Cynefin Place Programme Monitoring & Learning · Cynefin is a Welsh Government programme running...
Transcript of Cynefin Place Programme Monitoring & Learning · Cynefin is a Welsh Government programme running...
Cynefin Place Programme
Monitoring & Learning
Final research report for Welsh
Government
November 2015
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government Contents
November2015
Contents
Executive Summary i
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Aims of the Cynefin change programme 1
1.3 Monitoring & Learning Methodology 3
2 Programme description 7
2.1 Structure of the programme 7
2.2 The Place Co-ordinators 9
3 Outcomes – headline findings 12
3.1 Characterisation of Cynefin outcomes 12
3.2 Added value 15
4 Learning 18
4.1 Introduction 18
4.2 Ways of working 18
4.2.1. Community level 19
4.2.2. Local service provider level 30
4.2.3. National level 38
4.2.4. The monitoring and learning process 41
4.3 Common barriers to Cynefin ways of working 46
4.4 What needs to be in place to support ways of working developed in Cynefin? 48
4.4.1. Community level – enabling PCs to work differently 49
4.4.2. Local service provider level - values and behaviours 53
4.4.3. National level 59
4.4.4. Aptitudes and competencies for PC facilitator roles 61
4.4.5. Monitoring and learning to support programme effectiveness 63
5 Conclusions and Implications 65
Acknowledgements
The research team thanks all those who gave up time to take part in the quarterly interviews and research workshops, to the PCs both for their time and responding to requests for information, and the Welsh Government management team for their constructive involvement in developing the evidence. All interpretation and views in this report are those of the Brook Lyndhurst authors.
© Brook Lyndhurst 2015
This report has been produced by Brook Lyndhurst Ltd under/as part of a contract placed by the Welsh Government. Any views expressed in it are not necessarily those of the Welsh Government Brook Lyndhurst warrants that all reasonable skill and care has been used in preparing this report. Notwithstanding this warranty, Brook Lyndhurst shall not be under any liability for loss of profit, business, revenues or any special indirect or consequential damage of any nature whatsoever or loss of anticipated saving or for any increased costs sustained by the client or his or her servants or agents arising in any way whether directly or indirectly as a result of reliance on this report or of any error or defect in this report.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
i
Executive Summary
Cynefin is a Welsh Government programme running from April 2013 to March 2016 which
was set up to test and learn about new ways for government at all levels to work in and with
local communities. It operated according to the principles of being led by place-centred
priorities and facilitating more joined-up collaborative working.
The programme design took on board learning from previous Welsh Government
community development programmes and research which suggested that co-ordinated
working between different agencies and programmes at local level, combined with stronger
community involvement in identifying and setting priorities, could potentially avoid
duplication, achieve multiple benefits and more durable long-term outcomes. This called for
an approach centred on place rather than individual policy domains.
The programme turned out to be a timely ‘lab’ for developing lessons that will be relevant to
public bodies as they get to grips with their responsibilities under the Well-being of Future
Generations Wales Act. This report presents the collated findings from the external
monitoring and learning programme which ran five waves of qualitative research and other
evidence gathering during the programme.
The ‘new ways of working’ in Cynefin revolved around initially nine, and eventually eleven,
Place Co-ordinators (PCs) who were locally based facilitators tasked with helping
communities and organisations to work together to improve local places. The PCs were
based in Anglesey, Cardiff, Llanelli, Merthyr Tydfil, Neath Port Talbot, Newport, Rhondda
Cynon Taff, Swansea, Wrexham, Tredegar and Llandrindod Wells.
The role of Place Co-ordinators was to help communities to tackle problems in their local
environment and to make the most of its assets and opportunities, often starting with
immediate issues but with a view to developing sustained involvement and long term
community resilience. PCs were expected to break down barriers and to forge effective
working links between communities and a wide range of agencies and service deliverers in
their area, to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and value for money of public services
and support for communities. The programme also sought to demonstrate practical ways in
which communities can be involved in the decision making processes that affect their
environment and that govern the services provided to them.
Key points of difference from conventional programmes included there being no delivery
budget apart from the PC resource, no pre-set outcome targets or metrics, and an explicit
intention to cut across delivery silos and policy domains. Cynefin’s broad unifying objective
was to facilitate ‘better places’, where public bodies are more attuned to community
priorities and where joined-up working achieves more for people in those communities.
PCs facilitated the development of 59 workstreams around locally determined priorities
together with the community interests and service providers who chose to get involved. The
focus of workstreams and the outcomes from them was very diverse, reflecting the space
PCs were given to catalyse activities around place-centred priorities.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
ii
Workstreams spanned a broad range of place issues, both immediate and long term: local
environment quality, access to greenspace, flooding resilience, poverty, health, housing,
tourism, heritage, arts, youth involvement, economic development, education, training,
renewable energy, and more. Many workstreams were targeted at achieving multiple
benefits across different policy areas, and often for a range of individuals and groups in the
community at the same time.
Most of the important early outcomes were qualitative, in terms of impacts on processes or
‘ways of working’, including building relationships and coalitions of interest to support long
term change. Some of these process changes promise to deliver more substantive benefits
for people and physical environments as workstreams evolve.
Broad quantitative indicators1 suggest that Cynefin-linked activities helped establish 200
new working groups, networks and partnerships; actively engaged individuals and
organisations on more than 6,000 occasions; secured over 23,000 hours of time for Cynefin-
linked activities from individuals and organisations (including public sector bodies); unlocked
over £1.48 million of funding (mainly grants from major charitable and social funds); and
enabled over 900 community members and professionals to receive mentoring and training.
So far, however, change has not been transformational on a widespread scale, although in a
number of places mechanisms have been set in train that have the potential to lead to
radical outcomes if they are sustained once the Cynefin PC is withdrawn. These include
leading examples of service providers working alongside community ‘interests’ (formal or
informal groups and individual residents) and of joint-working between providers to prevent
duplication and to enhance the value of what they are doing already.
The importance of many of the micro-level changes that Cynefin facilitated also needs to be
acknowledged. Some of these micro-level outcomes already are, or could be, building blocks
towards sustained community involvement and/or process change in how public bodies
operate; others relate to intractable local problems that mean a great deal to people locally
but may not get the attention of other initiatives because they are too small or ‘off-target’.
Overall, Cynefin is reported to be adding value by helping to improve service providers’
understanding of what communities want and are capable of, to improve the quality of
dialogue, and to help navigate round blockages embedded in ‘the system’. Many of the
workstreams involve working across traditional policy domains to unlock opportunities
and/or create multiple benefits (e.g. health and greenspace, youth involvement and housing
regeneration).
Cynefin is also helping individuals in communities and service providers to take risks to
‘shake up’ existing practices; in some cases PCs are acting as a ‘community conscience’,
nudging service providers to carry through on promises made or reminding them to involve
residents and communities in meaningful ways; and PCs are brokering relationships between
service providers which result in more collaborative approaches and overcome siloed
working.
1 Quantitative indicators do not do justice to the diversity, complexity and interdependence of the outcomes from Cynefin and were therefore not a core part of the evidence base for outcomes from Cynefin. They are not precise measures of impact and need to be viewed alongside the detailed qualitative accounts of ways of working and related outcomes in chapter 4 of this report.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
iii
Cynefin is able to do this because of the way in which the PC role was defined and because
of the location of PCs as independent operators in the space between communities and
services providers. Key features that appear to underpin effectiveness in the ways of
working adopted in Cynefin were:
Priorities established through co-development of a place-centred understanding of
the local context rather than targets being pre-set by policy priorities or ‘expert’
evaluations of ‘need’;
Space and freedom for a PC (or equivalent facilitator) to be responsive to place and
context;
Sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to evolving circumstances and longer term
change;
Permission to challenge the status quo and to roam across public sector silos;
Independence from specific programmes or vested interests but with Welsh
Government backing;
Continuity of presence in the community and stability in policy and funding in
recognition of the organic nature of the processes and the time needed to build
effective relationships and coalitions of interest;
Good communication mechanisms to support legitimacy and effective ways to share
learning;
Trusting, responsive and constructively critical management
The management team also worked in innovative ways with a much more porous boundary
and collaborative working between the Welsh Government and management contractor
(Severn Wye Energy Agency) than is usual. This was seen to enhance information flows and
the ability to support the diverse needs of the PCs by having a combined pool of knowledge
and contacts to call upon. The management team also felt that a similarly open and
collaborative relationship with the research contractor enabled effective ‘sense-checking’ as
the programme developed.
As well as supporting the work of the PCs at local level, the management team (WG and
SWEA) engaged with stakeholders at all levels and in national government to build an
understanding of collaborative place-centred working and its potential benefits, especially in
the context of restraint on public spending. The rapid feedback loops in the monitoring and
learning process was reported to be effective in supporting that objective with timely
evidence. Stakeholder feedback suggests however that the constituency of support for these
new ways of working is still narrow in government and national bodies. Feedback from
stakeholders tended to be more positive the closer they were to Cynefin activities and was
either more critical or uncertain the more distant stakeholders were.
The research has shown how Cynefin exemplified many of the principles of the Wellbeing of
Future Generations Wales Act (WFG), notably the principles of involvement, collaboration
and building platforms for durable, long term outcomes. The conclusions to this report
therefore summarise key considerations that would need to be addressed by any
organisation wishing to adopt and adapt the learning from Cynefin. These considerations
focus on:
Designing in the space and conditions that underpin effectiveness
Institutional structures, cultures and behaviours
Aptitudes and competencies of individuals
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
iv
The role of national government
Key design features that made Cynefin ways of working effective were listed above. Cutting
across all of those features was a consensus that freedom from externally pre-determined
targets and having unbounded time to build mutual understanding, a local mandate,
relationships and momentum were of critical importance.
Many of the opportunities or levers that were acted upon would have been difficult to
foresee at the start of the process – which led several PCs to warn against any temptation to
create ‘off-the-shelf’ templates for ‘doing’ Cynefin.
Some interviewees also cautioned that longer term funding for facilitator roles (i.e. more
than 1-2 years) is needed to support long-term change processes. While community capacity
has been enhanced by Cynefin, some PCs and local stakeholders alike felt there would
always be a need for a PC, or some equivalent, to catalyse activity, act as neutral broker and
maintain relationships. The gap left by the end of Cynefin in March 2016 could potentially be
taken on by other organisations locally but there is little evidence of that happening yet. The
requirements of the WFG Act may provide a framework for this to happen.
Regarding the second consideration, the research identified blocking behaviours by
stakeholders, together with institutional cultures and practice, as the key barrier to the
effectiveness of collaborative place-based working. Lack of trust in the capability of
communities and a “we know best” attitude in some parts of Wales’ public sector is a major
challenge for place-centred working to address. Some PCs and stakeholders felt there
needed to be more consistent support for collaborative place-based working from Local
Authority chief executives and senior levels in the new Public Service Boards in particular.
There were some pointers towards the types of positive behaviours that are essential to
these novel ways of working, including: individuals in organisations being willing to let go the
exclusive control of agendas; willingness to compromise and willingness to share credit for
outcomes; openness to others delivering on your behalf; and openness to learning and
critiquing your own organisation’s practices. Government being able to give permission to
take risks within the ‘system’ of public services is a big challenge that will need to be tackled
head-on.
Thirdly, a demanding set of competencies is implicated for those occupying ‘facilitator’ job
roles of the kind tested in Cynefin, especially where facilitation is targeted at more strategic
level change. The competencies tend to stretch beyond those typically needed for delivering
conventional programmes.
Competencies can be summarised as a need to be: confident and flexible in conditions of
uncertainty; self-directed and resilient; persistent and creative; diplomatic; opportunistic
and resourceful; and analytical and authoritative. Individuals in these roles also need to be
able to be a conductor, challenger, broker and negotiator and – above all – be willing to take
risks and have “stupid amounts of confidence” (as one PC put it).
The findings in relation to competencies have implications for recruitment processes and job
roles, which may require further reflection on how traditional processes for recruiting
programme or development officers in public sector organisations can be adapted. This
applies equally to local ‘facilitators’ (if and where this model is adopted) and their managers.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
v
The final and determining feature that needs to be in place is high level support from Welsh
Government. The Wellbeing of Future Generations Act provides an opportunity for public
bodies to switch focus to more systemic ways of working in the pursuit of sustainable
development, but it is by no means certain that the learning from Cynefin will be taken up
widely. The Cynefin programme itself is about to end, which does not send a message of
confidence and may well put some of its early achievements at risk.
The research suggests that more will need to be done at all levels of government to secure
buy-in to these kinds of ways of working if Welsh Government wishes collaborative place-
centred working to be adopted more widely, and for it to be done well. It will most likely
need a ‘home’ and champion at the centre, together with governance mechanisms which
encourage compliance but equally maintain the freedoms and independence needed to
make it work effectively.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
1
1 Introduction
1.1 Background The Cynefin programme originated from concerns at high-level in Welsh Government (WG)
that people living in urban areas often experience the poorest environments and lack the
means to influence and collectively tackle the inequalities they face. Starting in 2011, officers
drew on learning from other WG programmes, and research on place-based and
collaborative ways of working, to explore the merits of piloting an innovative approach to
working in, with, and for poor communities by adopting a place-centred approach.
Existing community development programmes were known to be delivering benefits but
they were not seen to be creating transformational or durable change. The research
evidence suggested that co-ordinated working between different agencies and programmes
at local level, combined with stronger community involvement in identifying and setting
priorities, could potentially achieve more and avoid duplication.
Building from the evidence and further consultation in and outside Welsh Government, a
pilot programme was designed to explore what outcomes could be achieved from taking a
place-centred approach, which would not be aligned to any specific delivery programme or
service stream, and would be inspired by priorities identified locally rather than from above.
The Cynefin change progamme ran in disadvantaged communities across Wales from April
2013 and will end in March 2016. The programme employed a local facilitator, or ‘Place
Coordinator’ (PC), to work in each of the following areas:
Anglesey (Newborough and Seiriol ward);
Cardiff (Cathays, Plasnewydd and Adamsdown);
Llanelli;
Merthyr Tydfil;
Neath Port Talbot (Neath town centre, Melin and the Fairyland estate);
Newport (Maindee);
Rhondda Cynon Taff (Treherbert and Blaenllechau);
Swansea (Blaenymaes and Penderry wards);
Wrexham (Caia Park and Cefn Mawr);
Tredegar; and
Llandrindod Wells.
1.2 Aims of the Cynefin change programme Ambitious aims were set for Cynefin. It was intended to be far more than a community
capacity building programme that enables community groups to develop and run projects,
or a delivery programme with some community engagement. A core aspiration was to
facilitate greater co-ordination among the various agencies and authorities that are working
locally, to add value to what communities want and are able to do. This was to be a key
measure of the success of the programme.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
2
The aims of the programme were originally framed around outcomes in three spheres:
PLACE: building on people’s sense of pride in place and environments, communities
are strengthened and quality of life gains are maximised in places where there is
poverty.
PROCESSES: new processes are developed through which people can identify and
negotiate shared priorities for places where they live and work and draw down the
support they need from government and other agencies.
POLICY: there is more joined-up working and thinking, so that policy makers and
delivery agents at all levels hear, understand and respond more precisely to the
identified needs of local places and people.
Translated into practical terms, this meant that the Place Coordinator's job was to help
communities to tackle problems in their local environment and to make the most of its
assets and opportunities. The immediate focus of much of the PCs’ work was on local issues
of poverty and inequality: for example poor local environment quality, little or no access to
green space, fly-tipping, the threat of flooding, fuel poverty, the need for local growing
spaces etc. This kind of action was intended to lead as well to more active involvement by
residents in the longer term development of local ‘green growth’ and resilience, for example
in developing community energy generation or other social enterprise activity. On that
basis, each of the 11 PCs co-developed with their communities a range of ‘workstreams’
each focused on a locally identified problem/opportunity.
Place Coordinators were expected to focus on removing barriers to action and forging
effective working links between communities and a wide range of agencies and service
deliverers in their area. Better co-ordination of service offerings within communities was
expected to improve their effectiveness, efficiency and value for money, and to deliver
multiple benefits for residents and local businesses. PCs had no delivery budget of their own
so they had to devise and enact ways to secure the necessary resources and financial
support.
Important aspects of the work included raising communities’ capacity and resilience by
helping to lever funding into the communities from a wide range of sources, bringing
support and guidance to community groups and social enterprises, helping people to use
local assets for community benefit, generating income and developing skills and training
opportunities.
The programme also sought to demonstrate practical ways in which communities can be
involved in the decision making processes that affect their environment and that govern the
services provided to them.
Parallel influencing work was undertaken by the Cynefin management team at national level
to build support from key stakeholders for new ways of thinking and working at local level.
The research base had also identified how ‘co-production’ approaches of this kind tend to
challenge existing institutional cultures and ways of working so there was a need to capture
learning about the way in which practices responded to these anticipated challenges and
what makes place-centred working effective.
Chapter 2 describes in more detail how the programme was organised and operated.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
3
1.3 Monitoring & Learning Methodology The Welsh Government wanted to set up a formative monitoring and learning (M&L)
process to run throughout the duration of the programme, so that early insights could be
used to shape the programme as it progressed. This was especially important in the context
of the work being done to develop the Wellbeing of Future Generations Wales bill (FGW),
where longer term thinking and joined-up working between public sector organisations had
been identified as core to the principle of sustainable development and the duty to be
placed on the public sector to implement it.
Development of the monitoring and learning framework
The innovative approach being taken in Cynefin meant that standard monitoring and
evaluation approaches could not simply be adopted to generate the kind of evidence-based
learning that was needed.
In particular, it was clear that the typical approaches used in impact or process evaluations
would not generate the breadth and depth of learning that WG needed. The fact that
Cynefin could not claim to ‘own’ the outcomes outright (because it was facilitating others to
do things) meant that standard ways to measure or attribute impact were not meaningful.
Moreover, the intangibility of many of the outcomes – notably community empowerment,
new ways of working, relationships and organisational behaviours – meant that focusing on
quantitative measures could lead to a superficial account of programme outcomes. A review
of evidence from innovative approaches elsewhere had identified significant gaps in the
evidence about how they had worked, even where process evaluations had been
undertaken, and this was a key factor which informed the design of the M&L approach to
Cynefin.
Taking into account those and many similar considerations, a monitoring and learning
framework was co-designed during the early stages of the programme by the research team
(Brook Lyndhurst) and the Welsh Government management team, with involvement from
the Place Co-ordinators and ‘early learning’ interviews with some of the local and national
stakeholders who had been involved from the start.
The agreed approach was to develop a rich narrative account of Cynefin based mainly on
qualitative evidence and case examples, supported by a set of 11 cross-cutting indicators
that would cover a mix of place and process outcomes (see Annex 2). The feasibility of
developing quantitative RBA-type2 indicators for every local workstream and Cynefin overall
had been explored in detail (including consultation and the creation of draft indicators) but it
was decided by all involved that a mainly qualitative approach would be a more productive
use of research and Place Co-ordinator resources. This design process in itself was an
example of Cynefin ways of working, including flexibility and responsiveness.
2 Results Based Accounting, which is a trade-marked evaluation methodology used in Welsh
Government, notably by Communities First.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
4
The research questions
The framework comprised a set of research questions and a suite of data gathering
approaches to generate evidence to answer the questions. The agreed research questions
related directly to the framing of objectives around place, process and policy as set out
above and are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Research questions in the Cynefin monitoring and learning framework
Research questions
1. What approaches and ways of working have been adopted in Cynefin? And how do these differ from conventional models of service delivery?
2. What have been the barriers and facilitators to these new approaches and ways of working?
3. What are the key lessons from Cynefin about how the Welsh Government, local government and other agencies delivering services in communities?
4a. What outcomes has Cynefin achieved in improving places?
4b. What outcomes has Cynefin achieved in improving processes?
4c. What outcomes has Cynefin achieved in improving policies?
5. Are these outcomes durable over time and in keeping with the principles of Sustainable Development?
During the course of the Cynefin programme, it became increasingly clear that overlaps
between outcomes in the place-process-policy ‘spheres’ often make it difficult or
nonsensical to talk about them separately. This observation has influenced the way in which
outcomes are characterised in chapter 3 and explored in further detail in chapter 4. As the
learning developed it became clear that it is more logical to describe Cynefin outcomes as an
integral part of the narrative about ways of working, because many of the place and process
outcomes in particular are interdependent. It also became clear that it is more logical to
differentiate between Cynefin outcomes at three different levels:
for people in communities;
at the level of organisations working at or influencing outcomes at local level;
and at national level, including Welsh Government and higher tiers of organisations
that also operate locally
While place, process and policy are common themes throughout the narrative in the report
the detailed findings in chapter 4 are structured around the three levels above,
acknowledging that there is overlap between them.
Data and evidence methods
The monitoring and learning research ran throughout the duration of the Cynefin
programme. The main feature was quarterly waves of qualitative research interviews with
PCs, stakeholders and the management team, plus the compilation of cross-cutting
indicators from data supplied by the Place Co-ordinators3. These and other tasks are
described in Figure 1. The first wave of research, together with PC’s own initial scoping work,
provided the qualitative ‘baseline’ against which progress was assessed: this was
3 It was agreed that this data would not be verified independently by the research team although ‘sense checks’ were undertaken and queries resolved with the relevant PC.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
5
incorporated into a developing narrative about workstream ‘journeys’ rather than a
before/after comparison of change in narrowly defined indicators.
At the end of each quarter, evidence from those various sources was brought together and
shared with the Welsh Government management team so that it could be used in their on-
going guidance to the PCs and engagement with policy makers.The management team
identified areas for immediate action from the emerging research findings, such as
engagement activity with specific stakeholders or additional training for PCs. Emerging
learning was also fed back to the programme’s Advisory Group each quarter for a ‘sense
check’ on how Cynefin was being delivered. Feedback from WG in response to the emerging
findings and input from the Advisory Group was then incorporated into the next wave of
research. The findings in this final report were developed from all of the evidence gathered
during the monitoring and learning process.
Figure 1 – Evidence approach in the Cynefin monitoring and learning framework
Note: Blue boxes indicate work by the research team, green boxes denote individual PC activities from which the research team collated evidence
across the programme; evidence in purple boxes was jointly developed.
Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5
InterviewsPCs, WG,
stakeholders
InterviewsPCs, WG,
stakeholders
InterviewsPCs, WG,
stakeholders
InterviewsPCs, WG,
stakeholders
InterviewsPCs, WG,
stakeholders
Workstream/stakeholder
maps
PC workstreamPen portraits
PC workstreamPen portraits
PC workstreamPen portraits
Workstreamjourneys
Stakeholder survey
Stakeholder survey
X-cutting indicators
X-cutting indicators
X-cutting indicators
X-cutting indicators
X-cutting indicators
PC learning diaries
Next wave
WG
PCs
Next wave
WG
PCs
Next wave
WG
PCs
Next wave
WG
PCs
Final report
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
6
Limitations of the evidence
The evidence is largely drawn from qualitative methods. While the approach taken followed
social science best practice for qualitative approaches, the evidence is subject to the usual
limitations of that method. The evidence comes from self-reported accounts and relies on
there being accurate and unbiased recollection from informants. The risk of bias from self-
interested responses was taken into account by eliciting views from a wide range of
perspectives, including those less closely involved in Cynefin and from some known to have
critical views. Checks were also built into the analysis process (e.g. through triangulation of
evidence sources and team workshops to moderate emerging findings) to mitigate the risk
of bias.
Other limitations apply to numerical data shown in the report, namely the cross-cutting
indicators and the stakeholder survey. The cross-cutting indicators were compiled from data
provided by PCs and, while sense checks were applied, the research team did not verify the
data independently through further local research. The indicators should be seen as
indicative of the scope and scale of outcomes and not as precise accounts of impact. The
resource available for the stakeholder survey meant that the sample was derived from
contacts provided by the PCs and the management team (i.e. it was a convenience sample
rather than a random or stratified representative sample). The data has therefore been
interpreted qualitatively and in the context that it may not represent the views of those less
involved in Cynefin activities.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
7
2 Programme description
This chapter provides a high-level description of how Cynefin operates. This provides the
essential context for the findings on outcomes and learning that are presented in chapters 3
and 4, especially for those readers unfamiliar with the programme and the ways in which it
differs from a traditional programme delivered in communities.
2.1 Structure of the programme Figure 1 summarises some of the key differences between Cynefin and a traditional
programme that is supporting or working in communities.
Figure 2 – Distinctive features of Cynefin compared to a traditional programme
The ‘new way of working’ revolved around initially 9, and eventually 11, Place Co-ordinators
who were the locally based facilitators that were tasked with bringing communities and
organisations together to improve local places. They were hosted by local authorities or
national organisations in their local offices (see table 2 in section 2.2 which gives more detail
about the PCs and how their roles differed from conventional approaches).
Management of the PCs and programme delivery was sub-contracted to Severn Wye Energy
Agency (SWEA) which had previously been involved in the Welsh Government Pathfinders
programme to support community climate change initiatives. There was also a programme
officer in Welsh Government. In practice, and in keeping with the principles of Cynefin, the
internal and external managers worked closely together as a team of two, rather than in a
traditional client-contractor relationship (as discussed further in chapter 4).
Governance mechanisms are shown in Figure 3 below. Ultimate responsibility for the
Cynefin change programme lies with the Minister for Natural Resources. However, there are
a few layers of governance that advise and shape this change programme.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
8
Cynefin Advisory Group
The Cynefin Advisory Group focuses on creating a dialogue between public service delivery
agents, local authority partners and policy leads from across the Welsh Government. The
role of the Advisory Group is to explore policy and delivery links, identify gaps or challenges
and consider the work being undertaken by the Place Coordinators in the context of policy
development.
Place Development Leadership Group
The Place Development Leadership Group, chaired by the Commissioner for Sustainable
Futures Peter Davies, has a wider remit to look at place based working as a whole across
Wales. The Group has more of an academic focus, and looks at emergent and ongoing
research in the field of place based working. While being a Wales-wide expert forum for
place based work, the Group also acts as a senior advisory group to Cynefin.
Place-based working seminars
Half-yearly place-based working seminars bring together practitioners from across the Welsh
public, private and third sectors to share ideas and best practice, participate in collaborative
workshops and identify opportunities to work together across work streams.
Figure 3 – Governance map
Programmes Engagement & Delivery Board (Welsh Government)
Cynefin Change Programme
WG Place Programme – Governance Map
Minister for Natural Resources
Place Programme
Advisory Group
Linking up across WG Policy & other initiatives
PLACE 2
PLACE 3
PLACE 4
PLACE 5
PLACE 6
PLACE 6+
PLACE 1
eg. Newport
Local
Stakeholder
Group
gp
gp
gp
gp
gp
gp
gp
Advisory Group
WG Prog Team
Place Manager
Place Co-ordinators
Operations Group
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
9
2.2 The Place Co-ordinators Cynefin currently employs 11 Place Coordinators (PCs) in different locations across Wales
(until March 2016). These PCs did not all start working at the same time. The first nine took
up their posts between March and September 2013 . Two more were appointed in February
2015. For this reason the majority of the M&L research has focused on the original nine PCs.
As noted above, Severn Wye Energy Agency (SWEA) was contracted to manage the Cynefin
programme, and employs eight of the 11 PCs directly. The three other PCs are employed by
partner organisations Environment Wales, Keep Wales Tidy (KWT), and Natural Resources
Wales (NRW). Table 2 below identifies where the 11 PCs were located and summarises the
key foci of their workstreams. Further details of the 57 individual workstreams that PCs have
undertaken are given in Annex 1.
Table 2 – Introduction to the Place Co-ordinators
Location Host Work focused on…
Llanelli Carmarthenshire
County Council
… co-creating a community owned emergency plan for Llanelli;
developing an ethos of co-operation and co-production between service
providers that will add value to current areas of work and lead to a
different way of working; and facilitating the response of Llanelli Town
Council and the local community to the Well-being and Future
Generations Bill (now Act)
Wrexham Wrexham
County Council
… supporting local communities and organisations in the Cefn Mawr
and Caia Park areas of Wrexham through capacity building, tourism and
timebanking; and promoting community renewable energy across
Wrexham
Rhondda
Cynon Taff
(RCT)
Rhondda Cynon
Taff County
Council
… facilitating improved access to woodlands for local communities;
supporting the creation of tourism hubs across the county and a
community flooding group; and, at a more strategic level, facilitating the
adoption of more co-productive place-based working by service
providers
Neath Port
Talbot
(NPT)
Keep Wales Tidy …place planning for local target areas, bringing residents and service
providers together to improve the local environment and resources;
helping social landlord NPT Homes with its place planning work;
facilitating an increase in community cohesion and capacity, with a
particular focus on young people
Cardiff Cardiff City
Council
… to create and sustain a sense of community in an area of Cardiff
(Cathays) which has a highly transient population by catalysing
community-led activities to reduce littering, improve local
environmental quality, promote more active travel, and celebrate local
food production
Anglesey Groundwork
North Wales
… stimulating community participation in service design and delivery;
and enabling local communities to access funding and new
opportunities to undertake activities that benefit the local environment
and economy
Merthyr
Tydfil
Flytipping Action
Wales
…bringing stakeholders together to improve open spaces in Merthyr to
encourage greater use of these assets by the community, as a resource
for health and wellbeing through GP referrals to local activity groups
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
10
Newport Newport City
Council
… facilitating the improvements of the Maindee area of Newport, by
encouraging residents and businesses to find and lead opportunities to
develop a more sustainable and resilient community
Swansea Swansea City
Council
… bringing stakeholders and service providers together to improve
provision and end duplication, recognising that Swansea already has a
lot of community groups, networks and support systems in place
Llandrindod
Wells
Powys County
Council
… stimulating community-led activities, engaging with local
organisations and businesses to promote tourism in Llandrindod and the
surrounding area, and making initial linkages with service providers at a
more strategic level
Tredegar Tredegar Town
Council
… undertaking engagement work with the local community to
understand their needs and desires, joining up stakeholders and taking
forward projects on a wide range of issues including food, energy, social
enterprise and local business support.
The ways in which the PCs were enabled to operate was very different from normal
‘development officer’ roles. Since it would have contradicted the place-centred approach
that was being explored, the Cynefin programme did not set specific and measurable targets
that were common across all the areas in which it worked. The PCs therefore had no pre-
determined targets or workstreams, or target audiences, at the outset of the programme.
Instead, the PCs’ first task was to ‘baseline’ the area to which they had been assigned – to
explore what was already happening under the broad umbrella of ‘place improvement’, and
to identify opportunities where they could facilitate connections within and between
communities, service providers, policy and other stakeholders to add value to current ways
of working. At its most basic, the intention was that PCs would be ‘facilitators’ and ‘catalysts’
rather than ‘deliverers’.
The initial place planning process was a distinctive feature of Cynefin. It consciously avoided
a ‘task and finish’ approach – namely one based on one-off community consultation
meetings at the start, technical analysis and a written report and action plan. Instead, PCs
were required to spend time building a vision, a mandate and shared plan with individuals,
community groups and stakeholders over an extended period. This, often iterative, process
was expected to bottom out the real causes of local issues, including how systemic factors
(e.g. assets, institutions, stakeholders, policies, people) interact to create blockages or
opportunities for change. Variability of approaches was therefore an inherent part of the
design of the programme, enabling WG to learn how different approaches led to different
outcomes and what needed to be in place to make them work.
Place-centred priorities were identified during a scoping period through events such as
stakeholder workshops and community visioning events, individual conversations with
groups and stakeholders, from previous and existing research, or suggested by PCs from
their previous or other roles in their areas (particularly in the case of those PCs ‘seconded’
from other organisations). The detail of workstreams was worked up by PCs with the
management team and with the agreement of key stakeholders. Once priorities had been
identified and workstreams defined, performance targets and milestones were negotiated
between PCs and the management team, which were then monitored as the workstreams
developed. The way in which these performance standards were defined, however, still
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
11
enabled considerable latitude in how PCs operated, so that the PCs could be responsive to
evolving circumstances and relationships as their workstreams took shape.
Another distinctive feature was that the PCs had no budget other than their own time4 so
that a key part of their role was to influence others to use existing resources and budgets. In
several cases, PCs also helped community organisations to secure funding from major grant
funders (perhaps more like traditional development officers) although funding was quite
often sought to support process changes rather than to fund specific community activities.
Chapter 4 reports in detail on the learning about how Cynefin ways of working were and
were not effective, and how they compared to usual practice.
4 Although later in the programme PCs were able to apply for very small grants to help fund some
small-scale activities.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
12
3 Outcomes – headline findings
Given the nature of Cynefin – its broad aims, operation, and the diversity of the PCs’
locations and workstreams – the outcomes it has achieved to date have been highly varied.
This is true on several dimensions: with respect to scale, from the micro-local to the more
strategic within a place; in relation to who has or will benefit; and whether outcomes were
time-bound or contributed to a continuing change process.
It is also possible to map outcomes broadly onto the place-process-policy axes envisaged in
the original programme design, although atomising outcomes in this way tends to miss their
interconnected nature and their link to place contexts (as noted in section 1.2). This section
therefore provides a headline summary of the key types of outcome from Cynefin under the
the three headings before these are unpacked in greater detail and illustrated through
workstream ‘journeys’ in chapter 4. The second part of this chapter reports the feedback
from stakeholders interviewed in the research on their perceptions of the value added of
Cynefin. This is again at headline level before it is explored in further detail in chapter 4.
3.1 Characterisation of Cynefin outcomes According to the cross-cutting indicators for which PCs provided data throughout the
monitoring and learning programme, by mid-2015 Cynefin had: catalysed 59 workstreams
and over 200 new working groups, networks and partnerships; actively engaged individuals
and organisations on more than 6,000 occasions; secured over 23,000 hours of time for
Cynefin-linked activities from individuals and organisations (including public sector bodies);
unlocked over £1.48 million of funding (mainly grants from major charitable and social
funds); and enabled over 900 community members and professionals to receive mentoring
and training.5
The breadth and diversity of Cynefin outcomes reflects the space that PCs were given to
build their workstreams around place-centred priorities. Outcomes spanned local
environment quality, access to greenspace, flooding resilience, poverty, health, housing,
tourism, heritage, arts, youth involvement, economic development, education, training,
renewable energy, and more. Many workstreams were targeted at achieving multiple
benefits, and often for a range of individuals and groups in the community at the same time.
While it is therefore difficult to characterise outcomes in a simple way, examples of some of
the main thematic outcomes are identified in table 3 around the place-process-policy
headings and these are discussed further in chapter 4.
5 These indicators should be seen as illustrative of the scale of Cynefin involvement rather than
precise figures: the overlapping nature of the work with other programmes means in particular that it is difficult to attribute outcomes specifically to Cynefin and the diversity of PC’s activities meant that figures reported under given indicators may be qualitatively different. The indicators are as reported by the PCs and were not verified independently. The full set is shown in Annex 2.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
13
Table 3 Characterisation and examples of Cynefin outputs and outcomes
Physical/tangible outcomes such as…(examples in bullet points)
Physical improvements to place
Installation of community waymarking signs in Cardiff to increase awareness and usage of local
amenities and businesses, and to encourage more active travel (walking/cycling) in the
community.
Clean-up of areas repeatedly affected by fly-tipping in Merthyr led by key stakeholders (Local
Authority, housing association and landowner) and with involvement from the community.
Helping communities to access funding
A PC supported a successful bid for £365,000 of Arts Council funding for significant community-led
regeneration work in Newport which will be on-going.
In Anglesey, the PC brought the community and stakeholders together in a successful bid for
£250,000 of Olympic Legacy funding. The group is now running its own small grants programme
having distributed 21 grants of £1,000 to £2,000 to fund local activities.
Supporting the set up and development of new community groups and organisations
The Wrexham Energy Group, which has undertaken feasibility studies and is working towards
developing a community renewable energy scheme.
In Newport, facilitating the creation of a community group and supporting it to expand its horizons
to become a social enterprise (Maindee Unlimited) which has recently been approached by the
local authority to get involved in local asset improvement, and potentially, ownership.
Protecting and enhancing community assets
The PC in Wrexham helped to support a case to the local authority for continuing funding for a
local development trust while it secured other sources of funding. He then brokered agreement
for the social enterprise to be co-bidders with the local authority for a Big Lottery grant to support
timebanking (outcome pending at the time of writing).
Process/relationship outcomes such as…
Building a shared vision for place
Many of the PCs undertook visioning to identify priorities and opportunities. The PC in Wrexham in
particular used asset mapping to identify existing resources in the community and opportunities to
build from. Visioning is covered in more detail in chapter 4.
Brokering and facilitating new collaborative ways of working
Bringing service providers together to identify overlaps, duplication and opportunities for joint
working in the Penderry Providers Planning Forum in Swansea which has resulted in specific
actions and outcomes (the PC has logged almost 200 ‘deals.’)
Bringing communities and service providers together
Leading a Youth Consultation in Neath Port Talbot which has led to some physical outcomes such
as improvements to playing fields, as well as ongoing engagement between young people and
service providers through creation of a youth council and a Local Authority Youth Liaison Officer.
Acting as an ‘honest broker’ between community groups and a Local Authority to overcome a
historic stalemate and secure a piece of land to be used as a community garden and playing fields
by different interest groups in the community in Wrexham.
Identifying shared/multiple benefits to enable service providers to work together
Facilitating the formation and agreement of shared goals for service providers in Rhondda Cynon
Taff to underpin collaborative working.
Bringing service providers together to deliver health benefits for residents related to greenspace
improvements in Merthyr.
On a smaller scale, combining IT training courses for residents to prevent them being cancelled
because of low attendance.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
14
Policy outcomes such as…
Policy influencing from the ‘bottom up’
Llanelli, where the PC has initiated and facilitated the development of a community-led emergency
plan to complement that of the Town Council, which has now been adopted, with other towns in
the area looking to emulate the idea. The work was identified as best practice by the Wales Audit
Office and the team leading the Wellbeing of Future Generations Wales Bill.
Drawing attention to areas where policy doesn’t work for communities
Newport, where Maindee Unlimited is working with the Local Authority on an asset transfer which
has highlighted barriers to community control and a need to revise the asset transfer policy.
Enabling a community ‘voice’ in policy making
A Llanelli We Want event that communicated the goals of the Well-being of Future Generations
Act to local residents and engaged them to vote on priorities for the future of their area in line
with these goals, which were then adopted by the Town Council.
Complementing national policy implementation
The PC in RCT was approached by NRW for advice about place-based working and access to
contacts with respect to its piloting of Area-Based Planning, having recognised that the PC had a
good overview and cross-cutting relationships that NRW could build on.
Engaging with and supporting national policy development and programmes
As a result of its efforts to make links across policy areas, the management team was invited to
share Cynefin learning with policy teams working on new Welsh Government Bills or initiatives.
This included NRW in relation to the Environment Bill and area-based planning pilots they are
currently running, the team responsible for the Well-being of Future Generations Bill (now Act),
and Public Health Wales concerning a multi-service provider initiative being developed for the
Health goal in the WBFG (see section 4.2.3).
National level outreach work by the management team has also taken Cynefin learning to other
public and charitable programmes (e.g. Big Lottery).
By the end of the M&L research, it was apparent that many of the Cynefin workstreams had
made significant headway in achieving process improvements but many were yet to deliver
large scale tangible place improvements. Influence on local and national policy was limited
to a few leading examples. There was as yet no widespread evidence of transformational
change although in a number of places mechanisms had been set in train that have the
potential to lead to radical outcomes if they are sustained once the Cynefin PC is withdrawn
(see further discussion on durability and supporting conditions in chapter 4).
Cynefin had also resulted in the demonstration of innovative models that could have the
potential to be rolled out elsewhere: for example the Penderry Providers’ Planning Forum,
the collaborative service provider model in RCT, the health workstream in Merthyr to link
greenspace and exercise referral, and the approach to co-productive working between
communities and town council in Llanelli (see the annex for a summary of all PCs’
workstreams).
While some of the potential outcomes of Cynefin lie in the future, there were tangible
benefits for people in communities during the time it was in operation. In general, the scale
of outcomes has tended towards the micro level (i.e. at ward level rather than across a Local
Authority or area), although there were more strategic ones, as the examples above
illustrate. This is not to negate the impact of Cynefin, but to recognise that a large
proportion of PCs’ work focused on and occurred at this more micro level. It is also
important to note that the initial short-term funding of Cynefin (for nine months)
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
15
contributed to a focus on achieving immediately tangible outcomes, although most PCs also
initiated activities with a longer term horizon during the early period, which were taken
forward when funding was continued.
Many of Cynefin’s micro-level achievements were, at least superficially, similar to those
typically delivered by development officers, such as training, setting up community groups,
promoting healthy living, tackling local environmental quality and so on. While some could
not be said to be especially different or innovative, in some cases these ‘micro-level’
outcomes were distinctive in that they had required the kind of time, persistence and
challenge across operating silos that may not have been possible to deliver in other
programmes.
Moreover, the way in which they had been prioritised through community involvement
meant that at least some of Cynefin’s micro-level outcomes focused on intractable local
problems that meant a great deal to people locally but may have been by-passed by other
initiatives because they were ‘off-target’ or too resource intensive compared to their
perceived importance . Starting small by tackling these sometimes overlooked but vexing
issues (e.g. broken goalposts, graffiti, open space access) appeared to be a ‘door opener’ for
the wider and sustained place-based work of at least some of the Cynefin workstreams.
Illustrative examples can be found in the case study boxes in chapter 4.
Finally, looking at the level of the programme as a whole, a distinctive feature of outcomes
in Cynefin is the way in which they have cut across diverse policy areas to deliver multiple
benefits, both within some individual workstreams and when outcomes from all the various
workstreams are combined.
3.2 Added value Feedback from stakeholders tended to be more positive the closer they were to Cynefin
activities and was either more critical or uncertain the more distant stakeholders were.
Perceptions did change during the course of the programme, including of some individuals
who had been critical at the beginning. Over time, examples of Cynefin in action
communicated locally and by the management team began to help demystify what the
programme meant by ‘new ways of working’ and what might be achieved. There remain
critical voices, however, including some who think Cynefin is duplicative, expensive, too
micro-local, too unfocused, and not sufficiently disruptive at a strategic level. More detailed
learning about stakeholder perceptions and involvement is provided in the various sections
on local service providers and national level engagement in chapter 4.
A stakeholder survey was carried out in the last wave of research, which elicited 177 detailed
responses6 from stakeholders who had been in contact with the programme to varying
extents and in various roles. Responses (in Figure 4) were largely positive to questions
relating to the perceived value added of Cynefin. This was most true (by a small margin) in
relation to the impact of Cynefin on improving service providers’ ability to engage in
communities.
6 More people answered but did not respond to the key ‘value of Cynefin’ question. It needs to be
noted there was very limited resource for a survey so that measures were not taken to ensure this was a representative sample.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
16
Figure 4 – Stakeholder feedback on the added value of Cynefin
Overall, Cynefin was thought to add value by working across silos, coordinating resources
and catalysing more innovative approaches. Examples of ways in which stakeholders and PCs
reported that Cynefin is doing this included:
Ensuring service providers are more in touch with local community priorities;
Brokering relationships between service providers and communities, including in
situations where relations have become strained;
Joining up disparate interests that would not have come together without a catalyst
(e.g. tourism in Wrexham);
Helping existing local groups to come together, including with service providers, to
grow their ambitions and scale of what they are involved in (e.g. Anglesey, Maindee
in Newport)
Adding an extra resource and dimension to existing programmes (e.g. working with
local Communities First or NRW officers)
Helping communities to develop the capacity, partnerships and vision to secure
large amounts of funding that they would not have been able to do otherwise (e.g.
Newport);
Identifying and preventing duplication between service providers and thus potential
cost saving (e.g. Swansea, RCT);
Identifying opportunities for mutual and multiple benefits from adopting a joint
approach (e.g. health workstream in Merthyr).
While there is a clear sense among stakeholders that Cynefin is adding value through
collaborative working, most respondents were not able to say if Cynefin had impacted on
local or national policy or they stated it had little impact (as Figure 4 shows). Feedback in the
qualitative interviews with local stakeholders confirmed that this isn’t how Cynefin is being
perceived on the ground: it is being seen as a way to get service providers to work in an
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
...the impact of Cynefin in influencing local ornational policy-making
...the extent to which you think Cynefin isadding value to existing service provision
...the impact of Cynefin in improving the abilityof service providers to engage with the local
community
...the impact of Cynefin in empoweringmembers of the community
How would you rate...
5 (Significantimpact/added value)
4
3
2
1 (no impact/addedvalue)
Don't know
No response
Number of respondents (n=177)
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
17
involved way with communities and each other but is not being seen as a vehicle for
influencing policy, even though giving communities a greater voice in local and national
policy was one of the original intentions.
PCs cited some examples of how they had used activity around the WBFG Bill to add impetus
to some of their work but on the whole PCs similarly found it difficult to say how their
workstreams would or could influence policy. While some PCs were well attuned to
opportunities to link their local work with national policy developments not all of them were
as broad in their thinking. This could be an area for development in any future programme
similar to Cynefin.
Equally, a minority of respondents in the survey did perceive that Cynefin was having an
influence on policy, and this was also a view shared by certain national stakeholder
interviewees. At this level, and largely through the activities of the management team,
Cynefin was seen to be using learning generated locally by PCs to start to inform policy
development within some areas of Welsh Government or within other national delivery
bodies (see section 4.2.3). Local communities and PCs were not necessarily fully aware of
this national-level activity, which may partly explain the survey results.
The following chapter explores some of the headline themes identified in this chapter in
more detail.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
18
4 Learning
4.1 Introduction This chapter explores learning about the Cynefin ways of working and their related
outcomes in more detail and more narratively, including case examples and workstream
journeys to illustrate how different facets of PCs’ approaches joined up to make them
effective. This is followed by a summary of the barriers that were commonly seen and,
conversely, factors that were reported to be enabling. The last part of the chapter considers
what kinds of operating arrangements and behaviours are implicated in ‘what needs to be in
place’ to enable Cynefin-style approaches to operate effectively in a public service setting.
4.2 Ways of working One key overarching feature of the ways of working adopted within Cynefin is their diversity.
Cynefin was not designed to implement one pre-determined methodology in every area it
operated but rather to try out and learn from a range of approaches to improving places,
process and policies in Wales. The ways of working adopted by different PCs were also
partly a reflection of the specific characteristics, opportunities and challenges they found in
their area, their personal interpretation of the PC role and the different competencies each
possessed. What has ultimately emerged is that there is no singular “Cynefin way” but
instead a nest of interrelated approaches each with their own pros and cons, and some more
suited to certain local contexts and the capabilities of individual PCs than others7. In
addition, not all of the approaches were radically “new” or different from approaches
already being adopted by officers of other pre-existing programmes and initiatives in Wales.
This section describes and illustrates the different ways of working adopted within Cynefin,
with a particular focus on: how these compare and contrast with existing approaches; how
effective they have been in delivering outcomes and adding value; and why. The section is
loosely structured around the three different levels that Cynefin can be seen to have
operated at:
Community level - residents and community groups
Local service provider level - local authorities, Local Service Boards (LSBs),
Community Voluntary Councils (CVCs), housing associations, other local service
providers, and locally-based arms of national organisations, e.g. Communities First
clusters and NRW officers working locally
National level - national policy makers in the Welsh Government, NRW,
Communities First, etc.
The extent to which Cynefin has facilitated linkages and relationships between these
different levels is also explored.
7 See also section 4.4.4 on PC competencies.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
19
4.2.1. Community level
All of the PCs engaged with residents and community groups in their local area, although in
practice the nature and extent of this engagement did vary somewhat between individual
PCs. For some, particularly those with a professional background in community development
and who interpreted their role mostly in terms of facilitating “grass roots” community-led
activities to improve the local area, this has been their primary focus. Others have generally
divided their time between engaging at this level and at the level of local service providers.
It was generally at this community level that some stakeholders, particularly national ones,
queried whether Cynefin was doing anything genuinely new or different. Local authorities
and some national programmes or initiatives were known (or assumed) to already be
engaging with local communities. From a distance these national stakeholders were
concerned about Cynefin duplicating these efforts and were not conscious of it doing
anything different or adding value. In practice, and drawing in particular on evidence from
local stakeholders who had first-hand exposure to the work of the PC in their area, certain
features of how Cynefin engages with local communities did emerge as being distinct from
more traditional pre-existing approaches to community engagement. These features, and
their perceived added value, are discussed under the following broad headings:
Open-ended engagement and involvement
Building community capacity
Removing blockages
Bringing communities and service providers together
Open-ended engagement and involvement
One of the clearest distinctions local stakeholders made between Cynefin and other
programmes and initiatives was that the initial “dialogue” between the PC and members of
the local community was open-ended. Residents and community groups were generally
invited by the PC to identify local priorities themselves through initial visioning events.
Workstreams were then developed around these priorities. Other PCs, wary of over-
consulting local communities in areas where there had been recent attempts at
consultation, had relied more on one-to-one conversations with residents or groups and
their own research to identify local priorities. Interest in these from the wider community
was then explored through subsequent public events. Whichever of the two approaches
was used, priorities were developed ‘bottom up’ following local scoping and conversations in
the community, from which target outcomes were identified then agreed by Welsh
Government with the PC and key local stakeholders.
These approaches were contrasted by local stakeholders with other forms of community
engagement they were aware of – in which the “priority” and the intended outcomes of any
activities linked to this had already been decided by the programme or initiative doing the
engagement before there was any community involvement. Specifically, several compared
Cynefin with Communities First, saying they felt the latter was too narrowly focused on
specific ‘top down’ outcome targets. Consequently their engagement tended towards
proposing specific activities aligned to these targets and applied to local communities. For
example, one resident who had met with officers from both programmes commented on
how different and “refreshing” it had felt to be asked by the PC what he thought was
important in the local area, and to be listened to.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
20
Open-ended engagement &
involvement
In Cardiff, the PC ran an initial ‘Community Visioning’ event in which attendees were encouraged to identify key challenges, opportunities and risks for their area. An ‘Ideas Event’ followed which invited the community and other stakeholders to discuss and co-design project ideas relating to the themes that emerged from the visioning event. ‘Scoping Meetings’ were then held to prioritise these ideas before the PC catalysed a number of workstreams to deliver these – eventually resulting in diverse outcomes such as 2 large food festivals in a deprived area, and a 101 metre mural on a frequently vandalised wall. A recent ‘Re-visioning’ saw members of the community celebrating what had been achieved so far, and generating new project ideas.
The reported added value of the more open-ended engagement and involvement practised
through Cynefin included the following:
The development of workstreams that closely reflect the priorities of local
communities. This is partly reflected in the diversity of the workstreams that have
emerged across the different Cynefin areas (see Annex 1) which span such issues as
climate change, waste, art, tourism, health and regeneration. Despite Cynefin not
having pre-determined outcome indicators, there are also clear and significant
overlaps between the intended outcomes of these workstreams and the national
goals of the WFG Bill.
The active involvement of members
of the community. Linked to the
above, PCs have reported that by
engaging communities in this way,
they have been able to make
connections to residents and
community groups early on that
have been invaluable throughout
the course of their work. In one area
for example, some of those
attending initial visioning events
went on, with the support of the PC,
to form a group that has since bid
for and received significant funding
to make improvements to their local
area. Anecdotally at least, some PCs
and local stakeholders also reported
that public events held as part of a
workstream (such as the two food
festivals highlighted above) have
attracted large numbers of local
residents to attend.
In addition, identifying workstreams
that reflect the priorities of the local
community had given PCs a clear ‘mandate’ to push this work forward, particularly
when dealing with local service providers.
Open-ended engagement and the building of a local mandate was possible within Cynefin
because the PCs were given the scope to build knowledge and relationships over an
extended period of time before they were required to get stuck into the ‘delivery’ of a plan.
In the Cynefin model, this building of a mandate and a locally propelled place-plan was, in
fact, a foundation for and an integral part of the programme delivery. The PCs who were
appointed later in the programme reported some difficulties from having a compressed start
to their work.
Despite these benefits, there were also some reported limits to how far these extended and
how consistently they appear to have been achieved across different PCs. Specifically the
ability of Cynefin, through its more open-ended engagement, to actively engage all members
or sections of the community was felt to be mixed. PCs who had engaged residents in the
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
21
management and delivery of a workstream reported that the majority of these were people
already fairly active in their community and/or existing members of a community group.
Likewise, despite the large number of attendees reported at workstream events, and some
success in attracting diverse sections of a local community, there was still a predominance of
“the usual suspects” amongst attendees.
Some PCs that had chosen not to do any visioning events at the start had also reported initial
difficulties and false starts in identifying the priorities of the local community, and
establishing a clear mandate to guide where they directed their efforts, although they
compensated over time by finding other pathways to establishing a mandate. For example,
one PC had directed their initial efforts towards engagement with the local community
around a specific issue suggested by a local service provider. This attracted a muted
response, and it was only through subsequently finding other, more open-ended, means of
establishing local priorities directly from community members that the PC was able to gain
more traction. Notwithstanding the initial concerns some PCs voiced about “over-
consultation”, and even though the PCs who did not do visioning managed to navigate to a
mandate over time, there appear to have been several benefits and no appreciable
downsides to undertaking visioning events or other open-ended approaches early on.
There was an overall sense that the open-ended engagement practised through Cynefin
represented a considerable upgrade on other existing community engagement practices.
Equally, there were still some limits to how far on their own these approaches can
effectively engage all the heterogeneous individuals and subgroups that go to make up a
“local community”.
Building community capacity
One of the intended features of Cynefin, which may have differentiated it from some other
programmes and initiatives, was that the PCs would primarily facilitate local communities to
deliver workstreams rather than doing this delivery themselves. Implicit in this was that PCs
would build the capacities of the communities they were engaging with so they could
undertake key tasks on workstreams, and in the longer term so they were able to lead a
stream of work once Cynefin had ended and go on to initiate and deliver other initiatives
themselves. In practice, a challenge that all the PCs wrestled with initially was finding the
right balance between “facilitating” and “doing”, for the following reasons:
Variable innate capacity. The PCs’ ability to perform a purely facilitator role was
closely linked to the capacity of the individuals and organisations they engage with.
Where this capacity was low, as it was reported to be in the majority of areas
Cynefin targeted, PCs generally found themselves doing more doing to compensate.
One common example of this was around project management. PCs sometimes had
more prior experience and expertise in this than the residents they were engaging
with, who were also often constrained in the time they could devote towards the
management of a workstream. Consequently PCs could find themselves taking on
project management responsibilities or risk a workstream failing to get off the
ground or stalling once underway.
Professional backgrounds and competencies. Some PCs had a traditional
“Development Officer” background and were more used to managing delivering
projects for local communities – and naturally fell into assuming a “doing” role on
their workstreams. Others were more imbued with the principles of co-production
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
22
and motivated at the outset to adhere to a purely facilitating role. In recruiting PCs,
the management team took into account what they perceived to be different
competency needs in different Cynefin areas to match local conditions (e.g. existing
community capacity, or the relative importance of strategic and micro-local issues),
as far as could be determined beforehand8.
Uncertainties over timescales. Cynefin was initially only funded for Twelve months,
with the possibility that it may be continued for longer if additional funding was
granted by the Welsh Government. This created some pressure in those initial nine
months for quick wins – which could most easily be generated by PCs taking a more
hands-on doing role on workstreams.
The above factors translated into some variations in how PCs have engaged with local
communities and the extent to which they explicitly sought to build their capacity.
At one of the spectrum, some PCs have played a fairly central doing role in the organisation,
project management and delivery of workstreams – albeit workstreams that are addressing
a priority of the local community and do also involve members of the community in some
capacity – e.g. in contributing to organisational, management and/or delivery tasks. PCs
have suggested they have continued to do this because of the limited capacity in the
communities they are engaging with and feel they are still building capacity through
“showing by doing”. By, for example, identifying a source of grant funding and writing a
successful grant application on behalf of a community group they envisage the group will
have learnt from the process and be better equipped to access grant funding on their own in
the future.
The effectiveness of this in building the capacity of local communities is mixed. Local
stakeholders involved in workstreams where a PC has taken a mainly hands-on doing role
have said they do feel they have gained in knowledge, skills and confidence through
observing and learning from the PC. Equally there is little evidence (within the timeframe of
this research) that such residents had gained sufficient capacity to be able to continue a
workstream without the ongoing input of a PC. More often they have expressed some
disquiet about the possibility of the PC not remaining heavily involved in their local
community.
At the other end of the spectrum, PCs who started out intending to act purely as facilitators
typically found this was not feasible and could even be counter-productive – particularly in
the early stages of engaging with a community on a workstream. What appears to have
been most effective is where PCs have adopted a pragmatic mix of doing and facilitating –
for example by completing certain initial tasks to catalyse a workstream, overcome initial
hurdles, give community representatives some basic tools and knowledge to work with, and
then assume a progressively more hands-off facilitatory role.
PCs have also, to a great or lesser degree, taken further measures intended to build the skills
and confidence of community members engaged in a workstream, including:
8 Learning generated from Cynefin about the competencies required for a PC role is detailed in section 4.4.4.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
23
Building community capacity
One PC, on a workstream intended to
establish a community flood resilience
group, found their initial attempts at
hands-off facilitation unsuccessful. For
example, they invited a flooding expert
to speak to members of the group but
at that early stage they didn’t have the
baseline knowledge or confidence to
gain much from the opportunity.
The PC re-thought their approach,
produced a basic workplan for the
group and contacted local stakeholders
on their behalf. Despite some misgiving
the PC had about stepping out of the
role of facilitator, the residents
responded positively and rapidly
progressed in terms of their confidence
and skills. The PC also arranged for the
group to receive training in Asset-Based
Community Development, and
encouraged individuals within the group
to assume increasing responsibility.
Over time the PC decreased their direct
involvement and adopted more of a role
as a sounding board that they could call
on if they felt they needed it. The PC
does expect the group to continue for
the foreseeable future with or without
any ongoing input from them.
encouraging and assisting residents
to access free training - for example,
several PCs have arranged for
residents to receive training in Asset-
based Community Development.
promoting and publicising the
achievements of local communities
- for example, some PCs have helped
activities on their workstreams to
attract local and national media
coverage, which they and local
stakeholders suggest has boosted
the confidence of local communities.
making initial linkages with sources
of expertise, which groups will
subsequently be able to draw on
themselves - for example one PC has
enabled a community renewable
energy group to receive expertise
from a local university, and expertise
and funding from the Welsh
Government’s Ynni’r Fro
programme.
assisting groups in becoming more
formally constituted - for example,
some PCs have helped local
community groups become
registered as a social enterprise, as a
first step in enabling them to
become financially self-sustaining.
On workstreams where PCs have acted more as pragmatic facilitators and taken the kinds of
capacity building steps outlined above, there is more evidence that this is preparing local
communities to continue a workstream and potentially branch out into other activities
without the ongoing input of a PC - see one example provided opposite.
Whatever balance between doing or facilitating the PCs have had, a key factor in building
momentum for workstreams has evidently been time. One of the PCs, for example,
suggested that it could take up to two years to build the platform of trust, relationships and
commitment needed to make long-term place working effective. Examples from other
Cynefin areas suggest it has taken similar amounts of time – with specific successes along
the way - to get to a point where significant benefits are being realised or in prospect,
whether in terms of place improvements or process changes to support long term outcomes
(see workstream journey 1 below, for example). It has proved difficult to build that platform
and momentum in less time.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
24
All the PCs were provided with training in succession planning in summer 2015. It was too
early to gauge the effectiveness of this through this research but it was suggested by the
management team that this had prompted PCs (who weren’t already) to give greater
consideration to adopting the measures highlighted above.
Making any overall assessment of the effectiveness of Cynefin in building community
capacity is difficult given the timing of the research and the variations in approach across the
PCs. The measures they have adopted to build this capacity are also not necessarily unique
to Cynefin. What the evidence does suggest is that the flexibility of Cynefin, which has
enabled PCs to pragmatically adapt the role they have played in engaging with communities
over time has paid dividends.
As a result, it is likely that some groups are now more capable and ready to lead projects,
and to have the confidence and authority they need to engage with local authorities, service
providers and other institutions. However, it seems equally likely that others at community
level, without the PC as a champion and broker, will not have the confidence, skills or access
to be able to push forward with initiatives started by Cynefin. This may be especially true of
the workstreams concerned with long-term process change which require the involvement
of multiple ‘official’ stakeholders in collaboration with local communities, as well as
someone holding a place-centred overview. Cynefin has highlighted some of these structural
and systemic barriers to change that can only partly be addressed through community
capacity building. This issue is discussed further below and in section 4.4.2.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
25
Cynefin change programme illustrative Workstream journey 1 – facilitating the growth of community capacity through social enterprise development in Newport
Arts Council funding bid identified, required a consortium and MaindeeUnlimited agreed to head this up
MaindeeUnlimited establishedas a charity
PC did ‘sounding out’ work for the idea in the wider community
Idea came from recognition that there were wider issues the group were interested in – not just the community building
The people engaged in this workstream began to meet fairly regularly, and the idea for Maindee Unlimited came out of these meetings
One of these that had a few people engaged and willing was around saving a local church to use as a community space
Previous stakeholder events and PC’s own event identified key themes or issues for the area
Several funding opportunities identified (Town Centre Partnership; Arts Council) and bids produced and submitted
Process of creating bids, in particular presenting to Arts Council, solidified group and brought them together
Both bids were successful, securing funds of £38,000 and £360,000 respectively
Maindee Unlimited now leading on work identified as priorities by earlier stakeholder events…
Securing funding sped
up process of formalising the group, e.g. appointing Trustees
… e.g. working with Local Authority on taking over a library due to close and creating a community space
Because of this process, the Local Authority have identified a need to re-visit their community asset transfer policy
Another funding bid has been submitted to Big Lottery for £950,000…
…For the ‘Maindee Triangle’ project – a community indoor and outdoor space utilising the library and ‘bog island’
Peter, Newport – Maindee Unlimited
Funding for improvements to places
Supporting the formation of new community
groups
Drawing attention to areas where policy doesn’t work for
communities
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
26
Cynefin change programme illustrative workstream journey 2 – bringing communities and service providers together
Youth consultation in Neath Port Talbot and collaborative working with the local housing association (NPT) to take forward their place improvement plan
Report & findings fed into environmental consultation that housing association are undertaking, including bringing work forward
Housing association have also carried out repairs to a local football pitch that was identified as a priority during the consultation
Local housing association supported these events and in some cases provided things like prizes
PC organised a series of youth activities during summer holidays - identified as a priority during consultationYouth
engagementhas continued, both ad hoc and through a Youth Council established by PC
Got local CVS youth worker on board who took consultation into schools and youth clubs with greater success
Poor turnout & engagement at initial youth events that PC organised – poor weather and lack of facilities contributed to this
Began approaching local youth organisations and organised some youth engagement events
Stakeholder events revealed entrenched issues and apathy among local people. PC decided to focus on the next generation instead
Physical improvements to places
Other organisations
such as Forward For Fairyland have since resurrected youth activities in Fairyland
Consultation report produced and distributed to local stakeholders
A new Youth Liason officer at the Local Authority is being established, who will carry on the youth council and other engagement
Through other role with Keep Wales Tidy PC was aware of some youths in the area who had been campaigning for a skatepark
PC also encountered the same group through the youth consultation
After supporting the youths’ successful bid for a skatepark, PC has ensured they are involved in the design process
A site has now been allocated for the skatepark, and a design approved, with planning permission in the pipeline
Increasing or improving community capacity and
involvement
Improving or adding to activities or processes that were already
occurring
Increasing or improving community capacity and
involvement
Various other joint activities with NPT Homes helping to build access and platform for place planning/ regeneration
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
27
Removing blockages – example 1
The PC was working with local community
groups to run a food festival on a local
park. In the course of organising the event
they were required by the local authority
to complete over 20 forms, totalling 99
pages, and including 6 separate risk
assessments. The PC had prior experience
of working in the public sector and was
able to ensure these various forms were
completed. The PC also contacted the
local authority to feedback on what they
felt was the undue and inappropriate
amount and complexity of the paperwork
that was required from community groups
who were not naturally familiar with such
processes.
Removing blockages – example 2
In one of the Cynefin areas, the PC
established that there was a strong desire
amongst the local community to have more
involvement in their local woodland.
However, there were some pre-existing
tensions between the community and NRW
concerning the woodland – and a
reluctance on both sides to enter into any
form of dialogue. The PC initiated
discussions with NRW about the woodland
and through a careful process of
negotiation, one-to-one dialogue and joint
meetings, secured an agreement from NRW
for the local community to take over
responsibility for 50 hectares of the
woodland.
Removing blockages
This emerged as an important ongoing part
of the PC role, as they sought to enable the
communities to progress with particular
activities. What PCs and local stakeholders
reported was that there were a range of
blockages that could potentially stop a
community in its tracks at the outset or
seriously delay, derail or halt their progress
at a later date.
These blockages included administrative
processes for gaining access to local
resources or permission for the use of land,
and opaque decision-making structures
within local service provider organisations.
As the example opposite illustrates,
community groups could find themselves
having to complete lengthy and complex
forms or, as the second example illustrates,
confronting a seeming brick wall when trying to elicit a decision from a local service
provider. As highlighted in sections 4.3 and 4.4 of this report and in the wider evidence-base
on community engagement and co-production, local communities may lack the time,
knowledge and/or confidence to successfully navigate such challenges unaided.
The difference or added value of Cynefin in these examples is that the PCs had made direct
interventions with local service providers in a way that officers of other programmes or
initiatives may not. PCs have had the
flexibility to invest additional time and effort
in finding ways around these blockages
rather than just accepting a “No” from the
first gate-keeper or decision-maker
encountered. Their independent status has
also been important in enabling them to
diplomatically challenge local authorities and
service providers in a way that officers
employed by these organisations were not
thought to be able to.
In conjunction with this, the way in which
most PCs have, over time, established and
cultivated relationships with local service
providers had opened up access to more
senior decision-makers to whom they can
turn when a new barrier or blockage is
encountered.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
28
Although there are numerous examples of this way of working, it is important to note that
successes have tended to come at the more micro scale, rather than the removal of big,
entrenched barriers or major blockages - explored later in the chapter. However, this is not
to negate the importance of these more micro scale successes, particularly for the
communities involved. Representatives of some of these communities were explicit in saying
that an activity (which subsequently delivered multiple benefits to the local area) would
either have been delayed, undertaken on a reduce scale or not at all if it hadn’t been for
Cynefin.
Bringing communities and service providers together
Another important facet of Cynefin that has emerged as relatively universal is its role in
bringing together of communities and service providers. However the substance and form
of this “bringing together” has varied across different PCs and workstreams, and also in
some cases evolved over time.
Firstly, as alluded to at the start of this section, some PCs have primarily focused on engaging
at the level of the community. Their engagement with local service providers has generally
been more limited but equally they have still had some one-off contacts with them in
instances where this has been necessary to enable a workstream to progress. The PC’s main
added value has been as an intermediary, translator or middleman between the two sides.
For example, PCs have contacted service providers on behalf of the group and in some
instances accompanied them to meetings with service providers. As highlighted above, this
has often been crucial in unblocking blockages for local communities, and more generally in
establishing some means of communication between communities and service providers
(see workstream journey 2 above). Reflecting this, some PCs have been described as the “go
to” person by members of the community with any issues they encounter with a service
provider, while conversely some service providers have indicated they see the PC in their
area as someone who can communicate messages to the local community on their behalf.
In terms of evolution over time, PCs have reported cases where they have established a
dialogue between local communities and service providers which has then been sustained
without them having to play such an active role. In one example, this can be seen to be
happening in the fact that the service provider in question – a Housing Association – initially
described the PC as a “conduit” to carry out difficult conversations with the community they
were working with. In time however, by initially facilitating these conversations and bringing
the parties together around a shared priority, the stakeholder interviewed stated that the PC
has now enabled conversations to take place directly between the Housing Association and
the local residents.
Secondly, other PCs have actively sought to bring representatives of the two sides together
on a more continuous and semi-permanent basis from the outset. Cynefin therefore offers
useful exemplars for the kind of integrated working required in the WFG Act. For example,
several Cynefin workstreams have a management/delivery team which includes both
community members and officers from local service providers. This has generally occurred
where there has been an overlap between the priorities of the local community and the
interests of the service provider where mutual benefits can be identified. The PC’s main role
or added value has been in initially highlighting these overlaps to the different sides and
performing something of a match-making role in bringing them together to discuss them,
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
29
Bringing communities and service
providers together
As part of their approach to bringing
communities and service providers
together, the PC undertook work to go out
initially and talk to residents and service
providers individually to understand the
local context and priorities.
This resulted in the PC facilitating
community and service providers coming
together over some key issues, and also to
the organising of an important launch event
for a national policy (Future Generations),
to be held in the local area. As part of this
event, the PC facilitated local service
providers to present to the community who
they were and what they did, as well as
explaining the national policy. Residents
were then asked to vote on local priorities
in line with the policy, which were then
formally adopted by the local council.
and then more of a marriage counsellor role in keeping them together as a workstream has
progressed.
In terms of evolution, some PCs have over
time sought to establish permanent
processes or mechanisms for communities
and service providers to work together –
that are intended to continue well beyond
a specific workstream. For example, one
PC supported the formation and
development of a series of local tourism
hubs across their area, which all contain
representatives of the local community,
local businesses and service providers.
Following intensive initial support from the
PC to establish these hubs, they have
continued to function without any ongoing
input from the PC.
The example opposite also illustrates a
larger-scale, more long-term example of
how another PC has sought to facilitate
joint working between the local community
and service providers around the issue of
climate change mitigation.
Whatever role PCs have adopted in trying to
bring local communities and service providers together, their independent status has been
seen as crucial. Their perceived neutrality has enabled them to move between and mediate
between both sides, in a way that officers employed by service provider could not do.
It is also notable that although the initial focus of the “bringing together” Cynefin has
facilitated has typically been on a specific local issue or outcome, this has often led on to
wider multiple benefits. For example, one PC initially brought residents in a local village and
service providers together to increase access and usage of local historical assets. Over time
this led on to residents from ten neighbouring villages working together (with some support
from the PC and local service providers) to secure over £200,000 of grant funding through
the “Fourteen” programme. This will be used to undertake a range of activities aimed at
tackling the level of apathy in the area, and increase the opportunities for young people and
those who usually don’t participate. As part of this a small grants programme has been
established and 18 grants already awarded to local groups. Another example is of a PC who
was initially instrumental in facilitating a youth consultation in their area, to give young
people a greater say in local service provision. Following on from this, young people that
engaged in the consultation have become directly involved in the design of a new skatepark
in the area – regularly attending meetings with service providers to discuss its development.
Equally, it is important to note that PCs have also reported challenges to bringing local
communities and service providers together (see sections 4.3 and 4.4) and not all
workstreams have evolved to the same extent as the examples provided above. Sometimes
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
30
PCs have had to continue to play a very active role as an intermediary between the two sides
and expressed doubts themselves that the dialogue and joint working they had enabled
would continue in the future without their ongoing involvement. Some local stakeholders
echoed these concerns and suggested that there would always be a need for a PC, or some
equivalent, to build and maintain relationships between the two sides. While this will be a
gap left by PCs there may be other organisations locally that could take on this type of
facilitator role. The requirements of the WFG Act may provide a framework for this to
happen.
4.2.2. Local service provider level
The research explored how Cynefin helped communities and local service providers to work
together and facilitated integrated working between service providers with different remits.
The umbrella term ‘local service provider’ has been used to encompass local authorities and
service boards, and local officers implementing national policies, programmes and services
(e.g. NRW, Keep Wales Tidy, Communities First, health boards etc.). It also covers bodies
such as the Wales Council for Voluntary Action (WCVA) and community voluntary councils
(CVCs).
Overall, the engagement Cynefin is having at this level is more mixed than it is with local
communities. PCs reported various barriers to doing it (see sections 4.3 and 4.4) and there is
a general pattern of some individuals in some local service providers in an area being
engaged in Cynefin workstreams but others not. As discussed in the previous section PCs
also vary in the extent to which they have actively sought to engage at this level, with some
more focused on community-level engagement.
In addition, what emerged over time were some variations in who within local service
providers different PCs were engaging with – from officers up to heads of service in local
authorities and local service boards. PCs have generally engaged most at an officer-level,
while more exceptionally some have also engaged at more senior levels. This again reflects
the different attributes and interpretations of their role the different PCs had. PCs that have
felt comfortable in engaging with senior decision-makers and adopted a more strategic
interpretation of their role have generally been the ones to most actively engage at this
level. Specifically, this strategic interpretation related to an aspiration to bring about
wholesale changes to how service providers deliver services to their local community – away
from traditional models and toward more co-productive, place-based approaches.
These different approaches, and other more generic features of how Cynefin has engaged
with local service providers, are explored under the following headings:
Cultivating relationships and building awareness
Identifying overlaps and synergies
Working with or around service provider targets
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
31
Cultivating relationships and building awareness
PCs have adopted a range of methods to engaging with local service providers – not all of
them particularly “new” or different. These include utilising existing links within service
providers, or links provided by their host organisation, to gain introductions to new contacts.
It also includes directly approaching potential new contacts on a one-to-one basis. What
has differentiated Cynefin somewhat is the freedom and flexibility PCs have had to invest
additional time in cultivating relationships that don’t have a specific or immediate
“outcome” attached to them. As with their engagement with communities, a lot of PCs’
initial engagement with service providers was essentially open-ended and consisted of the
PC introducing themselves, explaining Cynefin, and asking the service provider about their
key targets and priorities. PCs have also had similar conversations with wider networks of
organisations on an ongoing basis through regular attendance at events and conferences.
The added value of this has been in enabling PCs to subsequently draw in sometimes diverse
organisations to work together. Local stakeholders emphasised the first of these and
thought Cynefin had brought them into contact with other organisations that they would not
have otherwise known about. This includes local artists, a social enterprise and town
councillors working together on street art; and local businesses, residents, Communities First
and the local authority giving their time to promote tourism. Stakeholders felt this had
benefited them and there are also examples of how it had led on to further collaboration
between the organisations involved.
These approaches have not always been successful – certain service providers in every
Cynefin area have been said to be unwilling to have an initial meeting with a PC or had but
subsequently not participated in a workstream. The reasons for this, relating to ongoing
public sector budget cuts and the target-driven culture in service providers, are returned to
in sections 4.3 and 4.4. PCs have also adopted additional methods to try to engage with
service providers where these initial approaches have failed. In particular, and over time,
they have been increasingly able to draw on examples of work they have done and the
outcomes this has achieved. This has been through communicating these examples: for
examples through social media and direct mail-outs and even by inviting a service provider
to observe first-hand a workstream activity. The latter has proved to be particularly effective
in demystifying Cynefin and overcoming initial confusions or doubts amongst service
providers about its added value. The Cynefin management team have also performed a
sometimes decisive role in helping PCs to avoid or overcome this type of resistance. Initially
this was through accompanying PCs in meetings with key decision-makers in their area, and
over time it also included more targeted engagement by the management team with local
service providers that a PC may have been unable to establish a positive relationship with
themselves. For example, one PC reported that the intervention of the management team
had significantly changed the attitude of the local Communities First cluster to their work,
and led to them engaging more fully in this.
In addition, some PCs reported that local service providers became more willing to engage in
workstreams where they felt they could gain positive publicity by doing so. In some cases
this has come about organically and largely as a by-product of the progress of a workstream.
For example, one PC invested considerable efforts in securing local support and funding for a
pilot of timebanking in their area. The local authority initially expressed some doubts in
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
32
Identifying overlaps and synergies
–As part of a workstream to develop
tourism in their local area, the PC has
spent time engaging with local
residents, service providers, land
managers and businesses (including a
large national supermarket) to
identify overlaps and synergies in
priorities.
This has resulted, for example, in the
supermarket and other local
businesses contributing time and
resources to the workstream, the
local authority agreeing to fund a
tourism plan for the area.
In particular, the PC highlighted the
freedom to engage in ‘speculative
networking’ as crucial to this process,
allowing them to identify synergies
and opportunities, as well maintain a
dialogue with local stakeholders.
being involved but subsequently did engage. The PC attributed this new enthusiasm to the
desire of the local authority to have a “success story” it could publicise and help offset more
negative news relating to local service cuts. Others PCs appear to have played on this more
consciously as a means of securing the engagement of local service providers. This was the
view of a stakeholder in one Cynefin area who felt the PC had been very adept at getting
buy-in from “egotistical organisations”. The
stakeholder felt there is a certain “boast factor”
involved – e.g. local service providers want to be
seen to be the first to do things, and get good
publicity. National media exposure this PC
gained for the work they had helped to facilitate
also appears to have fed into this. Approaches
of this type are by no means an unhealthy or
negative feature of Cynefin – rather they are an
illustration of its flexibility to adapt and respond
to the particular interests of local service
providers, and gain their engagement.
Identifying overlaps and synergies
This way of working is closely linked to the
freedom that PCs have to invest time in
cultivating relationships with a wide range of
service providers without any specific agenda or
outcome in mind. As a result of this, PCs have
gained an overview of service provision, activity
and priorities in their areas. This ability to “float
up and look down” at service provision as a
whole has put PCs in a position to identify
where there are synergies and bring service
providers together around these.
An example of this way of working is outlined in Workstream journey 3 below. Here the PC
has taken a systematic approach to bringing stakeholders and service providers together to
identify synergies and avoid duplication, and has a growing list of outcomes typically
resulting from two or more service providers working together. Other PCs – see opposite -
have identified overlaps and synergies in more ad hoc ways if and when they have
encountered them on a specific workstream.
Local stakeholders consistently identified this as something that was different about Cynefin
and which did add value. They often contrasted PCs with officers in their own organisations
who were said to be quite narrowly focused on their immediate targets and areas of
responsibility. As such they didn’t have the freedom or flexibility to form an overview of
wider service provision in their area or proactively seek out potential synergies between
what they and others were doing.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
33
Cynefin was seen to be adding value by working across silos, coordinating resources and
catalysing more joined-up working.
All the PCs have adopted these ways of working to varying degrees. What’s different is that
some PCs, namely those most strategically-minded, have also sought to address overlaps
and synergies at a more system-wide level. Specifically this has been through engaging with
local service boards which are best placed to co-ordinate service provision around the needs
of a local area rather than around the traditional siloed roles of service providers.
At the time of writing, Cynefin cannot claim to have achieved such a radical shift in any of
the areas it has operated. In the one area where most progress has been made towards this,
the PC has been asked by the local service board to support a pilot programme drawing on
the principles of place-based working, on the basis that it may be adopted more widely
pending the outcomes of the pilot. In this area the PC is being seen to add value because of
the knowledge and expertise in place-based working they have been able to provide. This
was not achieved overnight. The PC describes themself as having needed “ridiculous
amounts” of self-confidence to approach the local service board, and persistence in
overcoming their initial unwillingness to engage. The PC also benefitted from a supportive
host in their local authority and felt that the advent of the WFG Bill had been a further
facilitator, because of the emphasis in the Bill on local communities, and locally produced
Well-being Plans. The PC did envisage working even more closely with the local service
board as they got to grips with the implementation of the Bill for their area.
Other PCs either haven’t had aspirations to engage at this level or envisage “building up” to
it – by initially engaging with communities and officers in service providers to create
examples of co-production and place-based working which they can subsequently use as a
lever to engage senior decision-makers in more strategic discussions. At the time of writing,
none can be said to have got this far and expressed varying degrees of confidence about
doing so in the immediate future. Some also felt the WFG Bill would help to facilitate this,
and could also envisage working closely with their local service board around this. For
example, one had been instrumental in facilitating a Wales We Want event in their area, and
in the priorities identified at this event subsequently being adopted by the local town council
as their priorities under the new WBFG Bill goals. The PC was optimistic that this would lead
on to more strategic discussions with the local service board in their area. Equally, other
PCs reported that they had approached their local service board and been told that the
board was not yet considering the implications of the Bill for their area – and as such had not
been receptive to engaging with the PC.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
34
Identifying overlaps and synergies
Inspired by a project they had encountered, where
GPs refer patients to local activity groups, early work
by the PC identified that there was a prevalence of
health issues in their area, as well as an abundance
of green space and activity groups.
The PC organised a seminar to bring together all the
parties with an interest in the work – a doctor from
the project that inspired the work, Public Health
Wales, representatives of activity groups, local
service users. Following this, a working group was
established to take the work forward and implement
a pilot.
Funding has now been secured (from Sports Wales,
the Ramblers, and the Welsh Government) for a
coordinator to act as a link between GPs and activity
groups, and the PC is in the process of identifying
GPs to run the pilot project.
Notwithstanding this, wider
stakeholders (locally and
nationally) could envisage a
definite role for PCs in
supporting local service boards
implement the WFG Bill. This
was because of their
independent status and the
perception that they could
provide a crucial linkage
between local communities
and local service boards. No
other existing organisation or
programme was seen to be
performing this role at present.
The implications of this are
explored further in the
conclusions.
Working with or around service provider targets
The focus of local service providers on the achievement of their own, fairly narrowly defined,
outcome targets was highlighted as a key barrier in all the areas Cynefin is operating. Given
that it was a new and co-delivered initiative, involvement in Cynefin would have represented
a risk to them in this respect. In the main, PCs have sought to turn this barrier into a positive
by engaging with service providers on specific workstream activities which enable them to
meet their targets. For example, one local stakeholder felt that a PC had been successful in
engaging a number of local service providers to work together on the planning and delivery
of a public event partly because they expected it to be well attended, and as a consequence
would be able to “tick a lot of their boxes” and so justify their involvement Rather than being
a criticism of service providers, this example again illustrates how the neutrality of the PC
role was important in brokering connections between stakeholders with differing
motivations for mutual benefit.
However, on many workstreams PCs had not been able to exploit such an approach – largely
because the priorities of the local community the workstream was aiming to address did not
match up with the outcome targets service providers had. As a consequence either service
providers had not engaged at all or they had engaged (in the sense of attending meetings)
but stopped short of contributing any significant resources (e.g. funding) towards it. This is
partly reflected in the fact that most of the funding leveraged in by Cynefin has been from
national grant-giving organisations and programmes rather than local service providers (see
Annex 2).
Another target-related challenge that emerged over time on workstreams aimed at fostering
joint working between different service providers was, essentially, the question of who
could “take credit” for the outcomes arising from this joint working. One PC described this
as “the elephant in the room” in initial discussions they had with the different service
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
35
providers concerned, all of whom had their own outcome targets to fulfil. In this instance
the PC was able to use the relationships they had cultivated with directors within the local
authority to negotiate revised joint targets for the departments concerned (see workstream
journey 4 below).
Overall, Cynefin has added some value in working with or around service provider targets in
these ways. Their independent status and the fact the PCs weren’t themselves constrained
by having pre-determined outcome targets was seen as having been important in their
ability to do this. However, more broadly, the learning from Cynefin has been that the
mechanisms through which outcome targets for service providers in Wales are currently
devised may need to be reviewed if future service provision is to become better aligned with
the priorities of local communities.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
36
Cynefin change programme illustrative Workstream journey 3 – Joint working between service providers in Swansea
Growing list of ‘deals going down’ and emerging partnerships/collaborations between those attending
… and the recording of ‘dealsgoing down’ between those attending, followed up at subsequent meetings
Initial meeting held, format cemented, e.g. making lunch together…
The design for the Forum was a collaboration between the PC and a local stakeholder
…which provided the impetus for creation of the Penderry Providers’ Planning Forum, agreed by the council
Discussions with local stakeholders revealed that there was lots of community facing provision, and a real need to end duplication…
Ward was selected as a target area following research by the Council and then the PC
PC attempted to move aside and let others take over the running of the Forum, but discovered issues such as the format not being maintained
PC took over running of the forum again, with the realisation that it needed time for the ideas and format to become more entrenched Forum has
continued to grow, with more members and sectors represented
At the last PC interview, there had been 197 ‘deals going down’ over 14 meetings, with 93 completed so far
Council cabinet members have begun to attend, and have spoken about ‘maintstreaming’ the Forum across Swansea
Brokering & facilitating new collaborative ways of working
Identifying shared/multiple benefits
Reducing duplication & identifying synergies
between stakeholders & service providers
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
37
Cynefin change programme illustrative Workstream journey 4 – Place-based working in RCT
LSB approved PC involvement in a local area initiative intended to facilitate joint working between service providers
PC increasingly seen as source of knowledge on WFGB & place-based working & invited to give presentations/briefings to LSB
LA change of host and the emergence of the WFGB also gave PC greater profile with the LSB
PC engaged with members of LSB individually on specific pieces of work she was facilitating with the community
Initial resistance from LSB who were unfamilar with Cynefin & place-based working, & not convinced of its relevance to their work
PC had the aspiration to engage with the LSB to explore opportunities for place-based working in the area
Suggested the LSB were not 'in touch' with the local community and not effecitvelyfacilitating joined-up working between service providers
Service providers initially concerned about whether outcomes achieved by initiative would count towards their performance targets
PC helped to address concerns by negotiating shared targets with heads of service and senior managers
PC helped facilitate discussions between service providers to identify synergies and remove duplication
PC arranged for service providers & community members to receive free ABC training...
PC helped facilitate engagement with service providers & community to identify & agree activities to be delivered through initiative
Ongoing delivery of activities to promote better health outcomes and wider benefits in local community
… and has bought in external professionals to support delivery of activities
Reducing duplication & identifying synergies
between stakeholders & service providers
Brokering & facilitating new collaborative ways of working
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
38
4.2.3. National level
Most of the engagement at this level is being undertaken by the Cynefin management team
and this section focuses mainly on their ways of working. The role of the management team
has been largely divided between the management and support of the PCs and broader
engagement activities with stakeholders to enable learning from Cynefin to inform national
processes and policy-making. The rest of this section describes the approaches and ways of
working adopted at this level under the following headings:
Cultivating relationships and building awareness
Transferring learning from Cynefin to other organisations and programmes
Exemplifying new ways of working
Cultivating relationships and building awareness
Overall, some challenges were reported to articulating what Cynefin is to a wider audience
of national stakeholders – particularly at the start. One such challenge has been in
articulating to a national audience exactly what Cynefin is and how it differs from other
programmes, initiatives or organisations that also employ locally based officers engaged in
some form of community engagement. Cynefin was felt to be somewhat nebulous, even
“woolly”, by stakeholders interviewed early in the process. Whereas most local stakeholders
expressed the view over time that Cynefin is different (through first-hand experience of
engaging with a workstream in their area) some national stakeholders interviewed in the
final wave of interviews conducted for this research still expressed doubts about this.
The main approach that has employed in addressing this challenge has been the use of
tangible examples of Cynefin workstreams. Over time there have been an increasing
number and variety of these examples from the PCs that the management team has been
able to draw on. Feedback from national stakeholders who have seen such examples (most
often at governance group meetings) suggests this has been effective in getting across
Cynefin’s main features. The only caveat is that some national stakeholders, having seen
more than one example, expressed disquiet at the differences in approach being adopted by
PCs in different areas. This led to some questioning along the lines of “what is the Cynefin
way? and if there isn’t just a single Cynefin way of working, which of the ones being enacted
is best or most effective?” The question of whether it is possible to have a Cynefin template
or whether it is better understood as a set of working principles is discussed in section 4.4.
Alongside the governance group meetings, the management team have also engaged on a
more one-to-one basis with some national stakeholders. This has been thought to be
effective in both explaining and building consensus about what Cynefin is and in addressing
these more thorny questions. The management team have been able to, for example, pull
out examples from particular PCs that were most relevant and applicable to that national
stakeholder.
The main constraint on them proactively going out and cultivating more relationships has
been a lack of time and resource for them to do this. An ongoing challenge has been the
competing demands on the management team’s time – between this kind of engagement,
explanation and promotion of Cynefin to national stakeholders, and the management and
support of the PCs. Managing a cadre of locally-based officers, all adopting different
approaches and working across a wide spectrum of policy areas, has required a more
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
39
Transferring learning from Cynefin to other organisations and programmes The Cynefin management team was invited by a representative of Public Health Wales to input into a new initiative they are developing, which aims to bring together different service providers to work collaboratively with each other and with local communities under the new WFG Health goal. The management team were invited to give an initial presentation to the initiative’s steering group, and have since attended further meetings to share learning and examples from Cynefin and act as a critical friend to the group.
intensive and tailored form of line management than more standardised programmes.
Providing training and support the PCs as a group has been reported to have had mixed
results and most PCs indicated they would have liked more one-to-one support from the
management team than they received at various points in the process. Ultimately the
management team would have required more resources than it had to both meet these
needs and cultivating relationships than they did with national stakeholders.
Overall it was felt that Cynefin had maintained a relatively low profile nationally. Awareness
of, and engagement in, it has mainly been confined to policy teams that sit within the same
Welsh Government department as Cynefin plus other national organisations (notably NRW)
that have been involved in the hosting of PCs and Cynefin governance. Given the wide range
of policy areas Cynefin is covering across its 50+ workstreams there are inevitably some
policy-makers that could usefully be engaged with but haven’t because of these constraints.
