Originally published 9 September 2009. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
A camel, according to the famous cliché, is a horse designed by a committee.
It’s a terrific image, and makes the point so well. In fact it makes several points. Some people think the phrase is meant to illustrate what an ugly, ungainly animal can result when you start tinkering with a perfectly adequate concept – the horse. Others, however, claim that the camel has several useful enhancements providing additional functionality – and proving how valuable the ‘committee’ proved.
Yet others point out that lateral thinking, or minority views in the committee led to more variants of the camel, adding to the wonderful diversity of human life. Joking aside, the debate we are parodying is about the value of involving more people in the design and development of public services. There is a strong case for doing so and an increasing number of public bodies are experimenting with variants of co-design. It is music to the ears of those who have campaigned for more ‘participatory democracy’, and sits well with ideas of greater stakeholder involvement in decision-making. But is quite the no-brainer it sounds?
The case against the committee-approach is that you lose the advantage of a single unifying vision. So many inventions have been attributed to the genius of a single individual, and the software industry is full of examples of code that worked well when designed by one, but failed when too many others got their hands on it. Strange really, for we might expect that ‘many hands make light work’. Yet such are the complex inter-dependencies that even the most disciplined teams struggle to achieve what one can do.
Maybe what happens is that the wider group brings too many considerations to bear. A single objective becomes many objectives – some of them conflicting. Some voices shout louder than others and gain more influence on the design process. But these may not always be the priority issues. And this is to disregard the inherent risks in many assemblies of stakeholders – of human disagreements, internal jockeying for position and a lack of long-term consistency.
There is also the problem of whom to involve. Serious co-design is not a mass-participation project. So the choice of those to become involved matters and the criteria for selecting them must be defensible. How representative should they be? Are those who know most about the subject likely to be best at designing relevant services? Is it possible to be over-enthusiastic? How important is it to have a consensual approach and be prepared to compromise? Few of these have easy answers and it may be one reason why co-design is still more discussed than done!
On the plus side, however, is the realisation that too many services have been designed with scant regard for the ‘customer’. Many stem from a ‘supplier’ mindset, and there are frequent complaints to this effect. Sometimes it’s the other way around; services built with end-users in mind, but totally confusing and difficult to administer for the front-line staff who have to deliver. This was the message of the Sunningdale Institute Report earlier this year, and we still need to see a more positive response to this in the way Civil Service policy-makers work.
The truth is that squaring the circle in complex service design and delivery means listening to a variety of stakeholders, and obtaining their committed involvement in the process is essential. That is what ‘world class commissioning’ is all about, and whether or not one uses the phrase ‘co-design’ is immaterial. It amounts to a more consultative, consensual approach, and public bodies need to be better at it.
A tough financial outlook will oblige service providers of all kinds to take a fresh look at what is done with public money. This does not inevitably mean ‘cuts’ but will certainly mean ‘change’. Having less money is not the only driver of that change; the information revolution, legal changes and public perceptions are all important factors. Consultation with stakeholders will be essential if such changes are to be made to stick. Involving them in the design and development tasks reduces the likelihood of mistakes and makes it more likely that modernised services meet the requirements of key stakeholders and the public at large.
Trigger points
- The Institute is joining forces with Governance International to run a Roundtable on Co-design on November 17th in London 2009.
- Co-design is also featured in the context of the ‘duty to involve’ Our new Implementing the Duty to Involve course.
- The Sunningdale Institute paper was published earlier this year.
This is the 146th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement