The post There is no Big Society Big Plan – but that’s no bad thing said there’s a lot starting to happen under the Big Society banner, but it is a mistake to see it as an old-style government programme. The idea is that things emerge more organically, without any one Minister – or anyone else – being in charge. Fair enough for something aiming for wide-spread action by many interests, but the problem is that no-one really understands what Big Society stands for, or how to join in. There’s no voice, no story, and consequently a lot of rubbishing.
In Since there’s no Big Society Big Plan, can we expect Big Process? Probably not I examined the idea of a Big Process to develop some clear purpose and shared vision, led by Prime Minister David Cameron, but concluded that was unlikely to happen. It’s not really feasible in the current political climate, and probably not the sort of thing Downing Street would want to orchestrate anyway.
Networking Big Society – or maybe some knowledge gardening suggested another approach to get the best out of Big Society: build on the wealth of activity already supported by many community and voluntary sector networks, while also adding innovative methods for mass engagement. Help community organisers and anyone engaged in social action make good use of the social technologies now widely available, but under-used by traditional activists.
(I should declare some self-interest here. I’m working part-time with the Big Society Network, and this is the sort of programme of network-weaving I would like to work on …  joining up conversations, helping people make sense of what’s going on, brokering new opportunities. While it would be possible simply to write lots about the great projects already underway, it would be counter-productive to try and pull these under a Big Society banner without asking. If people want to add the term Big Society to their project stories, that’s up to them – anything else is co-option. Certainly not empowerment).
As I mentioned in the last post, we have a forum to explore social tech and networking here on Social by Social, and that’s probably the best place for detail.
So, in summary, what I think that what we should try (and I’ll come back to the we) is development of a rich mix of online and offline conversations, stories, wants, offers and inspirations created by those who have been in this field for years, and some fresh voices too.
I don’t think it is good enough just to leave it to the existing big networks and organisations, although they have a huge part to play. They will naturally enough look to safeguard their own jobs first, and serve their existing members, particularly as their funding is being cut. The community, voluntary and social enterprise worlds are jungles, and it can be very risky to move from your niche and try and innovate too fast. Some will – bnut I guess most won’t.
Nor can Big Society Network achieve the change solely through programmes like Your Square Mile, detailed here, however ambitious. Support will be needed from existing organisations and networks.
How might we proceed? That’s for discussion on the forum I that mentioned, but here’s some starter ideas.
Develop a core group of people interested in evolving a Big Society ecology – something more like the mesh in this diagram that a top-down network that’s really just a mailing list, or a simple joining up what’s there already .

Agree some values to underpin activities. I’ll promote open, transparent, participatory; standing on the side of newcomers, not just existing friends and members; blending online and offline; where possible co-designing new projects.

Start some collaborative projects: we already have ideas for a Social App Store,  and a group developing around the excellent, independent, Big Society in the North are thinking about what it takes to be a 21st century community organiser.

In addition, there’s a great opportunity for the Big Society Network, which is currently rethinking its web site, to develop something that would assist in the the joining up, and also showcasing great projects and ideas, where people agree. I’ll be talking with others in the team, and report back.

Meanwhile, what’s you ideas for joining up, making sense, help people do good stuff?

Update: Toby Blume, on Twitter, suggests adding equality and fairness as Big Society values, which prompted a link to work on Strong Communities, Bigger Society that Community Links did with the Chain Reaction Network.

1. Give communities more powers
2. Encourage people to take an active role in their communities
3. Transfer power from central to local government
4. Support co-ops, mutuals, charities and social enterprises
5. Publish government data.