Transferring learning from Cynefin to other organisations and programmes
Over time, and having cultivated relationships with certain national stakeholders, Cynefin
has started to feed in learning to other organisations and programmes - with the aim of
improving processes and policy-making. This has generally been through the management
team, and occasionally PCs, engaging directly with a national stakeholder to talk about what
Cynefin has done and how lessons from this could be transferred or adopted in the
stakeholder’s area of work.
To date this has predominantly been new
and emerging areas of work where there has
been some natural overlap with Cynefin
(e.g. in terms of area-based working and/or
more collaborative and co-productive
approaches). Specific examples of this
include engagement with NRW concerning
the Environment Bill and the area-based
planning pilots they are currently running9
engagement with policy-makers in the
Welsh Government responsible for the
implementation of the WFG Bill; and
engagement with Public Health Wales
concerning a new initiative – see right.
Latterly the Cynefin management team was
also invited to facilitate discussions between
policy-makers involved in the WFG Bill,
Environment Bill and Public Health Bill. The
management team has also reached out to
other place-centred programmes to share learning, notably the work that Big Lottery is
supporting in Wales through its Building Communities and People and Places funds.
At the time of writing these are generally ongoing conversations and the resultant outcomes
and impacts of these in the areas of work concerned are not (yet) apparent. From the
perspective of the national stakeholders concerned though, they are seeing Cynefin as a
9 Known as ‘Natural Resource Management Areas Statement pilots’. These are trial areas to
demonstrate how natural resource management can be applied in practical terms.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
40
useful resource that they do anticipate drawing on further as their areas of work progress.
There is a general sense that public bodies in Wales are anticipating/contemplating
significant changes in how they work – and Cynefin is increasingly being seen by those who
are aware of it as a source of insight and expertise that can help them make these changes.
The only caveat to this is that this conception of Cynefin has been confined to a relatively
small number of national stakeholders and areas of work. Overall the role of Cynefin as an
informer and influencer of national processes and policies is not well recognised.
Stakeholders not directly involved have a fairly “PC-centric” understanding of what Cynefin is
and a belief that its aims are predominantly or exclusively to achieve local outcomes in the
areas PCs have been operating in.
Exemplifying new ways of working
The management team is made up of employees of the Welsh Government and an external
contractor, Severn Wye Energy. However, the client-contractor relationship within this is
different from what is normally the case when the Welsh Government commissions an
organisation to deliver an initiative. It is seen by both sides to be much more open, flexible
and collaborative. Responsibility for tasks is shared, decisions are generally made jointly and
there is a high degree of mutual support and trust. In addition, the external contractor has
been regularly and actively involved in Cynefin governance group meetings and the
engagement work more generally within Welsh Government.
This contrasts with the more top-down, arms-length dynamic seen on other Welsh
Government programmes being delivered by an external contractor. The management team
feel this has had several benefits, in terms of the ability of Cynefin to rapidly adapt and
respond to changing circumstances, quicker decision-making, greater creativity and pooling
of skills and knowledge. At least one national stakeholder also remarked on how different
(in a good way) the client-contractor relationship within Cynefin is and felt it was something
other national organisations could learn from.
The management team also reported that managing the team of PCs has required different
ways of working and management competencies than their experience of more conventional
programmes. Their relationship with PCs has been more about mentoring and supporting
than traditional line management and accountability. Given the diversity of workstreams and
their evolutionary nature, together with the variability in skills and competencies of the PCs,
the management team found there were significant demands for continuing support and
input from the PCs. The nature of the role that PCs were being asked to fulfil required a
certain level of confidence and ‘entrepreneurial’ capability which the PCs had to varying
degrees. The management team therefore felt that this on-going input had been essential to
ensure that PCs were able to fully grasp and execute their facilitator role effectively.
As noted above, the support needs of PCs sometimes put a strain on the management
resource. On the positive side, the team reported that co-working between WG and the
SWEA was a strength because they could draw on each other’s different skills, knowledge
and contacts to support the PCs. The monitoring and learning process was seen to be useful
in flagging needs for attention and support before they became a problem, including training
needs that could not have been anticipated at the start of the programme.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
41
4.2.4. The monitoring and learning process
As noted in the introduction, the innovative nature of the Cynefin programme called for a
bespoke approach to evidence gathering and evaluation. In particular, the approach needed
to be robust yet flexible enough to be able to cope with highly diverse outcomes that would
only become clear as the programme developed. It needed to have a strong focus on
processes, how those processes evolved over time, and how they brought people and
resources together to deliver novel outcomes. To do that, it needed to have close
involvement with those delivering the programme – the management team and the PCs - yet
remain independent and objective throughout. Learning comes from feedback from the
management team and reflections by the research team and is presented below under the
following headings:
Co-development of an evaluation approach
The value and challenges of a narrative and ‘indicator light’ approach
Formative real-time evaluation enabling ‘tweaks’ to the programme as it developed
Co-development of an evaluation approach
The original tender specification from the Welsh Government set the tone for the nature of
the research to be conducted. It recognised that a single, standard methodology would
probably not be appropriate and it emphasised the need for an ‘action research’ approach to
provide rapid feedback loops. This formative learning would enable changes to be made to
the programme as it developed. As well as being able to provide qualitative insight on
processes, the tender envisaged that indicator metrics would be needed to demonstrate
impacts of the programme.
In recognition of the likely complexity of the programme, Brook Lyndhurst’s winning tender
proposed an initial scoping phase in which the contractor, Welsh Government and the PCs
(to a more limited extent) would work together to co-design the final shape of the M&L
framework, its tools and metrics. This was proposed in the belief that a jointly ‘owned’
design, to be implemented independently of Welsh Government, would be the most
effective way to make sure that the M&L process was capturing the most meaningful
changes.
In practice, the co-design exercise turned out to be a not especially straightforward process
and required heavy time input from all involved, including senior staff from both the WG
management and the research team. In part, the time demand reflected the large number of
unknowns that needed to be factored into the research design, given the novelty of what
Cynefin was trying to do and the diverse range of issues it was tackling. Compared to
conventional approaches to programme monitoring and evaluation, key unknowns included
who the ‘beneficiaries’ of Cynefin would be and how many, who would be involved in the
processes that were to be monitored, who would have access to and control over data and,
crucially, the absence of pre-determined outcome targets (as discussed in section 4.2.1).
In parallel to the PCs finalising their workstreams (see section 4.2.1 above), very
considerable effort was put into developing conventional-style ‘outcome and impact’
indicators that could be populated either from existing official data sources or from data
that PCs would collect themselves. Finding minimum cost solutions was a priority; but so too
was identifying indicators that could match the breadth of Cynefin. Those indicators went
through several iterations in response to working meetings of the research team and Welsh
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
42
Government, and a workshop with PCs. A draft set of indicators was identified for each of
the PCs’ original workstreams, focused strongly on tangible impacts (e.g. amount of
renewable energy generated, waste recycled etc.) as well as some process outcomes (e.g.
stakeholder involvement, assets improved/opened up for public use etc.). The time put into
developing indicators reflected a perception that the value of Cynefin needed to be proved
in ways commensurate with other Welsh Government programmes (i.e. quantitatively).
One of the difficult challenges in finalising a ‘fit for purpose’ M&L approach was in finding
the right balance between quantified indicators and a risk that such indicators would miss
the real value that was expected to come from Cynefin – that is, changed ways of working,
new relationships and interlinked benefits. The research team also raised questions about
the value for money of a predominantly indicator-based approach. To populate a large
enough set of indicators to cover the breadth and diversity of Cynefin would have required a
significant drain on PCs’ time and consumed a large share of the research team’s budget. As
a result, it would have eclipsed the need to generate real-time learning about how and why
Cynefin was working or not.
On further reflection and deliberation, the WG management team took an important
decision to focus resources on a narrative M&L approach supported by a small number of
quantitative ‘process’ indicators that were common across all Cynefin areas. Data
aggregated across all of their workstreams was collated by each PC and supplied to the
research team. Individual workstream indicators were abandoned on the grounds that there
would need to be too many of them, there would be limited scope for comparison or
aggregation across PC areas, and attributing any observed effects directly and substantially
to Cynefin would in most cases be near impossible.
The final design for cross-cutting quantitative indicators focused mainly on process
outcomes, geared towards engagement, relationships and the mobilisation of resources,
with data collated quarterly. The qualitative approach involved 24 in-depth interviews every
quarter. The PCs and management team were interviewed in each quarter together with a
different selection of local and national stakeholders so that a wide range could be covered
over the whole course of the M&L programme. Some stakeholders were interviewed twice
so that both their early and later feedback on Cynefin could be captured. A larger sample of
stakeholders took part in online surveys at the start and close of the M&L programme. In
addition, PCs kept monthly learning diaries which were part of the overall evidence base
used by the research team.
While several methodological compromises had to be struck (e.g. not having specific
workstream indicators) it was felt that the agreed M&L framework would make best use of
the resource available, in terms of its ability to provide rolling feedback, its breadth of
coverage, depth and meaningfulness.
The value and challenges of a narrative and ‘indicator light’ approach
Looking back over the monitoring and learning programme, the research team and Welsh
Government both felt that the narrative part of the approach had worked well and was
valuable in terms of generating learning (which is covered in more detail under the next sub-
heading). It was particularly useful in being able to capture near ‘real time’ developments in
the programme, not only for immediate learning purposes but also to capture accounts that
were untainted by the benefit of hindsight or shifts in the direction or priorities of
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
43
workstreams. These cumulative accounts enabled the research team to develop an
independent narrative which might not have been the same one the PCs would have
reported in a single backward-looking interview.
The co-design approach – and indeed on-going close working during delivery of the M&L
framework - proved highly worthwhile in terms of securing commitment to the process and
positive engagement from all those involved. In the experience of the research team this is
not always the case in formative evaluations, with those delivering on the front-line often
feeling over-burdened and sometimes resentful of ‘interference’ in their day-jobs. In the
case of Cynefin, the decision to minimise the time burden on PCs from data collection, for
indicators that not everyone thought were meaningful, proved to be a good one in terms of
securing commitment to the process.
Some of the PCs also commented directly that they found the quarterly interviews a useful
prompt and ‘safe space’ to reflect on what they had been doing without it being part of the
management process. More than one jokingly referred to the research interviews as
’therapy’ or as ‘counselling sessions’. Factors which appeared to be important in making that
process work well included the same researcher conducting the interview each time so that
a rapport and understanding could be built up; a relatively open conversation, structured
around broad themes (which requires good qualitative research skills); and interviews
building on material from the learning diaries that PCs completed each month.
The research team felt that the success of the indicator approach was more mixed. While
the process of putting together data for the indicators appeared to be straightforward (and
none of the PCs complained about the process being onerous) there are significant
limitations in how the data can be used (which described in detail in Annex 2).
On the positive side, when viewed collectively, the indicators offer a useful indication of the
growing momentum of Cynefin over time and the range of stakeholders being involved (for
example, they show relatively stronger involvement of public and third sector organisations
than of business). There are also useful indicators of resources leveraged by Cynefin.
On the other hand, the accuracy of some of the individual indicators is weak. There was
insufficient research resource to verify independently the data provided by PCs and some
double-counting seems probable. While careful attention was given to drafting guidance on
definitions for the PCs to follow, the very nature of the indicators (i.e. about subjective
processes) meant they were interpreted differently by different PCs. For example, it is
difficult to prescribe what counts as a ‘new relationship’ in the context of Cynefin or what
‘engaged’ means in relation to depth of involvement (the latter is not unique to Cynefin
indicators incidentally). As noted in chapter 3, the indicators have therefore been used in the
analysis only to indicate broad scales and changes over time.
Another key challenge was the amount of qualitative data generated by the narrative and
near ‘real time’ approach and its diverse coverage. The latter was inevitable, given the place-
led nature of what the PCs focused on and how they operated, but it was challenging to
create a coherent synthesis each wave and when combining all waves of the research at the
end.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
44
The process was helped by having broad but not overly prescriptive research questions
embedded in the M&L framework (which had undergone detailed development and several
rounds of iteration in the scoping phase) and the high level of trust that the Welsh
Government team placed in the researchers to identify what was most important and
meaningful. The focus for both teams was on delivering useful learning outcomes rather
than being narrowly prescriptive about the structure or coverage of ‘deliverables’ or
itemised research tasks. The M&L process itself was thus another example of co-productive
ways of working between client and contractor which required open-mindedness, flexibility,
a sense of equal purpose and constructive dialogue from both parties.
From the research team’s point of view, it was also refreshing not to be pushed to be too
definitive too early on about ‘best’ practice. The management team was genuinely
committed to being exploratory and using the learning to enable them to tweak and support
rather than prescribe the PCs’ work – which would have run counter to the aims of the
programme if they had done so. While this may have contributed to some stakeholders’
early views that Cynefin was too ‘woolly’ (as noted in earlier sections) it has almost certainly
added value to the learning overall by remaining open to the idea that there are different
ways of doing successful place-based working rather than there being a single template.
Formative real-time evaluation enabling the programme to be modified as it developed
The Welsh Government team reported that the research and feedback process had been
invaluable, both in helping them to steer and refine the programme and in supporting its
own engagement with stakeholders at all levels. The independent research helped to
confirm or challenge their own perceptions of what was and wasn’t working and provided
evidence of early achievements and progress. The early evidence usefully supported the
case for continuing with the programme at the end of the initial funding. In addition, each
wave of research provided an opportunity to explore in a more systematic way questions
and issues that were arising day-to-day through the management process or via stakeholder
engagement.
Although the process appears to have worked well from the management team’s
perspective, some of the PCs, at some stages, felt that more could have been done to
disseminate and share some of the cross-cutting learning. While the management team
reported that the research feedback helped to shape how they worked with PCs – for
example, individually in one-to-one management meetings and in joint ‘action learning’
sessions – this was not always directly evident to the PCs. It was actually difficult to share
some of the learning directly because it ran the risk of appearing to single out individual PCs
for criticism or praise and, as noted above as a positive, there was a hesitance by both the
management and research teams to do this early on because of the risk of appearing to be
too prescriptive. The management team was able to take on board learning about different
positive aspects of individual PCs’ work without steering PCs to ‘do it like x’.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
45
Cynefin change programme illustrative Workstream journey 5 – Emergency planning in Llanelli
Partnership are meeting regularly & developing plans for initial Emergency Planning pilot & neighbouring Council areseeking to replicate PCs work
PC approached local businesses, service providers and national organisations with a potential interest in Emergency Planning
…on the value of community involvement and got their agreement to trial a different approach with one Council
PC gave a presentation to Local Authority and town council…
Existing processes relied on Town Council's inputting on behalf of their local communities, without their direct involvement
PC approached and met with local stakeholders engaged in existing Emergency Planning processes
…although there were existing organisations & activities aimed at the issue, they weren't co-ordinated or embedded in the community.
Through research and talking to community groups the PC identified climate change resilience as a key local priority…
PC facilitated a one-day Prepare For Winter event, where different organisations provided information to residents
PC worked with Council on creation of an Emergency Planning practitioner network, arranged climate change resilience training for councillors…
…& with Council facilitated the creation of an Emergency Planning steering group
Organisations involved in the Prepare For Winter event recently collaborated to run a repeat event
PC engaged with local schools to involve them in design of material to use in Emergency Planning pilot
PC engaged with local community groups and the town council around the issue of Emergency Planning & their wider aspirations for the area
PC collaborated with Communities First to integrate Emergency Planning training for residents into their existing Street Buddies initiative
PC encouraged a community group to organise a local Wales We Want event, and secured the attendance of a Welsh Government Minister
PC supported the community group with the running of the event, and brought in local service providers to assist with the facilitation
Priorities identified at the event (including Emergency Planning) were adopted by the Town Council as their WFGB goals
PC facilitatedcreation of an EmergencyPlanning Partnership to take
forward this priority
Work has received national press coverage and been highlighted as good practice by the Wales Audit office and others
Despite wider national recognition, the LSB did not initially fully engage with PC
Policy ‘making’ from the ‘bottom up’
Brokering & facilitating new collaborative ways of working
Through approaching individual members of the LSB directly, the PC was able to gain their engagement
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
46
4.3 Common barriers to Cynefin ways of working
Throughout the monitoring and learning process, feedback was collected from the PCs,
management team and stakeholders on factors that were either hindering or supporting
different ways of working and achieving outcomes - whether those outcomes were
physical/tangible, process/relationship or policy.
A common set of barriers and blockages was reported in every wave of interviews, although
the specific manifestation of them fluctuated over time. These barriers accorded with those
from the previously reviewed literature on collaborative ways of working in public services
and programmes.
The table below summarises the main barriers reported during the Cynefin research and
how they have evolved over time. The workstream journeys throughout this chapter
illustrate specific examples of where barriers have arisen, and how PCs overcame them. The
sub-section on ‘removing blockages’ in section 4.2 above also gives examples of these
barriers in action.
Interviewees in each wave of research were also asked to reflect on factors that were
enabling Cynefin to progress and achieve beneficial outcomes. As with barriers, over time it
became apparent that a number of common aspects were being put forward by
interviewees as to what constituted these ‘enablers’, whether those were rooted in
organisational structures and modes of operating, or in the outlook, capabilities and
behaviour of individuals that Cynefin was engaging with.
In the later waves of research, drawing on the cumulative evidence gathered around barriers
and enablers, the idea of ‘what needs to be in place’ to enable Cynefin ways of working to be
effective was discussed explicitly with interviewees. Following on from the analysis of ways
of working above and the table on barriers below, ‘what needs to be in place’ is explored in
section 4.4.
Table 4 Summary of the main barriers encountered in delivering the Cynefin programme
Community level
Variable levels of community capacity – both between the eleven Cynefin areas and within
them
This had an important influence on how far and fast PCs were able to progress different
workstreams but was no different from the normal situation in community development. It was
reflected in a lack of motivation or confidence to get involved in some places. Open-ended
engagement and the continuing presence of a PC helped to break through barriers to
involvement in some places. However, the management team felt that the short term horizon of
the programme funding (especially the uncertainty around whether the early funding would
continue) was at odds with a programme designed to bring about long-term change in how place
processes operate. In the early period, a perceived pressure to demonstrate quick wins may, they
felt, have impacted on which workstreams were prioritised.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
47
No funding for Cynefin activities
PCs had no earmarked budget to fund activities so were reliant on facilitating others to take
workstreams forward or supporting communities to secure their own funding (which PCs did in
several places). A few PCs reported this as a concern in the early rounds of interviews but later
feedback showed it had not represented a major barrier for most PCs. The management team
made a small funding pot available for PCs to request on an ad hoc basis (e.g. for local events or
training) but resource for Cynefin-linked work came mostly from those involved and/or large
charitable grants.
Local service provider and stakeholders
Siloed working and barriers to joined up working
This was and remains one of the key barriers to the types of approach adopted in Cynefin.
Reluctance to step out of line or perceiving Cynefin activities as a distraction from meeting
targets were two key features of this barrier. Evidence throughout the report shows how the PC
model enabled Cynefin to work round this barrier.
Suspicion and blocking behaviours
This is perhaps the most fundamental barrier to collaborative place-based working, which is
strongly related to the silo working point above. Some of the stakeholder feedback was that
Cynefin had “stepped on toes” or was even “arrogant” (though this needs to be balanced against
those who saw it as a useful additional resource). There were widespread reports from PCs and
some local stakeholders of territory defending and blocking behaviours either by not engaging,
only engaging passively or making decisions that can be seen to have blocked the progress of
workstreams. In a few cases it also appeared to extend as far as promising one thing and doing
another or having a change of mind when challenged within their own organisation. Over time, a
growing understanding of Cynefin among local stakeholders helped but instances of blocking
behaviour (whether deliberate or stemming from institutional practices) were still being reported
in the last wave of research.
Competition and rivalry
Some PCs and local stakeholders suggested that certain organisations were not engaging in or
were actively blocking Cynefin workstreams because they viewed these workstreams as a
competitor or rival. This applied to fears about competition for funding, desire for ownership
and control, and wanting to take credit for improving places.
Difficulty engaging critical holders of power
The main gap reported by several PCs was in their ability to get access to and engage
meaningfully with Local Service Boards and to get access to senior decision makers in these
organisations and local authorities. This did not change substantially over time.
Additional challenges being posed by public sector cuts
While some stakeholders saw Cynefin as a positive resource in this respect (see the evidence on
value added in section 3.2) budget pressures on individuals in public services were reported to
generally reinforce siloed working and discourage risk taking even more than usual. Some
expressed this as feeling the need to “pull my neck in” and being “terrified” of taking risks.
Management and national level stakeholders
Management resource
Cynefin posed some new and different management challenges in comparison to more
traditional programmes. These challenges related to the need to be advocates of Cynefin within
Welsh Government and with external bodies, to provide one-to-one mentoring support to PCs in
consideration of their unique and evolving job roles, and to capture learning and help
disseminate it from local to national levels. This created some obvious time pressures and
challenges as to how time was allocated.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
48
Understanding of Cynefin and support for new ways of working
Advocacy by the management team, both through governance meetings and more widely,
helped to build support for Cynefin over time but the sheer range of domains that Cynefin
touched meant it has not been possible yet to secure high-level buy-in across all areas or
consistent support from senior decision makers.
Learning processes
The balance of feedback from PCs and stakeholders suggested that learning processes in Cynefin
worked to some extent (for example in building stakeholders’ understanding of Cynefin at
national and local levels) but the stretch on management team time and weaknesses in how
some of the governance arrangements worked in practice (e.g. inconsistent attendance) had
created barriers to the sharing of learning. In addition, some of the demands for accessing
learning could probably not have been foreseen at the start of the programme.
4.4 What needs to be in place to support ways of working developed in Cynefin?
The current Cynefin programme will come to end in March 2016 and the PCs will no longer
be employed by Welsh Government. At the same time public bodies will need to be working
out how they will develop and deliver local well-being plans to meet the requirements of the
Well-being of Future Generations Act, and be involved in place-based planning arising from
the Environment and Planning Bills. In that light, this section attempts to summarise the key
features of Cynefin that appear to have been most implicated in supporting effective place-
based collaborative working, at a generalised level.
