Another tool in the toolbox

Toolbox

At IRISS, we are always talking about service design. We think it can provide a useful participatory methodology to help people think differently. We use service design methodologies in the majority of our innovation and improvement projects.

One thing we sometimes get a little bit troubled with, is, however, the focus on tools. We don’t think its necessarily the tools that make the difference (although they do help!), it is the atmosphere that is created and it is the underlying principles we ascribe to that makes our work unique.

But we often spend a lot of time explaining or designing tools that fit the purposes of our workshops/the needs of the people we work with. For instance, last year, we produced a set of cards designed to help facilitate difficult discussions

We were delighted to hear that NESTA have produced this beautiful design thinking toolkit with a range of tools and methodologies for people to use. Check it out and see what might be useful for you!

http://diytoolkit.org/tools/

Mirrors

mirror blog

One of the projects I support, Keeping it personal, has recently moved into a phase with a series of co-production workshops involving people with dementia, carers, key workers, nurses, social workers and project managers. One of the first challenges I faced as a facilitator, was how to help the group come together and collaborate as equals in expertise and input.

I wanted to create a great ice breaker which allowed people to get to know each other and disclose things about themselves that reflect who they are, their interests and loves, and move the focus away from work- or organisation related subjects. A secondary motivation was to let the outputs influence the development of other elements of the workshops. Ā To create a glue in more ways than one.

In true Scandinavian style I took a literal approach to the task. Maddy helped me develop some large handheld cardboard mirrors that would allow for A4 sheets of paper to be inserted into the area which normally be the mirror, the part that reflects. Now it hold questions that relate to us all ā€“ favourite ever teacher, best holiday memory, favourite song, etcā€¦

mirrorsThrough conversation with other workshop members everyone has opportunities to share, relate and learn through the exploration of types of experiences they have in common. So far we have created a playlist of the workshop members favourite songs, and we can map the places in the world that they hold dear to their heart.

Itā€™s very straight-forward. It is also incredibly effective in bringing people together as people and acts as a useful starting point to how they together shape new approaches in the sector.

-Rikke

3rd National Co-Production Conference

When?

On 23rd April I attended the 3rd National Co-Production Conference to run a workshop about Ā the Hospital to Home project activity so far and to explore some of the tools and methodology I’ll be applying in our Working Groups – starting early next month and running for 6 months!

Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland (the ALLIANCE)

Who was there?

To help facilitate the workshop I was joined by three people involved in the project:

1. Lynne Morman:Ā Team Manager,Ā Social Work Department,Ā Ninewells Hospital, Dundee.

You can hear Lynne speak about the pathway from Hospital to Home in Dundee on theĀ project website.

2. Lorri Smyth:Ā Masters for Service Design Student, Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design (DJCAD), Dundee.

Lorri is supporting this project until August 2014 as part of her final Masters submission. In this capacity, she – plus two other students from the course – will be helping to facilitate the Working Group workshopsĀ (starting 2nd May 2014).

3. Margaret Hume:Ā An informal carer.

Margaret is involved in the project as a participant in the Working Groups.

Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland (the ALLIANCE)

What did we do?

During this workshop we introduced participants to theĀ overall findingsĀ of the Hospital to Home project to date before asking them to participate in a ‘Serious Play‘ activity using LEGO to map the current pathway from Hospital to Home for older people.

For this purpose, the group (36 participants) was split into four small groups with each group being asked to map the services and support currently available to older people within one of four pathways: 1. Straight home; 2. Step Down; 3. Early Supported Discharge; and 4. Straight to a Care Home.

Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland (the ALLIANCE)

Each group was then asked to use the LEGO to highlight what some of the issues with these services and support might be. They were also asked to identify theĀ people involved in the pathway at each stage. For example, family members, informal carer(s), health and social care practitioners, community services and not forgetting to include the older person being discharged!

Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland (the ALLIANCE)

Each group was given 30 minutes to complete this task before providing feedback about their activity to the larger group.

Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland (the ALLIANCE)

The workshop concluded with a discussion about some of the ‘Golden Rules’ for Co-Production.

select the right people

Build and maintain relationships

Discuss expectations early and make sure everyone involved will benefit from the process

Be open and honest

Remember the facilitator is not the expert

Create a positive environment: encourage, involve, listen

What did theĀ participantsĀ think?

feedback

“Facilitator suggested older people have a life before hospital – this is a key consideration to make co-production successful!”

“I liked the creative approach to stimulating the working group.”

“The main thing about co-production is around getting everyone involved to have an equal voice.”

“The importance of the PERSON is absolutely key.”

Reviving the art of practical wisdom

 

 

I read ā€˜the tyranny of recipesā€™, an article in Prospect magazine the other day that really resonated with me. In the article, the author explains how our increased reliance on recipes has impaired the intrinsic development of judgment ā€“ he argues, that weā€™ve lost trust in our own ability to understand and know what is working in the kitchen ā€“ and I think this analogy transcends this particular context.

The author writes ā€¦ ā€œOur tendency to describe courses of action as ā€œrecipesā€ or ā€œformulasā€ suggests we believe problems are best solved by following step-by-step procedures that lead to guaranteed results. I think there is something deeply problematic in this ā€¦.ā€

I tend to agree with him ā€“ and it got me thinking about my own work in social services. We see ourselves [at IRISS] as facilitators of othersā€™ creativity; we try to create safe and reflective spaces to encourage people to try things out, to have a go, and to see what happens. Time and time again we come up across the same old barriers in that people want to know what the outcome will be, by when and for whom. When we work together to co-design or co-produce the outcomes much of this cannot be known at the outset ā€“ because we are not following a prescriptive path. We do use a variety of processes (of course!) but these tend to be very flexible to allow for what might emerge in conversation and practice.

So, how can we revive the art of practical wisdom? It will likely demand that people who are supported by services, practitioners and those in senior management have a certain type of mindset which is comfortable with ambiguity (i.e. there is not a set ā€˜wayā€™ to do things) and that is not afraid of failureĀ  (i.e. we will get things wrong, but in the process of figuring things out, weā€™ll try to minimize this risk by working alongside you).

This speaks nicely to another article I read recently about ā€˜Generation Fluxā€™ ā€“ the new generation of workers whose underpinning values are creativity, impulsiveness and willingness to experiment.Ā  This is a generation of people who are learning to occupy unknown space and navigate through (negative capability) ā€“ and itā€™s the idea that any body of any age can operate in this way (i.e. it is not a demographic).

I’ve heard it said that innovation is based on wisdom – and wisdom comes from information synthesis (from your practical experience as well as things you’ve read and written etc). So we shouldn’t blindly follow process, we should embrace our hunches and the practical wisdom that we accumulate!

Do you follow your hunches? Are you comfortable in a generation of flux?

Guest Blog Post: Home from Hospital by Lynne Wardle

Partners in East Renfrewshire, at the instigation of Anne Kidd, chief executive of VAER, are working together to develop a new ā€˜Home from Hospitalā€™ service as part of a Big Lottery Funded programme called ā€˜Better by Designā€™.Ā Ā  Better by Design is a new approach from Big Lottery, aiming to apply the methods and mindsets of design to improve the social impact and sustainability of Scotlandā€™s third sector. Taylor Haig is delivering this programme for Big Lottery in partnership with the Young Foundation.

Lynne Wardle, Director of Taylor Haig, is working with Anne and partners on Home from Hospital.Ā  Here she describes the initiative and what she thinks is particularly exciting about the approach in East Renfrewshire.

When I first spoke with Anne about the Home from Hospital project she was apologetic.Ā  ā€œIā€™m sorryā€ she said, ā€œbut itā€™s complicatedā€.Ā  She went on to describe the many organizations ā€“ public sector, voluntary sector and private sector – the local policies, national policies, new initiatives and existing services that connected and related to older peopleā€™s journey home from hospital.Ā  ā€œBut the good news,ā€ she added, ā€œis that weā€™re have a mature local partnership and I believe we can make a differenceā€.Ā  I believe sheā€™s right.

