This piece is an attempt to pull together some of the ideas which have emerged from a series of conversations with those involved in seeking to create changes in the way that systems of social interventions work to improve the lives of people who are experiencing severe and multiple disadvantage.

These ideas are incomplete. The purpose of attempting to assemble the ideas in this blog is to see whether this ordering of ideas resonates with people, to identify where they need adding to, and to help to weed out those which are unhelpful. As such, your comments would be very welcome!

Terminology – Place-Based Systems? Human-Centred Systems?

How should we describe systems of social interventions and actions which are designed to improve people’s lives, particularly the lives of people who are currently experiencing severe and multiple disadvantage (in Lankelly Chase’s terms)?

Here, we’re referring to the variety of interventions and actions which people with severe and multiple disadvantage access and experience, and whose purpose is to help them in some way. These interventions and actions range from ‘traditional’ public services, such as healthcare, to specific interventions, such as housing or drug rehabilitation, to the mixture of formal and informal interactions which happen in community centres and other parts of civil society. People have referred to these as ‘place-based systems’. This helpfully emphasises the idea that there are a variety of interventions and actions that cluster in a particular place in order to help the people there. But does the term ‘human-centred systems’ convey more accurately the sense that such systems could operate better if people were put at their heart? Is there a better term than either of those? Some people have found both terms particularly unhelpful preferring to focus on community. For the moment, were going to refer to them as human-centred systems.

What is a human-centred system?

A system is a set of people, organisations, cultures, processes, relationships and actions which combine to make things happen. The things that happen are the result of the interaction of all the elements of the system: of interactions between the individual elements themselves; and also between individual elements and the system as a whole. Some aspects of systems are codified whereas others elements are unwritten but just as influential.

The things that happen as a result of such systems are not under the control of any one person or organisation within the system. (In technical terms, the results of such systems are ‘emergent’). Such a system is one in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

A human-centred system is one in which the purpose of the system is to support the people within it to live the lives they would like to live. The elements of this system include both professional people (those who are getting paid to design and deliver interventions) and civic society (people who live and act within places as volunteers).

The scale of human-centred systems

There is no ‘one size fits all’ definition of the appropriate scale of human-centred systems. In fact, there is not one ‘system’ at all. People are part of multiple, interrelated systems. The crucial question in determining the scale of a system is: what are the boundaries of the system which impacts on the issues with which are preventing the person living the life they want to live?

Sometimes these boundaries will be associated with neighbourhoods. Other times, the appropriate system boundaries are city-wide, national or international. Sometimes it could be a community defined more by interest than by geography.

The two crucial points are:

to draw the boundaries of the system from the perspective of the needs and strengths of the person/people who are asking for help to live the life they want to live.
to have effective mechanisms for different systems to communicate, share information, and build relationships with one another

What have we learnt about how such systems work and how they are created?

How do human-centred systems work?

In our discussions, people who are undertaking this work identified various elements of what is working for them in order to create human-centred systems, what is frustrating that work, what they are struggling with, and what the preconditions for that work are.

We have brought these points together to explore the characteristics of the people, organisations, relationships and actions (interventions) which make human-centred systems work well and those characteristics which make human-centred systems work less well.

Characteristics of people who make human-centred systems work

They are driven by a strong sense of high level purpose: to help create social justice/a better world
They display openness to the ideas of others – they value the process of enquiry
They display strong emotional intelligence and empathy
They seek to collaborate with others
They are prepared to make themselves vulnerable by admitting their own limitations, uncertainties and failure
They use both information and experience to make judgements in complex circumstances
They invest time in building relationships and trust
They understand the value of risk and failure
They do not seek to control the system

Characteristics of people which make human-centred systems work less well

They are overly focussed on tasks rather than purpose
They are overly focussed on the short term
They are not able to be honest about mistakes and uncertainty
They have a narrow understanding of what counts as ‘evidence’
They defend a pre-determined position rather than engage in genuine dialogue
They pretend that systems can be controlled

Characteristics of organisations which make human-centred systems work

They collaborate with others to achieve their mission, including:
- constantly seeking to learn about the relationship between their actions and how outcomes emerge as a result of the operation of the whole system
- sharing information with other organisations
- planning and decision making in concert with others
They have authentic, on-going dialogue internally (with staff at all levels) and externally (with all those with whom they engage). This necessarily includes having on-going mechanisms for authentic dialogue with those whom they serve.
They create interventions which respond to the authentic and well-understood needs and strengths of those they serve
They enable frontline workers to build relationships with those with whom they work
They empower frontline workers to use their judgements about what actions to take
They understand and manage the time and resource implications of their actions
They critically reflect on their work – embracing uncertainty and mistakes, creating safe spaces for people to admit vulnerability
They seek and offer trust – and seek/offer transparency of practice in return
They use evidence of all kinds to help make judgements, not to replace judgement-making
They use relationships and good governance processes to create accountability, rather than using measurement to create accountability

Characteristics of organisations which make human-centred systems work less well

They work in silos
They focus on targets, not on people
They do not know (and plan for) the resource implications of their actions
They pursue their own agenda to the expense of others
They do not listen to dissenting voices
They do not share information
They do not know who they should trust
They plan from the top-down, not the bottom-up
They compete when they should collaborate
They use compliance-based forms of commissioning and performance management (they use New Public Management as their management ideology)