As noted throughout this report, however, there was no single way of working that could be
characterised as a standard template or methodology – and in fact the freedom for ways of
working to respond to local situations and the capabilities of individual PCs appeared to be
one of its key strengths and points of difference from other programmes. Many of the
achievements of Cynefin lie ultimately in the small details and bespoke ways in which PCs
engaged with people and organisations in their communities. In order to make that detailed
practice learning accessible to those interested in using Cynefin as a role model, the Welsh
Government is planning to publish a parallel report of case studies to delve below the
generalised findings in this research report.
The following observations are therefore intended to be a general starting point for thinking
about the building blocks that might need to be in place to support more collaborative place-
based working. They should not be interpreted as a comprehensive or universally applicable
checklist that will guarantee success for those wanting to adopt Cynefin style approaches.
The evidence behind the insights comes from asking PCs and stakeholders directly their
thoughts on this question in the final wave of interviews and from analysis of emergent
themes across all five waves of research, including interviewees’ feedback on barriers and
enabling factors.
A key overarching consideration is that Cynefin was as much about the organic development
of opportunities and new relationships as it was about defined job roles and specific
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
49
deliverables, especially where PCs focused their work in the space between communities
and service providers. As such, cultures, behaviours and individual competencies assume as
much importance in the Cynefin building blocks as do the specification of job roles and
operating procedures, which is consistent with the wider literature on co-production. The
building blocks of ‘what needs to be in place’ are covered under the following headings:
Community level – enabling PCs to work differently
Local service provider - values and behaviours
National level – supporting and influencing
Skills and competencies of PCs and managers
Monitoring and learning
4.4.1. Community level – enabling PCs to work differently
Freedom and time to respond to place and context
Cited by all the PCs and many of the stakeholders, this was perhaps the defining building
block of Cynefin, which gave PCs the space they needed to operate in the ways that they did.
It flowed directly from there being no pre-defined targets or performance metrics for the
Cynefin areas, below the broad requirement on PCs to facilitate the development of ‘better
places’ (where public bodies are more attuned to community priorities and where joined-up
working achieves more for people in those communities).
In turn, this gave the PCs permission to develop workstreams that responded to locally
identified priorities and to progress them at an evolutionary pace that was best suited to the
place context, rather than being driven by performance deadlines imposed externally. It
gave the PCs space and time:
To be exploratory and experimental, to develop a deep understanding of place and
not to focus on ‘quick fix’ solutions;
To take the time to engage in communities and with service providers in an open-
ended and non-timebound way (as highlighted in ways of working above) to
establish place-centred priorities and outcomes, including long-term ones;
To catalyse community involvement in activities around these priorities;
To build community capacity, enable groups to access resources and decision
makers, and advocate on communities’ behalf where needed;
To properly understand the service provider landscape, synergies and overlaps, and
leverage points;
To build meaningful relationships and facilitate coalitions of interest, over a
sustained period of time;
And, importantly, make false starts then change direction in response to new
information, learning or unforeseen opportunities.
Independence
Being seen to be independent of existing vested interests or delivery programmes, and
engaging without a prescribed agenda, was also reported as being crucial to the
effectiveness of the PC role. This perceived independence was often cited as influential in
gaining the ear and trust of communities as well as the confidence of the service providers
and other stakeholders that chose to get involved. Again, from an outside perspective it
appeared that PCs were able to be independent because they were not tied to constricting
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
50
performance metrics, which allowed them the space to do the open-ended engagement
described earlier in section 4.2.
Freedom to roam and challenge the status quo
Independence from specific national or local delivery programmes and their associated
targets, and being allowed the freedom to ‘roam’ across public bodies and silos, also
provided the space for PCs to take risks and challenge the status quo where existing
structures or behaviours of service providers were acting as a blockage. Some PCs and
stakeholders alike commented that PCs’ behaviour may have been more risk averse if
‘freedom to fail’ had not implicitly been built into their role, as it was.
Being able to challenge vested interests was also helped by PCs having the backing of Welsh
Government at national level. Where PCs were working more strategically in their areas,
however, there was some feeling that they needed more ‘clout’ with local service providers,
because there was no obligation on those organisations to engage with Cynefin and, as
noted earlier, engagement with senior holders of power and LSBs has been patchy or
limited. One PC summed this up vividly by describing PCs as “toothless tigers”.
Equally, it might be argued that the lack of prescription on which service providers or
authority figures participated in meetings, forums, working groups and fledgling
organisations supported creative, constructive and open-ended participation and mitigated
territory-defending behaviours (although that was still evident in numerous instances,
especially early on before Cynefin started to deliver results). Early engagement of the
management team with PCs’ local authority hosts was reported to be beneficial in building
positive relationships and support for Cynefin activities. The risk of undermining trust and
‘agenda-free’ collaborative working if participation was mandated would be something for
Welsh Government to consider in its future approach to place-based initiatives.
Legitimacy and mandate
Cynefin managers, PCs and stakeholders all highlighted how it is crucial for a place-centred
approach without pre-defined outcome targets to establish, and keep live, mandates from
communities and stakeholders in those places. This was achieved in Cynefin through open-
ended engagement, either:
through early visioning and follow-on involvement from individuals and groups
within communities; or
through PCs undertaking landscaping research (desk based and exploratory
conversations with individuals from communities and organisations) to identify
gaps and opportunities for preventing duplication and then building mandates over
time through involvement and communication.
The second approach was sometimes adopted where it was felt the community was at risk
of over-consultation and there was a possibility that they would automatically dismiss
Cynefin as just another programme that doesn’t listen or address real priorities.
While the two approaches had a different starting point, the essential feature of both was
the central – and meaningful - involvement of individuals from the community and, in many
cases, stakeholder organisations. This often meant that PCs had to adjust their own pre-
conceptions as they were challenged through dialogue and joint working over time. It also
meant ‘letting go’ on occasions, where PCs intended to do something one way and those
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
51
they were facilitating wanted to do it in another. In at least one case, it also meant setting
off in one direction then re-adjusting as it became clear that the community did not want to
be involved in the ways originally envisaged.
There were many other detailed examples of how involvement was made to be meaningful,
which will be drawn out in the parallel case studies report (e.g. the Newport PC’s work in
Maindee). The key point here is that Cynefin PCs made a concerted effort to involve and not
merely to consult; and that the direction of travel was not determined by an ‘expert’ view of
the ‘needs’ of communities (an often reported criticism of current ways of working in Wales’
public bodies).
The importance of communication
PCs were widely seen as being very good at communicating with and between those who
were directly involved in their workstreams, including sustained feedback to and from the
communities they were involved with. Communication was integral to reinforcing and
refreshing PCs’ mandates. In some cases where PCs were working with existing community
groups they urged them to question and check the group’s own mandate from the wider
community, something they may not have done or thought about before, or been asked to
do by other public bodies they are consulted by as a community ‘voice’.
As noted in ‘ways of working’ in section 4.2 above, PCs’ communication sometimes also
extended to being effective brokers and conciliators between those with competing
interests, or where there were entrenched suspicions and hostilities, or where
communication had broken down. Once again, the ability to do this effectively was linked to
the freedoms and permissions that were embedded in the PC’s facilitator role. Its success
was also heavily dependent on the competencies of the individual PCs, which is covered
further in section 4.4.4 below.
Feedback on communicating beyond these constituencies, however, was more mixed. It
appeared to be difficult to communicate new ways of working to sceptical audiences. The
learning from Cynefin, which took time to emerge and be acted on, was that tangible/first
hand examples were the best way of communicating this is something that could perhaps
have been done earlier and more widely.
This feedback helps to explain the confusion about PCs’ roles reported by some stakeholders
and, where these were expressed, concerns as to whether Cynefin was doing anything
different from what was already happening through existing local provision and
programmes. While such criticism reduced over time, as results began to emerge from PCs’
works streams, it remained a consistent theme in stakeholder feedback in the last phase of
the research.
Communication is an important part of ‘what needs to be in place’ because it is strongly
linked to legitimacy, especially in an approach like Cynefin where ‘success’ cannot easily be
demonstrated through standardised performance metrics. PCs clearly understood this in
relation to their specific workstreams, and appeared largely effective in maintaining their
community mandate and relationships with involved stakeholders. The management team
also undertook as much influencing work with national level stakeholders as was feasible
within their resources. However, there appears to be a gap somewhere in between these
two levels, which poses risks to the future development of collaborative place-based
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
52
working in Wales, but probably goes far beyond the responsibilities of a PC facilitator role.
This is explored further in relation to local service provider buy-in and national level
influencing in later sections.
A continuing and responsive presence in the community
Being located in a place for the duration of Cynefin - combined with the flexibility to be
responsive to barriers or opportunities as they emerged, and to involve whoever was
relevant and wanted to be involved - was a key factor in PCs being effective. These features
may not be especially different from traditional development officers but the addition of
independence to work across multiple and cross-cutting areas and permission to challenge
the status quo with respect to collaborative working was.
In order to do that effectively, PCs needed to be on the ground most of the time and to be in
positions where they could see across different public service areas. They also needed to be
close at hand so that they could build and sustain relationships, both with and between
those active in Cynefin workstreams and wider informal relationships within the place
‘system’ that could turn out to be opportunities or leverage points in future. As a result both
PCs and some stakeholders warned that effective place-based working cannot be achieved
by ‘parachuting’ in external experts or short, time-limited exercises.
Equally, some national level stakeholders (including in the last quarter’s interviews) thought
that Cynefin should have been better at taking into account all the other initiatives going on
in a place before PCs created new workstreams. It is difficult to entangle how much of this
feedback was related to Cynefin ‘stepping on toes’ and how general this perception was, but
it is nonetheless something for any future place-based working initiatives to consider,
including a need to change the perceptions of some national stakeholders that Cynefin-like
approaches have the potential to add value to their own programmes rather than compete
with them. It was not something that local stakeholders said and many of those thought that
PCs were good at making linkages with other programmes.
The last wave of research revealed a significant amount of concern from all types of
interviewees about what happens next in Cynefin areas. While the PCs and management
team have been working on ways to help workstreams become self-sustaining (and will
continue to do so in coming months) there was widespread concern that it might just be too
early to withdraw PC support given the essentially long term nature of what Cynefin was
trying to achieve. Especially in those areas where PCs were directing their efforts at strategic
level change, fears were expressed that nascent benefits from Cynefin will be lost because
there has not been enough time to get to the point in the ‘journey’ where collaborative
working is securely established and tangible ‘place’ benefits have begun to flow from it.
Although it was not widely mentioned, it is also worth pointing out that some of the Cynefin
workstreams were in very poor and disengaged communities that have been subject to
repeated short-term or time-limited programmes where trust in public bodies could once
again be dented by the removal of the Cynefin PC.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
53
Summary: what needs to be in place – community level facilitators
The following brings together key points from the above discussion. It should be seen as a
list of key aspects to consider by others wanting to adopt Cynefin ways of working rather
than a definitive or comprehensive template.
Freedom and time to respond to place and context
o Freedom from pre-determined externally set targets and metrics
o Time to develop a deep understanding of place and not to focus on ‘quick
fix’ solutions
o Time to engage communities and service providers to a timetable which
suits them and the context rather than externally set programme deadlines
o Time to build meaningful relationships and a mandate which is ‘owned’ and
shared by all those involved in workstreams
o Time to allow for false starts and changes of direction
Independence from existing vested interests or delivery programmes and engaging
without a prescribed agenda
Freedom to roam across silos and challenge the status quo, where existing
structures or behaviours of service providers are acting as a blockage
Having authority and backing from Welsh Government to challenge
Legitimacy and a mandate; effort to involve not merely consult individuals and
communities
Ongoing and open communication to:
o Reinforce and refresh facilitator (PC) mandates and legitimacy
o Act as neutral brokers and conciliators where necessary
o Disseminate tangible/first hand examples of progress early on to wider
stakeholders, including policy makers locally and/or nationally
A continuing responsive presence in the community – with the flexibility to respond
to barriers and opportunities as they emerge and authority to involve whoever is
judged to be relevant and wants to be involved
A facilitator who can ‘bounce’ between community and service provider levels and
hold an overview of the place context
4.4.2. Local service provider level - values and behaviours
The evidence and discussion of ways of working in section 4.2 described how PCs have
engaged with local service providers and what has made those engagements effective. This
section turns the focus around to consider what the evidence says or implies (notably from
the evidence on barriers) about the way in which local service providers and other public
sector bodies engaged with Cynefin and the lessons about place-based collaborative working
that can be taken forward.
How communities in Wales are perceived by public bodies
A common theme from the PC interviews, and sometimes with stakeholders, was around a
perceived tendency for public bodies to adopt an expert “we know best” approach to
working in communities, and to consult rather than genuinely involve. This may not even be
an explicit or deliberate intent and may be as much to do with the way institutional
structures and practices have evolved so that particular behaviours and ways of thinking are
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
54
embedded in normal practice. A few interviewees also felt that service providers have a
tendency to see communities as disinterested or not capable of doing anything for
themselves (especially in places where there are high levels of poverty and deprivation). Lack
of trust between public bodies and individuals in such communities is a key barrier, which
runs in both directions.
It is worth noting that none of these features is unique to Wales and both are flagged as a
basic barrier to change in the wider co-production literature.
Cynefin PCs were able to directly challenge these embedded cultures and practices because
of their independence. In some of the workstreams that focused on process change and long
term outcomes PCs also acted as a community ‘conscience’ for service providers, reminding
and nudging them to listen to community voices at key points or to follow through on
commitments made.
While it was clear that community capacity was a barrier to both involvement and the rate
of progress in many Cynefin workstreams (as outlined in section 4.2.1 above) it also appears
that open-ended engagement, together with the latitude that Cynefin PCs had to be self-
directing, provided the space and time for individuals and communities to get involved on
their own terms. Some of the place outcomes might have looked very ‘micro’ in terms of
policy objectives (e.g. benches in open spaces, tackling litter and graffiti, football posts being
mended) but were reported as ways of (re)building trust and self-confidence in communities
because they reflected what people said they really wanted. In some cases, these outcomes
were starting points for continuing involvement.
As noted in ‘ways of working’ above, PCs also sometimes performed an important bridging
and brokering role, opening doors to public bodies where people would not otherwise have
had the confidence or clout to take on ‘the system’. In those places where it happened, this
dual facing ‘honest broker’ role was often cited as a key strength of Cynefin, enabling ‘safe’
ways for all involved to break through entrenched cultures and practices (though many
barriers of this kind remain, as detailed in section 4.3).
Unintentional barriers to people in communities accessing public resources and assets
Examples were also cited of instances where policies or standard operating procedures in
public bodies (local authorities and others) inadvertently acted as blockers. This included
barriers to communities being able to use publicly owned assets for their own purposes, or
to have a joint role in the management or ownership of them. Examples were cited in
relation to parks, open spaces, woodland and community buildings. The blockers ranged
from administration forms that were reported to be too complex for ‘non-professionals’ to
complete to governance arrangements and asset transfer policies. In some cases, the public
bodies that were involved responded positively and have adapted or are adapting their
processes, including jointly run initiatives, but there were also examples where the PC
reported an unhelpful “patronising” response.
Clearly public bodies need to strike a careful balance between communities wanting to have
some control over assets in the places where they live and their own statutory role as
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
55
custodians of those assets10. Looking forward to future place-based working in Wales, the
research points to two areas that need to be borne in mind:
Critical awareness by those in public bodies that there may be embedded features
of their ‘systems’ that inadvertently discourage community involvement in how
place assets are used, maintained or developed;
Asset transfer or governance/management policies, where communities have an
appetite for greater or joint control.
The last point is particularly relevant in a climate of ever tightening local authority budgets
where community involvement might be considered as a potential resource for the
maintenance of community assets (subject to considerations about financially sustainability).
Trust and letting go
A related theme from the interviews was the need for ‘government’ and public bodies to
trust those involved in these new ways of working that they are competent and will deliver
useful benefits. This is not just an abstract desire but is essential where the outcomes are
‘emergent’ through the process rather than capable of being pinpointed at the outset11. In
practical terms, interviewees reported that this meant:
Managers trusting the PCs to make decisions and act in the best interests of their
workstreams and reflect this in broad performance objectives rather than narrow,
measurable indicators (which at least one described as “refreshing”);
Service providers trusting that communities could develop the required capability
and take responsibility where they asked for it (with PC support) ;
Service providers trusting that valuable outcomes would emerge from what one PC
described as processes that may appear to be “slightly chaotic”.
While trust appears to be central to these ways of working being effective, there clearly also
need to be ‘fit for purpose’ mechanisms of accountability which will need to be developed
where collaborative place-based working is adopted. The management team reported that
getting and sharing ‘real time’ evidence from the monitoring and learning framework had
helped to build trust with stakeholders.
Permission and buy-in for place-centred collaborative working
This was widely recognised as being essential to the effectiveness of Cynefin workstreams. It
was implicated in helping to open doors, locate what PCs identified as the ‘right people’ to
support a particular workstream, persuade officers from local service providers to work with
PCs and communities, and channel resources.
Looking across the different ways in which PCs went about securing buy-in, three features
stand out:
Building one or more allies who were already embedded in the place ‘system’ (e.g.
in their host organisation, local officers of other programmes, or from other
influential local organisations);
10 This topic is covered extensively in the wider literature on co-production and on asset transfer – see for example the New Economics Foundation, NESTA public services lab, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. In Wales, the WCVA has been engaging with third sector and community organisations in relation to the Welsh Government’s recently closed consultation on Protecting Community Assets. http://wcva.tumblr.com/post/121663087675/protecting-community-assets-how-you-can-help 11 E.g. see the work of Professor Dave Snowden on systems change.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
56
Identifying shared priorities and mutual benefits from joint working, either across
service providers from different domains and/or between the community and
service providers (as outlined in section 4.2);
Building and sharing the emerging evidence of how Cynefin approaches were
making a difference. (This element involved both the PCs and the Cynefin
management team).
The evidence on the role of the PCs’ host organisation in supporting buy-in was inconclusive.
Some PCs reported good support; some of those hosted in local authorities said they
benefitted from being able to see and float across different policy domains; a few others
reported that where they were hosted made little difference or were less positive about
their relationship with their host organisation.
What was clear was that the buy-in of those service providers with power and influence was
not universal or consistent (as described under ‘barriers’ in section 4.3). It often depended
on the ability of individual PCs to locate and then persuade the key individuals who had
power to influence or effect change. As noted above, the design of the PC role gave them
the space and time to do this and the freedom to persist until they found the right person
with the necessary authority and willingness to ‘stick their neck out’ (as it was often
reported). These individuals were not necessarily always those who appeared at first sight to
have official ‘ownership’ over the means to solve the problem. Some only emerged as key
leverage points as PCs built up relationships and followed their own leads.
A number of stakeholder interviewees who were working at this level suggested that Welsh
Government support was crucial in legitimising or giving the PCs a ‘mandate’ to be present
and work at local service provider level. PCs appear to have managed to strike the balance
between using their Welsh Government backing and being perceived as independent (to
communities and stakeholders alike) so that they weren’t seen as an ‘agent’ of the Welsh
Government.
Advocacy and sharing of success stories by the management team also helped to build
support for the Cynefin programme at higher levels of national bodies and within parts of
Welsh Government. However, the last wave of research revealed that both understanding
and support for Cynefin-type approaches to collaborative place-centred working is still
patchy at both local and national levels. Those who have been most closely exposed to the
programme remain the most positive. There is more scope for both trickle down of
permission for “speculative working” (as one PC put it) and for upwards dissemination of
learning from local officers and other local stakeholders.
Some stakeholders and PCs also recommended that there needs to be more consistent
support for joined-up working towards long term outcomes on the part of local authority
chief executives and at senior levels in the new Public Service Boards. In practice this would
mean endowing officers with the permission to get involved with what appear to be
‘speculative’ activities where the measurable impacts would not be immediately visible. This
is clearly a very big challenge for public bodies to embrace and to work out practical ways to
encourage supportive behaviours while maintaining accountability.
The ‘stick’ of public bodies needing to comply with the Wellbeing of Future Generations was
identified in this context, while the potential opportunities to reduce duplication and add
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
57
value to existing services was cited by some as a potential ‘carrot’ for local authorities as
they adapt to significant budget cuts.
Meaningful participation
Without an official requirement on local service providers to participate in Cynefin, or a
budget-driven incentive (because PCs had none), those that did get involved participated on
a voluntary basis where they could see benefits to their own work programmes. As noted
above, Welsh Government backing did give Cynefin legitimacy in the eyes of local officers
and service providers, but there was no compunction to get involved. Early engagement at
high level in local authorities and with LSBs in Cynefin areas was also an important factor in
getting the Cynefin concept embedded with senior decision makers and thus giving the PC
an effective platform to operate from.
There were very many examples of committed and energetic participation by local service
providers in Cynefin workstreams. There did not seem to be any pattern (e.g. by
organisational affiliation): for example, local officers from the same national programme
were sometimes enthusiastic and sometimes negative about getting involved (e.g.
Communities First or NRW). Once again, this points to the importance of local context,
individual aptitudes and relationships in defining what was feasible and effective. Some PCs
and local stakeholders reported that PCs had been able to pick up opportunities and take
risks that local officers may have wanted to but felt they were not allowed to pursue
because of their job description or performance targets. Constraints on cross-silo working
were mentioned in this context.
In some cases, PCs gave negative feedback about what they thought had been superficial
involvement by some service providers (which covered in more detail in relation to ways of
working and barriers earlier in this chapter). One PC reported meetings between individuals
in the community and service providers in which there was a lot of “head nodding” but less
substantive commitment to act on what they were hearing. In that case, the PC reported
that they had used their neutrality to push for commitments and, subsequently, to hold the
service providers to account for delivering on promises made.
The last point highlights one of the essential tensions in the design of Cynefin. While it was
important to get the most relevant people on board and have flexibility in how organisations
delivered – where voluntary participation was a strength – there were no formal structures
to hold service providers to account. The Welsh Government and some of the PCs argued
that accountability on service providers came from the mandate that PCs had established in
communities and with stakeholders, which PCs could use as the basis for challenge. One
other example (Penderry Providers Planning Forum) embedded its own commitment
strategies by agreeing that ‘deals’ would be monitored by reporting back the whole groups
each time they met. In RCT, the PC managed to persuade service providers to develop joint
objectives and targets.
