In 1976, Daniel Bell wrote that one of the great contradictions of capitalism is that it demands us to be ‘a puritan by day and a playboy by night’. Our jobs generally urge us to obey rules and be inconspicuous, frugal and thrifty; while consumer culture urges us to defy convention, indulge in hedonistic experiences and express ourselves through material things.
In this collaborative blog, we argue that public services face this contradiction too. The UK wants better public services but through the ballot box we have voted to reduce their funding. With this in mind it is clear that any successful models for a new public service economy will have to incorporate collaborative working arrangements.
Below, we profile communities around the world which have overcome resource constraints. Often, these collaborative approaches are born out of scarcity or a lack of service provision. This turns challenges into opportunities and might make approaches more resilient and future proof. We want to hear your examples of innovation: how can public services learn from collaborative communities at work?
MAKING THE SHARING ECONOMY PUBLIC
While most of us can appreciate that we are both producers (workers) and consumers in the economy, new technologies are - as ever - driving transformations. The ‘sharing economy’ and ‘collaborative consumption’ rely on online networks and platforms which draw people into this dual identity: buying and selling on eBay, being a host and a guest through Airbnb. The challenge is that we inherit assumptions and legal structures which define what work is and what it can be - for example fair pay and conditions.
While a critique of who is profiting (and the questionable morality of the ‘JerkTech’ sector) is welcome, what remains exciting is that the internet can connect people like never before, and platforms allow for ‘community marketplaces’ which transcend limitations on scale from self-organised localised collaborative efforts.
What is often missing from policy analysis is an understanding that we need collaborative consumption of public services as much as we need it in our private lives. Beyond the product and service economy, the ‘core economy’ refers to the institutions and working arrangements societies create to take care of citizens - the public services and support networks that keep us healthy, safe and educated. In the permafrost of austerity, public services are switching (or worrying about how to switch) from efficiency savings and retrenchment to restructuring, transformation and decommissioning. The value of support networks is evident in everything from employment to mental well-being and social inclusion to recovering from natural disasters.
TAKING WORKERS WITH US
In the Public Services and Communities team, we appreciate that as public services evolve they will face fundamental changes in what ‘workforce’ means. Leaders will want colleagues to be more flexible and innovative (and less puritanical), and services will look more like collaborative networks than hierarchical bureaucracies.
But consider for a moment what is involved in this. A think tank like the RSA might champion a model for social care which reinvents the role of care worker as a by-product: the place of work, its certification and qualification processes, pay scale, management structure, social life and status - even the uniform people might dress in.
The neglected question is not what type of service we aspire to but how we transition the existing workforce to get there: what working arrangements that are secured for them under a new paradigm? The crunch on public sector resources is steep, and will grow more so in the coming months and years. That means that the networked facilitators of social outcomes are in fact the same public servants we have today.
Think about how far there is to go. Ministers and Mayors are finding it difficult to influence doctors and tube drivers on being at work in the hours they think the public want. Public service professionals are acutely aware that their fragile and stretched services can, at worst, endanger lives if we get the transition wrong.
More fundamentally, a public service successful in managing demand and adopting a preventative approach effectively writes it’s own redundancy notice unless it also redefines its purpose. Simultaneously, new commissioning regimes are opening up service provision to for-profit companies who aren’t necessarily motivated to deal with root causes and to shrink the scale of future budgets.
As an example, through public education, and extensive fire prevention schemes such as installing smoke alarms, and newer less flammable household items, fires have reduced by 40 per cent over the last ten years. Fire stations have closed as a result of this reduced demand leading to industrial action. But a wider view on firefighters shows they have a lot more to offer than just putting out fires.
Crudely, the fire service is an impeccable brand. It can pivot in several directions to improve the wellbeing of its local community and reduce the demand on other blue light services. Fire services have worked with social services to support vulnerable adults and using the skills they already have to respond to lower-level health issues (NLGN, 2015). Fire Stations are generally open 24 hours, have kitchens, gyms and adult role models: these resources can engage young and marginalised people meaningfully in their community at little marginal cost. This innovative way of repurposing public sector workers, who otherwise would spend much of their time unproductively, increases efficiency and capitalises on the firefighters’ local knowledge and the trust the wider communities place in them. A contractual attitude to fire service provision - whether involving the public or private sector - risks choking off the creativity to think laterally about inherited public sector resources.