The official narrative of the issues associated with hospital discharge is well rehearsed.Ā  But how do older people experience this situation?Ā  What are their expectations, their hopes and fears relating to hospital admission and the transition home, or to a new or newly adapted home? What about health professionals, social workers, carers, family members, neighbours and friends? Actually, what problem is ā€œHome from Hospitalā€ trying to solve and whose problem is it anyway?Ā  In a complex system there will be many different perspectives on both the problem and the solution.

As with any design-led approach we began with an exploratory phase.Ā  A workshop with stakeholders [practitioners] informed the initial ā€˜design briefā€™ and from there weā€™ve drawn on ethnographies, case studies, desk research and interviews with stakeholders to shape the approach.

Interestingly, when talking with stakeholders it was noticeable that most said very little about ā€œHome from Hospitalā€.Ā  Instead, they spoke about their realisation that things had to change.Ā  The current systems and services to support older people donā€™t make sense in the changing world we live in. Ā Stakeholders experienced a tension between ā€˜keeping the lights onā€™ ā€“ maintaining performance within the current paradigm ā€“ and working in new ways and with new models that havenā€™t yet got a clear form.Ā  The people in the partnership were restless and thoughtful but also open minded and optimistic ā€“ a great basis for a design-led approach!

It is apparent that partners in East Renfrewshire have positive regard for one another and empathy for the day-to-day pressures that can get in the way of innovation and change.Ā Ā  They are also prepared to challenge assumptions and really seek to understand what people want and need and what assets, capabilities and capacity exits in communities that could be reconfigured in service of older people. Ā They also want to get on and try things, to co-design with older people and prototype services quickly.Ā  Through learning by doing they hope to show not only that it is possible to design improved services for older people, but also it is possible to change the relationship between commissioners and community providers, between professionals and volunteers and between services and people who need support.

In East Renfrewshire, weā€™re not only developing a service; weā€™re prototyping a process, a way of working together that can be applied to other challenges and one that we hope will have the potential to sustain system-wide change in the way communities and public services collaborate to make life better for people.

To quote the well-known anthropologist, Margaret Mead, ā€œNever doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.ā€

Incubating ideas

shutterstock_176084129

An underpinning principle of the Innovation and Improvementā€™s strategy is the emphasis on creating spaces for innovation to happen.Ā  We believe that we have a role in supporting the incubation of ideas, and are trying to understand what that role might look like in the future.

To explore this further, we had the pleasure of attending the Innovate conference in San Sebastian (or Donostia, in Basque) last week. The conference was designed to share practice across a range of European countries about the focus on social innovation for economic development.

Our contribution to the conference was based on our experiences of supporting a social entrepreneur, Alison Urie, to develop a social enterprise, Vox Liminis. Happily, Alison was able to attend the conference to share her learning and experience directly with the audience.

In the short time that was available for the presentation, Alison explained that 9 months ago, IRISS provided time space and a small amount of funding to help her on her way to developing Vox Liminis. This support, alongside that of many others (Fergus McNeill (Criminologist from Glasgow University, The Melting Pot etc.) has helped Alison’s idea become reality.

Alisonā€™s passionate and articulate presentation seemed to give the audience plenty of food for thought regarding the link between research and practice ā€“ as well as the elements which are necessary in order to encourage start-ups to grow and flourish. She noted that her journey hasn’t always been smooth, but that the links between practice, academia and being based within an agency (like IRISS) which bridges all these worlds had made her work possible. If weā€™ve been marginally helpful to Alison then we are glad ā€“ but ultimately, the success is down to her skills, networks and determination to make her social enterprise a success. We are sure sheā€™ll continue to go from strength to strength.

At IRISS, this experiment has reminded us of the need to have a mixture of diverse perspectives to keep ideas flowing ā€“ we have gained huge amounts from having Alisonā€™s input and her influence is clear in our organisation.

To read more about Alison’s journey, please visit her blog: www.voxliminis.co.uk,

To find out more about the Innovate project, see one of the ongoing outputs, the Social Innovation Network, an online facility that allows users to access information, participate in research, debate and discussion, and co-ordinate collaborative ventures with other stakeholders

Let Them Eat Cake

On 16th July 2013 the Guardian raised the important question:

ā€œIs food the future of philanthropy?ā€

This was as part of their report on Free Cakes UK – a service that matches keen amateur bakers with families struggling to provide their child with a birthday cake – delivering its 1,000th cake. Proving that perhaps, in this case anyway, cake is the answer to big questions.


