ListenUp A Social Enterprise Developed with Wyndford in Glasgow
Fee Schmidt-Soltau || MEDes Minor Project Reflective Essay on ListenUp, a proposal developed by Getgo for the Sustain Our Nation Competition set by the Audi foundation.
Ready, Steady,
getg
Glasgow
Reflecting on the project. ListenUp has attained great success. It reached the regional final whilst supported strongly by the Wyndford community. The success, enthusiasm and community engagement along side the nature of the project has brought long term responsibilities, which go beyond the scope of a minor project. Consequently the co-creation process has posed questions related to the designer’s role in such process models and their ethical involvement and responsibility towards the outcome. This document reflects on each stage of the process including teamwork coordination, research and its methods, workshop planning and facilitation, from the co-creation process up to the refinement towards a financially sustainable social enterprise.
Content
About
Reflecting on the Process
Co-creation
4 5 6 7
What is ListenUp? What is Sustain Our Nation? Where/What is Wyndford? Who are Getgo Glasgow?
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Our Approach Teamwork Identifying Stakeholders Relationship Map Building Trust Engagement Tools Extracting the Findings Issue & Insight Opportunities
18 19 20 21 22
What is co-creation? Workshop Planning 1st Workshop Execution 1st Workshop Outcome Proposal feedback & Co-development
Proposal Development
24 The challenge to make it real... 25 Regional Final 26 to the Future
My learning
28 My Role & Responsibilities 29 Key Learning
the Project in Pictures
31 Photos 32 Comments 33 Project Data
ListenUp aims to... open communication channels between stakeholders and community members. It provides engagement tools to the community and enables collaborative processes. Through increased communication and collaboration, greater benefits for all parties involved are created e.g. more community involvement will reduce animosity and lighten immediate rejection to implementations which are felt to have been decided over their head. Furthermore involvement may lead to increased participation or even ownership in what is implemented, which is greater value for money for the stakeholder and fuels further social benefits.
4
What is ListenUp? ListenUp is a not-for-profit social enterprise which aims to improve communication between public organisations and communities. ListenUp provides tools to source community’s opinion, gain a greater voice and have greater influence and ownership in decisions affecting their immediate surrounding. ListenUp is one of two proposal outcomes at the Glasgow School of Art which were developed in co-creation with the Wyndford estate in Glasgow, Maryhill to address the Sustain our Nation Competition set by the Audi foundation. The project is a joint effort by the MEDes (Master of European Design) and the MDes (Master of Innovation) students, a total of 12 students. Getgo Glasgow excelled at the regional final, the proposal ‘Green Gorillaz’ won the Wyndford 10.000 pounds. All the effort has been rewarding!
5
What is Sustain our Nation? Sustain Our Nation (SoN) is a competition set by the Audi Foundation. The competition seeks the design of innovative social enterprises which address issues of Ageing Population, Health, Finance, Crime and Energy & Climate Change. The aim is to catalyse solutions that address these national issues at a local level, working together with communities to deliver sustainable change. For prototyping and setting up such a local social enterprise Audi has made 2x 10.000 GBP funding available if successful in the regional and national finals.
6
Where/What is Wyndford? Wyndford is an estate in Maryhill, Glasgow. It used to be a desireable place to live in the 70th. It is surrounded by barrack walls and was perceived as a safe place to live. Nowadays the Wyndford estate is a crime hot-spot with statistics showing it to be one of the most deprived areas of Scotland. Scottish National Statistics data zones show Wyndford ranked in the first deprivation decile for income, employment, health, education and skills, housing and the second decile for crime. It is a prime example for issues present in other areas in Glasgow also but condensed in a small obtainable estate. We were lucky to stumble across Wyndford. The school closure in July 2009, had brought the community together through sit-ins and activities raising their voice against the closure. It has strengthened the desire for a new source of community spirit.
7
Who are Getgo Glasgow?
We are a group of twelve students studying two different masters at the GSA. The backgrounds range from Graphic Design, Photography, Business Marketing, Industrial Engineering to Applied Art and Design. Getgo Glasgow is the name we created at the onset of the project to give us a common face when approaching communities and stakeholders. We hoped it would provide us with greater credibility than being designers from an Art School motivated by just another social project set by the institution. To counteract this mindset we produced core values, a mission statement and formulated a vision with specifications of the outcome which we would like to meet. We summarised this information in a leaflet, however it was still confusing as to who we were and what we wanted. Only with the verbal addition that we are in fact students, people were able to categorise us, consequently felt more relaxed to talk. Stakeholders however reacted impressed by the quality of the leaflet and our appearance. Interview inquiries were met enthusiastically, reflected by the number of interviews conducted and collaboration partners who took an interest in what we are doing.
8
Reflecting on the Process.
