Strategic communication Archives - Osmos2022

Stakeholder mapping with the Pentahelix

Julia Rocha — Tue, 12 Jul 2022 09:47:03 +0000

/// Tool

Strategic communication

Observing the crowd before getting on stage.

Stakeholders mapping is one of the first things we do after kicking off a project. In 2015 we cobbled together a model referred to the Pentahelix, which we find remains incredibly useful. Little information was available when we started to use the model, which forced us to build a theory and practice around it. This article covers the genesis of this model, present some of the main concepts and cover how we use it.

Where does the Pentahelix come from?

The Pentahelix concept builds on two previous innovation focused models: the Triplehelix and the Quadrahelix. It is useful to understand how each model works as they all remain useful means to read stakeholders.

Tool

Sector: Ecosystems, public space & community, production

Services: Vision, process management, engagement, sharing knowledge

Triplehelix

The Triplehelix that can be traced back to post second World War technical innovation, noting the importance links between knowledge, industry and the public sector. This trilogy of actors are rather obvious and co-dependent. The public sector uses its tax base to finance knowledge institutions to develop fundamental research that is risky and poorly understood. Knowledge institutions (universities and research organisations) explore innovative technologies, materials and processes. The business sector commercialises them. To close the loop, the public sector reaps the rewards through taxes. Smart-phones would have remained a caricature on Star Trek and never revolutionised the communications industry had it not been for public research investment.

“The Triple Helix thesis is that the potential for innovation and economic development in a Knowledge Society lies in a more prominent role for the university and in the hybridisation of elements from university, industry and government to generate new institutional and social formats for the production, transfer and application of knowledge.” University of Stanford’s Triple Helix research group*.

In other words, knowledge requires firstly the public sector to support experimentation and R+D, taking an almost blind risk that businesses would never make. Likewise, it needs the public sector to develop the conditions or demands for innovation – particularly in terms of communications, transport and resources. The military is a good example of this, that were experimenting with technology appearing decades later in ones smart-phone (yes Steve Jobs owes his gratitude to the military). Once the conditions for experimentation and development are created, the natural remaining partner is business that can find a practical way to release the product to the market.

Quadruplehelix

The Triplehelix is rather generic however if the innovation cares about people, then users must belong to the stakeholder list. The problem with the Triplehelix is that the trilogy assumes they know best for the market. Not everyone wants to have the same plates, clothes or colour television. The late 70’s brought about a wave of the ‘individual collective’ that was hard for both retailers and politicians to account for. Evidently people (consumers) matter. This introduced an additional stream into the helix, the users, thus creating the Quadruplehelix.

The Quadruplehelix is no longer four isolated groups but rather ‘stakeholders’ each have a valuable contribution to be made within an R+D project. The Quadruplehelix brings these actors closer together and has brought the conversation down to the ground. However the fourth dimension, the users, appear to be treated as consumers/users for local business innovation and services rather than genuine partners for co-creation and to build on place based knowledge. It is also a model that is very appealing to the IT industry rather than place-based issues where money and entrepreneurship pose quite different interests.

The penta: from business to complexity

A final step to reach the ‘penta’ is the distinction of capital and business — both represent quite different stakeholders. Business stakeholders are often aggressive, competitive, take risks and are prepared to fail. Capital, including finance and ownership of resources, is much more risk averse and tends to involve small incremental change.

This has meant that the Pentahelix can go far beyond R+D, technology and science and enter into a spatial dimension involving innovative business models, social networks, wicked problems and so on. The Pentahelix is thus an ideal tool for working with complexity and economic models, rather than consumer/market driven business innovation models.

The Pentahelix model as it stands was inspired by a number of tools that we had seen, however when we began to test it there was little literature to reference. More recently environmental projects have embraced the ‘Quintuple Helix’, which we have found to be a useful theoretical concept but much harder to apply in practice (see the original source to the Quintuple Helix here).

Stakeholder interest + relations

Stakeholders that are driven by too many interests can disrupt a project by not being clear about their objectives. But it is impossible to say that you are only interested a few things: we have driving interests and supporting interests. This all is relevant to context. Stakeholders generally prioritise one interest over others. Professional knowledge, career, wealth and home are generally the the strongest interests motivating stakeholders. It is useful to establish what a stakeholders’ professional motivations are and if their personal interests will play a strong role.

A second issue involves stakeholder relations. It is quite normal that stakeholders bring personal or institutional friction that can stifle building positive relationship. Opportunity always creates the most effective bargaining chip — where stakeholders have a perceived sense of gaining, then personal issues can be overlooked and revised.

Stakeholders Vs Actors

Stakeholders generally refer to organisations that are connected to a problem or project out of interest or organisational motive. Stakeholders may not have an inherent interest in a project problem. Actors are those stakeholders that actively partake (with or against) the development of a project.

Projects generally involve coalitions and constellations of different stakeholders and interest groups. Even if there is a relatively good understanding of the stakeholders, the place, problem or timing may result in different levels of interest or engagement. Mapping out stakeholders is therefore an art in curating which actors should be taken into consideration. The Pentahelix is based on five stakeholder types:

Public sector: including administrations and elected officials.
Knowledge sector: most notably organisations focused on expert knowledge.
Businesses: providing business services through material and immaterial goods.
Civil society: the NGO or third sector that is accountable to a community (excluding private lobby groups).
Capital (and finance): which can involve land, finance and the ownership of technology and resources (but not the exploitation).

Actors can fit into more than one category, particularly if they are a large public authority. If this is the case, it is best to define which department is responsible according to the actor type.

As there is no formal way of knowing which are genuinely interested, it is useful to run a mapping exercise during an early project team meeting, where possible with a client or the main project partners.

Stakeholders Vs Actors

The Pentahelix is highly useful, yet imperfect. It is especially relevant at the beginning of a process, as a ‘quick and dirty’ analysis tool, when little is understood about the landscape or stakeholders. It is also very useful for bring the project team together in reflecting which stakeholders are likely to be be affect or further engaged. However, the map can be very synthetic and quickly becomes redundant once the team engages with the stakeholders. Stakeholders rarely fit cleanly into a particular segment. The Pentahelix is certainly useful throughout a project as a reminder of the stakeholders that exist and need to remain engaged.

See more insights:

About the tool

University of Stanford’s Triple Helix research group
“Creating Local Innovation in a Quadruple Helix” – an EU funded project looking into local innovation.
“The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation”, Carayannis et al, in Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship volume 1, Article number: 2 (2012)

The post Stakeholder mapping with the Pentahelix appeared first on Osmos2022.

Institutions as eco-systems

Julia Rocha — Mon, 13 Jun 2022 20:45:06 +0000

/// Case study

Strategic communication

Five school campuses explore ways to reduce their environmental footprint.

Institutional infrastructure consumes vast amounts of resources and in turn produce considerable amounts of waste. In isolation, an individual school, hospital or aged-care facility is often limited in their capacity to reduce their environmental footprint. But by grouping institutions, it can be possible to look for ways to pool resource management and reduce the environmental impact of institutional sites. Five schools campuses in Brussels decided to look for a way to reduce their environmental impact, while also nurturing a grass-roots movement to share resources and knowledge between students and staff.

Brussels’ French language community, the COCOF, is responsible for nine schools, spread out across five campuses and hosting some 7000 elementary, high school and technical training students. The education curricula is extremely diverse, ranging from primary school to professional education such as baking and agriculture.

We were commissioned to research and design a visionary masterplan to outline a more sustainable direction for the COCOF’s campuses that involved teachers, students and ground staff. The concept of ‘ecological transition’ was recently integrated into the COCOF with a small transition team set up to facilitate workshops and events. This masterplan would help the team to take a wholistic view of a transition and allow them to prioritise actions.

Case study

Project: Mission Janus

Client: Commission communautaire française (COCOF)

Year: 2019

Partners: Centre d’Ecologie Urbain de Bruxelles

Location: Brussels

Team: Adrian Hill, Hanne Van Reusel

Sector: Production, vision, public space and community

Services: Systemic & service design, governance models, facilitation of events and meetings, user research & engagement, strategic communication

Learning the ropes

The project was driven by senior staff within the education campuses, including the general director, which helped to put the project high on the agenda. The first step involved extensive research to understand how the campuses operated according to three variables: teaching, maintenance and student culture.

What we found was that each campus site operated as an island, it had a very different education curriculum, approach to maintenance and student body. For example, one campus had no problems with having vending machines on site and didn’t separate waste, while another banned the sale of junk food and had a range of separated waste bins. We found a reluctance from the maintenance staff to go beyond their standard scope of work. We also found tensions existed between the teaching and maintenance staff, which we found came down to poor communication and a lack of shared vision. We also found that many of the teach staff were interested in including environment into their curriculum but didn’t quite know where to start.