Meanwhile, somewhere else in the world (Glasgow), on the same day, I (Fiona Wood) was starting my journey as a new IRISS employee.

I came to IRISS from a series of academic research posts in collaboration with various Scottish Higher Education Institutes and NHS Boards but I donā€™t have a healthcare background. In fact my background is as an academic researcher specialising in designing programs of activity for childrenā€™s outdoor play and learning.

So whatā€™s it like for an academic/designer suddenly finding they work in the field of social services after years of working in education and health care? Well, let me tell youā€¦.

IRISS is different from any other place Iā€™ve ever worked before. The office is large and open with all staff (including our director) sitting in the same space. At one end there are three sofas used for meetings, chatting, eating, reading and so on.

At the other end there is a bright pink wall with the words ā€œlearning, partnership, creativityā€ embossed in white across it. Below this phrases like ā€œyou are what you shareā€, ā€œan essential aspect of creativity is not being afraid to failā€ and ā€œIf you canā€™t explain it simply, you donā€™t understand it well enoughā€ inspire the organisation.

There is bunting on the ceiling and always a fresh supply of chocolates, biscuits, lots of fruit and, of course, cake!

But, does this style of working work I hear you ask? Well, a colleague, also new to IRISS, summed it up pretty well I think when they said:

ā€œHappier workers are more productive. Get the environment right and everyone functions properly and you produce some nice workā€.

So yes, I think it works.

Now, how does this compare to other organisations Iā€™ve worked for? Well, before IRISS I worked as a researcher in a hospital. There were not open offices, there were not sofas or relaxed spaces for staff to interact with one other and there certainly werenā€™t any pink walls with inspirational quotes. But there was cake.

However, in the hospital the cake wasnā€™t shared across hierarchies because there were doors in the way. The doctors had their cake; the nurses had their cake; the researchers hadā€¦.well we would steal everyone elseā€™s cake. The point is, everyone had a specific role and they stuck to it. They didnā€™t share ideas, they didnā€™t listen to one another, and they didnā€™t know what was going on with each otherā€™s work. Instead, day in, day out, they came in and did their work and didnā€™t stop and think and question one another. This is not co-production.

At IRISS, there is a lot of listening and asking colleagues what they are working on; there is a lot of sharing ideas; and a lot of engaging with one another and openly questioning each other in a friendly way. Each of the staff members have a broad range of skills that they creatively feed into the organisation. This supports the wide variety of projects currently taking place within IRISS, allowing a spectrum of social service issues to be addressed and considered from a wide perspective.

The resulting difference is that in IRISS there is no room for egos or hierarchies.

I am reminded of the striking difference between these two approaches when I attend meetings with external partners. Iā€™ve observed Health and Social Care professionals pointing the finger at one another and complaining about the ā€˜arranged marriageā€™ they are facing at the start of 2014. There is no conversation, no listening, no questioning, no engaging ā€“ instead I see more closed doors, more talking, more blaming.

It is clear more needs to be done to create a happy and collaborative relationship between these groups.

Perhaps they could learn from IRISS.

But what is the solution I hear you ask? Well, itā€™s been 9 weeks so far and Iā€™m not yet sure, but as a starting point I suggest that if we really are going to work together to make a difference for people in Scotland receiving care through Social Services then we have to be willing to listen to one another and actually hear what the other parties are saying.

In short, if youā€™re going to have your cake and eat it, at least share it with your colleagues too [and that includes your external colleagues and those from other sectors].

Social Service Labs at IRISS

Social service labsFirst of all, what is a social service lab? A Lab is a fancy name used to describe a method of innovating and improving services using a day-long experiment. The experiment is conducted in a ā€˜labā€™ that is created to imitate natural surroundings, or even better – the lab is held in natural surroundings. Labs allow people to create highly personalised experiences that transform the users from being observed subjects for testing, into valued creators in the co-creation and exploration of emerging ideas.

