Designing for impact

July 14, 2018 in Alternative Ownership, Alternative Development, Social Business

So you want to make a difference. You have a dream for a better future. You want to make an impact.

The next step is to try and make it happen within our sphere of control.

While positive personal, individual responses are necessary, it turns out that trying to convince others to "do what I did" isn't a particularly effective way to achieve a large-scale impact.

Attempting to control the situation based on your frame of reference isn't is not the determining factor in creating impact.

Collaboration might be.

This isn't to say that individual stories don't matter. They matter because they are all different. But listening and sharing is more important than convincing and justifying.

Collaboration, not co-opting.

Coordination and cooperation by communication, not command.

Imagine the solutions for housing we might arrive at if we wove our stories together:

Simpler living in smaller spaces designed for neighbours, not purchasers.
Coordinated, activated and populated public areas that are accessible to all.
Households who know households. Neighbours who know neighbours.
Cross-generational and cross-cultural living within a neighbourhood rather than demographic segregation.
Shared facilities for making, fixing, growing, playing and being.
Literal, and potentially common ownership of local commercial activities.
Educational environments that extend outside the institution into our streets, parks, back yards, garages and kitchens.
Urban design dominated by spaces for people, not cars.

Organising for good, better.

July 06, 2018 in Social Business, Alternative Development, Alternative Ownership

There are many ways to work together. McKinsey & Company identified four organisational 'recipes'. Interestingly, their research found that focussing on a single recipe was more likely to be successful than attempting to delivery on multiple fronts.

If we wanted to build a system together that delivered better outcomes for all people through property, which recipe would we pick?

I suspect one of the following two could be a valid approach, and aligns with an emphasis on people working together to solve wicked problems.

The "Leadership Factory".

This approach would rely on developing leaders, entrusting them to do work, and wrapping them in support systems to sustain and grow their leadership and impact. Leadership is necessary when we're trying to move in a new direction, and a coordinated group of embedded, aligned and supported leaders could move us all a long way.

The "Continuous Improvement Engine".

We'd embed and maintain systems that promote continuous learning, knowledge sharing, diverse involvement and high engagement among every person involved. As we're trying to solve and unsolved problem, we know we'll need to learn as we go along. "Build it as we fly it" as the saying goes. And we also know that the more diverse the group of people involved in the learning, sharing and design process, the better the outcomes.

Perhaps, if I may, I'll deviate from McKinsey's conclusion that success requires focus on a single approach and theorise on a hybrid model:

Continually Improving Leaders who Continuously Improve the World

What would happen if we developed leaders who lead in a manner that promotes continuous learning, and who themselves are embedded in a leadership network that encourages knowledge sharing and learning around getting the most from others.

We could solve some wicked problems. Together.