Our Approach 9
Identifying a real Need Audi provided five themes out of which the emerging social enterprise would address at least one. Rather than deciding on a theme from the onset we went for a sociological approach, identifying a real need and creating a solution specifically for a community we would identify through the research. Choosing a Community The first leads we followed took us to Maryhill. We found ourselves chosing between Ruchill and Wyndford. We backed away from the more challenging Ruchill. Looking back it was not the right decision, as it might have provided greater learning possibilities for Getgo members with direct comparison possibilities. The reason we decided to chose Wyndford was, it is enclosed and more managable than other areas of Glasgow where there is no history, no relation between the citizens and their living space.
Winning Community’s Trust Engagement tools, sheer luck and a pre-existing community spirit through the school closure two months prior to the project, made it easier to motivate people to come along to the workshops we conducted. The key event to gain the community’s trust and prove our sincerity was the participation in the football pitch de-turfing for which we sacrificed several weekends in a row. This featured meeting all relevant members of the community who in return attended our workshops. It was a give and take motivation from both sides however we succeeded to identify a real need and create something which was met with enthusiasm. Decisive Power in the Community’s hands Throughout, the community’s interest in proposals were superior to Audi’s selection process. At no point did we direct the outcome at the competition or tried to make it favourable towards Audi.
Teamwork 10
It was a joint effort by the Master of European Design (MEDes) and the Master of Innovation (MDes) program. It was good that we as MEDes worked within another Master level, however, differing academic requirements and familiarity with Glasgow and socially oriented projects, prevented the group from harmonising completely. Team Coordination The research was conducted in a large group of twelve. From the co-creation workshop after 5 weeks, we split into smaller groups of three proposals: Getgoing!, Green Gorillaz and ListenUp. When the result of the first stage was announced, two out of the three proposals got through to the regional finals, the groups reorganised accordingly.
Too many Cooks Although we achieved a thorough understanding in the research, on hindsight I think we should have split into two separate groups to create a sense of competition as well as have a comparison community example. Furthermore there was not enough work to go round caused by people being apprehensive delegating work to others or people lacking the initiative to find meaningful work themselves. Maybe if we had had a designated team leader distributing tasks and pulling together people's work, we could have avoided the drop in enthusiasm which we encountered one month into the project.
Task Delegation The tasks were split up differently between the Getgo students every week. However some people took key roles. For instance being the contact person for stakeholders, arranging meetings as well as conducting the majority of the interviews with a changing companion. Different groupings of students went into the community to engage and test the tools. Few activities were conducted with all team members. Those which were, were executed ineffectively with many not knowing what to do and passively watching. As a result people ended up doing what they were confident doing. There was no motivation to stretch beyond already existing skills unless self motivated.
What They Do Responsible for school site Divert funding to the eastend regeneration for 2014 commonwealth games Responsible for community policing Why Officially represent the public’s interest Influence Top down policies Decide what happens with the schools Where funding comes from Attitude tends to be top down Gaps Communication and public influence on policies
What They Do Set up a community council Set up a residents association Fought against the school closure Why To make living there easier and better Because they care about the future of the community Influence They shape the community Individually have little influence, need to work together to create an impact Tend to have a defeatist attitude Gaps Disconnected from each other and other stakeholders What They Do Drop-in centre 20-30 classes per week Work with 8-12 and 12-14 age groups
What They Do Open days and workshops in skills training and personal development for 18+ Education and work training for 16-19s Why Help people get jobs Influence 80% Wyndford on benefits Gaps Bad communication skills – can’t motivate people to attend their workshops Youth team is uncontactable
Why It’s a social enterprise Funded by council and applies Regularly for grants and funds Influence 600 people through the door each week Popular with kids in Wyndford Stuart Bell knows many of the kids by name, like a social worker
What They Do Non discriminatory tenancy policy Deal with minor offences Why Tenancy sustainment, lower costs Responsibility of the landlord Influence Creates ghettos of troublemakers Creates conflicts between community members Gives people a point of contact where they can complain without fear of getting their families into trouble.
What He Does Opposition councillor Lobbies for development plans eg. football pitch, school, etc Fights with CUBE Why It’s his responsibility Believes their policies are detrimental Influence Lobbies on behalf of the community Attitude against top down policy Gaps Opposition so doesn’t get kept up to date on policy decisions
Gaps No longer have a youth engagement officer Have a control room, but info gathered is not acted on. Attitude is to treat the problem rather than prevent it. What They Do Offer clubs, trips, sports and workshops 1 to 1 sessions with kids who are on the brink of going into care. Friday night project Why Kids need something to do “diversionary activities” Funded by various social enterprise funds Influence Well attended Friday night 13+ group Younger kids aren’t allowed to go because it’s a dangerous area Still new, hasn’t gained enough trust yet
Gaps There’s no transport link for Wyndford kids
What they do community development project, generally environment and landscape, using unemployed local workforce train the workforce with a view to long term employment after the project Handyman service Why helping people to gain long term employment Influence change the community landscape provide skills and training to disadvantaged people
Not Yet Responded
Identifying Stakeholders 11
Once we had been made aware of the Wyndford through the ‘Wish Board’, we started identifying stakeholders through talking to organisations in the area, studying signs and advertising as well as visiting the community centres. Wyndford’s Stakeholders In total we conducted six interviews. Some were Wyndford specific, some others benchmarking. The meetings with the Housing Accociation CUBE and Councillor Alex Dingwall were most insightful to get one’s head round the issues present in the Wyndford. They highlighted issues with the tower blocks having a high turnover, in consequence high crime rate, the animosity with the Housing Accociation and the strong reaction against the school closure, no central community hub and the youth hanging out on the streets being bored. The community as well as stakeholders have expressed
animosity against the Housing Accociation. They were at first very interested in working with us, however they did not follow any of our invitations for the workshops. They would have been a good collaboration partner for facilitating communication channels probing. I assume their interest went up in smoke because we never got through to the responsible persons in their organisational structure. Benchmarking Other interviews were insightful for business planning and setting up a social enterprise (David Grant, Wisegroup, Hannah Clinch), and engaging the youth in activities (Wendy Gorman). Stakeholder Map The diagram on the left summarises the stakeholder’s findings.
Glasgow City Council
Councillor Alex Dingwall Councillor Dingwall lobbies the Council for better policy decisions
The council provides funding to the Regeneration Agency & the Shaky
CUBE’s policies make their lives harder
Thinks CUBE’s policies are detrimental for the area
Thinks the Council is useless Kids like going there
Still doesn’t trust the project
Work with the police on minor offences
Frustrated that CUBE didn’t apply for funding for a new youth engagement officer Wants to create an environment of trust and loves within the environment
Doesn’t feel trusted by the police
Finds CUBE’s policies unhelpful and makes their work harder
Active but very little uptake
The Police
Regeneration Agency
Wisegroup Key Would like to do a project in Wyndford but can’t get the funding
Negative attitude Postive attitude Could try harder! Background activities
Relationship Map 12
Relationship Map The diagram on the left visualises how the stakeholders identified are interlinked and their relation to and opinion on each other. ListenUp Stakeholders We missed identifying further stakeholders for ListenUp. We should have arranged more in-depth interviews with the Council or the planning office to research their existing consultation methods. This might have provided inspiration or an alternative setting for a prototype. The GCSS (Glasgow Community Safety Services) were approached in a community council meeting and shown interest for collaboration. We were lucky for this opportunity to come up, but a more directed and considered approach would have been good to add credibility and gather background knowledge.
Stakeholder Identification Initialising Contact
Interviews Sqeezing Details
Trust Building
Wish Board
Issue Mapping
Football Pitch
Issue Texting
Issue Box
Chat 4 Tea
Lollipops
Issue Game
Casual Interviews
Building Trust 13
Co-creation Workshops
Four Stages of Engagement Looking back at the tools which were used to approach the community, to listen to their issues and to gain their trust and collaboration willingness, four different stages can be identified. 1. Initialising Contact. Showing our presence and tickle quick responses, hunting for relevant issues. 2. Squeezing Details. Interaction tools which may lead into more in-depth conversation & insight. 3. Trust Building. Provide something for free but ask something in return. Give & Take Motivation. 4. Co-creation Workshops. Interact & participate. Communicate sincerity and instil excitement and interest in what we do.
Designers are often cocksure about the effectiveness of their tools, however the research in Wyndford has shown that persistence and the participation in community activities is the way to wiggle your way in. The numerous tools which were developed enthusiastically by the students in the studio could either not be applied or were not used sufficiently because of the lack of confidence which it takes to stop bypassers to engage them. However interviews of people in their front garden and quick responses using the big wish board were effective as people already noticed the board as they approached and were curious, more willing to participate. For the foreign students language was a hindrance. Not understanding Glaswegian or sounding foreign hindered the flow of the conversation or created suspicion. Furthermore people were apprehensive as soon as ‘social enterprise’ was mentioned suspecting a sudden cessation of interest.
Wish Board
Issue Box
Lollipops
Issue Game
Issue Texting
Issue Mapping
Football Pitch
Tea Chat
Workshops
Engagement Tools 14
Wish Board The size of the big board was good, as people could hide behind it if not liked to be photographed. It also attracted people’s attention. Due to curiousity they were willing to participate. Lollipop Business Cards Children were keen to talk to us if they got a free lollipop. A business card was attached to it, if they brought it home their parents would notice the card and may respond. We got to be known by the youth as the ones who give out lollipops. Issue Texting Cheap and anonymous communication. We received only few responses (2). The idea was good, but there would need to be more motivation to incourage its use as a feedback tool.
Issue Box ‘Where could things be changed?’ The response was meant to be explained on the back, but testing the tool, we realised that WF members do not relate to their physical environment. Many did not know how to respond. Issue Game Eight issues with relevant questions which would be used as conversation starters with interviewees. Tool was not used as it involved close/awkward body contact. Issue Mapping Locations needed to be pin pointed answering questions: Where do you feel safe? Where do you spend your free time? What are you proud of? Meant as conversation starters, again the WF struggled pin pointing physical locations. The use of the map was too alianating.
Digging Up the Football Pitch Giving Steven Koeplinger a hand from ASAP Scotland communicated to the community that we cared. We met the local heroes of the Wyndford and got to know them better. This enabled us to invite specific people to come along to the workshop. Tea Chat We set up a table with biscuits and tea at the entrance to the estate. Surprisingly the youth got engaged and kept on taking tea. We spoke to a large variety of members from asylum seekers to exconvicts. Workshops Probing of issues and their relevance. Ideation for solutions and further insight sourcing. Please view the co-creation section of this book to read details.
Extracting the Findings 15
Knowledge in twelve heads It was challenging to bring the findings together in one space, share it with the other eleven heads and eventually extract the findings to analyse the information. The reasons for this struggle were partially due to the team’s range of disciplines and backgrounds, the differing ways people take notes and the lack of a common communication space where information could be shared. The students who studied in Glasgow prior to the project were keen on sharing information visually by unfurling them on the walls, this method however did not flow with the others. It was challenging to create a coherent event in which every one would participate trying to arrange the findings and deriving opportunities from it as a consequence.
Next time: Sharing methods Next time when working in such a big group, tools and guide lines of how to take notes shall be worked out prior to the process so that it becomes more accessible for others from the onset. As a result the research was not aligned and confusion about the difference between what are issues, details and insights made summarising them a time consuming task. (Please view the next page to see the issue map).
Issues & Insights 16
Insights > Opportunities The analysis of the findings and the opportunity extraction of where a social enterprise could be implemented was introduced late into the process. The intention had been to conduct a workshop, give the community research feedback and brainstorm together solutions which could possibly lead to a social enterprise opportunity. For this workshop we needed insights and opportunities. Up to this point we had collected data here and there, but did not further process the information. When it came to categorising issues and extracting key findings to turn them into opportunitites, we noticed that the terminology of Insight & Issue were unclear amongst the group. Insight = In-depth understanding of an issue. It took a team of three dedicated students to extract the information which had sporadically been thrown up on the wall. The Issue Map is the result.
Communicating the findings The Issues and Insights were communicated to the community as part of the workshop in form of a video. This video transmitted that we had understood the estate’s issues and that we were sincere about creating something meaningful for the community rather than an ‘art’ community pride sculpture which art students would stereotypically do. Within Getgo we agreed that the video would need to be positive and motivational, rather than replicating the pessimism and lack of perspective present in the estate. The group was split on how strongly facts of animosity should be communicated i.e. mentioning Cube as a major issue of concern specifically. This may have been met with disagreement at the workshop if they had attended. Contrary this would have been a good starting point to resolve some of these issues and test increased communication.
Starting Point
Residents are being kept in the dark about the work of organisations and feel that they are under-represented in plans for their community.
The closure of the school means that there is no specific meeting point for parents and the school community has been divided up.
There is nothing to inspire families to do things together.
There is not much for young people to do and they get negatively stereotyped in the community.
There are no attractive meeting opportunities in the community that cater for everyone.
Opportunities 17
Wyndford’s Opprtunities It was important to identify opportunities specificly for Wyndford, although in a broader sense they obviously address issues which are found in similar communities elsewhere, however specific examples and findings provided credibility and made the community listen to us. All opportunities were related to encouraging communication and interaction either between community members, its stakeholders or its environment. The workshop starting points were derived from the opportunities. They were created to provide a context for discussion, problem solving and storyboarding in the first co-creation workshop.
Co-creation Starting Points Each starting point was elaborated into a short story using fictional personas. It felt patronising making up these stories. We should have worked them out together with a community member prior to the workshop. Generally more interaction and smaller group discussions would have been insightful. We could have shared our thinking with one or two people whom we met at the football pitch more regularly. This would have increased co-creation and we could have tested the material prior to its use at the workshop, which may have helped us steer the process even better.
