence transformation within public realm services.
These essays will influence the focus and activity of RnR Organisation in the future.

To comment or discuss content please contact RnR.Organisation@gmail.com   

______________________________________________________________________

Component One  – Definitions  and issues  
Public realm, public service, transformation, and the issue of palimpsest. 
Public service to public realm
The first element of this component is the terminology we use throughout this and subsequent essays outlining other components in transformation.
The primary task in a service transformation process is distinguishing the service provision, the funding source, and the describing terminology used in such a process. In projects that are part of a ‘welfare provision’ it may be obvious who is providing the funding; however, it has become more difficult to identify who is providing the service.
The creation of internal markets, private finance initiatives, academies, commissioning, tendering and contracting have created a wide variety of service provision. 
The strategic development of provision is still the remit of national government, through a departmental delivery system. Some activities are the responsibility of local government, but such roles have diminished due to funding structures. Increasingly, the local authority structure is used to deliver national government policies through commissioning and contracting, as part of the ‘open and free market’.
The principle of commissioning within public expenditure increases the number of organisations involved in service and project delivery, thus widening the ‘public sector’ concept to accommodate neoliberal principles that an open and free market increases choice and maximises the ‘benefits’[remuneration] of public expenditure.
Services are delivered through commissioning and procurement processes, or by selling off services through a bidding process through a variety of ‘conduit vehicles’. Organisations or companies are still funded by public funds, but are they public services?
The ‘market’ delivered activities are still referred to as public services, irrespective of the provider or the route of any excess/profit from the activity.
To encompass the myriad of processes of delivery of services we in RnR Organisation use the term ‘public realm’ services, services whose source of finance is derived from the ‘public purse’. We use this term so that we can discuss the transformation of ‘products or services’ delivered by organisations to beneficiaries, irrespective of the organisation or process that delivers the service. The service remains within the public realm, accessible in the same way, or with some changes. It is not, however, a public service delivered by staff employed through a public body. It is delivered by a variety of organisations and companies, some of whom may be community run social enterprises, reinvesting any excess, or others where part of any ‘public’ funding is retained as excess/profit, not employed for its project function but distributed to shareholders or owners.
Acknowledging this difference is not just one of semantics but an acknowledgement of the changes in the public funding pathway. Whereas local Authorities and councils used to provide a wide range of services their role has, over a number of reforms, been modified into that of a facilitator /provider of commissions. 

Transformation clarification of public service remit 
The second element explores the potential for innovative or novel transformation, given the reforms that have taken place over the past twenty years.
As if the reforms undertaken by the Thatcher and subsequent governments were not enough, the term ‘transformation’ continues to be used within an almost continuous process of restructuring services.
The current ‘transformation’ agenda therefore exists within an environment which views public services, developed and provided by national or local government departments, as a thing of the past.
Public realm funding, national government expenditure, however, continues to be spent, in silo departments, within a linear decision making process, ensuring that political strategy and values are implemented to operational programmes into the ‘market’ through a commissioning process. fig 1  
So what exactly is being transformed? Who is leading that transformation, and what is the perceived outcome of such reforms? Given the austerity budgets since 2011 it would be simple enough to suggest that a neoliberal, free market, public expenditure reductionist agenda is in the ascendancy.
Transformation, in such a climate, and after such major reforms and the ‘selling off’ of services, would seemingly finish what is left of public sector delivered funding, if not public realm services all together.
Yet, in this potentially darkest hour for public realm services, we would contend that there is an opportunity to truly transform how National and Local government services as well as other publicly paid-for services can be delivered, thus utilising public funding and transforming the role of public bodies as enablers and facilitators
Historical context, terminology and purpose
To begin the exploration of such a transformation we need to ask three questions to address the historical context, to challenge some terminology and to identify a remit/purpose.
1.       What are public services? - a brief one paragraph explanation!! Beginning with the 1601 Poor Law, financed from property owners, the process had a geographic focus, in those days parishes - not to alleviate poverty, but to control the 'lower orders', and to reinforce a sense of social hierarchy. There were amendments throughout the subsequent centuries, expanded by the creation of Local Authorities and associated Acts that added responsibility for roads, water, electricity, gas and education. Their growth and subsequent decline is well documented.