Some local and national stakeholders (including some service providers) suggested that
higher level authority is needed to ensure that service providers are consistently
accountable for making a meaningful contribution to collaborative place-centred working in
Wales. This was often framed in relation to the WBFG Act; and the Sustainable Development
Commissioner was most frequently mentioned as having the independence, cross-cutting
overview, and authority to make this happen. It is important to note here, that these were
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
58
spontaneous suggestions and not everyone was asked about this aspect of Cynefin so that
the responses may not be representative.
Ownership - sharing power, credit and learning
This is identified in the literature on collaborative working and co-production as being an
essential ingredient to effective processes. Sharing ownership of an issue – either between
themselves or with community groupings - is understandably difficult for public service
providers because of the institutional structures that define how they can operate. In many
ways, the structures ‘script’ how individuals in the system think and behave.
Evidence from Cynefin suggests there were attitudes and behaviours that supported
collaborative working around place priorities in this respect. These included:
Letting go of exclusive control of agendas;
A willingness to compromise – for example, where a service provider had a pre-
existing concept but community visioning or involvement revealed a different
community level priority or way of wanting to be involved;
Being open to others ‘delivering’ on your behalf – for example, delivering shared
training courses for people in communities, or enabling another statutory service to
provide advice about your service in home visits to vulnerable residents;
Willingness to share credit for outcomes, most simply through communications that
give equal credit to all those involved (i.e. existing good practice) or, more
strategically, by negotiating shared objectives and targets.
Openness to learn from others’ expertise and knowledge and to critique existing
practices.
Summary: what needs to be in place – local service provider level
As was the case with the summary on what needs to be in place at community level, the
following is meant to be a list of key considerations relevant to supporting Cynefin ways of
working rather than a prescriptive check list.
Overcoming a lack of trust in the capability of communities and a “we know best”
attitude in some parts of Wales’ public sector
Challenge to embedded cultures, practices and blocking behaviours that act as
barriers to collaborative place-centred working
Potentially more formal clout from Welsh Government for PC-type facilitators to
perform that challenge, if the facilitator model is adopted more widely
A need for ‘government’ and public bodies to trust those involved in new ways of
working that they are competent and will deliver useful benefits
Critical awareness by those in public bodies that there may be embedded features
of their ‘systems’ that inadvertently discourage community involvement in how
place assets are used, maintained or developed
Meaningful – rather than superficial – participation of public bodies and service
providers in new ways of working
More consistent support for collaborative place-based working on the part of local
authority chief executives and senior levels in the new Public Service Boards
Willingness to:
o Take risks and let go of some control, balanced by new ‘fit for purpose’
mechanisms of accountability
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
59
o Compromise
o Let others deliver on your behalf
o Share credit for outcomes
o Learn from others’ expertise and knowledge and critique existing practices
4.4.3. National level
The evidence of what needs to be in place at national level was more limited and came
mainly from the management team and national level stakeholders. Their reflections were
forward looking with respect to other opportunities for place-centred working that are being
opened up through the WBFG, Environment and Planning Bills, as well as reflections on
Cynefin.
Advocacy and influence
The discussion of ways of working in section 4.2 highlighted how some local and national
stakeholders, and even PCs, struggled to grasp what was innovative about Cynefin and its
working methods. This was particularly true early on. With the benefit of hindsight the
management team thought there should have been more consensus building early on with
the Place Development Leadership Group, within national government and public bodies,
even though it is apparent from others’ feedback that later influencing work by the WG
team, together with local communication about Cynefin, had changed stakeholders’
perceptions to some extent. At least from interviewees, there was generally strong support
for the approaches adopted in Cynefin from those who were most familiar with them, with
only a minority of dissenting voices.
Looking forward, however, it is apparent that still more will need to be done to secure high
level buy-in to these kinds of ways of working inside Welsh Government if it wishes
collaborative place-centred working to be adopted more widely. The research findings
suggest there is still a relatively narrow constituency of departments and bodies that are
fully aware of Cynefin and ready to take-up ways of working that cut across multiple
departmental responsibilities, and to permeate the necessary cultures and behaviours across
their organisations. The impending resource cuts across Welsh Government perhaps provide
an opportunity for departments and programmes to explore innovative, cross-silo, methods
for achieving multiple benefits.
If the ambition is to roll out co-productive ways of working more widely, the management
team suggested that Welsh Government needs to give this innovation a ‘home’ inside
national government, attached to a mandate to influence other programmes and policies.
The ‘home’ would also need a responsibility to connect at all levels to encourage
community–centred and collaborative, cross-silo working, plus an ability to take a coherent
view across initiatives and enable learning to be shared. It would also need permission to
deliver “coherence without prescription”.
From an external perspective, the management team during Cynefin appeared effective in
connecting top and bottom. Some PCs and stakeholders mentioned this as a key strength of
Cynefin, especially with respect to channelling national level conversations about WBFG to
local level via the PCs and some communication in the opposite direction. However, as noted
elsewhere in this report, the combined demands on time to be simultaneously managers,
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
60
national advocates and custodians of learning far exceeded the capacity the management
team had.
While this sometimes made the programme look resource intensive to those not closely
involved, it is unlikely those multiple demands would be different in any similar programme,
until such time as new ways of working became embedded practice.
Governance
Cynefin had a multi-tiered governance structure which received mixed feedback about its
effectiveness from interviewees, including those involved in governance. While in the end it
proved to be a useful forum for communicating and developing an understanding of the
programme, some stakeholders commented that it could have done more to influence
behaviours at officer and local service provider level. Equally, the governance structure
provided ample space for the programme to be experimental and laudably avoided the
temptation to be prescriptive (as well as being evident in practice, this was mentioned as a
strength by some stakeholders and many of the PCs).
Consistency of policy and long term thinking
National stakeholders and some local ones identified a need for policy and funding stability if
these new collaborative ways of working are to succeed. Having enough time for processes
and relationships to develop organically has been a consistent theme throughout this report.
The requirement for local wellbeing plans under the WBFG Act may provide an opportunity
in this respect but it will still require meaningful commitment from national policy makers
and Public Service Boards alike. As an example, anecdotal feedback from several sources
flagged the fact that the recent grants review did not take the opportunity to steer
recipients towards more collaborate and place-centred approaches.
Management styles
The combined WG-SWEA team adopted a distinctively co-productive approach to the
management of the programme, as described in section 4.2. They were given the room to
operate like this by their managers but it is also possible that the personalities and
competencies of the two individuals involved enabled it to work how it did. They were
undoubtedly demanding roles, which required all of the competencies outlined for the PCs
in the following section, plus an ability to engage at high level inside Welsh Government. In
particular, the roles required managers who were comfortable with uncertainty and
flexibility.
The other key competency was to act as flexible mentor-managers of the PCs rather than as
traditional line managers. Some of the PCs commented that because their own job
descriptions were broad they needed Cynefin managers to not only monitor their progress
but also critique and reassure so that they had confidence they were heading in the right
direction. The management team also helped PCs to respond to capacity building needs by
linking them up to information, resources and relevant expertise (e.g. training in asset based
working) as needs emerged. PCs tended to feel they would have benefitted from more of
this kind of mentoring input but recognised the stretch on resources of the management
function. These considerations would need to be carried through into any similar
programme, wherever it was being led from or hosted.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
61
Summary: what needs to be in place – national level
Key considerations to take on board at national level are:
Advocacy and influencing:
o the need for early high-level stakeholder dialogue and engagement to
support a programme like Cynefin
o if place-centred working is a WG priority for the future, a need for
continuing and broader engagement to build a wider constituency inside
national government that understands the concept and potential benefits
of this approach
Governance structures that are supportive of place-based working but are capable
of preserving the non-prescriptive nature of what happens locally and the ability of
on-the-ground work to respond to place context
Consistency in policy and implementation across all levels of government, including
‘trickle down’ of permission for new ways of working to lower tiers of national
bodies and programmes, including permission to take risks to participate in
innovative activities
Within any body responsible for managing local facilitators, a management team
with competencies to work as mentors and critical friend, as well as being able to
communicate and engage with stakeholders from the local to the national level
4.4.4. Aptitudes and competencies for PC facilitator roles
The Cynefin PCs did not all have the same outlook or competencies, which was reflected to a
large extent in how they approached their workstreams and the outcomes they achieved. In
particular, a distinction has been drawn in this report between those who were working
mainly at the community level and those who worked more strategically to influence the
processes of local public sector organisations. The actual picture was, of course, less clear
cut than that and many PCs did both.
In drawing out the learning from Cynefin for future place-centred collaborative working, the
focus has been on the broad set of competencies needed towards the more strategic end of
the spectrum, although many of the competencies listed below were nonetheless core to
the PC role in Cynefin, at whatever level the PC operated.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
62
Place co-ordinators need the following competencies:
Essential: good development officer skills for engaging with residents and community groups
Plus:
Flexible in conditions of uncertainty
Comfortable and capable of working in an
environment without clear boundaries or
targets
Conductor
Able to work with communities and
stakeholders to develop and sustain a realistic
pathway ‘plan’ towards intended goals
Self-directed and resilient
Self-directed and self-managing;
ability to withstand frequent knock-backs
Persistent and creative
Confident, persistent, and able to find creative
ways round blockages
Challenger
Willing to challenge vested interests, empire
defenders and ‘computer says no’ attitudes
Diplomatic
Sensitive to the constraints and motivations
that may make stakeholders behave in
particular ways
Opportunistic & resourceful
Able to spot synergies and deploy
opportunities wherever they arise – e.g. from
casual conversations and evolving situations
Analytical and authoritative
Able to identify key influencers and engage
with existing networks and power holders
Broker & negotiator
Ability to occupy the space between
communities and service providers in an
independent way
Ability to broker agreement and negotiate
compromises
All-round communicator
Comfortable and convincing communicating at
different levels, including an ability to engage
with senior decision makers as well as have
meaningful conversations with people in
communities
Reflective
Ability to take a step back to be self-challenging while maintaining self-confidence
Ability to draw out learning from both positive and negative experiences and use it to shape
next steps
Attuned to weaknesses or knowledge gaps and unafraid to ask for help or guidance
The management team believed that competencies listed above were essential to Cynefin
being able to break out of traditional development officer roles. Where PCs easily
understood the facilitatory concept of Cynefin and/or they were more experienced in
development officer roles (including contact with senior levels in public bodies) the
management team reported that PCs were more able to be self-directing while needing less
mentoring and training. Recruiting PCs with attributes that matched the place context in
individual Cynefin areas was also important, so that competencies were (as far as possible)
matched to workstream possibilities. Involving local authority hosts on interview panels
alongside the WG team was seen to have been beneficial here. For any future programme
looking to adopt Cynefin ways of working, recruitment would therefore be a key design
consideration, taking on board recommendations from the WG team that it needs to be
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
63
different from the way in which development officers are traditionally recruited or
seconded, with an ability to assess the above competencies and to tailor appointments to
different local contexts rather than adopt a one size fits all approach. The management team
felt that investing in recruitment to get the right PC in the right place is worthwhile in terms
of a then reduced demand on programme managers for on-going support.
Summary: what needs to be in place - aptitudes and competencies for PC facilitator roles
These competencies are summarised in the figure above
The proposition about competencies also has implications for recruitment processes
and job roles, which may need reflection on how traditional processes for recruiting
development officers can be adapted
4.4.5. Monitoring and learning to support programme effectiveness
The Welsh Government took a risk on the approach to monitoring and learning that was
adopted in Cynefin but reported that it had met their needs very well. The following is based
on the research team’s own reflections about what needs to be in place to support a similar
process but it is important to bear in mind that other organisations who might want to
pursue Cynefin type approaches may have different needs and would therefore have to
adapt their approach accordingly.
Capturing the intangibility and evolving nature of outcomes
This was the biggest challenge in designing a monitoring and learning framework for Cynefin.
Unlike many conventional evaluations where the programme logic is typically “we will do x,
to/for y, with expected effect z”, Cynefin was attempting a less linear and more systemic
approach where all of x, y and z were potentially multiple, many were unforeseeable and the
relationships between them would only become apparent as the programme evolved. The
decision to adopt a narrative process-focused approach, through quarterly in-depth
interviews, proved to be an effective response to this challenge. By getting quarterly
research feedback WG was able to begin demonstrating examples of achievement to funders
and stakeholders which an indicator-led approach would almost certainly have been unable
to pick up.
In turn, the effectiveness of a mainly qualitative approach depended on having a
conceptually robust framework of research questions related to the programme logic, which
had been co-developed by the programme and research teams so that it would capture
what was most meaningful for the programme. While valuable, that co-design process was
time consuming (in terms of resources and timetable), which would need to be factored in
by anyone wanting to adopt a similar approach.
Other important features of delivering effective qualitative research were ensuring that the
research was independent of Welsh Government, a range of views was sought (including
those less connected to Cynefin and/or known to be critical) and interviews were carried out
by researchers with strong social research skills. Building up a picture of the journey
travelled through repeat rounds of interviews and continuous learning diaries was also
crucial, as was the commitment and support of the PCs to the process. Again, the resource
requirements of this kind of approach should not be underestimated, both the time to
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
64
undertake interviews and workshops, and time needed to analyse and synthesise the
evidence.
Limitations of using indicators to measure impacts
The nature of the objectives in Cynefin made it particularly unsuited to measurement by
quantitative indicators and the indicators that were developed had substantial limitations.
While it was not an objective of the M&L process to conduct an impact evaluation or value
for money assessment, clearly that might be a requirement in other programmes wanting to
work like Cynefin. This is an area for development which could usefully build on the work
being done nationally on indicators in relation to the WFG with the qualification that
indicators will only tell part of the story of the value of outcomes. There is probably also
scope for individual place-based initiatives to co-develop their own ‘fit for purpose’
indicators to support their own learning as well as for reporting purposes.
Behaviours for effective monitoring and learning processes
As noted earlier (in section 4.2.4) the effectiveness of the M&L process was underpinned by
the open, trusting and collaborative relationship between the WG management team and
the research team, while balancing that with the need for the research to be independent.
Similar to the way in which they worked with the PCs, the management team stepped back
from being overly prescriptive, enabled flexibility, and encouraged challenge and new ideas.
This required considerable flexibility on both sides in relation to the work plan, which might
not be comfortable for all contractors or policy clients. A particular strength (in the eyes of
the research team) was allowing insights to emerge at their own pace and not trying to pin
down ‘best’ practices too early in the learning process.
Summary: what needs to be in place – monitoring and learning to support programme
effectiveness
Based on learning from Cynefin, key considerations are:
Devising a meaningful not just measurable approach to identifying outcomes and
their value
Co-design of a research framework which identifies what is meaningful from
different stakeholder perspectives and relates conceptually to the programme logic
An approach that generates rapid learning to inform practice and avoids being
‘academic’
The value of repeat rounds of qualitative research backed up by numerical data
where possible, subject to sufficient resource being available
A need for further development work on quantifiable indicators that are capable of
capturing meaningful aspects of place-centred approaches, potentially drawing on
existing work on indicators in relation to the WFG
Recognition of the behaviours and ways of working identified above that supported
effective implementation of the M&L process in Cynefin
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
65
5 Conclusions and Implications
The Welsh Government’s Cynefin programme provided an early opportunity to try out new
ways for government at all levels to work in and with communities, according to the
principles of being led by place-centred priorities and facilitating more joined-up
collaborative working. The programme turned out to be a timely ‘lab’ for developing lessons
that will be relevant to public bodies as they get to grips with their responsibilities under the
Well-being of Future Generations Wales Act.
The conclusions in this chapter refer back to the research questions that were set for the
Cynefin monitoring and learning process and also look forward with implications for the
further adoption of place-based collaborative working in Wales.
Ways of working and how Cynefin differed from conventional models
One key overarching feature of the ways of working adopted in Cynefin is their diversity,
both in terms of what the 59 workstreams focused on and how PCs interpreted and
developed their facilitation role.
While this diversity was sometimes a source of confusion or criticism on the part of
stakeholders who were not close to Cynefin locally, it was central to the design and intention
of the programme – that it should respond to the specific characteristics, opportunities and
challenges found in the places where PCs were working and not set out to implement a
single unified methodology, goals or performance targets. It deliberately contradicted a
‘government knows best’ approach to see if facilitating more open-ended engagement
between communities and service providers would result in ‘better places’ and long term
outcomes.
In practice, the extent to which Cynefin was new, different or ‘disruptive’ (in the sense of
innovative breakthroughs in how the ‘system’ operates) was variable. There were wide
differences across the 11 Cynefin areas in how the PCs interpreted their facilitator roles.
Four differences within Cynefin stand out, with most PCs doing some of both but being
located at different points across a spectrum of:
Doing or facilitating
Community or service provider focused
Place improvement or process focused
Tactical or strategic
These variations in ways of working within Cynefin were associated with different kinds of
outcomes but, notably, whatever outcomes were achieved they were all centred on
community level priorities and not pre-determined at programme level. A key feature of
Cynefin ways of working was the open-ended nature of its involvement with people and
groups in communities, service providers, other public bodies and stakeholders - meaning
that pre-determined agendas did not constrain the priorities that were identified nor the
kinds of dialogue that were opened up in the various workstreams.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
66
Even so, some of Cynefin’s activities did not look especially different from those in a
conventional development officer model, with the qualification that communities may have
had more say in what was pursued and that some of the outcomes were more cross-cutting
than might normally be feasible in a programme with narrower goals and performance
metrics.
The evidence is beginning to suggest, however, that more fundamental change is being (or
on the way to being) delivered through Cynefin where PCs are working more strategically
and are actively facilitating collaborative, on-going, relationships - either between service
providers with different portfolios, between service providers and communities (individuals
and groups), or both.
Central to being able to work in this way is the degree of freedom that Cynefin created for its
PCs to operate in the space between communities and service providers. This freedom
enabled PCs’ workstreams to:
Follow pathways that were shaped by the local context and the people in it, as
opposed to following external directions; and
Develop organically in response to what emerged as being most necessary or
opportune to bring about change, which included changing direction if they needed
to.
Many of the opportunities or levers that were acted upon would have been difficult to
foresee at the start of the process – which led several PCs to warn against any temptation to
create ‘off-the-shelf’ templates for ‘doing’ Cynefin.
Critical to the freedom that PCs had was the lack of pre-defined targets or performance
metrics for the programme or individual PCs – beyond a very a broad objective to develop
‘better places’ (where public bodies are more attuned to community priorities and where
joined-up working achieves more for people in those communities). This was a bold and risky
decision by the Welsh Government but one that appears to have been justified, so far at
least, by the emerging examples of novel practice around collaborative working, long term
thinking, and stronger community involvement – all principles of the Wellbeing of Future
Generations Act.
A further point of difference was that Cynefin had no specific delivery budget apart from
funding the PC salaries. Not being tied to a specific funding stream and its associated targets
proved to be a strength of Cynefin for two reasons: it focused attention on the need to
broker relationships and facilitate others to take workstreams forward; and it gave PCs dual
facing independence in the eyes of communities and service providers which enabled them
to ‘bounce’ between the two levels as needed and act as ‘honest broker’ if required. It also
gave PCs freedom to ‘roam’ across public sector silos, to take risks, and to challenge
embedded cultures and practice where these were blocking progress.
The lack of uniform delivery targets and metrics has, however, come in for criticism from
some stakeholders, especially those less familiar with the programme. This highlights one of
the key challenges of a programme like Cynefin which does not have straightforward targets
and reporting to give it legitimacy and accountability. While it was often argued by those
close to Cynefin that accountability was assured through the mandate that PCs established
with the communities and stakeholders in their areas (through initial visioning or on-going
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
67
open-ended involvement), there probably needs to be more supporting evidence, more
widely shared, to support this case.
Legitimacy and accountability are aspects that will need careful consideration if collaborative
place-centred working is to be rolled out more widely in Wales. On the one hand, there is a
responsibility for the public sector to be transparently accountable for how it spends money;
on the other hand, Cynefin has demonstrated that the kind of systemic change implicit in
these new ways of working needs freedom, independence, flexibility and long timespans,
none of which are conducive to narrow targets and conventional value for money
assessments.
Outcomes and the value added by Cynefin
Given the nature of Cynefin – its broad aims, operation, and the diversity of the PCs’
locations and workstreams – the outcomes it has achieved to date have been highly varied.
They have turned out in practice to be more entangled and complex than the simple Place-
Process-Policy axis that was conceived of at the start of the programme and around which
the research questions for the monitoring and learning process were framed. The
conclusions about outcomes are therefore made in relation to key themes that emerged
during the research rather than organised around the ‘three Ps’.
A further key point about the outcomes is that they are not easily reduced to numbers or
simple descriptions about the state of Cynefin places at a fixed point in time. Most of the
insight about outcomes comes from the rich qualitative accounts about ways of working in
this report which illustrate the interdependencies of outcomes within workstream
‘journeys’.
While it is impossible to boil down the outcomes from 59 very different workstreams into
simple generalisations a number of observations can be made about key characteristics of
the outcomes:
No single policy focus – outcomes spanned a huge range of policy areas and service
provider domains, reflecting the fact that priorities were place-driven rather than
policy driven and that PCs were given the space to construct work-streams that cut
across different policy domains. Several (but not all) workstreams delivered or will
deliver ‘multiple benefits’ when seen from a policy perspective.
Process change leading to place improvements and benefits to people – by the end
of the monitoring and learning there was widespread evidence of process
improvements but many were yet to deliver large scale tangible place benefits. In
many cases, this reflects the time it takes to build the relationships and coalitions
that will be the platform from which future benefits will flow.
Scale – many outcomes were at the micro-scale and some of these looked at least
superficially similar to what might have been achieved in a conventional programme
delivered by development officers. In some places, however, Cynefin’s focus on
community priorities, plus the freedom and time that PCs had to persist and work
around siloed blockages, meant that some intractable problems that may have been
unfeasible to tackle in other programmes were overcome. At the more strategic
end, Cynefin has also demonstrated innovative models of collaborative working that
could be rolled out elsewhere.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
68
Durability - some of the outputs and outcomes from Cynefin were in the form of
one-off physical improvements or investments in local environmental quality but
more were to do with building the platform for processes that would continue over
time – hence the idea that Cynefin was more about journeys and distance travelled
than about benefits countable at a particular point in time.
It is these changes in process where Cynefin appears to be adding most value, according to
feedback from those interviewed in the research (including a small number of community
representatives, stakeholders and PCs). This seems to be particularly true where Cynefin is
seen to be helping to improve service providers’ understanding of what communities want
and are capable of, to improve the quality of dialogue, and to help navigate round blockages
embedded in ‘the system’.