… and suggested that while there is a lot now underway,  there is no Big Plan and it is also unlikely that we will see a Big Process aimed at creating any shared vision for what’s needed to move from aspiration to achievement.
I haven’t been writing particularly critically – not just because I’m working part-time for the Big Society Network. For the best of Big Society ideas to succeed they have to be filled out and realised bottom-up, not through Government-orchestrated programmes.
On the other hand, little will be achieved if people can’t explain Big Society to each other, can’t find out what’s happening in different places, or learn from each other’s experiences. Of course, an enormous amount of that is happening already, if not labelled Big Society, orchestrated by scores of very able community and voluntary sector networks. Just take a look at the membership of the Community Sector Coalition, for example, and the work of the 450 organisations who are members of the Development Trust Association.
But while Big Society is in part more of the same social action we have seen for decades, it is also aiming at far wider engagement, and ways of doing things better, aided by social technology. How might that be achieved?
The Big Society Network has produced two briefing documents: one on the aims of the network – here:

The Essence of the Big Society Network

And one on the Network’s vision for mass engagement, called Your Square Mile.

The Essence of Your Square Mile

The two documents were circulated after a meeting last week to brief community and voluntary sector networks on the Network’s plans for a series of events around the country this autumn. The first is in Stockport on September 9.
Your Square Mile is a highly ambitious plan to use some of the techniques for mass engagement and support for social action made possible by combining big events, exciting offers, and social technology. Paul Twivy BSN CEO knows a lot about this approach from his work with, among other things, Comic Relief and The Big Lunch.
What’s also needed, I believe, is work to build on and support that of the existing networks I have mentioned, and the hundreds of others who received insufficient recognition in most early Big Society announcements.
That’s important for at least two reasons: firstly, it is a pretty obvious place to start. These are the experts. Secondly, initiatives like Your Square Mile can succeed in engaging more people … but where will they then go for advice and support?
As well as the improved social technology infrastructure needed for Big Society, we need more and better networking.
Or as Nick Buckley said in a tweet “I’d settle for a #bigsociety ecosystem”.
I’m not suggesting it is up to Big Society Network alone to develop that ecosystem … to network the existing networks, and engage more people.
Following the briefing meeting I mentioned, many of those present expressed an interest in the idea, and so I’ve set up a group on social tech and Big Society networking over here. If you are interested in networking Big Society, or some knowledge gardening, do join us.

Notions of delegation and devolution have been around for many years but hardly ever does the rhetoric and good intention actually translate into transformed realities – not because there isn’t some desire to do it but because when people use the words delegate, devolve, engage they do not actually appear to understand what that means – what it means in practice and what it means in terms of who has what power; who is willing to ‘let go’ of some and who has power that they are currently not recognizing, not using or indeed may be abusing.

One problem is that transformation takes a clear purpose, held strongly over time – and that is difficult within relatively short electoral cycles. When offers are made, they are on the terms of the power-holder with re-election in mind. They wrongly believe they can “give” power … when empowerment depends also on people’s willingness to exercise the choices they have, even if limited.

So when David Cameron talks about ‘People Power – activism, volunteering and philanthropy‘, I find myself wondering what he understands about how to create the kind of cultural shift that would be required for the UK to become a Big Society. For those of us who have experienced working in and with communities; and in and with teams in organisations, we know that the journey from dependence to interdependence can take years of personal and professional development facilitated and enabled by passionate, committed, compassionate, purposeful individuals. There simply is no quick-fix.

Louie argues that there are some fundamental paradoxes we must face if Big Society is to come alive: it will take longer than an electoral cycle; there is no simple solution in handing over power; we need to work with complexity and a whole system approach; we need a process to evolve a shared vision, through a dialogue and partnership building.

So, if David Cameron really wants to make a difference, I suggest he would need to be coming at this in a completely different way. He would need to start by getting together key stakeholders and to begin the exploration from a non-party political platform. We would all need to enter into a process of co-creation where a shared Vision could be created and where we could explore to what extent we could align to a common purpose. If there is no identifiable ‘common purpose’ amongst the myriad of purposes that will inevitably be at play amongst each player/ stakeholder/ participant, then the initiative will simply fail.

Concluding …

And with a Purpose as big as David Cameron’s, it has to be co-created – people have to come to it, together. What he wants for his nation is irrelevant and unachievable. It is when we are unified about what we want that the energy for transformation becomes truly potent.

