Process facilitation from SCF HQ
Comments on the Information Hub Discussion Paper

From George Clark clark@srds.co.uk 4 August 2000

Reactive and proactive information flow

The hub has to facilitate two types of information flow:

1. reactive – in response to central initiatives
2. proactive – in achieving critical mass for ‘setting the agenda’

Both of these flows will be more efficient if informed by ‘strategic intelligence’ and this might take different forms:

1. reactive – calendars of events telling who at the centre is thinking of doing what by when. This will enable citizen groups to intervene timeously and on topic.
2. proactive – generation and dissemination of innovative ideas and independent research results and then building consensus and thus ‘mass movement’ around particular themes or issues.

There will be many information flows and not all members will want or need to have their toes dipping into all of them. Punchy Information Briefs (perhaps on the SCF web site) could link to a wide range of other sites (some of which already exist) dealing with topics in greater depth.

Linking to the shakers and movers

In both the above cases the information will initially be gathered and posted by individuals (or small groups) and the tasks are then (a) to make it available to relevant network members and (b) to have the appropriate network members act on it.

Concerned individuals (or groups) can post information on a range of different web sites which other enthusiasts can be encouraged to visit regularly. The information does not all have to be on a single site although it would be useful having one central site (eg SCF) which ‘points’ to these sibling sites.

Given human nature, however, it might be handy to have mailing lists to inform possible interested parties about new items on sites in which they have expressed interest. Ideally these would be interactive/discussion sites (associated with real time fleshy meetings for consolidation) but, failing that, regular postings of quality strategic intelligence would be enormously useful.

Given the broad range of interests covered by SCF members it would clearly be impractical to expect SCF HQ to be the eggtimer through which all network information should pass. The ideal would be to facilitate and encourage the flow of information through a wide range of more or less independent hubs dealing with particular issues¹. These hubs would then contact HQ only when there was need to do so eg in

Openness and Transparency

The Legislative Participation Information Hub Discussion Paper now exists and is commendable as a jumping off point for articulating the dream. It also has four email addresses at the bottom.

There is, however, no clear indication of (a) how many people, and from which organisations, were involved in producing the paper nor (b) to whom and by when responses should be sent. When and where is the next meeting to take place and how is the agenda to be agreed? Might it be a good idea to call for and distribute briefing/consultation papers in advance of the next meeting so that those who attend already have conceptual sketch maps of those areas where there is consensus and those areas where there are non contiguous claims, concerns and issues?

I am obviously on the mailing list for this group but who else is? It would be useful to know so that we could set up our own hub and recruit more members. (Friends of friends in ever widening circles)³.

For most workaday purposes our link to SCF and our call upon the services of HQ need not be all that demanding. The main requirement would be that we hold to the philosophy and principles of the SCF and keep a delegated staff member informed of what we are doing so they can serve a monitoring function and facilitate cross sectoral intelligence.

SCF HQ as process facilitator

SCF HQ need not bother itself too much with the details of the information that flows though the various hubs of the network. Its main task is to lay down tracks (concordats, protocols and procedural guidelines) and to oil the wheels of the information wagons (topic groups) which roll along them ie be an unfailing port of last call in helping partnerships identify new colleagues and perhaps engineering situations/events whereby they actually meet (go-between, match maker)

The discussion paper suggests that the ‘information hub’ should be a ‘managed facility’. "Whilst what is envisaged is a two-way or multi-access facility, it would undoubtedly need to be structured and managed by Civic Forum Staff."

There are no simple answers to these questions but it is perhaps useful to ask them and thus stimulate discussion of options such that we do not by default drop back into old Scotland style autocratic command and control. The task is not to control and regulate information but rather to stimulate its flow and thus enhance the level of informed discussion.

But there is a lot of information about. There is need for a trusted and trustworthy few in any given topic area to engage in sifting, digesting and prioritising. SCF core staff are few in number and cannot be expected to be ‘expert’ in everything. Calling on the voluntary support of members could be the main form of gap filling but most members are already working to tight schedules and may not thus be able to ‘fit in’ SCF tasks at the drop of a hat.

This brings us back to the ‘shakers and movers’ mentioned earlier. Some enthusiasts burn and will do it anyway but it may be useful to have a budget to commission specific and time-limited pieces of work from ‘experts’ as the need arises. This might be for content related to specific issues and/or to map out procedures and protocols for process facilitation – especially as this relates to the use of ICT on the one hand and the structuring of genuinely participatory workshops/conferences on the other.

Making the dream come true

The discussion paper is a very positive first step in articulating the ‘dream’. Is there also a vision for a procedure that will make the dream come true? How will the decision be made concerning who is to do what by when? Does this require a unitary ‘boss’ to predetermine everything? Might it not be enough to encourage a thousand flowers to blossom and then rally round the fairest of those. I hereby kick this information hub ball back into play. Who else is out there?

1. eg by providing contact information and details about the aims of member organisations on the SCF web site so that members could independently identify potential partners [back]
2. for some thoughts about 'interactive mind mapping' see www.srds.ndirect.co.uk/tot [back]
3. for a brief introduction to strategic proactive networking see www.caledonia.org.uk/spanning.htm [back]