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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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



Workstreamjourneys

Stakeholder survey

Stakeholder survey

X-cutting indicators





PC learning diaries

Next wave

WG

PCs

Next wave

WG

PCs

Next wave

WG

PCs

Next wave

WG

PCs

Final report


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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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)


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.


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)


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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”.


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


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.


23


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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,


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


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


31


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


32


–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.


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.


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.


34


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


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.


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


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



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:


Transferring learning from Cynefin to other organisations and programmes

Exemplifying new ways of working


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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’.


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’


Through approaching individual members of the LSB directly, the PC was able to gain their engagement


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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,


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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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





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.


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


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.


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;


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.


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


charities/NGOs/third sector organisations 1529 2220 2907.5 3759.5 4986.5 1227


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


charities/NGOs/third sector organisations 14020 19520 49520 316190 359757 43567


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


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.


80

Annex 3 – Key to workstream journeys


81

Annex 4 Additional workstream journeys Cynefin change programme workstream journey: Helping communities to access open spaces in Merthyr


82

Cynefin change programme workstream journey: Building a platform for time-banking in Wrexham


83

Cynefin change programme workstream journey: Building a sense of community in Cathays in Cardiff around local environmental projects


84

Cynefin change programme workstream journey: Identifying and building from shared priorities in Wrexham

Cynefin Place Programme Monitoring & Learning · Cynefin is a Welsh Government programme running...

Documents

Transcript of Cynefin Place Programme Monitoring & Learning · Cynefin is a Welsh Government programme running...