I’m something of a process person myself, so the facilitator in me said YES to Louie’s analysis and proposal. If we don’t have a Big Plan could we have a Big Process?

But then, what would it take to mount this sort of process? Is it realistic when there is so much suspicion and mistrust about Big Society, as a mask for cuts? What happened to that Big Conversation launched by Tony Blair in 2003? This isn’t just an issue for David Cameron and Big Society, but any politician trying to shift from current ways of doing things, where we manage to hold in our minds the paradox Louie highlights: “they” should fix the big problems (but we don’t trust them to do it) – we are all in this together (but we can’t work out how to do anything together).

Apart from the problems of mounting a Big Process for Big Society (or Good Society or whatever), I’m pretty sure it is not the sort of thing that the architects of Big Society among Mr Cameron’s advisers would consider. Someone close to the action told me: “this is the first set of politicians I’ve met who actually want to give away power”. I’m not sure I entirely believe that – and as Louie points out, you can’t just give power away. But certainly a Big Process would seem against the grain of current policy.

If you are among those who take the view that there is a useful opportunity in the Big Society idea, what’s to be done? Hoping to grow Big Society organically is all very well, but there’s probably only a few months before a new Labour leader pulls us back from coalition honeymoon to politics as usual, and the full bite of cuts makes Big Society a term you would only use in applications to the Big Society Bank. What’s going to be the point of using the brand if there’s no sense of shared brand values from strong leadership or dialogue?
In this situation I suggest we take inspiration from the Big Society in the North initiative started only a couple of months ago through a blog post by Julian Dobson. There Julian wrote:

My own concern, which I’ve set out in earlier posts, is that we connect with and learn from the past; and that we use the Big Society as a means of including the most excluded (because if we don’t, then however big it is, it will be small-minded). I’ve also set out some thoughts from a regeneration perspective for New Start magazine, out next week.
I think an important step in turning the Big Society into something meaningful will be to move the discussions out of London and into the north of England, which is likely to be hardest hit by public spending cuts. I’d also like to get some creative idea-generation going, because it’s easy to get bogged down in legitimate complaints or philosophical debate.

Julian provided an update a couple of weeks back, since when membership of the online forum has passed the 180 mark. I’m picking up news around the country that groups are planning events to talk about Big Society, and Big Society Network is planning its own tour: more about that later. I hear that Lord Nat Wei has asked some nonprofit organisations to act as Big Society ambassadors, and the Development Trust Association and Keystone Development Trust have launched a Big Society Challenge, leading to a book due out later this year.

There is lots of Big Society planning going on in different places – as I highlighted in the last post – and hopefully we’ll see more initiatives like Big Society in the North. Big Society Network will shortly start a series of events around the country, that should spark more interest.

But there is no narrative: the idea of Big Society is still dominated by the notion of volunteers taking over public services. Do It Yourself is fine – but very limited if everyone has to learn afresh.

One idea to emerge is that of the DIY store – a Social App Store – which is being discussed over here. Some good ideas are developing, but to make it work we would need a lot of contributions from different sources, and a market among those trying to develop local social action (whether under a Big Society label or not).

So we have a situation where some people see the opportunities in Big Society … or perhaps how to turn the idea to advantage; lots of unconnected initiatives; no organised way of learning from each other; and little chance of any orchestrated process to build a shared vision.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m spending a couple of days a week working with Big Society Network, so I have a vested interest in seeing some positive outcomes … and these are issues that are, of course, discussed by the team. What might we do … or encourage others to do? That’s for the next post. Meanwhile, I’ll be scanning Twitter and other blog posts for further inspiration to add to my developing thoughts about Networking Big Society.

For years, there was the basic assumption at the heart of government that the way to improve things in society was to micromanage from the centre, from Westminster. But this just doesn’t work. . . .The success of the Big Society will depend on the daily decisions of millions of people: on them giving their time, effort, even money, to causes around them.