Labs can be called different things depending upon the aim and outcome of the method, for instance: Experience Labs, Customer Experience Labs, Information Experience Labs, Insight Labs, Social Labs, Living Labs, Innovation Labs. However, each type of LabĀ  requires an approach that isĀ  user-centered, creative, flexible and conducted in a way that is powerful and safe enough to offer an opportunity for radical innovation.

ā€œLabs can be applied to diverse application domains such as lifestyle, healthcare, retail and hospitalityā€.

In the past this has been used to help business leaders to transform the way customers experience their products, services and brands through the use of mobile, social, cloud and advanced analytics technologies and to move away from transactional experience to deliver innovative solutions. Ā Labs have been used previously by public and private sector service organisations to improve and innovate service provision. For example, they have been used by Philips to test product or technology innovations. They have also been used in NHS Grampian, Highland and Islands Enterprise (HIE) and Lab for Living as a means for testing healthcare innovations and by Deep Sight and Glasgow School of Art for testing design innovations.

This project is exploring the application of Labs in the social services sector in Scotland, with particular focus on what a lab might look like, how it might operate and what outcomes it could offer people in this sector.

We asked practitioners to pitch ideas to be tested within a lab environment and after careful deliberation we are now working with Day Care Centers in South Lanarkshire who are moving to an outcomes focused self directed support provision model, and with Positive Prison Positive FuturesĀ and Her Majesty’s Perth Prison who are developing mentoring training with prisioners and prison staff.

 

Testing how day care center staff will work using an outcomes focused approach with individuals when detailing a persons support plan

Outcomes focused convo experience lab

Day care centres in South Lanarkshire are moving from a programme driven service delivery model to outcome-focused arrangements. The current model of support is traditional where services are designed and delivered around physical service resources and groupwork programmes. Through this model, day care staff are used to working as service providers, enabling people to access activities, or developing a programme of activities that people may be interested in. However, a move towards outcomes focussed support means that day care staff will need to change the way in which they work, supporting individuals to create a detailed plan that identifies the most appropriate way to have their needs met and their outcomes realised.

There are numerous changes involved in this new way of working for day care centre staff. Changes at a conceptual level about service provision, staff roles moving from a provider to a facilitator, practically introducing new conversational approaches, having increased responsibility, and utilising existing and new knowledge in different ways. This change may evoke concerns, uncertainty and a feeling of being overwhelmed for day care centre staff, people who use services and carers. For this reason this Lab will create a safe space where staff can test how they will work using an outcomes focused approach with individuals and their carers when designing a personal support plan.

 

Establishing and testing a Code of Conduct for prisoners and prison officers to work together as colleagues to provide peer mentoring support

Co-design of service experience lab

Positive Prisons Positive Futures (PPPF) aim to reduce offending in Scotland. They seek to do this through a number of processes, one of which is through the introduction of peer mentoring in Scottish prisons. Currently prisoners are provided with ā€˜listener schemesā€™ and ā€˜peer tutorā€™ support whilst in prison. However, they are provided with little support to help them plan for their release through development in cognitive life-skills such as assertiveness, self-esteem, communication and so on. Furthermore, prisoners are not currently supported to become peer-mentors for other prisoners within this environment.

PPPF are currently working with HM Perth Prison to provide peer-mentoring training that will Ā enable Ā prisoners and prison officers to work together as colleagues to provide in-house, mentoring support. IRISS will be working with PPPF and HM Perth Prison to develop an innovative approach in which prisoners and prison officers can co-produce a suitable code of conduct that will inform and guide how they provide peer mentoring. This will clearly establish the boundaries, roles and responsibilities of all those involved in the peer-mentoring . During this process prisoners serving short (<4yrs) and long-term (>4yrs) sentences at HM Perth Prison and prison officers will be invited to participate in two co-design sessions in which they will have opportunity to develop a clear code of conduct for working together in the capacity of peer-mentors. This will be the first time that prisoners and prison officers will be working alongside one another as colleagues with an equal voice.

The Lab will then provide a safe space for these groups to test Ā this code of conduct in practice through a series of scenarios developed by PPPF and IRISS. Through this process we will also be able to test how prisoners and prison officers can become confident in working together in future. It is planned that, off the back of the Lab process with IRISS, Ā PPPF will then take this approach and apply it more widely in the context of other Scottish prisons.