STRENGTHENING LOCALISM BY LEARNING FROM BEYOND OUR SHORES
Some of the most inspiring examples of collaboration at work come from outside the UK. People who share a stake in a local resource often self-organise to protect and enhance the value and the living they derive from a resource or skilled trade. Importantly, governments can support such efforts, as well as subvert them.
Elinor Ostrom was awarded the Nobel Prize for economic in 2009. An appreciation of her work can help change the subtext that underpins public service reform: that only regulation and markets can ensure fairness and efficiency. Ostrom proved otherwise. Her research was revolutionary for economists because she observed an ‘actual reality’ rather than hypothesised mathematical models.
A clear example Ostrom shared is a self-organised fishing cooperative in Alanya, Turkey. In many regions of the world fish stocks are collapsing despite government efforts to enforce quotas and regulate activity. In Alanya, fishers allocate fishing sites by draw, and then over time fishers move from one site to the next thus assuring that each fisher has access to the more profitable sites at one point throughout the season. This approach, evolved over decades, reduced disputes about fishing sites, but also reduced the need to employ fishing equipment that was used to catch as many fish as possible before others had the opportunity. Where governments have disrupted such arrangements, fishing industry has often declined.
In the UK, an under-appreciated risk of the localism agenda is that the most vocal, visible, articulate and influential communities are able to capture dwindling public sector resources at the expense of those in greater need. Especially in rural areas, we need to learn collaborative and cooperative approaches to fairly access services such as mobile libraries, postal services, GPs, and community transport. Beyond market-based and regulatory reforms, a new consensus is emerging around co-designing and co-producing public services to address this. But the elephant in the waiting room realises that empowering citizens and service users must - on some level - be disempowering for those working in and managing public services; especially public services reliant on strong institutions and bureaucracies.
There are examples of collaboration at work from countries with similar public service constraints to the UK. Last year the RSA awarded its Albert Medal to Jos de Blok, founder and CEO of Buurtzorg. Jos and a team of nurses aimed to improve the healthcare systems in the Netherlands by creating a patient-centred care model focusing on the independence of its patients. Empowerment of patients and nurses is at the heart of this approach and simplified organisational structures without hierarchy enable all participants to exchange ideas and to allow for a community based approached to health. Buurtzorg is now employing 8500 nurses and its approach has also been implemented in Sweden, Japan and the US and led to a decrease in cost whilst simultaneously increasing the quality of care and job satisfaction of nurses.
Finally, in Lagos, Nigeria, where state infrastructure struggles to keep up with demands created by a fast growing population, social innovation is thriving. Wecyclers offers a community based approach to deal with 735,000 tons of plastic waste annually. Only 40 per cent of the city’s waste is collected and plastic worth an estimated £200 million is not recycled. Wecyclers collects plastic and aluminium from households in low-income areas, using cargo bicycles. Households receive instant cash credits via mobile phone banking, redeemable against purchases of phone credit, food, or household goods. Collections are organised with text message reminders, and the scheme raises awareness of sustainability issues. We need to look beyond our neighbours and realise that citizens in the ‘developing world’ are often developing smarter solutions than we are.
COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITIES AT WORK
Current roles for local government in running libraries, buses and schools were unimaginable in 1976. The most fundamental challenges of the next generation will require even more radical rethinking of what a public service looks like. The best solutions will combine issues: boosting volunteering among the retired to support community-based public services; retrofitting housing to tackle climate change and address unemployment; tackling social isolation, health and well-being together through personal interaction (like Oomph); and using spare ‘idling’ capacity wherever it exists.
If we are to successfully walk the tightrope of having socially productive public services which cater to growing demands, reduce demand, and cost less, we need to appreciate successful models of collaboration at work, and in particular those adopted among communities rather than through top-down change.
Add your examples and thoughts - we are especially interested in how those leading our public services can learn from other sectors around the world.
Related articles
-
Beyond Beveridge - An interview with Charles Leadbeater
Paul Buddery
In the first interview for our 'Changing the Narrative' project, Charles Leadbeater discusses Beveridge, frugal innovation and shifting expectations in public services.
-
Blog: Political connectivity – our ticking time-bomb and the route to innovation and inclusion
Charlotte Alldritt
We need to restore political connectivity and build a genuine link between people and their systems of governance, argues Charlotte Alldritt.