Characteristics of relationships and dialogue which make human-centred systems work

Dialogue

They are based on discussion about the appropriate frame of reference for any dialogue, meaning:
- They draw the boundaries of the relevant ‘system’ based on an understanding of who needs to be heard in order to effectively discuss the issue at hand – with a presumption of inclusivity if it is not clear (bringing the right people together to talk about the right things)
- They make clear what the terms of any particular dialogue are: what is being discussed, and why
Trust – They invest time in building relationships and use their judgements to know who they can trust – to get on with doing the right things, and to tell them what others may not
They allow and encourage challenge – by giving platforms to those with different perspectives
They create effective, safe spaces for dialogue which:
- promote equality – by building the capacity of everyone to make themselves heard within those spaces effectively. (“pre-work”)
- Enable people to express what they need from and in those spaces,
- Contract with people in the space so that everybody’s role is explicit and understood
- Create a positive error culture – actively encourage people to make themselves vulnerable – and to talk about uncertainty and mistakes
- Understand and acknowledge the history of that place – and the context which that has created
They create spaces with an integrity of process – with equality and attributability agreed
They use different kinds of spaces for different purposes – for example, using neutral spaces when bringing together people who all need to step outside their existing contexts and roles
They value the integrity of process and time and resources required to undertake dialogue well. They see this as “high value” work.
They use evidence to inform dialogue – developing a deep understanding of issues, strengths and needs
They separate enquiry from conversations about money
They view dialogue as on on-going process, rather than a one-off event
They encourage dialogue between professionals (those who get paid to undertake action which helps people to live the lives they want to lead) and civil society – the people and organisations who live and act within particular places.

Relationships

They build relationships over time
They build relationships on emotional intelligence and humanity – they are modelled on the most effective aspects of informal and social relationships. E.g. People offer hospitality to one another.
They are based on honesty – telling and acknowledging different (and difficult) truths
They actively redistribute power in relationships – for example, by those with more power being hosted by those with less – and taking themselves out of their comfort zone
They understand and make explicit the boundaries that are required for particular types of relationship
They build relationships between professional and civil systems

Characteristics of relationships and dialogue which make human-centred systems work less well

They create competition between actors for scarce resources
They only value professional opinions, and value the most senior professionals’ opinions most highly
They only value what can be measured
They short-cut processes of dialogue

Characteristics of actions (interventions) that make human-centred systems work

This section refers to the characteristics of interventions that people and organisations make within the system in order to help people live the lives they want to live. It covers the projects and programmes which people and organisations undertake, and the actions of people within civil society.

They build deep relationships with those with whom they act, in order to understand strengths and needs
They take an asset-based approach, building on people’s strengths, not simply identifying shortcomings
They have empowered frontline people to build and manage relationships with those with whom they act, co-ordinating other’s involvement. These people use their judgement to tailor the precise nature of the intervention to the person/family, based on a deep understanding of need.
They are flexible enough to be bespoke, they are not ‘mass produced’ interventions
They work with anyone who asks for help – “early intervention” – no thresholds.
They treat people holistically, rather than from a single-service perspective
They have a strong sense of high level purpose, related to the idea that “I want to help people live the life they want to lead”
The relationship between those who act lasts as long as it needs to, and no longer
They blur the boundaries between professional and civic systems – building relationship between social and professional networks
They use evidence to inform, and continually reflect on, practice
They actively and systematically listen to the voices of those they act in concert with (strong ‘user voice’)

Characteristics of actions/interventions which make effective human-centred systems work less well

They deliver to hit targets, not to meet people’s need/strengths
They do not understand their relationship to other actions and actors within the system
They turn people away because they are not ‘serious’ enough
They make people dependent, rather than helping people to help themselves
They punish/withdraw from people who fail to act in prescribed ways
They deliver to people, not with them

What are people doing to create effective human-centred systems?

These are the tactics/actions people have been using to bring about change in existing systems, and help to create human-centred systems:

Creating mechanisms for dialogue:

For those that give a voice to those who currently are not heard
Which involve local democratic representatives
Creating shared information systems
Conversations that foster trust, open, honest conversations that can focus on aspirations

Bringing people together: change is a process that people create together, not a particular destination. This means:

Fostering collaboration
Creating culture change, rather than strategies
Creating a common purpose and plan together. (You don’t necessarily need to all share values, just understand and respect others’ values)
Exhibiting the types of behaviour you want to see in others
“We all walk together” – It’s a journey
Allowing space for piecemeal improvement and innovation. Don’t over specify
Get a critical mass
Work with those who get it – “go where the energy is”

Undertaking actions/interventions which exemplify effective-human centred systems. This means:

Build systems around people – e.g. Vanguard method approach
Taking an asset based approach – what are your assets? Relationships? Reputation? ‘Capture existing assets’.

We’d very much welcome your thoughts on all of this. Please feel free to comment below.

Toby Lowe – Newcastle University Business School

Alice Evans – Lankelly Chase

Embracing Uncertainty

Complexity-informed management

Monthly Archives: November 2015

Exploring Human-Centred Systems