Method magpie

I am something of a methodological magpie and I am trying to properly integrate a few different domains that I have been using to develop an approach to change.

We will be working to change Dorset Council over the next few years and I want that to be a participatory experience where, within the constraints we operate in, people have agency. So, while we need to define our ’North Star’ and provide both a reason and a destination for our transformation, if we want to end up as an organisation which is adaptive and participative then we need to start as we mean to go on. That means a shared approach to change and a common framework for experimentation. I also think this is the foundation for the test, learn and grow network as it develops.

The other reason I am writing this piece is that I want to be able to be both participant in the work as well as leading it as CEX. This is a delicate balance and the best way I can think of to make it work is be really transparent about my thinking and to be really visibly committed to experimentation. I also need to attract people who are more expert in all of these disciplines to build a stronger team around it – some of those people are already in the organisation.

It is work in progress and as it needs lots more thinking with other people before it’s finished. However, it helps me to work in the open and so I am sharing here.

The context is organisational change with a twist as my mental model of an organisation is of a system rather than a self contained structure. My method mashup comes from four domains:

Systems practice
There is a lot of background to this in this earlier essay called ‘all change is system change’ which is really my starting point. The core argument from the piece is here:

The world of system change provides a different framing of organisational change and a way of seeing it as part of an organic process and not something that is bolted onto an organisation. The simple but powerful shift from process to purpose is something that can make a profound difference to how you go about engaging the networks that already exist within your organisation. Once we acknowledge and bring to fore the networks that make up our organisations and the system they create can we ever really deny that all change is system change?

There is no place for certainty and this is where I fundamentally deeply diverge from New Public Management as an approach and its embedded view of the organisation as a machine that needs to be optimised.

Design methods
I have limited theoretical (but very practical) knowledge of organisational design but the idea of layers of organisation has very much stuck with me as a concept. The model we used at Adur and Worthing (with thanks to Tory Strethill-Wright from Mayvin who supported us) involved working in 7 different lenses and while that feels like a lot its really helpful in driving intentional deep change.

So often transformation gets stuck around process, systems and structure and then tries to shift culture*, without really appreciating the importance of changing how decisions are made or the core capabilities of the organisation. If you are really changing an operating model or core paradigm of an organisation then you need to be working in all layers.

This is complex stuff clearly which is why the workhorse of the design council double diamond is so useful in making sure that problems and opportunities are proper explored before being acted on.

Good design also need purpose, you need to take the time to understand your outcome and design principles to make sure you get what you need, not want you start of wanting. These principles also help the complexity of moving between organisational layers.

Digital practice
I describe myself as a technologist by trade and that’s a mix of three things:

• Digital methods like agile for project and product work
• Data as a fundamental element of the work and not peripheral
• Systems architecture which was the basis of my masters

I am not a ‘techie’ technologist but I do think digital first. Much more of that in this piece I wrote a while ago which I think has aged fairly well.

Action research
While I use a lot of digital methods (like agile) when think of programme design and I also use a lot of facilitation techniques (like art of hosting), the backbone of my personal practice is action research. This was my PhD methodology and while design (and digital) methods are also iterative I think the disciple of action research with respect to outcome evaluation and up front context development is really important. Action research is good at providing discipline in experimentation and objectivity when looking around results which brings a strong accountability which is also appropriate in a public service context.

Increasingly I am looking to develop a participatory action research approach (a good starting point for anyone interesting in this is the work of Danny Burns) which meshes well with systems thinking and brings more people into the work of sense making and ideation. When combined with a properly inclusive approach this helps avoid confirmation bias and keeps constructive challenge in the work.

Method mashup
The result of this mashup is deeply multidisciplinary but I think it works because these are different lenses on similar concepts; explore, iterate, adapt. These feel like fundamentals for a modern organisation and so a really great foundation to an approach to change.

These methods also mix exploratory (action research, systems practice) with much more delivery focuses methods (design, digital). This works because while I see the environment as a system and the best way of navigating change to be experimentation, we work with some hard constraints with respect to finance, law and the democratic mandate which this work needs to serve.

The privilege of the CEX is to be able to shape things, but there is a risk that you get a bit carried away with the sound of your own voice (very much worth reading Julie Diamond ( with HT to Vanessa and Cassie who suggested I read this). My hope is that by sharing transparently how I shape my thinking is a way of making it easier for people to ‘speak truth to power’ and challenge and build on ideas where they know more than me.

• I am deeply skeptical of culture change. Culture is an emergent property not a directly malleable one. Best to stick to behavioural change and see what emerges.