Evidence and Innovation explored

ID-100145052

Our project exploring the links between evidence and innovation is now complete.

This project has bridged two of the core work streams at IRISS; evidence-informed practice and innovation and improvement.Ā  Ahead of the final report, this blog provides an overview of the key findings and highlights how this work will feed into the broader work and priorities of IRISS.

This project has used theoretical, empirical and practice literature and case studies to reflect on the links between evidence and innovation in the context of Scotlandā€™s social services.Ā  It has been exploratory in nature.Ā  This exploratory approach has been necessary due to the lack of existing work that considers evidence and innovation side-by-side.Ā  Given the nature of this approach, and the topic itself, definitive conclusions are unrealistic.Ā  However, the report has served to highlight the following points in relation to this project, which would benefit from further exploration in future work.

Summary of Key Findings:

  1. Evidence and innovation are potentially complementary or antagonistic reform agendas depending on how these words are defined, conceptualised and mobilised.Ā  This topic is therefore complex and dynamic.
  2. How evidence and innovation are defined, conceptualised and mobilised can have important implications for practice, particularly in relation to issues of implementation, risk and scale.
  3. It is likely that the meanings of, and relationships between, these terms varies and evolves during the process of implementing a new policy, and in the process of everyday practice.
  4. What counts as good or useful evidence is likely to be highly contextual, varying according to the immediate requirements of those involved at different stages of the innovation process.Ā  This means that quite different types of evidence may become useful at different points during the implementation of a new policy.
  5. The case studies reviewed as part of this project emphasised the view of evidence as an integrating vehicle for disparate types of knowledge and expertise.Ā  This includes theoretical and empirical research, practitioner wisdom and views, and the views and ideas of those who use services.
  6. We need individuals and organisations to share more, and to share in an honest, detailed way.Ā  There is a gap in the evidence-base concerning the links between evidence and innovation.Ā  In part this is a gap at the theoretical level: these concepts have rarely been discussed together in the academic arena.Ā  However, this is not helped by another gap in the evidence-base; a gap in the documenting of innovations by the social service workforce, and by people who use services.Ā  Where this is done it tends towards a rose-tinted view and a rather thin documentation of how evidence is used and why.Ā  Instead we need more thorough documentations of the innovation process, including its set-backs and complexities, and the role evidence plays.

The forthcoming report will feed into business development discussions at IRISS about how we are supporting evidence-use and innovation across the social services, and whether our current organisational structure best facilitates this.

Valuing, and Improving the Value of, Case Studies

Case studies written by individuals and organisations trying out innovations can be valuable learning tools.Ā  The trouble is they are not always produced, valued, or produced in a way that maximises their value.Ā  In hierarchies of evidence, case studies can often find themselves towards the bottom (Johnson & Austin, 2005; Nutley, Powell & Davies, 2012). Ā One of the reasons for this is the perception that case studies generate a lot of complex, situated data which does not necessarily provide definitive answers beyond the immediate context of discussion.Ā  This may not be popular in a Government, policy-making and practice era that favours unequivocal evidence to inform decisive decision-making.

And yet, in the world of social service innovation, where risk is a core concern (Mulgan, 2007; Brown, 2010), case studies are a way of building a more detailed understanding of the innovation process and of the context(s) of interest.Ā  This may be particularly useful if the innovation is later scaled, mediating some of the risks of perverse outcomes when the programme is introduced to a new context.

My experience of researching the relationships between evidence and innovation has further highlighted the value of case studies.Ā  I have found good case studies to be a vital source of learning on this topic.Ā  But ā€˜goodā€™ is the operative word here.Ā  I have also experienced some shortcomings in the case studies I have encountered.Ā  So my aim here is to use examples from the IRISS project to explore some of the things we might need from case studies, and how we might encourage practitioners and organisations to do more of these things.

