David Wilcox and Drew Mackie**
This note as drafted May 8 2017, but not published until The Way Ahead conference in June, when I blogged: Here's hoping #TheWayAhead plans for a London resource hub become more networky
The latest development is an event planned for July 12: How #TheWayAhead for @LondonFunders is becoming #OurWayAhead for Londoners
The Way Ahead initiative to reframe support for some 120,000 London voluntary organisations, social enterprises and community groups will next month reveal plans including ideas for a London resource hub. (Update: event report Voices from the Tower may change tone of #TheWayAhead for civil society, as well as much else)
Five working groups have detailed plans for the future - but so far there has been no systematic engagement with citizens and community groups, no local piloting, and no significant attention to the role of the Internet in the hub.
That means any design for the hub may not fully reflect local needs, make best use of London’s assets, or reflect the way that Londoners access and use information.
This note suggests an approach that offers ideas from the Networked City exploration, and aims to make the most of the thousands of initiatives already supporting social action. We need a network to realise London’s assets, not a hub, so:
As a start, set up a Connecting Londoners online forum and other tools for a learning and development network to take these ideas forward
How will Londoners, in 10 years time, find out where to get help for themselves or their families in times of need; find local activities that interest them; share or sell items or services; find opportunities to volunteer; campaign for or against change in their community … and organise projects? How will they connect, communicate, cooperate, collaborate?
Hopefully in ten years time there may still be advice agencies, centres, charities and community groups with helpful staff or volunteers … as well as neighbours, health and social workers and other connectors to offer a friendly human face.
However, two things seem fairly certain. Firstly that there will be less public and charitable funding to support services. Secondly that use of the Internet will have grown, by organisations, groups or individuals. Whether information is transmitted by voice, print or online device it will be stored and accessed digitally.
That doesn’t mean that everyone will have to use the Internet - provided they can find other ways to make the connections that are important to them. It does mean that the architecture of communication will continue to change, just as it has with the introduction of print, the telegraph, telephone, radio, TV … and the Internet. Earlier means of communication were centralised, one-to-many broadcast, then one-to-one and one-to-group. The Internet is all that, plus many-to-many. Anyone online can connect with anyone else provided, of course, they have the online connection, devices and skills necessary.
If we want to know something we’ll probably Google it rather than going to the library or a directory of local services. If we want an update on the local groups we belong to we may check in to their Facebook group or their website. If we want to share information or organise some action securely with a select group of people we may use WhatsApp. There are thousands more options for personal use, business, shopping, entertainment. Magically they synchronise across our phones, tablets and computers. They aren’t just stand-alone digital tools, they are platforms.
We should also think about a future where connecting for social support and action will depend even more than today on network platforms that support these different ways of connecting, communicating, cooperating, collaborating. They may not be the current versions of Facebook, Amazon, Google etc. Things change fast. We may decide that the deal of free use of commercial platforms in exchange for giving up lots of personal data, so the Internet giants can target ads, is not acceptable. It may even be that citizens will have developed their own platform coops.
Either way, as we have argued since our Networked City launch event, we should think about London as a Networked City. It is gratifying the RSA agrees with that idea. As I wrote here:
Later this month[a] RSA is running a public event on Cities 3.0 with the line 'We've had 'Sharing Cities' and 'Smart Cities' - what's next for the evolution of the city?' Their answer: Networked Cities. (Update: RSA Networked Cities aim to make tech serve citizens - let's co-design with people and communities #RSACities)
The Way Ahead initiative is important because it will - or should - influence the way that London funders invest in charities, voluntary organisations, community groups and the systems that support them and London citizens.
The Way Ahead initiative has five groups looking at the various way that community and voluntary sector organisations operate at present … and also a system change group looking at the architecture needed in future.
The key issue of architecture is how to deal with this recommendation in the original Way Ahead report:
A London Hub, working with specialist support, should develop standardized resources where possible, which can be customized and delivered locally. The London Hub could be made up of a network of organisations or be a formally constituted body.
On the face of it, the Hub idea seems sensible: avoid duplication, and build on what is there already. However, the challenge lies in developing a Hub - or something - that meets the other key recommendation in The Way Ahead, that any new developments should empower citizens and communities through what is termed Pragmatic Co-production:
“Co-production is where Londoners work with those in power, and each other, in a way in which all voices are heard equally in developing a shared understanding of need and in crafting solutions to make London a better place.”
