ListenUpA Social Enterprise Developed with Wyndford in Glasgow

Fee Schmidt-Soltau || MEDes Minor Project Reflective Essay on ListenUp, a proposal developed by Getgo for the Sustain Our Nation Competition set by the Audi foundation.

Ready, Steady, Glasgow getg

ListenUp has attained great success. It reached the regional final whilst supported strongly by the Wyndford community.

The success, enthusiasm and community engagement along side the nature of the project has brought long term responsibilities, which go beyond the scope of a minor project. Consequently the co-creation process has posed questions related to the design-er’s role in such process models and their ethical involvement and responsibility towards the outcome.

This document reflects on each stage of the process including teamwork coordination, research and its methods, workshop planning and facilitation, from the co-creation process up to the refinement towards a financially sustainable social enterprise.

Reflecting on the project.

Content

About

Reflecting onthe Process

Co-creation

What is ListenUp?What is Sustain Our Nation?Where/What is Wyndford?Who are Getgo Glasgow?

Our ApproachTeamworkIdentifying StakeholdersRelationship MapBuilding TrustEngagement Tools Extracting the FindingsIssue & InsightOpportunities

What is co-creation?Workshop Planning1st Workshop Execution1st Workshop OutcomeProposal feedback & Co-development

The challenge to make it real...Regional Finalto the Future

My Role & ResponsibilitiesKey Learning

PhotosCommentsProject Datathe Project

in Pictures

Proposal Development

My learning

4567

91011121314151617

1819202122

242526

2829

313233

open communication channels between stakeholders and community members. It provides engagement tools to the commu-nity and enables collaborative processes.

Through increased communication and collaboration, greater benefits for all parties involved are created e.g. more community involvement will reduce animosity and lighten immediate rejection to implementa-tions which are felt to have been decided over their head. Furthermore involvement may lead to increased participation or even ownership in what is implemented, which is greater value for money for the stakeholder and fuels further social benefits.

ListenUp aims to...

ListenUp is a not-for-profit social enterprise which aims to improve communication between public organisations and com-munities. ListenUp provides tools to source community’s opinion, gain a greater voice and have greater influence and ownership in decisions affecting their immediate surrounding.

ListenUp is one of two proposal outcomes at the Glasgow School of Art which were developed in co-creation with the Wyndford estate in Glasgow, Maryhill to address the Sustain our Nation Competition set by the Audi foundation.

The project is a joint effort by the MEDes (Master of European Design) and the MDes (Master of Innovation) students, a total of 12 students.

Getgo Glasgow excelled at the regional final, the proposal ‘Green Gorillaz’ won the Wyndford 10.000 pounds. All the effort has been rewarding!

What is ListenUp?

4

What is Sustain our Nation?

Sustain Our Nation (SoN) is a competition set by the Audi Foundation. The competition seeks the design of innovative social enterprises which address issues of Ageing Population, Health, Finance, Crime and Energy & Climate Change. The aim is to catalyse solutions that address these national issues at a local level, working together with communities to deliver sustainable change.

For prototyping and setting up such a local social enterprise Audi has made 2x 10.000 GBP funding available if successful in the regional and national finals.

5

Wyndford is an estate in Maryhill, Glasgow. It used to be a desireable place to live in the 70th. It is surrounded by barrack walls and was perceived as a safe place to live. Nowadays the Wyndford estate is a crime hot-spot with statistics showing it to be one of the most deprived areas of Scotland. Scottish National Statistics data zones show Wyndford ranked in the first depriva-tion decile for income, employment, health, education and skills, housing and the second decile for crime. It is a prime example for issues present in other areas in Glasgow also but condensed in a small obtainable estate. We were lucky to stumble across Wyndford. The school closure in July 2009, had brought the community together through sit-ins and activities raising their voice against the closure. It has strengthened the desire for a new source of community spirit.

Where/What is Wyndford?

6

We are a group of twelve students studying two different masters at the GSA. The backgrounds range from Graphic Design, Pho-tography, Business Marketing, Industrial Engineering to Applied Art and Design. Getgo Glasgow is the name we created at the onset of the project to give us a common face when approaching communities and stakeholders.

We hoped it would provide us with greater credibility than being designers from an Art School motivated by just another social project set by the institution. To counteract this mindset we pro-duced core values, a mission statement and formulated a vision with specifications of the outcome which we would like to meet. We summarised this information in a leaflet, however it was still confusing as to who we were and what we wanted. Only with the verbal addition that we are in fact students, people were able to categorise us, consequently felt more relaxed to talk.

Stakeholders however reacted impressed by the quality of the leaflet and our appearance. Interview inquiries were met en-thusiastically, reflected by the number of interviews conducted and collaboration partners who took an interest in what we are doing.

Who are Getgo Glasgow?

7

Reflecting on the Process.

8

Identifying a real NeedAudi provided five themes out of which the emerging social enterprise would ad-dress at least one. Rather than deciding on a theme from the onset we went for a sociological approach, identifying a real need and creating a solution specifi-cally for a community we would identify through the research.

Choosing a CommunityThe first leads we followed took us to Maryhill. We found ourselves chosing be-tween Ruchill and Wyndford. We backed away from the more challenging Ruchill. Looking back it was not the right deci-sion, as it might have provided greater learning possibilities for Getgo members with direct comparison possibilities.The reason we decided to chose Wynd-ford was, it is enclosed and more mana-gable than other areas of Glasgow where there is no history, no relation between the citizens and their living space.

Our Approach

Winning Community’s Trust Engagement tools, sheer luck and a pre-existing community spirit through the school closure two months prior to the project, made it easier to motivate people to come along to the workshops we conducted. The key event to gain the community’s trust and prove our sincerity was the participation in the football pitch de-turfing for which we sacrificed several weekends in a row. This featured meeting all relevant members of the community who in return attended our workshops. It was a give and take motivation from both sides however we succeeded to identify a real need and create something which was met with enthusiasm.

Decisive Power in the Community’s handsThroughout, the community’s interest in proposals were superior to Audi’s selec-tion process. At no point did we direct the outcome at the competition or tried to make it favourable towards Audi.

9

It was a joint effort by the Master of Euro-pean Design (MEDes) and the Master of Innovation (MDes) program. It was good that we as MEDes worked within another Master level, however, differing aca-demic requirements and familiarity with Glasgow and socially oriented projects, prevented the group from harmonising completely.

Team CoordinationThe research was conducted in a large group of twelve. From the co-creation workshop after 5 weeks, we split into smaller groups of three proposals: Getgoing!, Green Gorillaz and ListenUp. When the result of the first stage was an-nounced, two out of the three proposals got through to the regional finals, the groups reorganised accordingly.

Teamwork

Too many CooksAlthough we achieved a thorough un-derstanding in the research, on hindsight I think we should have split into two separate groups to create a sense of competition as well as have a compari-son community example. Furthermore there was not enough work to go round caused by people being apprehensive delegating work to others or people lacking the initiative to find meaningful work themselves. Maybe if we had had a designated team leader distributing tasks and pulling together people's work, we could have avoided the drop in enthusi-asm which we encountered one month into the project.

10

Task DelegationThe tasks were split up differently be-tween the Getgo students every week. However some people took key roles. For instance being the contact person for stakeholders, arranging meetings as well as conducting the majority of the interviews with a changing companion. Different groupings of students went into the community to engage and test the tools. Few activities were conducted with all team members. Those which were, were executed ineffectively with many not knowing what to do and passively watching.

As a result people ended up doing what they were confident doing. There was no motivation to stretch beyond already existing skills unless self motivated.

What He DoesOpposition councillorLobbies for development plans eg. football pitch, school, etcFights with CUBE

WhyIt’s his responsibilityBelieves their policies are detrimental

InfluenceLobbies on behalf of the communityAttitude against top down policy

GapsOpposition so doesn’t get kept up to date on policy decisions

Not Yet Responded

What They DoOffer clubs, trips, sports and workshops1 to 1 sessions with kids who are on the brink of going into care.Friday night project

WhyKids need something to do “diversionary activities”Funded by various social enterprise funds

InfluenceWell attended Friday night 13+ groupYounger kids aren’t allowed to go because it’s a dangerous areaStill new, hasn’t gained enough trust yet

What They DoSet up a community council

Set up a residents associationFought against the school closure

WhyTo make living there easier and better

Because they care about the future of the community

InfluenceThey shape the community

Individually have little influence, need to work together to create an impact

Tend to have a defeatist attitude

GapsDisconnected from each other and other stakeholders

What They DoNon discriminatory tenancy policyDeal with minor offences

WhyTenancy sustainment, lower costsResponsibility of the landlord

Influence Creates ghettos of troublemakersCreates conflicts between community membersGives people a point of contact where they can complain without fear of getting their families into trouble.

GapsNo longer have a youth engagement officerHave a control room, but info gathered is not acted on.Attitude is to treat the problem rather than prevent it.

What They DoDrop-in centre

20-30 classes per weekWork with 8-12 and 12-14 age groups

WhyIt’s a social enterprise

Funded by council and applies Regularly for grants and funds

Influence600 people through the door each week

Popular with kids in WyndfordStuart Bell knows many of the kids

by name, like a social worker

GapsThere’s no transport link

for Wyndford kids

What They DoResponsible for school siteDivert funding to the eastend regeneration for 2014 commonwealth gamesResponsible for community policing

WhyOfficially represent the public’s interest

InfluenceTop down policiesDecide what happens with the schoolsWhere funding comes fromAttitude tends to be top down

GapsCommunication and public influence on policies

What They DoOpen days and workshops in skills training and personal development for 18+Education and work training for 16-19s

WhyHelp people get jobs

Influence80% Wyndford on benefits

GapsBad communication skills – can’t motivate people to attend their workshopsYouth team is uncontactable

What they docommunity development project, generally environment and landscape, using unemployed local workforcetrain the workforce with a view to long term employment after the projectHandyman service

Whyhelping people to gain long term employment

Influencechange the community landscapeprovide skills and training to disadvantaged people

Identifying Stakeholders

Once we had been made aware of the Wyndford through the ‘Wish Board’, we started identifying stakeholders through talking to organisations in the area, studying signs and advertising as well as visiting the community centres.