-
Blog: Shifting the Narrative of Local
Jocelyn Cunningham
Last month the RSA, as part of the People Shaped Localism programme, hosted a roundtable entitled The Felt Local: arts based approaches to belonging and identity. RSA Associate Jocelyn Cunningham reflects on the insights from the roundtable regarding perceptions of what local means and who this includes.
Join the discussion
Comments
Please login to post a comment or reply
Don't have an account? Click here to register.
There's a lot in here, so let me pick up on just one example, related to my own past as public service worker, and see where that takes us.
You write: "Last year the RSA awarded its Albert Medal to Jos de Blok, founder and CEO of Buurtzorg. Jos and a team of nurses aimed to improve the healthcare systems in the Netherlands by creating a patient-centred care model focusing on the independence of its patients."
You write of this as though nurses focusing on independence of patients is some kind of miraculous innovation. But it's not. I trained in the mid 1980s, when the Roper model of nursing care, based on 13 'Activities of Daily Living' was pretty well-established as the prinicipal model in the UK. I'll get round at some point to looking up the proper sources, but for now this from wikipedia will suffice, as it accords well enough with what I knew was at the heart of the model:
"By considering changes in the dependence-independence continuum, one can see how the patient is either improving or failing to improve, providing evidence either for or against the current care plan and giving guidance as to the level of care the patient does or may require. This value only results when the assessment is done frequently as changes occur and if it is combined with health improvement and health promotion. It is not effective in a paternalistic environment where all care is provided for an individual even when self care is possible."
This focus on independence was 30-35 years ago, and has since been 'managed out' of nursing, to the extent that a couple of years ago the Prime Minister decided that all wards should have 'intentional rounding', which is pretty well the opposite of patient-centred care (see my blog at http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2012/12/09/nursings-existential-crisis-part-1/ and the links from it, if you can be bothered).
Why do I recount all this? Well, what I'm trying to get at is that, as a think-tank, your insistence of finding and replication innovation, and in your efforts to "transition the existing workforce" towards imported innovations, risk imposing yet another wave of managerialism upon already ontologically insecure works (you are right to quote Bell in this respect). The way in which think-tanks like yours work is by bringing together the innovators and the thinkers, the outcome of which is simply to increase pressure of non-innovative managers to innovate, and the way they do this generally is to crap on their underlings for not being innovative enough.
There's another route which i'd like to see the RSA foster, because actually I do thinbg - despite the inbuilt managerialist tendencies - you at the RSA want good things to happen. This is to foster not innovation for the sake of innovation, but to foster the return of professionalism.
Nursing, and now social work, have been utterly de-professionalised, in the Tawney sense of profession, not the modern sense. The reason I was a very good nurse (before I was injured) was that I was a professional - like the Buurtzog people I did lots of the basic nursing tasks now managed out of and away from nursing as managed task, and i did so because it allowed me the scope to be a professional, and to innovate in my own terms.
Until the RSA, and your project especially, gets its head around re-professionalisation, and what it actually means for public servants, the technocracy of innovation will remain harmful in the overall balance of things. Read Michael Lispky.
Now, how will you respond? will it be the think-tanky "Very interesting comments, Paul. Thanks for your contribution" and a move on. Or will it be actual engagement. We'll see. Good luck with thinking stuff through.
Paul, I am glad this blog prompted you to share with us you knowledge, and a critique of the role of think tanks. I share with you a concern that think tanks can often privilege the new and the imported. Innovation is over-used and often over-valued. My colleague Joe (a former teacher) indeed called for schools to benefit from a ‘gap year’ in which no new policies are introduced (except, I guess, for that RSA policy of no other policies!). There’s no doubt an interesting piece that could be written about how think tanks attract and create neophiles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neophile). Check out this graph:
I’ve worked for a good few years in impact evaluation – and occasionally faced the self-doubt that being the ‘impact police’ simply detracts from letting staff and services ‘get on with it’ (see http://nfpsynergy.net/charities-and-rise-impact-thought-police-0). I’m struck by David Graeber’s observation that the value systems that bureaucracies (and societies) militate towards, mean the highest form of value creation is in how well you evaluate the value of others (with credit rating agencies having great power in financial markets). I came to the humble conclusion you need to be invited in. I’ve joked with friends about setting up a non-innovation prize, awarding resources and recognition to ‘solutions’ so obviously valued by their participants – such as youth clubs, ESOL classes, and domestic violence refuges.