The strategic challenge for The Way Ahead is to marry the vision of empowered citizens and communities with detailed recommendations from their working groups … and also carry that forward with support from the Hub - or something.
Will the Hub be hub-and-spokes; or a way to connect existing networks and clusters; or a way to enable the thousands of organisations, groups and individuals engaged in social action to support and learn from each other. Will it reflect the communication architecture of yesterday, or tomorrow?
Will the proposal be “join us … subscribe to our mailing list” or “let’s join up existing organisations and networks” or “join in - let’s co-operate , collaborate and co-produce”.
There may be pressure to go for the “join us” model from large organisations who might find it easiest to deal with one central route into London’s civil society, or from existing London-wide organisations who see it as a way to ensure their survival. The “join up” model might appeal to those favouring a federated approach building on local CVSs (although I don’t know what their consultant has recommended).
Steve Wyler remarks in his report to LVSC on a hub:
There is some feeling that to date the Way Ahead report has been designed and promoted by a relatively small alliance of London-wide agencies, and has not engaged in depth with front-line experience and debates within London’s civil society – in other words, it has not been co- produced with Londoners and London civil society organisations in a meaningful way.
Instead of this top-down approach, what’s needed is “join in”, with a range of activities to build on and support the multitude of projects and social action operating at local level. There will be roles for London-wide and borough level organisations, but they should be enablers.
A top-down model will concentrate resources and influence in a few organisations, and give big agencies the easy option of dealing with the “representatives” of civil society rather than engaging more widely.
I think that a more radical and appropriate way ahead could be achieved by combining the key idea of Connecting Londoners, from Steve Wyler’s report to LVSC, with the work we have been doing with LVSC on Networked City.
Here’s Steve’s proposal, which I blogged:
London needs a new organisation called Connecting Londoners, says a report on how to support action for social good - whether that's undertaken by charities, agencies, public bodies, companies, local groups or citizens.
Connecting Citizens would have four main functions: improving the system of support, gathering ‘real-time’ intelligence about London’s community life, promoting positive change, unleashing the resources of civil society – in all cases working with and through other agencies at local, borough, and London-wide levels.
At the moment - as far as I know - there is no substantial discussion among The Way Ahead teams about:
Here’s a provocation:
The risk is that the Hub will be designed on a business-as-usual model that reflects a political compromise between the existing organisations struggling to maintain their existence in the face of funding cuts. There will be a new organisation, or consortium, with representatives from existing ones that will develop its own mailing lists, newsletters, web site, events, training courses, publications. It will be a mix of “join us” and “join up” .
This centralised or consortium hub will get some start up funding - but it will probably have to generate more by fund raising and developing services in competition with existing organisations. People won’t share their knowledge because they are in competition.
Maybe I’m completely wrong, and radical options are under discussion. Since nothing beyond Steve’s report has yet been published, we just don’t know.
Instead why not follow the community development, co-production approach advocated in The Way Ahead report ...
… and apply that at London level?
The local community-level approach favours volunteers and practitioners - variously called community builders, connectors or organisers - finding out who is doing what in a borough or neighbourhood, mapping activities, skills and other resources, making introductions and generally building on what is there. Then it is possible to see what’s missing.
Here’s what might be involved in doing that at London level, building on some of the work we’ve been doing in during the Networked City exploration:
Here’s how to apply that approach.
Start locally. The originally Way Ahead project plan included some local pilots, but those never happened. Here’s another option.
Explore in more detail the local scenarios outlined in Steve Wyler’s report and what is involved in connecting at local level, both now and in the future.
The challenge in designing a Hub that connects and supports action across London is to understand and build on existing structures, and then add new methods for communication, cooperation and collaboration. To do that:
I've mentioned just a few examples of the excellent people and projects already working in London to support action for social good. What’s need is a framework and process to mobilise these existing assets …. not a new top-down hub.
The approach I’ve outlined above is radically different from The Way Ahead (as far as I know). I hope it is useful to The Way Ahead steering group … and/or may appeal to any other group willing to convene a range of interests and develop a radical approach.
Here’s a contribution from us - David and Drew. We will:
** David Wilcox and Drew Mackie worked as consultants with LVSC on the Networked City exploration from January to April 2017.