Over the past three months John Popham, Drew Mackie and I have working with the Big Lottery Fund to help develop ideas around People Powered Change - an initiative that BIG launched in March this year. You can see earlier discussion in the group here. I've just posted this update on our blog.
We are in the final phase of our exploration, with Big Lottery Fund, about how BIG can become more than a funder - initially under the banner of People Powered Change (PPC). On Thursday December 1 Drew Mackie and I will help run a workshop for BIG in London with some of the people we have met along the way, and those whose ideas we have borrowed. Fellow reporter John Popham will be sharing his insights, and I've no doubt doing some more reporting.
You can see here a summary of the blog posts recording conversations and ideas we have picked up about ways that BIG could help the groups that they fund to share ideas and experience, and the context for this. We have included some reports and posts from partners in PPC, and will have more shortly.
As you can see from this initial interview with Linda Quinn, BIG is open to a wide range of possibilities. Here are some we started to explore, prompted by that interview:
At one stage in our work, we wondered if we could use the workshop this week to identify the main elements for a new, distributed People Powered Change learning space. In practice that's going to be a jump too far. The issues are complex, there are many people in the field who could be part of any solutions we haven't talked to, and more conversations are needed inside BIG as well as outside.
I sense that this journey may turn out to be more about how BIG operates, than creating a new space or programme called "People Powered Change". I personally think that could be a more radical outcome. It is relatively easy for funders to invest in new initiatives - while it may be much more innovative and beneficial for them to start operating in open and networky ways. The Connected Citizens report, referenced here by Beth Kanter, provides some pointers.
So I think that the event on Thursday is going to be mainly a means of getting conversations off the screen, where they have mainly happened so far, into the room, and in the process starting to build some new relationships. After a presentation from BIG, and a Q and A session, we'll be exploring ways for BIG and others to take forward the exploration we have started here. We'll pitch up some ideas, invite others to come up with their own, form groups, and get creative. We have a few spare places, so if you feel you could contribute on the day, do contact Laura Lacey and explain what you might offer.
Here's some suggestions for BIG and partners that have emerged from our exploration. They provide a backcloth for the workshop, and some might be developed on the day.
All these are the sort of ideas that might end up, in private, in a consultancy report if we were undertaking a conventional study. I've been enormously impressed that BIG are prepared to support this exploration in public - modelling the sort of open sharing approach that could fill out the initial vision of People Powered Change.
It's a small start in the sort of ideas crowdsourcing that I hope may be continued by BIG and others. Maybe now is the time for an Open Innovation Exchange, as a few of us proposed back in 2007
What happens after our workshop? In part, I expect we'll decide that on the day. However, I do know that a report will be written early in the New Year to get support from committee members, there is talk of piloting, and I hope it will be possible for BIG staff to continue the work that we have started.
Meanwhile, do please pitch in your own ideas, either as a comment below, or by contacting us here.
Add a Comment
Comment by Jeff Mowatt on November 28, 2011 at 12:24 For us, the only access to community development resources comes from SW Acre networks, in the form of Gloucestershire Rural Community Council, a charity which mentors our local parish and community plans.
Perhaps it's the low population density and to some extent a reasonable local level of community engagement which makes it difficult to create a critical mass of interest.
Our 2009 bid for Village SOS for example failed for its lack of local shareholder engagement. Local government appear to be a closed shop.
Engagement with Transition has been more open, yet fails to translate into support for practical projects such as our local biomass heating initiative.The hyperlocal action group is a one man show and self funded
.
As I've discovered only recently this approach of developing ideas in the public domain is described as radical transparency whereas there's an inclination to protect information, for example of voluntary and community groups by the organisations that says "we keep them all on our database". The suggestion that opening up access to such information is the path toward losing control.
Our Society is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
By registering for Our Society you agree to our terms and conditions.
© 2012 Created by Sophie Ballinger.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Our Society to add comments!
Join Our Society