‘Co-design helps to unite the community under a common vision and aligns people’s excitement.' [co-design group] We did not start the project with co-creation as a process model in mind per se. The objective was to identify a real need, leave presumptions out, find community members which could aid the design process to lead to an outcome which is meaningful for the community and in response met with enthusiasm and support when implemented. To ensure its success it would need to be run by either community members or stakeholders already operating in the area. The transition between research opportunities and meaningful solutions was assumed to be delivered by the community. There was a reluctance within getgo to come up with ideas in response to the research prior to the workshops. I wonder what the harm or benefits would have been if we had drawn out ideas and collected them for future reference or inspiration once we had gathered input from the community. The designer's role in co-design workshops is 'facilitator and visualiser of participant's ideas'. [co-design group]
The main objective is to engage people in dialogue. Designers provide a sheet open for discussion and answers about what they would like to have and provide visual clues which it takes for the participants to give feedback. [co-design group] Dialogue and discussion need to go beyond ‘what would you like to have’? Insights are substancial. I had the impression getgo members assumed the great ideas which it required to take the proposal forward would be sourced from the community. I disagree, the designer’s capabilities take all research findings and other input into account to derive solutions catering for the specific environment, which non-designers would struggle with. Therefore the designer’s role is the facilitation of a creative process using empathy tools, and harnessing valuable insights from the community. The actual proposal development and the concept of a social enterprise were generated away from the community. The co-development workshop made sure that we were working within the interest of the community and learnt from their response as they were providing insights we did not consider previously.
To ensure a co-creation process, as in all communication, there needs to be a certain level of transparency and explanation of why an idea developed the way it did. The process needs to be trackable to provide a constant feeling of involvement and highlight the positive details the community is bringing to the solution. Designer should strive to create liveability and community values. [co-design group]
18
What is co-creation? What is the designer’s role?
Workshop Planning 19
Workshop Objective Bringing stakeholders and community to collaborate and communicate. Feedback findings of the community, work together on an issue which they feel strong about, gather more insights relevant to this specific context and bundle all this information into a proposal in form of a storyboard. Workshop Structure Tasks from ice breakers to setting the scene to constructive solution sourcing and ideas generation were developed. (left: first woskhops structure in post-its). We tested the tasks amongst ourselves prior to the workshops.
Location and Set up The accessibility of the location was key to encourage participation. We were really lucky that on both occasions we were able to use the Wyndford Regeneration Agency Seminar Room, located centrally in the Wyndford. Invitations were given verbally to specific people rather than fly posting through doors, which made the event manageable. We prepared table material for five groups. Invited all stakeholders whom we had contact with and the community members whom we met when helping at the football pitch. Both times we had a good turn out, between 10-15 participants.
35 Chunky Pens 6 Timers Bowl of sweets Sandwiches & Drinks Camera Music? Popcorn Boxes Paper Sticky dots
Welcome 15 min
Splitting Participants into groups
Interactive look-at material provided to pass time if wait
What’s needed? Intro 5 min
Warm up Who are we. What can we do. Why are they here?
Task Description Topics 10 min
What can be achieved ? Groups decide on topic/ context Dice Game Ranking 5 mins
label storyboards with solution name and Issueon the front.
Ideas/Solutions 20 min
Story of the solution, the experience with beginning, middle and end to the story. Draw like comic strip, write underneath what is happening.
Feeling: Motivational Positive Exciting
Each person has three sticky dots to vote with. One idea is taken forward for development
Movie 5 min
roll dice and draw ideas of group onto idea card. create as many ideas as possible. Facilitator records ideas if not put down by group.
Warming 5 min
Introduce the different stories concerning the 5 different interaction and communication context. Let groups chose their topic. table stand with topic.
Speech by us.
Anticipating 25 participants, 5 groups
Fun exercise which makes poeple laugh and relax (e.g. groups hold each others hands and need to untangle)
Preparation
popcorn boxes collected at table and directed to designated group. Stakeholders are split evenly between the groups manually. One getgoglasgow team member at each table.
Workshop Structure Development 15 min
Storyboarding
key questions: 1. What does the idea look like and what does it do? 2. Where will it take place? 3. Who uses it? 4. When does it happen? 5. Why are people using it?
Presentation 15 min Group presentation 3 minutes each
1. Key issue 2. Idea described in a nutshell 3. Walk us through the storyboard. 4. Name the idea
End
1st Workshop Execution 20
Welcome We had popcorn boxes with colours which designated participants to different work tables. This did not work. We started the workshop 30 min late due to late arrivals. Most stakeholders were unable to attend due to after-work hours. We split the groups verbally up once we commenced the workshop. Warming Up There was a warm-up execercise to get used to using post-its. Easy questions acted as conversation starters, such as favourite food & place. It was surprising the struggle determining their hobby or something positive about Wyndford. Motivational Movie We introduced ourselves properly.The tonality of the research movie was deliberately positive and opportunity focused, however reactions from the participants were: “This is so sad!� upon the school clo-
sure sight. Participants were impressed by the quality of the video and the findings. They said the council could not see their issues, but we (only students) do only after three weeks. Democratic Voting Table groups voted with stickydots on the opportunity they would like to work on and discussed the issues around it. This way the decision was not made by the loadest person in the group. Fun Solution Finding Dice and respective problem solving tasks were meant to view the issue from different angles without constraints of right or wrong e.g. how would a cave man solve this? Some participants did not see the point in the exercise and rolling the dice, however it caused laughter amonst the group and relaxed the atmosphere.
Bringing Ideas to Life A six box storyboard was worked out. Participants were scared of drawing. It took a lot of steering from respective table coordinators to manage the task. Each table presented their storyboard. Rounding Up the Workshop Discussions & reflecting on the workshop whilst eating prize winning sandwiches let us mingle with the community further. Biggest Challenge I was a table coordinator. I found it increadibly difficult explaining and managing the tasks, leading the discussion to take ideas further as well as listening out for valuable insights and learnings. However the tools were a useful aid and essential to facilitate the process whilst gaining rich results.
1st Workshop Outcome 21
Immediate Outcome The community calls for a community centre and more activities to get the youth off the streets. The three proposals GreenGorillaz, GetGoing! and ListenUp were developed from the workshop’s outcome. The birth of ListenUp Two storyboards developed in the workshop expressed the despair about the lack of consultation, not having a voice in decisions taking place in the community. The participants said their feelings had been neglected in the closure of the school and the new plans for the Kalvin Canal would always remind them that their school had been taken away.
ListenUp development The group which developed the first proposal consist of Heji, Angela, Eeva and me. It was tough to work and coordinate team brainstorms for tools especially without a specific context. There was no question that there was a need, however forcing it to be a social enterprise was far fetched. We were basically trying to replicate but improve the approach and the methods we had been using to get in touch with the community already. Dreaming up tools without a specific context was a waste of time. Alternatively we should have gone out and gotten in touch with people to pro-actively seek an opportunity of where ListenUp could be prototyped whist developing more tools, even before the regional finals.
There will be 3 tables - one for each proposal.
35 Chunky Pens
Intro
~30 min 3 min
Splitting Participants into groups Welcome back!
Waiting for people, drinking tea, chatting
What’s needed?
Tea/Coffee Showing what we’ve been up to since last time
9 min
fuelled with proposal specific questions
Task Description
Laptop Question
Storyboard Evaluation 15 min
Gut reaction, Posting feedback (good and bad) for each stage of the proposals Vote for issues to work on
6-stage
20 min Brainstorm for ideas to solve the issue
sticky dots
Integrating solutions into the proposal storyboard
6-Stage Changable
Each group presents their revised storyboards
Issues to Solutions
Using the ideas, draw new storyboard stages and alter the initial storyboard to accommodate the solutions
For each issue, use the post-its to brainstorm what is needed to solve the issue, what there already is in Wyndford and then use this to develop solutions
Initial Discussion 5 min
Everyone has 3 sticky dots votes. Take 3-4 issues forward. Stick chosen issues onto issue board.
Movie
Go through the storyboard completely once, then ask “what do you find good/bad?” in each stage. Write comments on post-its and stick them in the corresponding box.
Making sure everyone has an idea of what the proposal is and what it aims to acheive.
To receive feedback on all 3 proposals, and develop solutions for highlighted issues.
Welcome
Beginnign with short intro showing what we’ve been doing, then 2 mins describing each proposal, and ending with what we want from them in the workshop
Aim
Speech by us
making tea, organising appropriate groups
Workshop Structure Visualising Presentation
15 min 15 min
End
Group presentation 3 minutes each
Issues tackled, solutions
Sandwiches
Proposal Feedback & Co-development 22
Workshop Objective Feedback to the community and source their reactions to the proposals which stemed from the last workshop. Getgo agreed that the community’s reaction would be superior to Audi’s if there were a disalignment. Sourcing local heroes from the same community meant the dilemma that we could not realise all proposals. We needed to make a decision earlier rather than later. Welcome Every table was working on a different proposal. Participants were spread randomly at the tables. The atmosphere was much more relaxed as participants already knew the kind of tasks they were asked to do and engageged openly into indepth dialogue explaining their point of view why things may not work as they were communicated in the individual proposals.
Proposal Movies Each proposal was explained in a two minute video. Getgoing! was developed most and in consequence most comprehensible. The other two proposals were not that well understood expressed by the outcomes e.g. ListenUp turned into a graffiti wall rather than a social enterprise. Initial Discussion Participants were asked to respond and highlight problems and benefits of the proposal ideas. I was participant at the Green Gorillaz table at the major points extracted were that the proposal did not cater for the ‘trouble youth’ aged between 16-21. It would be challenging to encourage people on unemployment/ disability benefit to participate in activities as they may be concerned people may question their real inability in consequence. The social enterprise would need to cater for this mindset.