2.       Who are the stakeholders? Are we customers?  Both these terms have been recently adopted and are widely used within service planning and delivery. Do individual stakeholders have different perceptions of public services, what is delivered and what, as recipients, is expected? Can a beneficiary of a service, a customer, also be a participant in delivering that service?

In public realm services the answer is yes, but the majority of planning provides a distinct separation between provider and recipient. In the way the two terms are used is there a difference between stakeholder and customer? We would argue that there isn’t.

By adopting such nebulous terminology there is a danger of developing services within restricted ‘stakeholder / customer’ categorisation, separating/compartmentalising those involved into those who deliver, and those who receive. It becomes a deficiency service model, with recipients who have defined problems that need resolving, by those with the skills to resolve. In developing such programmes within ‘silo department’ funding sources, stakeholders/customers/providers become compartmentalised into simplistic pigeonholes: problem, provider and recipient. Funding follows this formula.

There is no scope in this model for considering how to fit ‘stakeholders/customers’ into more than one category, to consider the possibility that an individual may participate in more than one role within a service - a provider can also be a recipient, and can fit into a number of categories.   

3.       More difficult in ‘welfare services’?  Given the breadth of public expenditure it may be more difficult within ‘welfare’ provision to identify role(s) and remit(s). While infrastructure projects, roads, water etc. are easy to define within measurable outcomes, delivery of welfare services, personal development, care, etc., can be more subjective. Services are developed to ameliorate identified issues and problems - services designed within a deficiency model.
Compartmentalisation of problems leads to subjective deficiency definitions, and thus provides project titles such as ‘Troubled Families’, ‘People with Multiple and Complex Needs’, ‘Disaffected communities’ etc. These are projects developed within a deficiency/‘medical model’, delivered by staff frequently recruited from a specific social class, potentially delivering a “we know best” programme.
Dichotomy in the development and delivery process
The deficiency model delivery and the development of stakeholder/customer involvement create a dichotomy in the development and delivery process. Providers input and views can outweigh those of the recipient, thus reducing the impact of stakeholder involvement making any co-design and production activity meaningless.
Community assets
Later components in this series will explore the role, not of distinguishing between recipient or providers but rather of recognising and developing individuals as ‘assets’ within communities, and incorporating such practice, and ultimately resources, in developing a neighbourhood (community) support process and provision.
Transformation - an issue of palimpsest*?
The last element acknowledges that no transformation of public services takes place on a blank canvas, but on an existing blue print that is drawn and re-drawn over the years. Current service provision bears the marks of historical development and delivery, previous processes and incarnations, the potential, perceivable and the unachieved, impossible to remove or wipe clean.
Public sector reform/transformation is undertaken within the data it gathers from the silos, data from its services, related to problems it has identified, and solutions it wishes to impose. It is influenced by fiscal constraints of public funding - such activity is promoted as reform and restructuring which, in itself, is potentially disproportionally influenced by those employed to deliver the process, protecting their status and income.
Terms such as ‘co-design’ or ‘co-production’ are used to augment ‘stakeholder’ involvement in service development - service development that remains fiscally restricted, silo data-driven and output orientated.
True reform
We believe that true reform, even within fiscal restrictions, is possible, if driven by decision making using a wider range of processes and data. Such reform or transformation has to be built on previous and current activities, but the ‘components’ outlined in this series of essays forming the core of a re-thinking, the transformation of provision.
We believe that participants in such delivery should be from as wide a range as possible and include the process of accumulating as much data and ‘skilled assets’ as possible, in order to redraw any current ‘blueprint’ of how public realm expenditure impacts on individuals, not only at a service delivery level but also at a neighbourhood and community level.  


*            Palimpsest noun [ C ] -  /ˈpæl.ɪm.sest/ /ˈpæl.ɪm.sest/

​A very old text or document in which writing has been removed and covered or replaced by new writing - something such as a work of art that has many levels of meaning, types of style, etc. that build on each other;


(fig1) Current Model, linear Process

Words and images ©  2017