Wyndford’s StakeholdersIn total we conducted six interviews. Some were Wyndford specific, some oth-ers benchmarking. The meetings with the Housing Accociation CUBE and Councillor Alex Dingwall were most insightful to get one’s head round the issues present in the Wyndford. They highlighted issues with the tower blocks having a high turnover, in consequence high crime rate, the animosity with the Housing Accocia-tion and the strong reaction against the school closure, no central community hub and the youth hanging out on the streets being bored. The community as well as stakeholders have expressed

animosity against the Housing Accocia-tion. They were at first very interested in working with us, however they did not follow any of our invitations for the work-shops. They would have been a good collaboration partner for facilitating com-munication channels probing. I assume their interest went up in smoke because we never got through to the responsible persons in their organisational structure.

BenchmarkingOther interviews were insightful for business planning and setting up a social enterprise (David Grant, Wisegroup, Han-nah Clinch), and engaging the youth in activities (Wendy Gorman).

Stakeholder Map The diagram on the left summarises the stakeholder’s findings.

11

Councillor Alex Dingwall

The Police

Glasgow City Council

Councillor Dingwall lobbies the Council for better policy decisions

CUBE’s policies make their lives harder

Kids like going there

Still doesn’t trust the project

Thinks CUBE’s policies are detrimental for the area

Finds CUBE’s policies unhelpful and makes their work harder

The council provides funding to the Regeneration Agency & the Shaky

Thinks the Council is useless

Doesn’t feel trusted by the police

Regeneration Agency

Wisegroup

Would like to do a project in Wyndford but can’t get the funding

Active but very little uptake

Work with the police on minor offences

Frustrated that CUBE didn’t apply for funding for a new youth engagement officer

Wants to create an environment of trust and loves within the environment

Negative attitude

Key

Postive attitude

Could try harder!

Background activities

Relationship Map

Relationship MapThe diagram on the left visualises how the stakeholders identified are inter-linked and their relation to and opinion on each other.

ListenUp StakeholdersWe missed identifying further stake-holders for ListenUp. We should have arranged more in-depth interviews with the Council or the planning office to research their existing consultation meth-ods. This might have provided inspiration or an alternative setting for a prototype. The GCSS (Glasgow Community Safety Services) were approached in a commu-nity council meeting and shown interest for collaboration. We were lucky for this opportunity to come up, but a more directed and considered approach would have been good to add credibility and gather background knowledge.

12

Stakeholder Identification

Interviews

Initialising Contact

Sqeezing Details Trust Building

Wish Board

Issue Texting

Lollipops

Casual Interviews

Issue Mapping

Issue Box

Issue Game

Football Pitch

Chat 4 Tea

Four Stages of Engagement Looking back at the tools which were used to approach the community, to listen to their issues and to gain their trust and collaboration willingness, four different stages can be identified.

1. Initialising Contact. Showing our presence and tickle quick responses, hunting for relevant issues.2. Squeezing Details. Interaction tools which may lead into more in-depth conversation & insight.3. Trust Building. Provide something for free but ask some-thing in return. Give & Take Motivation.4. Co-creation Workshops. Interact & participate. Communicate sin-cerity and instil excitement and interest in what we do.

Building Trust

Co-creation

Chat 4 Tea

Workshops

Designers are often cocksure about the effectiveness of their tools, however the research in Wyndford has shown that persistence and the participation in community activities is the way to wiggle your way in. The numerous tools which were developed enthusiastically by the students in the studio could either not be applied or were not used sufficiently because of the lack of confidence which it takes to stop bypassers to engage them. However interviews of people in their front garden and quick responses using the big wish board were effective as people already noticed the board as they approached and were curious, more willing to participate. For the foreign students language was a hindrance. Not understanding Glaswegian or sounding foreign hindered the flow of the conver-sation or created suspicion. Furthermore people were apprehensive as soon as ‘so-cial enterprise’ was mentioned suspecting a sudden cessation of interest.

13

Lollipops

Wish Board

Issue Texting

Issue Box

Issue Game

Issue Mapping

Football Pitch

Tea Chat

Workshops

Engagement Tools

Wish BoardThe size of the big board was good, as people could hide behind it if not liked to be photographed. It also attracted people’s attention. Due to curiousity they were willing to participate.

Lollipop Business CardsChildren were keen to talk to us if they got a free lollipop. A business card was attached to it, if they brought it home their parents would notice the card and may respond. We got to be known by the youth as the ones who give out lollipops.

Issue TextingCheap and anonymous communication. We received only few responses (2). The idea was good, but there would need to be more motivation to incourage its use as a feedback tool.

Issue Box‘Where could things be changed?’The response was meant to be explained on the back, but testing the tool, we realised that WF members do not relate to their physical environment. Many did not know how to respond.

Issue GameEight issues with relevant questions which would be used as conversation starters with interviewees. Tool was not used as it involved close/awkward body contact.

Issue MappingLocations needed to be pin pointed answering questions: Where do you feel safe? Where do you spend your free time? What are you proud of? Meant as conver-sation starters, again the WF struggled pin pointing physical locations. The use of the map was too alianating.

Digging Up the Football PitchGiving Steven Koeplinger a hand from ASAP Scotland communicated to the community that we cared. We met the local heroes of the Wyndford and got to know them better. This enabled us to invite specific people to come along to the workshop.

Tea ChatWe set up a table with biscuits and tea at the entrance to the estate. Surpris-ingly the youth got engaged and kept on taking tea. We spoke to a large variety of members from asylum seekers to ex-convicts.

WorkshopsProbing of issues and their relevance. Ideation for solutions and further insight sourcing. Please view the co-creation sec-tion of this book to read details.