I understand your view that the managerialism (as deployed to optimistically ‘roll out’ innovation) is often alienating and (partly as a consequence) ultimately unproductive. The kind of examples we are interested in are those which are empowering because they are self-organised or designed very closely with the people they are meant to benefit; rather than imposed. We wouldn’t seek to impose them here, but I think there is room for inspiration, especially in such challenging times. I like your emphasis and framing of this as re-professionalisation, though there are of course alienating ways of engaging in such an effort as well. I will follow your links as our plans for research are refined.
In the blog post above, I was indeed trying to take a gentle side-swipe at our own work, highlighting the shortcomings of policy prescriptions which underestimate (or ignore) the reality that almost all of the value of public services is created by the existing workforce within existing working practices. The irony of an innovation fetish is that something obviously sensible to you, as a nurse, like Buurtzorg - to a generation for whom ‘new public management’ has been a default – can seem radically refreshing in bringing autonomy and humanity (back) to the workplace.
Those at think tanks are paid to use space and time to think, and are generally driven by seeing themselves as helping others achieve social impact, rather than becoming rich or powerful through sitting at their desks. They do need to promote ideas with intense empathy for those working in public services (and others working to improve people’s lives). Far too few of us have direct exposure to the policy areas we work on. And just as nurses would spend more time learning about the intricacies of ailments and conditions felt by patients, most of us at think tanks would be following links in blogs and responding to comments all day and night, if we could. Doing so would be part of the (re)professionalisation of our work, and some think tanks have impact measures related to writing comments like this one.
In policy work, and the civil service, you’ve made me think we need a greater two-way solidarity with the workers we ultimately seek to influence.
Jonathan
I am seriously impressed that you've thought through a reply which actually engages with the argument - I've commented on plenty of think tank stuff and this is, I think, the first time an author has 'met' me as some kind of equal. I am writing up something for my blog as a response but also enlargement on what I set out here, and I'll link here when I'm done. Some of it will engage with your acknowledgment of the "shortcomings of policy prescriptions", and suggest ways in which think-tanks might deal (and be structured to deal) better with the managerialist power imbalances they perpetuate, however good and conscientious the individual staff.
Great post, and really helpful to have these ideas and examples drawn together in one place. I’ll be sharing through CoLab Dudley Borough :)
By way of a small example (I’ll have more to offer as I write up work I’ve been doing on another project) I thought I’d share something from Dudley. I’ve been working with residents in a Big Local area, who have £1million of Lottery funding allocated to their area. In the early work talking to people who live, work and volunteer in the area and developing a vision for the area it was decided to make a small grants fund available for groups and individuals to access to help spread the word and engage people. Having reviewed what they liked and didn’t like about running a traditional grants scheme, the residents leading the Big Local programme have been keen to try some new ways of doing things. In the last couple of months we’ve prototyped a co-design process, bringing together people seeking support to bring an idea into reality, people from local community groups who are also involved in leading Big Local, and Dudley CVS officers supporting Big Local.
Together we were able to identify numerous resources which could be shared and used for an out-of-school provision taster weekend, and consider what children could bring from home to use, rather than buying things which get used for a couple of hours a week and locked in a cupboard for the rest of the time. Through a process of conversation, offers, ideas and re-thinking some things, we reduced a £1,500 list of items to under £500. I realise this is just a small amount of money in the grand scheme of things, but there is something for me in the principle of bringing people together who are open to sharing, and creating processes which encourage and facilitate that. The relationships which are built will last longer than funding and I think will mean more for long term success and sustainability than money in silos ever would.
Many thanks for your reply, Lorna. It's a really interesting example and strikes a chord with many of the findings from our Connected Communities programme about the way these kinds of projects are designed. The report should be out in the next couple of months so do look out for it and feel free to add further examples.
Providing "successful models of collaboration at work, and in particular those adopted among communities rather than through top-down change" is a key purpose of the new RSA Catalyst project Town Digital Hub (www.towndigitalhub.net). Do get in touch if you agree there is synergy! Best, Keith
Hi Keith, thanks for the comment and sounds great. I'll definitely be in touch as we develop this work over the next few months. Feel free to email jack.robson@rsa.org.uk