In order to illustrate what I have found useful in a case study I will refer to one example.Ā  Participleā€™s Interim Report on The Life Programme documents the implementation of an innovative approach to working with troubled families in Swindon, and later in Wigan, Lewisham and Colchester.Ā  This case study enabled useful learning because it was comfortable with acknowledging the initial shortcomings of the programme, and the glitches that occurred during implementation and scaling.Ā  For instance Participle note that, to begin with, their programme did not pay sufficient attention to young childrenā€™s experiences within the family, which may have posed risks for child protection.Ā  They also documented the complexities they uncovered when it came to scaling-up The Life Programme, which stemmed from inadequate knowledge of the contexts of transfer (p. 22). In both cases Participle discuss how these problems were resolved, and in both cases this included the gathering of further evidence.

Given the remit of the IRISS project exploring the links between evidence and innovation, this provided important practice examples of what the innovation process is like, and how evidence is implicated in this.Ā  However, the documenting and sharing of innovations can have much broader benefits than this.Ā  There is evidence that one of the barriers to innovation and evidence-informed practice is a lack of applicable examples of these in use in a social service context (IRISS, 2010, p. 3-4).Ā  The Participle example contains important learning about the complexities of the innovation process; a process which is so often depicted as necessary, rational and straightforward in Government discourse.Ā  It provides practitioners with an alternative to this, at times, rose-tinted view.Ā  They could follow the innovation journey of other organisations and use this to reflect on their own decisions and processes.

However, case studies that document the innovation process do not always exist, and where they do they are not always presented in a way that enables the maximum amount of learning. Ā Organisations can show a reluctance to describe the innovation process in all of its complexity, which would mean drawing out the difficulties that arise along the way. Ā The Participle case study was, arguably, a rare find in this regard. Ā  This was the only social service specific case study that I found to have significant engagement with the difficulties of the innovation process. Ā Yet, even here there were other shortcomings. Ā This, and other cases studies, offered very little detail about evidence use.Ā  Indeed, throughout the IRISS project it has proved tricky to untangle when and how evidence is being used during the innovation process. Ā It is hardly surprising then that our understanding of the relationships between evidence and innovation is currently based more on theory than on practice examples.

There may be legitimate reasons why social service case studies are failing to adequately document the innovation process. Ā In part, this surely feeds back to the wider context of social service reform in Scotland, and across the UK, which is increasingly geared towards high-stakes accountability (The Scottish Government, 2011; The Munro Report, 2011). Ā In such a context individuals and organisations may not be comfortable with documenting their failings, in the interests of promoting a better understanding of the complexities of evidence-use and innovation, through fear that this may impact on their reputation or funding. Ā It may also be the case that, given the complex nature of these issues, some individuals and organisations do not feel equipped to engage in discussions which capture the complexity of the process, whilst still managing to present this information in an accessible way.

We need individuals and organisations to share by providing case studies of their innovations, and to share in an honest, detailed way.Ā  I am using ā€˜case studyā€™ rather loosely here to refer to any form of story telling about the innovation process, not only by researchers but by practitioners and those who use services.Ā  This means shaking off long-standing ideas and ideals about what counts as evidence, who is the ā€˜expertā€™ and who can carry out research.Ā  Perhaps encouragingĀ and facilitating organisations and individuals to engage in ā€˜real timeā€™ documenting of innovation processes would be one approach here. Ā Not only would this be of benefit to future work on evidence and innovation, but it would also be extremely valuable to other individuals and organisations attempting their own innovations.

So important questions to consider going forward are how can individuals and organisations be encouraged and supported to provide quality descriptions and analyses of the innovation process, and how can this information be better shared with other individuals and organisations?

 

References:

Brown, L (2010) Balancing Risk and Innovation to Improve Social Work Practice, British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), pp. 1211-1228.

Johnson, M & Austin, M (2005) Evidence-based Practice in the Social Services: Implications for Organizational Change, University of California, Berkeley.
Accessed 23/09/13: http://www.cfpic.org/children/pdfs/EvidBasedPractFinalFeb05.pdf

Mulgan, G (2007) Ready or Not? Taking Innovation in the Public Sector Seriously, London: NESTA.

Nutley, S; Powell, A; Davies, H (2012) What counts as good evidence? St Andrews: Research Unit for Research Utilisation.