Schools as an eco-system

The five campuses were very different in form and function. All shared some key features, such as having a school canteen and having specific waste flows, such as organic waste. Some schools were located in the city centre and had very limited space while other campus sites had abundant space and were located on the periphery of the city. This allowed us to look at ways the schools could share both resources and adapt the education programme. For example, one campus contained a vast food production garden while another had a cooking school. These links were obvious but the bigger questions was about coordinating when there was a supply or demand of one resource or another and what facilities could be integrated into teaching.

From ideas to action

Within a process of nine months, we set up concrete actions, leveraged existing initiatives and proposed a scenario for the ecological and social transition on the middle and long term. There was great ambition, which could have been considered overwhelming. The project resulted in setting concrete goals to help the staff focus and prioritise.

As a closing reflection, the masterplan would have been easily overlooked if it were not for two key variables. The school benefited from having an aligned senior management team, which was overseen by the general director and helped to drive the overall strategic vision. Furthermore, the transition team meant that operational work could be carried out once the masterplan process was completed.

See more insights:

The post Institutions as eco-systems appeared first on Osmos2022.

Revisiting the role of a bridging actor

Julia Rocha — Mon, 05 Sep 2022 20:38:35 +0000

/// Case study

Strategic communication

Complex projects depend on good facilitators.

After a decade working on local economic development, we reflect on a project that helped to launch Osmos. The multi-disciplinary methodology and tools that emerged from this project have survived well and since have been refined and adapted. However, the case studies used in the project have evolved considerably and we reflect on how the transition from idea to action could have been more effectively executed.

The TURaS (Transitioning towards Urban Resilience and Sustainability) project, financing through the European FP7 programme between 2011-2016, to address the increasing challenge to accommodate more than 50% of the world’s population in cities while also addressing climate and environmental issues. The project involved researchers, local authorities and business partners from 16 cities in 11 different European countries. It explored new transition strategies for European cities to build resilience and sustainability and reduce their urban ecological footprints.

In Rotterdam, Stuttgart and London, the focus was on flood mitigation and stormwater management. In Brussels, Rome and Seville, the focus was on sustainable local businesses. In Dublin and Nottingham, the focus was on activating derelict sites to increase urban biodiversity and improve urban community life. We worked on a couple of fascinating issues such as the concept of a Community Interest Company, temporary use and product-systems services. The results of our work was a guide called “Bridges to Local Economies: Strategies for place and community based economies”.

Publication

Project: Transitions for Urban Resilience and Sustainability – TURaS

Funding: European Commission Framework Period 7 (FP7)

Year: 2011-2016

Partners included: University College Dublin, University of East London, Bruxelles Environnement | Leefmilieu Brussel, Cita Metropolitana di Roma, ProMalaga, Bioazul, BIC Lazio, European Business and Innovation Centre, Climate Alliance, Helix Pflanzen

Overall budget: € 8 869 490.70

Location: Europe

Team: Adrian Hill, Stephan Kampelmann

Sector: Ecosystems, public space & community, production

Services: Vision, process management, sharing knowledge, engagement

What is a bridging actor?

The guide presented the role of a bridging actor as a mediator between places, people and local resources. The role could include facilitating, moderating, care-taking, programming, developing visions and a range of other responsibilities. We kept the specific definition open as the context of the project or problem will ultimately define what role does.

This kind of role has generally been poorly defined or in many cases problem owners (be they public authorities, businesses, research agencies and universities or community organisations) struggle to find the right organisation to support them in dealing with complex community- or place-based problems. Often architects, urban planners or engineers are commissioned, yet they are professions that are poorly trained in process management and complexity. Accountancy and business consultancy experts are also often targeted but they often lack design skills to explore solutions unique to the local context. We therefore considered it important for this guide to flesh out skills and capacities that a bridging actor could offer to address complex place-based problems.

The role of the bridging actor is by no means new. However, over the last decade, we’ve seen increasing interest in it. Human-centred design and services design are emerging branches of design that are helping offer skills to both spatial designers and business and finance experts. In 2015, when the guide was written, ‘Design Thinking’ was a trending within business circles and progressive parts of the public sector to empower designers and non-designers with design techniques emerging from sociology and psychology.

In reflection, since the guide was written, we do not see a radical increase in the demand for ‘bridging actors’. However, we do see a large increase in the acceptance of complexity and a shift towards adaptive governance and prototyping. We have also seen an increasing interest in participation, engagement and inclusion in projects of all types. This is positive news, yet the bridging actor still remains a useful figure that is rarely stipulated in contracts or tenders.

Bridging strategies, are they still relevant?