14

Knowledge in twelve headsIt was challenging to bring the findings together in one space, share it with the other eleven heads and eventually ex-tract the findings to analyse the informa-tion. The reasons for this struggle were partially due to the team’s range of dis-ciplines and backgrounds, the differing ways people take notes and the lack of a common communication space where information could be shared.

The students who studied in Glasgow prior to the project were keen on sharing information visually by unfurling them on the walls, this method however did not flow with the others. It was challenging to create a coherent event in which every one would participate trying to arrange the findings and deriving opportunities from it as a consequence.

Extracting the Findings

Next time: Sharing methodsNext time when working in such a big group, tools and guide lines of how to take notes shall be worked out prior to the process so that it becomes more accessible for others from the onset. As a result the research was not aligned and confusion about the difference between what are issues, details and insights made summarising them a time consuming task. (Please view the next page to see the issue map).

15

Issues & Insights

Insights > OpportunitiesThe analysis of the findings and the opportunity extraction of where a social enterprise could be implemented was introduced late into the process. The in-tention had been to conduct a workshop, give the community research feedback and brainstorm together solutions which could possibly lead to a social enterprise opportunity. For this workshop we needed insights and opportunities.

Up to this point we had collected data here and there, but did not further process the information. When it came to categorising issues and extracting key findings to turn them into opportuni-tites, we noticed that the terminology of Insight & Issue were unclear amongst the group. Insight = In-depth understanding of an issue. It took a team of three dedi-cated students to extract the information which had sporadically been thrown up on the wall. The Issue Map is the result.

Communicating the findingsThe Issues and Insights were communi-cated to the community as part of the workshop in form of a video. This video transmitted that we had understood the estate’s issues and that we were sincere about creating something meaningful for the community rather than an ‘art’ community pride sculpture which art students would stereotypically do.

Within Getgo we agreed that the video would need to be positive and motiva-tional, rather than replicating the pes-simism and lack of perspective present in the estate. The group was split on how strongly facts of animosity should be communicated i.e. mentioning Cube as a major issue of concern specifically. This may have been met with disagreement at the workshop if they had attended. Contrary this would have been a good starting point to resolve some of these issues and test increased communication.

16

Residents are being kept in the dark about the work of organisations and feel that they are under-represented in plans for their community.

The closure of the school means that there is no specific meeting point for parents and the school community has been divided up.

There is nothing to inspire families to do things together.

There are no attractive meeting opportunities in the community that cater for everyone.

There is not much for young people to do and they get negatively stereo-typed in the community.

Starting Point

Wyndford’s OpprtunitiesIt was important to identify opportuni-ties specificly for Wyndford, although in a broader sense they obviously address issues which are found in similar com-munities elsewhere, however specific ex-amples and findings provided credibility and made the community listen to us.

All opportunities were related to encour-aging communication and interaction either between community members, its stakeholders or its environment. The workshop starting points were derived from the opportunities. They were cre-ated to provide a context for discussion, problem solving and storyboarding in the first co-creation workshop.

Opportunities

Co-creation Starting PointsEach starting point was elaborated into a short story using fictional personas. It felt patronising making up these stories. We should have worked them out together with a community member prior to the workshop. Generally more interaction and smaller group discussions would have been insightful. We could have shared our thinking with one or two people whom we met at the football pitch more regularly. This would have increased co-creation and we could have tested the material prior to its use at the workshop, which may have helped us steer the process even better.

17

‘Co-design helps to unite the community under a common vision and aligns people’s excitement.' [co-design group]

We did not start the project with co-cre-ation as a process model in mind per se. The objective was to identify a real need, leave presumptions out, find community members which could aid the design process to lead to an outcome which is meaningful for the community and in re-sponse met with enthusiasm and support when implemented. To ensure its success it would need to be run by either com-munity members or stakeholders already operating in the area.

The transition between research op-portunities and meaningful solutions was assumed to be delivered by the com-munity. There was a reluctance within getgo to come up with ideas in response to the research prior to the workshops. I wonder what the harm or benefits would have been if we had drawn out ideas and collected them for future reference or inspiration once we had gathered input from the community.

The designer's role in co-design workshops is 'facilitator and visualiser of participant's ideas'. [co-design group]

The main objective is to engage people in dialogue. Designers provide a sheet open for discussion and answers about what they would like to have and provide visual clues which it takes for the participants to give feedback. [co-design group]

Dialogue and discussion need to go be-yond ‘what would you like to have’?Insights are substancial. I had the im-pression getgo members assumed the great ideas which it required to take the proposal forward would be sourced from the community. I disagree, the designer’s capabilities take all research findings and other input into account to derive solutions catering for the specific envi-ronment, which non-designers would struggle with. Therefore the designer’s role is the facilitation of a creative process using empathy tools, and harnessing valuable insights from the community.

The actual proposal development and the concept of a social enterprise were generated away from the community. The co-development workshop made sure that we were working within the in-terest of the community and learnt from their response as they were providing insights we did not consider previously.

To ensure a co-creation process, as in all communication, there needs to be a cer-tain level of transparency and explana-tion of why an idea developed the way it did. The process needs to be trackable to provide a constant feeling of involvement and highlight the positive details the community is bringing to the solution.

Designer should strive to create liveability and community values. [co-design group]

What is co-creation?What is the designer’s role?

18

Workshop Planning

Workshop ObjectiveBringing stakeholders and community to collaborate and communicate. Feedback findings of the community, work to-gether on an issue which they feel strong about, gather more insights relevant to this specific context and bundle all this information into a proposal in form of a storyboard.

Workshop StructureTasks from ice breakers to setting the scene to constructive solution sourcing and ideas generation were developed. (left: first woskhops structure in post-its). We tested the tasks amongst ourselves prior to the workshops.

Location and Set upThe accessibility of the location was key to encourage participation. We were re-ally lucky that on both occasions we were able to use the Wyndford Regeneration Agency Seminar Room, located centrally in the Wyndford. Invitations were given verbally to specific people rather than fly posting through doors, which made the event manageable. We prepared table material for five groups. Invited all stake-holders whom we had contact with and the community members whom we met when helping at the football pitch. Both times we had a good turn out, between 10-15 participants.

19

Welcome15 min

Intro5 min

Movie5 min

Topics10 min

Ideas/Solutions20 min

Development15 min

Presentation15 min

EndPreparation

Workshop Structure

Task Description

What’s needed?

Warming5 min

Splitting Par-ticipants into groups

Interactive look-at mate-rial provided to pass timeif wait

Warm up Who are we. What can we do. Why are they here?

What can be achieved?

Feeling:Motivational PositiveExciting

Groups decide on topic/ context

Dice Game

Ranking5 mins

Storyboarding

key questions:1. What does the idea look like and what does it do?2. Where will it take place?3. Who uses it?4. When does it happen?5. Why are people using it?

Group presentation3 minutes each

1. Key issue2. Idea described in a nutshell3. Walk us through the storyboard.4. Name the idea

Anticipating 25 partici-pants, 5 groups

popc

orn

boxe

s co

llect

ed a

t tab

le a

nd d

i-re

cted

to d

esig

nate

d gr

oup.

Stak

ehol

ders

are

spl

it ev

enly

bet

wee

n th

e gr

oups

man

ually

. O

ne g

etgo

glas

gow

team

mem

ber a

t eac

h ta

ble.

Fun

exer

cise

whi

ch m

akes

poe

ple

laug

h an

d re

lax

(e.g

. gro

ups

hold

eac

h ot

hers

han

ds a

nd

need

to u

ntan

gle)

Spee

ch b

y us

.

Intr

oduc

e th

e di

ffere

nt s

torie

s co

ncer

ning

the

5 di

ffere

nt in

tera

ctio

n an

d co

mm

unic

atio

n co

ntex

t. Le

t gro

ups

chos

e th

eir t

opic

. tab

le

stan

d w

ith to

pic.

roll

dice

and

dra

w id

eas

of g

roup

ont

o id

ea

card

. cre

ate

as m

any

idea

s as

pos

sibl

e. F

acili

-ta

tor r

ecor

ds id

eas

if no

t put

dow

n by

gro

up.

Each

per

son

has

thre

e st

icky

dot

s to

vot

e w

ith.

One

idea

is ta

ken

forw

ard

for d

evel

opm

ent

Stor

y of

the

solu

tion,

the

expe

rienc

e w

ith

begi

nnin

g, m

iddl

e an

d en

d to

the

stor

y. D

raw

lik

e co

mic

str

ip, w

rite

unde

rnea

th w

hat i

s ha

ppen

ing.

labe

l sto

rybo

ards

with

sol

utio

n na

me

and

Issu

eon

the

fron

t.

Popcorn tubs with numbersTable numbersPopcorn tray

35 Chunky Pens6 TimersBowl of sweetsSandwiches & Drinks CameraMusic?Popcorn BoxesPaperSticky dots

LaptopProjectorWall/Screen 4 projectionExtention CordFilm

Big diceIdea sheets A5A1 idea page split into 6 columnsSticky Dots

StoriesTable stand

A1 idea page split into 6 quares

Sand-wichesDrinksSnacksMusic?

1st Workshop Execution

WelcomeWe had popcorn boxes with colours which designated participants to differ-ent work tables. This did not work. We started the workshop 30 min late due to late arrivals. Most stakeholders were unable to attend due to after-work hours. We split the groups verbally up once we commenced the workshop.

Warming UpThere was a warm-up execercise to get used to using post-its. Easy questions acted as conversation starters, such as favourite food & place. It was surprising the struggle determining their hobby or something positive about Wyndford.

Motivational MovieWe introduced ourselves properly.The tonality of the research movie was delib-erately positive and opportunity focused, however reactions from the participants were: “This is so sad!” upon the school clo-

sure sight. Participants were impressed by the quality of the video and the find-ings. They said the council could not see their issues, but we (only students) do only after three weeks.

Democratic VotingTable groups voted with stickydots on the opportunity they would like to work on and discussed the issues around it. This way the decision was not made by the loadest person in the group.

Fun Solution FindingDice and respective problem solving tasks were meant to view the issue from different angles without constraints of right or wrong e.g. how would a cave man solve this? Some participants did not see the point in the exercise and roll-ing the dice, however it caused laugh-ter amonst the group and relaxed the atmosphere.

Bringing Ideas to LifeA six box storyboard was worked out. Participants were scared of drawing. It took a lot of steering from respective table coordinators to manage the task. Each table presented their storyboard.

Rounding Up the WorkshopDiscussions & reflecting on the workshop whilst eating prize winning sandwiches let us mingle with the community further.

Biggest ChallengeI was a table coordinator. I found it increadibly difficult explaining and man-aging the tasks, leading the discussion to take ideas further as well as listening out for valuable insights and learnings. However the tools were a useful aid and essential to facilitate the process whilst gaining rich results.

20

1st Workshop Outcome

Immediate OutcomeThe community calls for a community centre and more activities to get the youth off the streets. The three proposals GreenGorillaz, GetGoing! and ListenUp were developed from the workshop’s outcome.

The birth of ListenUpTwo storyboards developed in the work-shop expressed the despair about the lack of consultation, not having a voice in decisions taking place in the commu-nity. The participants said their feelings had been neglected in the closure of the school and the new plans for the Kalvin Canal would always remind them that their school had been taken away.

ListenUp developmentThe group which developed the first proposal consist of Heji, Angela, Eeva and me. It was tough to work and coordinate team brainstorms for tools especially without a specific context. There was no question that there was a need, however forcing it to be a social enterprise was far fetched. We were basically trying to replicate but improve the approach and the methods we had been using to get in touch with the community already.

Dreaming up tools without a specific context was a waste of time. Alternatively we should have gone out and gotten in touch with people to pro-actively seek an opportunity of where ListenUp could be prototyped whist developing more tools, even before the regional finals.

21

Welcome

~30 min

Movie

9 min

Initial Discussion5 min

Storyboard Evaluation15 min

Issues to Solutions

20 min

Visualising

15 min

Presentation

15 min

EndAim

Workshop Structure

Task Description

What’s needed?

To Prepare

Intro

3 min

Splitting Participants into groups

Waiting for people, drinking tea, chatting

Wel-come back!

Showing what we’ve been up to since last time

Gut reaction,

fuelled with proposal specific questions

Posting feedback (good and bad) for each stage of the proposals

Vote for issues to work on

Brainstorm for ideas to solve the issue

Integrating solutions into the proposal storyboard

Group presentation3 minutes each

Issues tackled, solutions

To receive feedback on all 3 proposals, and develop solutions for highlighted issues.

There will be 3 tables - one for each proposal.

mak

ing

tea,

org

anis

ing

appr

opria

te

grou

ps

Begi

nnig

n w

ith s

hort

intr

o sh

owin

g w

hat w

e’ve

bee

n do

ing,

then

2

min

s de

scrib

ing

each

pro

posa

l, an

d en

ding

with

wha

t we

wan

t fro

m

them

in th

e w

orks

hop

Mak

ing

sure

eve

ryon

e ha

s an

idea

of

wha

t the

pro

posa

l is

and

wha

t it a

ims

to a

chei

ve.

Spee

ch b

y us

Go

thro

ugh

the

stor

yboa

rd

com

plet

ely

once

, the

n as

k “w

hat d

o yo

u fin

d go

od/b

ad?”

in e

ach

stag

e.

Writ

e co

mm

ents

on

post

-its

and

stic

k th

em in

the

corr

espo

ndin

g bo

x.

Ever

yone

has

3 s

ticky

dot

s vo

tes.

Take

3-4

issu

es fo

rwar

d. S

tick

chos

en

issu

es o

nto

issu

e bo

ard.

For e

ach

issu

e, u

se th

e po

st-it

s to

br

ains

torm

wha

t is

need

ed to

sol

ve

the

issu

e, w

hat t

here

alre

ady

is

in W

yndf

ord

and

then

use

this

to

deve

lop

solu

tions

Usi

ng th

e id

eas,

draw

new

st

oryb

oard

sta

ges

and

alte

r th

e in

itial

sto

rybo

ard

to

acco

mm

odat

e th

e so

lutio

ns

Each

gro

up p

rese

nts

thei

r rev

ised

st

oryb

oard

s

Tea/Coffee

Something to tease anticipation (Background Slideshow?)

35 Chunky PensBowl of sweets per tableSandwiches & Drinks CameraMusic?A4 Paper6x A2 BoardsSticky dotsProjector

Laptop

Projector

Film- Intro- 2 mins per proposal- End

6-stage Storyboard A2 board

6-stage storyboard & questions to provoke feedback 1x per proposal

Question sheet?

Questions to provoke conversation per proposal

sticky dots

Issue Brainstorm A2 Board

6-Stage Changable Storyboard

A4 paper

3x A2 Board split into quarters, and each quarter split into need/have/solutions

6-Stage Storyboard (no.2) with removable stages 1x per propsal

SandwichesDrinksSnacksMusic?

Proposal Feedback & Co-development

Workshop ObjectiveFeedback to the community and source their reactions to the proposals which stemed from the last workshop. Getgo agreed that the community’s reaction would be superior to Audi’s if there were a disalignment. Sourcing local heroes from the same community meant the dilemma that we could not realise all proposals. We needed to make a decision earlier rather than later.

WelcomeEvery table was working on a differ-ent proposal. Participants were spread randomly at the tables. The atmosphere was much more relaxed as participants already knew the kind of tasks they were asked to do and engageged openly into indepth dialogue explaining their point of view why things may not work as they were communicated in the individual proposals.

Proposal MoviesEach proposal was explained in a two minute video. Getgoing! was developed most and in consequence most compre-hensible. The other two proposals were not that well understood expressed by the outcomes e.g. ListenUp turned into a graffiti wall rather than a social enter-prise.

Initial DiscussionParticipants were asked to respond and highlight problems and benefits of the proposal ideas. I was participant at the Green Gorillaz table at the major points extracted were that the proposal did not cater for the ‘trouble youth’ aged between 16-21. It would be challenging to encourage people on unemploy-ment/ disability benefit to participate in activities as they may be concerned people may question their real inability in consequence. The social enterprise would need to cater for this mindset.

Storyboard EvaluationBenefits and issues were posted in two different colours on the storyboard respective to the proposal stage.

Issues to SolutionsFour issues were picked and ellaborated on. This task required to work out what would be needed to solve this particular issue, as well as brainstorm which already existing resources could be used to solve it. Many fundraiser events which had been held in the Wyndford were men-tioned e.g. christmas dinner in the school.

Visualisation & PresentationThe story boards were adjusted with the extracted issues in mind.

Sign Up for ProposalWe had voting and contact sheets for the participants. Each proposal got the same number of votes, no decision cast.

22

Developing the proposal.

23

Storyboard used to communicate the ListenUp proposal at the co-development workshopThe intention was to promt of where in Wyndford the superhero, the treasure box and the helpers could be found. Looking back at it, this would have been the designer’s responsibility to suggest specific possibilities to which feedback could be given more easily.

The challenge to make it real...

How to implement?The biggest challenges we faced were to determine how the social enterprise would be economically sustainable and who would be able to execute its imple-mentation. We identified a need, and there is a good opportunity to develop a prototype at the school site, but people to take ownership over the enterprise and actually run it, were lacking. A suc-cessful outcome at the regional final was expected to bring volunteers foreward (i.e. community council members as superheroes) as well as secure the post of the design intern.

Finding people to take ownership and become active is one thing, the other is to get the tools used and involving the wider community.

Economic sustainability?The Audi prize money would fund the prototype comfortably. Future projects in collaboration with stakeholders would be essential to keep up with the running costs and distribute surplus to commu-nity initiated projects. Sourcing the funds from communities does not seem justi-fied unless they receive a direct feedback where the money is going.

Why is it better consultation?ListenUp works on the concept of in-creasing visibility on mass voting through which a feeling of more involvement is transmitted lessening rejection. However we do not address barriers or misuse of the tools nor do we have a convincing case study of conventional consultations not being effective as of now.

What exactly is it?Throughout it has been confusing to how exactly ListenUp would exist. The use of the metaphors of superhero and treasure chest were not understood by the com-munity in the co-development workshop. It was challenging to create an enterprise structure that would allow consultation & feedback online and offline.

Audi’s Feedback1. Underestimated financial forecast2. Confusion to what it is3. How would sustainability be achieved?

24

Regional Final

Listen up, Green Gorillaz won the community 10,000 pounds!

The strategic plan to enter several pro-posals paid off. Green Gorillaz won the regional finals. Getgo’s and the commu-nity’s efforts have been rewarded!

25

Thoughts on the FinalBoth proposals had a real chance of winning having stemmed from the same research and co-creation. Even Franny and Frank accompanied us to Newcastle to represent the community.

It was insightful to compare the presenta-tions’ tonality and persuasive content. The two proposals were of quite different nature, however ListenUp’s shortcomings were the lack of specifics regarding the prototype and inability to demonstrate persuasive tools. Green Gorillaz how-ever was convincing depicting already established online social networks and persuasive mock-ups. It looks semi-im-plemented deviating from offline issues which have not been tackled yet.

ListenUp has a stronger developed business structure and feasible financial forecast as well as detailed roles and constitution. However it lacks a tangible flavoursome vision into the future. The further development of Green Gorillaz can borrow aspects from ListenUp. After all we are all Getgo!

ListenUp’s Shortcomings1. No consultation benchmarking.2. No flavoursome vision or persuasive mock-ups.3. No figures and persuasive details. The presentation did not have a sufficient level of business talk. It was funny and nice story-telling, but did not hold any moments communicating our competen-cies.4. ListenUp is more difficult for Audi to associate itself with.5. No mentioning of challenges which would be faced/how resolved?

to the Future

Realisation ObjectiveThe recruitment of the design intern and the support from GSA needs to be finalised. The intern needs to be intro-duced to the community and become acquainted with the process.

A range of initial events will be held. Wyndford does not understand yet why I expect GG to develop as time goes past. The main importance is that the Wyndford gains something valuable from it, which improves the overall living environment and community interaction, providing activities to the youth while engaging the wider community.

26

Polishing Green GorillazThe national final is in only three weeks after the regional final.

The news of the success has spread immediately. The community is chuffed. There will be a celebration in the Wynd-ford this coming weekend to utilise the excitement. I expect the community to be committing, signing up for specifics, now they have seen a return on their efforts.

It is important to run an actual mock-up in Wyndford to increase GG’s credibility to show real and tested implementation. I expect Green Gorillaz to take aspects of ListenUp on board to tackle its shortcom-ings in business plan & financials.

My learning.

27

Wyndford InvestigationRegeneration Agency Road Show& Wyndford Investigation‘Recky’ and Youth InterviewsCommunity interviews

Stakeholder InterviewsIdentifying stakeholders & ContactsCouncillor Alex DingwallHannah Clinch

Engagement Tools & TestingDesign and Making of Issue MappingIssue Game, Issue Box, Tea 4 ChatFootball Pitch Assistance & Interview

OtherInterview with Bob (citystrolls) at CCACommon Good discussion about com-munity activism at the CCA ASAP Scotland

Planning & PreparationStructure of WorkshopPlanning and Design of TasksTable Material

ExecutionTable Facilitator

IdeationConsultation MethodsEnterprise Finding

ProposalBusiness Plan & Financial Forecast2min Video Communicating ProposalStoryboard & Leaflet

Preparation & PlanningStructure and Tasks2 min Proposal Video (storyboard, slides, video & sound authoring)Table Materials

ExecutionParticipant at Green Gorillaz Table

RefinementStructure of EnterpriseFinancial Tank SystemWebsite MockupFuture of Social Enterprise

CredibilityFact Finding & Background Research

Research Workshops Proposal

Workshop 2 Refinement

ListenUp from Start to FinishFrom the onset I have been part of the ListenUp team. ListenUp has been the most ubiquitous of the ideas which came out of the first co-creation workshop. The strong need expressed to improve con-sultation methods was a sapid challenge and different from conventional com-munity project ideas. Tackling animosity and improving communication would improve the living environment.

To the left I have outlined my role and re-sponsibilities in each stage of the project.

Supporting DocumentsDocument & Presentation StructureDiagrams & TimeplanDocument Content

PresentationListenUp Presenter

DocumentationNing Blog Posts2nd Workshop Video Filming of Regional Final PresentationFilming & Editing

My role in this ProjectRegional Final

Other

28

Blueprinting community engagementRange of tested tools. Within 5 weeks we had built enough community trust and involvement to host a co-design work-shop by inviting local heroes.

PersistenceShow determination and don’t give up! One has to sacrifice to receive something back. Attend local events and start chat-ting to people. Wiggle yourself in and listen to people.

Design Tools Design & UseTools are only as good as the person who facilitates the interaction. A clear objective is essential to gather meaning-ful data.

Concerns & ValuesAs David Singh from Medizini put it, change is about addressing concerns and creating value.

Interdisciplinary Team CoordinationImportance of team communication tools & task delegation

Team Motivation & Tension ResolvingEncourage people to take action and self initiative to find relevant tasks for them-selves. Keeping the enthusiasm up and resolving tension through dialogue.

Seek Challenge / sense of competitionWe should not have shied away from the challenging Ruchill instead used it as an example of comparison.

Methodology Input/ LecturesThe workshop with David Hicks was in-spiring. Methodologies for teamwork and tension resolving, getting everyone on the same page by visualising the issues and concerns within the team.

Creative Process PlanningPlanning and facilitation of creative pro-cess through co-creation workshop.

Creative Process FacilitationCo-creation & communication with non-designers. Teaching and acquainting the use of design tools we take for granted such as post-its. Teaching & Communica-tion of design creative methods (story-board, ideation)

Communication with non-designersWe asked too much of the community to fill the gaps which we were struggling filling ourselves. If we had had a more comprehensible storyboard we may have been able to get suggestions on con-sultation methods rather than ListenUp turning into a graffiti wall.

Research Teamwork Co-Creation

Key Learning

Business Plan & Financial ForecastingExperience in business plan writing and steps of setting up a social enterprise.Designing beyond the concept and focusing on the actual realisation. First proposal financial projection was highly unrealistic.

Competition, Presentation & AudiencePitching & Presenting in a competition setting in front of critical judges.

Credibility BoostWe could have benchmarked much more and tried to apply this gathered knowl-edge to the new situation which we were approaching.

Suit your AudienceI would argue the ListenUp presentation did not suit the audience.

29

Outcome

Thanks to everyone who was part of it!ListenUp: Holly Brenan, Angela Fernandez Orviz, Rose Hutton, Heji Jeong, Eeva Campbell Green Gorillaz: Joe Slavick, Sarah Drummond, Basak Okay, Laura Franzini, Amy Marsh, Sara PaterakiWyndford: Franny Scally, Frank Martin, Alison KelllyGSA: Iam Grout

The project in Pictures.

30

Normally a mix of sticks, carrots and persuasion is used to encourage people to take greater responsibility and to incourage participation.

Coercion & Reward are the convention-al measures used to influence people’s behaviour. [The Art of Public Strategy - Geoff Mulgan]

[The Art of Public Strategy - Geoff Mulgan]

Comments32

The exercise of responsibility strengthens indi-vidual character and moral capacity, and greater personal responsibility - in terms of restraint and support for others - enhances the quality of life of the whole community.

Wider engagement does not always make it easier to get to the right decision. The risk of wider conversations is that they may mobilize opposition.

Empowerment provides a constant pressure for improvement that sits alongside the feedback that comes from democracy, making it more likely that services will treat people with respect and care.[The Art of Public Strategy - Geoff Mulgan]

[The Art of Public Strategy - Geoff Mulgan]

[The Art of Public Strategy - Geoff Mulgan]

getg

The key to all, the nitty gritty details...

project blog http://sustainournation.ning.com

Photos/ VideosWorkshop MaterialsSubmitted Materials

Getgo Glasgow & Sustain Our Nation Audi Foundation Competition Regional Finalist

Reflective Document, Assesment of minor project of the Master of European Design final year Studies