Storyboard Evaluation Benefits and issues were posted in two different colours on the storyboard respective to the proposal stage. Issues to Solutions Four issues were picked and ellaborated on. This task required to work out what would be needed to solve this particular issue, as well as brainstorm which already existing resources could be used to solve it. Many fundraiser events which had been held in the Wyndford were mentioned e.g. christmas dinner in the school. Visualisation & Presentation The story boards were adjusted with the extracted issues in mind. Sign Up for Proposal We had voting and contact sheets for the participants. Each proposal got the same number of votes, no decision cast.
23
Developing the proposal.
Storyboard used to communicate the ListenUp proposal at the co-development workshop The intention was to promt of where in Wyndford the superhero, the treasure box and the helpers could be found. Looking back at it, this would have been the designer’s responsibility to suggest specific possibilities to which feedback could be given more easily.
The challenge to make it real... 24
What exactly is it? Throughout it has been confusing to how exactly ListenUp would exist. The use of the metaphors of superhero and treasure chest were not understood by the community in the co-development workshop. It was challenging to create an enterprise structure that would allow consultation & feedback online and offline. Audi’s Feedback 1. Underestimated financial forecast 2. Confusion to what it is 3. How would sustainability be achieved?
How to implement? The biggest challenges we faced were to determine how the social enterprise would be economically sustainable and who would be able to execute its implementation. We identified a need, and there is a good opportunity to develop a prototype at the school site, but people to take ownership over the enterprise and actually run it, were lacking. A successful outcome at the regional final was expected to bring volunteers foreward (i.e. community council members as superheroes) as well as secure the post of the design intern. Finding people to take ownership and become active is one thing, the other is to get the tools used and involving the wider community.
Economic sustainability? The Audi prize money would fund the prototype comfortably. Future projects in collaboration with stakeholders would be essential to keep up with the running costs and distribute surplus to community initiated projects. Sourcing the funds from communities does not seem justified unless they receive a direct feedback where the money is going. Why is it better consultation? ListenUp works on the concept of increasing visibility on mass voting through which a feeling of more involvement is transmitted lessening rejection. However we do not address barriers or misuse of the tools nor do we have a convincing case study of conventional consultations not being effective as of now.
Regional Final 25
Listen up, Green Gorillaz won the community 10,000 pounds! The strategic plan to enter several proposals paid off. Green Gorillaz won the regional finals. Getgo’s and the community’s efforts have been rewarded!
Thoughts on the Final Both proposals had a real chance of winning having stemmed from the same research and co-creation. Even Franny and Frank accompanied us to Newcastle to represent the community. It was insightful to compare the presentations’ tonality and persuasive content. The two proposals were of quite different nature, however ListenUp’s shortcomings were the lack of specifics regarding the prototype and inability to demonstrate persuasive tools. Green Gorillaz however was convincing depicting already established online social networks and persuasive mock-ups. It looks semi-implemented deviating from offline issues which have not been tackled yet.
ListenUp has a stronger developed business structure and feasible financial forecast as well as detailed roles and constitution. However it lacks a tangible flavoursome vision into the future. The further development of Green Gorillaz can borrow aspects from ListenUp. After all we are all Getgo! ListenUp’s Shortcomings 1. No consultation benchmarking. 2. No flavoursome vision or persuasive mock-ups. 3. No figures and persuasive details. The presentation did not have a sufficient level of business talk. It was funny and nice story-telling, but did not hold any moments communicating our competencies. 4. ListenUp is more difficult for Audi to associate itself with. 5. No mentioning of challenges which would be faced/how resolved?
to the Future 26
Polishing Green Gorillaz The national final is in only three weeks after the regional final. The news of the success has spread immediately. The community is chuffed. There will be a celebration in the Wyndford this coming weekend to utilise the excitement. I expect the community to be committing, signing up for specifics, now they have seen a return on their efforts. It is important to run an actual mock-up in Wyndford to increase GG’s credibility to show real and tested implementation. I expect Green Gorillaz to take aspects of ListenUp on board to tackle its shortcomings in business plan & financials.
Realisation Objective The recruitment of the design intern and the support from GSA needs to be finalised. The intern needs to be introduced to the community and become acquainted with the process. A range of initial events will be held. Wyndford does not understand yet why I expect GG to develop as time goes past. The main importance is that the Wyndford gains something valuable from it, which improves the overall living environment and community interaction, providing activities to the youth while engaging the wider community.
27
My learning.