In the guide, we presented four bridging strategies:

Connection between elements and the system
Cooperation between pioneers and the establishment
Alignment of particular and common interests
Collaboration between communities and entrepreneurs

These four examples portrayed what a bridging actor would do in theory. We have found that in practice, projects are far too messy to fit into clean boxes. These four bridging strategies are helpful in showing the diversity of conditions but are less useful in the field.

Is the process methodology still relevant?

The bridging actor is not just a person or team, we considered it to be a service. In 2015 we developed a methodology that we considered suitable to support the bridging process, what we called the ‘transversal planning process’. The process consisted of seven-nine steps, depending on the type of project. This process served us, as a team, to structure and follow projects. But in retrospect, the process was far too challenging to convince clients and many partners to use it as it appeared too complex.

As our repertoire of design tools broadened, the ‘Double Diamond’ became our go-to methodology. This methodology, developed by the UK Design Council in 2004 and common in the realm of industrial and services design, offers both a simple yet profound way to communicate design founded on research and allowing for flexibility and adaptability. The methodology was remarkably similar to our transversal planning process that we developed before we discovering the double diamond. With so many variations of the Double Diamond process, we felt the need to make some adaptations. We settled on six steps which we use either as an internal guide for project management or to help aligning partners.

How have the tools evolved?

The guide included four tools that we developed and are still in use. Most of our projects begin with stakeholder mapping involving the ‘Pentahelix’. We have linked this tool with others such as personas and power-interest maps. The second tool, the ‘Chart of Emotions’ (what was called ‘Back to the Future’ in the guide) is another tool that we use to kick off almost every project and have found this incredibly powerful to learn about people’s interests. The ‘Project-Environment Canvas’ (called in the guide ‘The Vision Dashboard’) is used regularly during the Define phase of a project and helps with reframing the scope. Finally, the ‘Dialectic’ is a tool that is used less often and mostly when dealing with mediation.

How have the case-studies evolved?

The guide presented ten case-studies to illustrate how the bridging role could be applied in practice. Almost a decade later, it is high time to revisit where they have evolved. Of the ten, it is useful to highlight the five physical case studies that were largely facilitated or driven by public authorities.

The Brussels Crown Barracks and Studio C were cases involving significant public and private finance and where momentum has helped to push the projects forward and be realised however the role of the bridging actor had different outcomes. In Crown Barracks (now called USquare), a public development agency took over this role and helped ‘develop’ the project, which by all intents and purposes has been considered successful due to a well attended temporary use activation process. Studio C has had a similar development process, albeit much slower and the role of the bridging actor during the planning stage was given to a private real-estate agency that was poorly equiped in dealing with the community or transition processes.

The Barking Riverside Community Interest Company was launched by development agency, a public private organisation. It remained limited in its community building capacity and independence and therefore the community has struggled to embrace it. Regardless, with pressure from London’s housing market, development is continuing and is resulting in community building activities which has been triggered by development conditions.

Two other projects, the Parco Agricolo Casal del Marmo and the Solfatara di Manziana have had a very different fate. These two projects evolved little since 2015. In both cases, there was political will and interest yet no budget set aside to kick-start the process and little long-term alignment with other public and private agencies, which were waiting for financing to emerge. Likewise, there was interest from the private sector to invest, however the bridging actor in both cases struggled to deal with the bureaucracy in building public-private partnerships. For both projects, the bridging actor lacked political and financial capital to get the ball rolling and likewise was unexperienced in developing large projects.

In conclusions, what are the right conditions for the bridging actor?

These are four takeaways for the role of the bridging actor.

The bridging actor should be buy-in from critical stakeholders and actors. Not every organisation, be it public or private, needs to be signed up but there should be enough momentum and commitment to ensure the project can be developed or problems can be addressed. If there is not enough engagement, the process should be stopped. This should not be considered a failure as it could save a lot of time and resources in the long-term.
The bridging actor should be seen as independent. Even if the bridging actor is engaged (paid) by one of the stakeholders, it is important that the bridging actor has sufficient independence and neutrality to be trusted and not feel uncomfortable about pointing to the elephant in the room.
Avoid jumping to conclusions. The bridging process must reveal a sufficient understanding of the project or problem before looking for solutions. To avoid remaining vague, it is useful to regularly synthesise and summarise input.
Complex projects do not need complicated processes. The bridging actor must retain the role of facilitator and present a clear process and goals. However, the process should also be adapted if it is not serving its purpose. Avoid confusion about the process at all costs!

See more insights: