Tea break at the Sugar Project review meeting
A characteristic of the Opera House design was that at the time of the award, nobody knew how to build it, not even the architect. In a similar vein, when JFK said that he wanted an American on the moon, nobody knew how to do that either. In both cases though there was sufficient understanding of science and technology for society to be confident enough that such ambitious goals could be achieved.
Project vision developed at the previous workshop
Concern Universal’s goal of “A world where justice, dignity and respect prevail for all.” is a different kind of problem, or challenge, to putting a man on the moon, and also requires a
Discussion at the Sugar Project review meeting
different kind of thinking to achieve it. Whilst it requires a different kind of thinking, I believe the process of incremental learning developed in the science and technology world, is still applicable.
Break out group at the LDSP planning meeting
An aspect of all contemporary Donor Aid programs is that the donors demand regular Monitoring and Evaluation reports of projects and programs, both to ensure accountability but also to facilitate learning and change. I recently attended the Sugar and LDSP (Local Development Support Program) projects quarterly review meetings. I was impressed by the desire to explore the ‘so what?’ question in response to a list of outputs achieved, the real discussions on gender issues, and the use of facilitators in the meetings. The next step is to build on these capabilities, become even more inclusive, get a step closer to the desired goal.
Martin I was particularly interested in a couple of your discussion points. One was the concept of incremental learning. This type of learning requires a certain mindset which is open to the unexpected and reasonably comfortable with complexity. I think big organisations such as state government departments and even local governments have difficulty incorporating new learing into operations and policy. They are struggling to find ways of working with complexity. Smaller organisations perhaps have a better strike rate. Do you agree? Any links that might assist?
On another “new paradigm” issue; a local government I work with, recently had an opportunity to enter into an equal partnership project to deliver an extensive community engagement program for the next 18 months. The best chance for a successful funding application was if the local government partnered with a local community group in developing and implementing the project. The community group were very very keen to work with both local and state governments however the local government was very uncomfortable with this distinct shift in power and all the imagined possibilities that this could entail. This was a significant test for the LG concerned. The timing was not right for this paradigm shift. The joint application was not submitted.
Enjoy your postings. Will endevour to respond to the ones which hit a cord.
Regards
Ross
Hi Ross, Good to hear from you.
You say:
big organisations such as state government departments and even local governments have difficulty incorporating new learing into operations and policy. They are struggling to find ways of working with complexity. Smaller organisations perhaps have a better strike rate. Do you agree?
I’m not sure. In theory yes, but in practice I sometimes wonder if they haven’t got their own built in inertia problems. The cult of the ‘big man’ plays out in a more immediate way in the smaller organisations, whilst it’s possible to move to the edges of power and innovate like crazy in a large one.
Any links? Not immediately, but there was an interesting piece of research by Ian Ploughman? Plowman? about 10 -15 yrs ago to look at the factors that made some small Queensland towns survive, and others to die. One of the factors of failure was the problem of the ‘strong leader’. Towns with a ‘strong leader’ were more likely to fail – my interpretation is that they did not allow others to innovate.
For some reason your question also made me think that whilst necessity might be the mother of invention, prosperity is that of innovation.
You write:
The community group were very very keen to work with both local and state governments however the local government was very uncomfortable with this distinct shift in power and all the imagined possibilities that this could entail.
Yes, quite understandable. I constantly come back to how important the spectrum of engagement is, together with clearly identifying negotiables & non-negotiables. Vague promises of ‘working together on this’ usually end in tears.