Research Wyndford Investigation Regeneration Agency Road Show & Wyndford Investigation ‘Recky’ and Youth Interviews Community interviews Stakeholder Interviews Identifying stakeholders & Contacts Councillor Alex Dingwall Hannah Clinch Engagement Tools & Testing Design and Making of Issue Mapping Issue Game, Issue Box, Tea 4 Chat Football Pitch Assistance & Interview Other Interview with Bob (citystrolls) at CCA Common Good discussion about community activism at the CCA ASAP Scotland
Workshops Planning & Preparation Structure of Workshop Planning and Design of Tasks Table Material Execution Table Facilitator
Workshop 2
Proposal Ideation Consultation Methods Enterprise Finding Proposal Business Plan & Financial Forecast 2min Video Communicating Proposal Storyboard & Leaflet
Refinement
Preparation & Planning Structure and Tasks 2 min Proposal Video (storyboard, slides, video & sound authoring) Table Materials
Refinement Structure of Enterprise Financial Tank System Website Mockup Future of Social Enterprise
Execution Participant at Green Gorillaz Table
Credibility Fact Finding & Background Research
Regional Final
My role in this Project 28
Supporting Documents Document & Presentation Structure Diagrams & Timeplan Document Content Presentation ListenUp Presenter
Other Documentation Ning Blog Posts 2nd Workshop Video Filming of Regional Final Presentation Filming & Editing
ListenUp from Start to Finish From the onset I have been part of the ListenUp team. ListenUp has been the most ubiquitous of the ideas which came out of the first co-creation workshop. The strong need expressed to improve consultation methods was a sapid challenge and different from conventional community project ideas. Tackling animosity and improving communication would improve the living environment. To the left I have outlined my role and responsibilities in each stage of the project.
Research
Blueprinting community engagement Range of tested tools. Within 5 weeks we had built enough community trust and involvement to host a co-design workshop by inviting local heroes. Persistence Show determination and don’t give up! One has to sacrifice to receive something back. Attend local events and start chatting to people. Wiggle yourself in and listen to people. Design Tools Design & Use Tools are only as good as the person who facilitates the interaction. A clear objective is essential to gather meaningful data. Concerns & Values As David Singh from Medizini put it, change is about addressing concerns and creating value.
Teamwork
Co-Creation
Interdisciplinary Team Coordination Importance of team communication tools & task delegation
Creative Process Planning Planning and facilitation of creative process through co-creation workshop.
Team Motivation & Tension Resolving Encourage people to take action and self initiative to find relevant tasks for themselves. Keeping the enthusiasm up and resolving tension through dialogue.
Creative Process Facilitation Co-creation & communication with nondesigners. Teaching and acquainting the use of design tools we take for granted such as post-its. Teaching & Communication of design creative methods (storyboard, ideation)
Seek Challenge / sense of competition We should not have shied away from the challenging Ruchill instead used it as an example of comparison. Methodology Input/ Lectures The workshop with David Hicks was inspiring. Methodologies for teamwork and tension resolving, getting everyone on the same page by visualising the issues and concerns within the team.
Communication with non-designers We asked too much of the community to fill the gaps which we were struggling filling ourselves. If we had had a more comprehensible storyboard we may have been able to get suggestions on consultation methods rather than ListenUp turning into a graffiti wall.
Outcome
Key Learning 29
Business Plan & Financial Forecasting Experience in business plan writing and steps of setting up a social enterprise. Designing beyond the concept and focusing on the actual realisation. First proposal financial projection was highly unrealistic. Competition, Presentation & Audience Pitching & Presenting in a competition setting in front of critical judges. Credibility Boost We could have benchmarked much more and tried to apply this gathered knowledge to the new situation which we were approaching. Suit your Audience I would argue the ListenUp presentation did not suit the audience.
Thanks to everyone who was part of it!
ListenUp: Holly Brenan, Angela Fernandez Orviz, Rose Hutton, Heji Jeong, Eeva Campbell Green Gorillaz: Joe Slavick, Sarah Drummond, Basak Okay, Laura Franzini, Amy Marsh, Sara Pateraki Wyndford: Franny Scally, Frank Martin, Alison Kellly GSA: Iam Grout
30
The project in Pictures.
Coercion & Reward are the conventional measures used to influence people’s behaviour. [The Art of Public Strategy - Geoff Mulgan]
Normally a mix of sticks, carrots and persuasion is used to encourage people to take greater responsibility and to incourage participation. [The Art of Public Strategy - Geoff Mulgan]
The exercise of responsibility strengthens individual character and moral capacity, and greater personal responsibility - in terms of restraint and support for others - enhances the quality of life of the whole community.
Comments 32
[The Art of Public Strategy - Geoff Mulgan]
Wider engagement does not always make it easier to get to the right decision. The risk of wider conversations is that they may mobilize opposition. [The Art of Public Strategy - Geoff Mulgan]
Empowerment provides a constant pressure for improvement that sits alongside the feedback that comes from democracy, making it more likely that services will treat people with respect and care. [The Art of Public Strategy - Geoff Mulgan]
y t t i n e h t , ll a o The key t tails... gritty de
getg project blog
http://sustainournation.ning.com
Photos/ Videaotserials Workshop MMaterials Submitted
Getgo Glasgow & Sustain Our Nation Audi Foundation Competition Regional Finalist Reflective Document, Assesment of minor project of the Master of European Design final year Studies