Specific dimensions of ‘added value’ that are evident in Cynefin (though not necessarily in all
places or all workstreams) can be summarised as:
Adding an extra resource and dimension to existing Welsh Government
programmes;
Helping communities to develop a vision and then the capability and resources to
carry it through, sometimes building quite ambitious workstreams over time from
small beginnings;
More shared working between community interests and local service providers,
including some jointly run initiatives;
Taking risks to ‘shake up’ existing practices that block community wants, working
out the system levers that can effect change, and persisting in findings ways round
blockages;
In a few cases, acting as the ‘community conscience’, nudging service providers to
carry through on promises made or reminding them to involve residents and
communities in meaningful ways;
Brokering situations and relationships that enable service providers to spot mutual
opportunities (including ways to avoid duplication), to collaborate and share credit
for jointly achieved outcomes;
Creating the potential to join up policy areas and deliver multiple benefits against a
background of tightening resources across the public sector.
A number of qualifying observations are necessary against the largely positive picture of
Cynefin that came from the research evidence.
First, much of the evidence came from those who were involved in Cynefin or knew enough
about it to be able to comment: this appears to be, so far, quite a limited constituency,
especially in national government. Wider community views were not surveyed.
Second, the research team had reservations about the breadth of involvement of ‘the
community’ even though the evidence is clear that Cynefin is often doing something
different and valuable with those who choose to get involved.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
69
Third, the evidence does not show that Cynefin has been transformational on a widespread
scale although in a number of places mechanisms have been set in train that have the
potential to lead to radical outcomes if they are sustained once the Cynefin PC is withdrawn.
And, finally, some of the workstreams catalysed by Cynefin are still in their very early stages
of building long term relationships and coalitions, and so appear vulnerable to the imminent
end of the PC role.
Cynefin and sustainable development – the Well-being of Future Generations Wales
As noted in the introduction to this chapter, the Cynefin programme provided a timely
opportunity to test and learn about some of the ways of working that are implicated in the
Wellbeing of Future Generations principles.
In particular, some of the Cynefin workstreams provide valuable demonstration cases on
ways to address the WFG principles ‘in the round’, to counter a risk that they could be
interpreted as a tick-list to check off one by one. Cynefin exemplars have demonstrated
ways to translate the headline principles into meaningful activity on the ground, notably the
principles of involvement, collaboration and building platforms for durable, long term
outcomes. Communication and dissemination of the detailed lessons from Cynefin therefore
needs to continue and expand, including the intended publication of a Cynefin case study
report.
While some of the early learning from Cynefin was fed by the management team into the
national team that was working on the Bill, the research showed a different picture at local
level, with PCs often finding it difficult to reach the owners of power (especially in Local
Service Boards) and public bodies frequently saying it was too early to start responding to
the requirements laid out in the Act. Some of the learning from Cynefin is especially relevant
to that future response: namely the warning about the risks of trying to replicate Cynefin
examples in fairly superficial ways; and the challenge outlined above of finding new ‘fit for
purpose’ means of accountability that will not prescribe and stifle the room for genuinely
novel ways of working.
Implications - lessons for what needs to be in place to support collaborative place-based working
An extensive array of building blocks to support collaborative place-based working in public
service settings was explored in chapter 4. As noted there, no single way of working in
Cynefin could be characterised as a standard template or methodology but there are some
common features that need to be part of the consideration by any organisation wanting to
adopt and adapt ways of working from Cynefin. These considerations relate to three
headline themes and the overarching role of national government:
Designing in the space and conditions that underpin effectiveness
Institutional structures, cultures and behaviours
Aptitudes and competencies of individuals
The role of national government
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
70
Designing in the space and conditions which underpin effectiveness
Demonstrating the value of having an independent facilitator – but with national
government backing - in the space between communities and service providers was one of
the key insights to come out of the Cynefin programme.
A number of key features relating to the design of the facilitator role have been identified
through the monitoring and learning research. These include:
Priorities determined through a place-centred understanding of the local situation
rather than imposed externally or dictated by the goals of single service streams or
policy domains;
The need to create space and freedom for a PC (or equivalent facilitator) to be
responsive to place and context;
Sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to evolving circumstance and longer term
change;
Permission to challenge the status quo and to roam across public sector silos;
Continuity of presence in the community and stability in policy and funding in
recognition of the organic nature of the processes and the time needed to build
effective relationships and coalitions of interest;
Good communication mechanisms to support legitimacy and effective ways to share
learning.
An approach to management that is built on mutual trust, mentoring, responsive to evolving
needs for tools and resources, and being a critical friend is also indicated by the research
findings. This may look quite different from existing line management in many public service
settings; and it may need organisations to assess whether they need different kinds of
management competencies and performance assessment frameworks.
Having access to ‘real time’ learning was reckoned to be critical to the management process
in Cynefin, enabling managers to identify issues needing attention in a timely way and to
build trust with stakeholders. The largely narrative model used in Cynefin, focused on
‘journey travelled’, could be adapted and developed in other place-centred initiatives.
Creating indicators that are capable of capturing the systemic nature of outcomes - without
reducing them to over-simplified metrics - is an intellectual challenge and a key area for
development.
Another feature of Cynefin that was beneficial was its ability to link across community, local
service provider and national levels even though some of the communication flows were not
as well developed as those involved might have wished. Where it worked well, messages
about developments in national policy percolated downwards and some learning flowed in
the other direction. How to build on and improve these two-way communication flows
would be something for Welsh Government to consider further.
Institutional structures, cultures and behaviours
The most significant barrier to PCs being able to progress their workstreams was resistance
from local stakeholders - whether that was wilful blocking behaviour by individuals
defending their territory, superficial participation, or an outcome of the way in which
institutional structures unintentionally ‘script’ how individuals in the system think and
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
71
behave, resulting in barriers to access. Another key theme was the way in which
organisational cultures and practices in the public sector tend to deter any form of risk
taking to the point at which some are “terrified” of doing anything out of the ordinary.
As it is in the design of PC/local factiliator roles, government giving permission to individuals
to do things differently appears to be what is needed. This would mean permission to take
risks, to engage in the types of behaviour conducive to more collaborative and joined-up
working and to participate in activities with sometimes uncertain outcomes or timescales.
Behaviours which appear to be needed in collaborative and joined-up working include:
individuals in organisations being willing to let go the exclusive control of agendas;
willingness to compromise and willingness to share credit for outcomes; openness to others
delivering on your behalf; and openness to learning and critiquing your own organisation’s
practices.
Changing cultures and behaviours in these ways is identified in the co-production literature
as one of the key challenges involved in re-shaping public services. It is understandably a big
and difficult challenge for public sector bodies in Wales as they get to grips with the
requirements of the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act. The incentive illustrated in Cynefin
was one where service providers were able to identify shared benefits which might enhance
the value of what they are doing already; and/or opportunities to cut duplication and
possibly make cost savings as a result.
The other notable institutional barrier experienced in Cynefin was the difficulty that some
PCs had in accessing individuals with power and decision-making control, especially in LSBs.
This meant they could end up being “toothless tigers” (as one PC vividly put it): tigers with
the permission to challenge but toothless in having no authority to secure attention. Any
action to address this barrier would need to strike a careful balance between giving PC-type
facilitators more clout with bodies such as Public Service Boards and the risk of
institutionalising the role and thereby undermining its independence and freedoms.
Aptitudes and competencies of individuals
The PC-facilitator job role was a very challenging one. In an operating environment where
job roles are broad and fluid, and the nature of what is required is unscripted and
evolutionary, a particular set of skills, competencies and personal aptitudes are needed.
These might be quite different from the standard set of competencies required of officers in
local service providers or of traditional development officers (though of course some
individuals in these roles may have them, as shown by those PCs that came from similar
backgrounds). Where PCs did not have many or most of these competencies, the
management team found they needed more support, training and hand-holding to be
effective facilitators.
A suggested set of competencies for those working towards the more strategic end of
Cynefin-type activities was shown in detail in section 4.4.4. These competencies can be
summarised as a need to be:
confident and flexible in conditions of uncertainty;
self-directed and resilient;
persistent and creative;
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
72
diplomatic;
opportunistic and resourceful;
analytical and authoritative.
In addition, individuals in these roles need to be able to be a conductor, challenger, broker
and negotiator.
For any future programme looking to adopt Cynefin ways of working, recruitment would
therefore be a key design consideration, taking on board recommendations from the WG
team that it needs to be different from the way in which development officers are
traditionally recruited or seconded, with an ability to assess the above competencies.
Experience from Cynefin also suggested that selection needs to take into account the
specific competencies required to work in different place contexts.
The role of national government
All of the above evidence is useful if the ways of working described in this report are going to
be adopted more widely in Wales. While the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act provides
an opportunity for public bodies to switch focus to more systemic ways of working in the
pursuit of sustainable development, it is by no means certain that the learning from Cynefin
will be taken up widely. The Cynefin programme itself is about to end, which does not send a
message of confidence and may well put some of its early achievements at risk. It is
apparent from the research that more will need to be done at all levels of government to
secure buy-in to these kinds of ways of working if Welsh Government wishes collaborative
place-centred working to be adopted more widely, and for it to be done well. It will most
likely need a ‘home’ and champion at the centre, together with governance mechanisms
which encourage compliance but equally maintain the freedoms and independence needed
to make it work effectively.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
73
Annex 1 – Place Co-ordinator pen portraits The following tables are taken from pen portraits that were put together for each PC . They outline the area in which the PC is working, and the workstreams that they have developed. It is worth noting that these workstreams may have changed, merged, been completed or abandoned in the course of PCs work, and that these pen portraits represent the workstreams PCs developed following on from stakeholder visioning and other engagement events.
Carmarthenshire (Llanelli)
Local Area Llanelli is an old industrial town with former steel works, and is now the most deprived area in the county. With similar problems to many market towns up and down the country, the town also faces a high risk of flooding.
Key Workstreams
Community Emergency Planning for Llanelli - creating a community owned emergency plan that complements the statutory emergency response plans. This will bring all emergency responders and community groups together to collaborate on a scheme that will be the first in Wales.
The Llanelli We Want – This workstream is enabling local engagement activities that will allow the community voice to start assisting in a place plan for Llanelli. Identifying local priorities and opportunities for collaboration will assist in a Llanelli Wellbeing report and shows how the Town Council is already preparing for future legislation.
Wrexham (various)
Local Area Wrexham is the largest town in the north of Wales, and is a major centre of the region's administrative, commercial, retail and educational infrastructure.
Key Workstreams
Wrexham Energy - supporting the development of community renewable energy schemes across Wrexham.
Cefn Mawr lighting up the aqueduct - supporting the development of the aqueduct as a tourist attraction and a revenue generating feature.
Timebanking - supporting the creation of a timebanking and programme for Wrexham.
Tourism for Cefn Mawr - supporting activities to increase tourism to Cefn Mawr.
Sustainable Caia Park - supporting the economic viability of social enterprises and community groups in Caia Park.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
74
Neath Port Talbot (Fairyland, Melin & Town centre)
Local Area Neath is high on the Welsh Government deprivation table. The suburb of Fairyland was prioritised for a place-based approach – to develop community cohesion via place planning in conjunction with social registered landlords; the up-skilling of young people by giving them a voice; working in partnership to develop play spaces and green spaces for community use; to promote cleaner, greener and safer environments increasing community advantages and improving environments. By adopting a place-based approach it is hoped that communities can become more resilient, cohesive and are better equipped to live a prosperous and equal lifestyle.
Key Workstreams
Place Planning: a. to improve the aesthetic appearance of the communal spaces in Fairyland; b. to ensure the residents have a voice in forthcoming environmental improvements; c. to establish a sustainable residents association. d. to promote cleaner and greener environments. This will make communities more resilient and cohesive for future generations
Young People: To up-skill and support young people giving them a voice in their futures and ensuring they are heard. Making future generations more resilient in order to improve their lifestyle choices and make healthier decisions. Preparing them adequately for adulthood ensuring they can live prosperous lives.
Community Cohesion: Ensuring the residents of Fairyland are better placed to manage their everyday lives. Delivering and signposting residents to a series of financial inclusion, community safety and health & well being campaigns. Equipping them to go forward with a more prosperous and healthier outlook.
Melin Play Space: To create a play space owned run and managed by the young people of Melin. This will offer them ownership, promote good citizenship and prepare young people to participate in decision making affecting their future, creating resilience and equality in a future generation.
Anglesey
Local Area Anglesey is an island on the north-west coast of Wales with a population of almost 70,000. It has the lowest Gross Value Added (GVA) in the UK but is also home to the largest area of outstanding natural beauty in Wales and 62 sites of special scientific interest.
Key Workstreams
Newborough Cynefin Cluster - bringing policy and process together for people to improve place.
Building Communities - stimulating community participation in building community voice in service design and delivery.
Holyhead Community Arts - engaging the community to influence town plans through art to help create a vibrant and viable place.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
75
Merthyr Tydfil
Local Area Merthyr is an old mining community with a population of around 30,000 people, which is now looking at other ways to create income, including through tourism. This is one of the biggest issues for a town which has high unemployment.
Key Workstreams
Open Spaces in Merthyr – increase community use of open green spaces, via improvement projects with local communities to make them safer and more desirable places to be.
Increase GP referrals to use open green space for exercise – Using the natural environment as a resource for health and wellbeing.
Create a timebanking and street ambassador programme for Merthyr – increase numbers participating in time-banking, volunteers and providers. Identify opportunities to expand timebanking.
Newport (Maindee)
Local Area Newport is the third largest City in Wales with a population of approaching 150,000 people and was selected as one of the hubs for the Cynefin project.
Key Workstreams
Maindee Unlimited – establish a body/organisation to oversee the management and delivery of sustainable regeneration projects across Maindee. This workstream developed out of a realisation that an overarching formalised body was required in order to attract funding and successfully coordinate a broad scope of interconnected projects.
Increasing and Improving Green Infrastructure – increase and improve all available green infrastructure making this more productive and mutually beneficial to the community and nature.
Improving the Street Environment – improve the streetscape to make it safer, more attractive, and more productively used.
Establishing a Community Space – support the establishment of a community space.
Energy - increase the level of renewable energy generated and support those in fuel poverty.
Supporting Local Businesses – regenerate Maindee district centre.
Other – to look for and support other opportunities as they arise that would make Maindee a more sustainable and resilient community.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
76
Swansea (Blaenymaes, Portmead, Penplas and Penlan)
Local Area Penderry is the name of an electoral ward in the north of Swansea with a population of over 12,000 people, better known as Blaenymaes, Portmead, Penplas and Penlan. Both Welsh Government and the City and County of Swansea target a range of support to these areas due to its ranking in the Welsh Indices of Multiple Deprivation. It is a housing estate with a high percentage of social housing and an abundance of green space, with a SSSI and 12 SINCs within or immediately surrounding it.
Key Workstreams
Penderry Providers’ Planning Forum – to set up a self sustaining network of providers delivering in Penderry wards, to plan provision together to optimise the use of assets and resources, avoid duplication and extend the provision offer according to need and aspiration.
Penderry Food and Growing Network – to enable sharing of skills, knowledge, expertise and utilise economies of scale to develop food growing projects in the area.
A Cleaner and Healthier Environment – to co-ordinate stakeholders to look immediately at issues of endemic flytipping and consider further environmental improvements (primarily aesthetically) in area by agencies currently working in the area.
Pride in Penderry – to connect an eclectic mix of professionals working outside Penderry to develop ideas and visions along with local organisations and the community to make environmental improvements to the area.
Data Analysis – no longer active the aim was to arrange analysis of data from LASA Credit Union loan forms to give up to date local intelligence around household expenditure categories.
Health Activities in Penllegare Valley Woods Dormant due to staffing changes and capacity at PVW (spin off from discussions at Nature Fund meeting) – to consider ways in which the woods can promote health through a variety of activities to the local community and communities throughout Swansea.
Asset Transfer for Penllegare Valley Woods No longer active. (spin off from discussions at Nature Fund meeting) – to ensure the woods have a greater positive presence in the community.
Target Area Planning – No longer active as target area concept not taken over by new council leadership. to develop a long term plan to meet need and aspiration in the area by stakeholders (public sector, other agencies and people living and working in the area).
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
77
Cardiff (Cathays, Plasnewydd, Adamsdown)
Local Area
The residential areas in and around City Road are the focus for Cynefin Cardiff. This covers parts of the Cathays, Plasnewydd & Adamsdown wards and is generally characterised as having a young, transient, ethnically diverse population. There is a large student population in Cathays whilst Adamsdown is an economically deprived ward, with Plasnewydd having elements of both.
Key Workstreams
Active Travel - working with residents and professionals on projects that promote attractive, clean and safe active travel.
Waste & Local Environmental Quality (LEQ) - working with residents and professionals on projects that promote recycling, reuse and LEQ.
Food & Growing - working with residents and professionals on projects that increase & improve food growing opportunities, healthy eating and food budgeting.
Community Arts - working with residents and professionals on projects that help ‘beautify’ the area and spread heritage & sustainability messages.
Community Engagement - working on projects that help to bring this diverse community together in order to strengthen community cohesion. This theme underpins all the others.
Rhondda Cynon Taf
Local Area Rhondda Cynon Taf has a population of around 300,000 including the larger towns of Pontypridd and Aberdare and smaller communities in the area known as The Valleys.
Key Workstreams
Destination Partnerships RCT - creating seven sustainable, community-owned tourist groups and fully integrated place offerings.
Flooding and Resilience Network - creating a flooding and resilience network in RCT.
Community Woodland in Rhondda - growing volunteering in Cwm Saerbren woodland.
Rhondda Community Energy - creating a place-based example of community energy in Rhondda Fawr.
Co-production as a place making tool - using co-productive methods to enable inclusive place planning for RCT.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
78
Annex 2 – Indicator data
Indicator cumulative total
Q5 Total
at end of Q1
at end of Q2
at end of Q3
at end of Q4
at end of Q5
1. Number of workstreams that are up and running as a result of Cynefin
49 50 51 59 58 58
2. Number of new working groups, networks or partnerships formed as a result of Cynefin
47 80 102 158 205 47
3. Number of individuals and organisations that are actively involved in Cynefin-linked activities:
Residents 541 1153 1590 2853 3899 1046
community groups 103 189 250 308 386 78
charities/NGOs/third sector organisations 220 353 452 614 757 143
public sector agencies 238 367 456 588 724 136
Businesses 75 130 164 231 332 101
Academics 27 40 68 78 98 20
Other 14 47 68 80 104 24
4. Number of new relationships established as a result of Cynefin-linked activities:
between communities and stakeholders 183 609 1654 2106 2266 160
between stakeholders and other stakeholders 391 535 708 965 1212 247
5. Time (in hours) contributed to Cynefin-linked activities
Residents 1236 1603 5086 6299 8097 1798
community groups 1038 1262 2117 2817 4421 1604
charities/NGOs/third sector organisations 1529 2220 2907.5 3759.5 4986.5 1227
public sector agencies 1665 2234 2995 4080 4816 736
Businesses 508 918 1473 1790 1984 194
Academics 197 230 301 337 449 112
Other 48 72 153 170 222 52
6. Funding (in £s) contributed to Cynefin-linked activities
Residents 0 50 350 2350 2670 320
community groups 0 900 3250 3850 4480 630
charities/NGOs/third sector organisations 14020 19520 49520 316190 359757 43567
public sector agencies 94950 116465 587751 606726 1038826 432100
Businesses 0 4050 6350 20100 23600 3500
Academics 0 0 2000 4000 17000 13000
Other 0 11850 13850 18850 29050 10200
8. Number of assets created, improved or made more accessible as a result of Cynefin-linked activities
physical assets 27 41 46 67 106 39
soft assets 50 58 114 170 229 59
social enterprises 12 20 40 50 57 7
9. Number of plans/strategies/visions that are co-produced or produced collaboratively between communities and stakeholders as a result of Cynefin-linked activities
72 123 133 148 177 29
10. Number of individuals receiving training or mentoring as a result of Cynefin-linked activities
170 379 612 844 979 135
11. Number of jobs created, safeguarded or maintained as a result of Cynefin-linked activities
0 0 0 3 16 13
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
79
General limitations of indicators
Indicator data was self-reported by PCs, against each workstream, on a quarterly
basis. Guidance was provided by Brook Lyndhurst to support PCs in completing their
data, but inevitably some element of subjectivity remains. That the data was largely
unverified by the research team serves to compound this.
There was significant variation among the PCs, both in terms of provision of data
(some appeared to provide much fuller accounts of their activity) and in terms of
providing ‘who/what’ information to support figures.
The issue of double counting is one which is likely to appear across a number of the
indicators. Although as is mentioned below, in some cases PCs were effectively told
to double count, there is a good chance that double counting occurred in other
indicators across workstreams or quarters.
Specific limitations of indicators
1. Number of workstreams that are up and running as a result of Cynefin
a. The number of workstreams has ebbed and flowed somewhat as PCs have
developed new workstreams and others have completed or been
abandoned. The number given for each quarter is a reflection therefore of
the number of ‘live’ workstreams that quarter, not a cumulative total of the
number of workstreams launched/undertaken.
3. Number of individuals and organisations that are actively involved in Cynefin-linked
activities
a. Brook Lyndhurst guidance stated “If an individual or organisation is actively
involved in more than one workstream, they should be counted for each
workstream they are engaged in, not just one,” and “If residents are
involved a workstream, and are also part of a community group that is
involved, then both of these should be counted”
b. This means that this indicator effectively amounts to ‘instances of initial
active involvement in a workstream,’ as PCs were told to count individuals
or organisations that became involved during a quarter, and not if they had
been involved in previous quarters.
c. This also means that there is obvious and intentional ‘double counting,’ so
the figures by no means represent a total number of individuals and
organisations involved.
8. Number of assets created, improved or made more accessible as a result of Cynefin-
linked activities
There was inconsistency in completing this indicator, with some PCs counting each item as
an asset, i.e. 5 benches equals 5 assets, and others counting them as a whole, i.e. 5 benches
equals 1 asset.
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
80
Annex 3 – Key to workstream journeys
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
81
Annex 4 Additional workstream journeys Cynefin change programme workstream journey: Helping communities to access open spaces in Merthyr
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
82
Cynefin change programme workstream journey: Building a platform for time-banking in Wrexham
Cynefin Monitoring and Learning | A report for Welsh Government
83
Cynefin change programme workstream journey: Building a sense of community in Cathays in Cardiff around local environmental projects