The RSA summarises Paul Ormerod’s argument:

This essay argues that to be effective, the policy framework for the 21st century must not only draw on the new insights that behavioural economics gives us, but also needs to be underpinned by an understanding between this and how networks influence our choices and how these change over time. Indeed, the impact of networks is potentially considerably greater than that of ‘nudge’. This makes creating good policy harder while offering huge potential for change.

Rose Beynon follows this up with an excellent post on Nudge versus the Network:

N Squared discusses the recent love affair with ‘Nudge’ – the popular face of behavioural economics that has influenced the Tories’ approach to the Big Society thus far – and commends the concept to a certain extent.  It has helped people to finally bin the idea seated in traditional economics that there is a universal mode for behaviour – it allows for uncertainty in human decision making.

Ormerod goes one step further – he thinks we should allow for more uncertainty.  Nudge is an insight into how you can start to steer a network of people towards a different pattern of behaviour, but ultimately the network will take the reins and choose whether they follow that course or not.

It is this recognition of the influence of social networks which Ormerod argues must become key if we are to engage with individuals and have a hand in the choices they make.  This understanding accepts the truly dialogical nature of an individual or citizen, an idea that philosophers like Charles Taylor have been banging on about for the last decade.  Humans reason and make decisions through exposure to and interaction with those networks or frameworks that surround them, whether that’s a Facebook group or a queue in the Post Office.

The truth is that policy based on a little bit of nudging and a greater understanding of networks is a rather daunting thought for a policy maker.  It presents a world which is disorderly and uncontrollable, where initiatives may fail and the network may influence unpredictable decisions.  But there is also an opportunity for huge pay offs.  A small intervention based on a keen understanding of the networks influencing individuals could make a real and tangible impact.

Acceptance of this irrational world would be scary for policymakers and those of us working in communications, if it wasn’t so exciting.  Here is the opportunity to get a greater understanding of what and who influences citizens, enabling them to make choices that benefit themselves and those around them.

So that’s why I feel OK breaking the non-story that there is no Big Society Big Plan. However, I do believe we need more than is being attempted at present. As a reporter I feel a duty to help people make sense of what is going on – and I’m sure others do too. We have lots of tweeting and blogging, but that is not aggregated or curated anywhere effectively. I made a start with a wiki around the BSN Open Night, but it needs expansion and updating.
If we want to amplify the positive potential of Big Society then we need more networking. This is the vision behind the BSN plans for Your Square Mile, but I also think we could do more by helping join up existing networks in the field.
In addition, the Big Society vision is attracting attention from sponsors who want to support projects. We need a way to join up project proposals with funding resources.
But who is the “we” in the ideas I’ve listed above? Partly Big Society Network, but also anyone else who wants to have a go. There is no plan. No one is in charge. You don’t have to ask permission. If you can, just do it.

Earlier this week Big Society in the North launched with an open event in Sheffield, and as I expected it was a great opportunity to test some ideas developed mainly in London against harder local realities – including the Social App Store. The bsitnorth group had taken the DIY philosophy of Big Society and decided they would explore the challenges and develop opportunities without waiting for any more from Whitehall.
Lucy Windmill of Amplified has done a terrific job of live blogging the event, and pulling together tweets and videos here. Organisers Julian Dobson and John Popham have blogged thoughts here and here.

You’ll find videos that I shot here. More links below. These excellent reports leave me free here to concentrate on the idea that I was promoting – an online store of practical tools that will help people build big (or small) society in their neighbourhood. Earlier disussions here.

Although I already knew Julian and John, I was a little uncertain how the store and other ideas would fare – so it was great to be warmly welcomed before the event by some of the team at the Sheffield-based Community Development Exchange – Sophie Ballinger, Emma Lees, and Tanwir Rauf – with some really constructive ideas.
I get the sense that, in Sheffield at least, the different tribes in community work, social enterprise and social media are working together. They are already creating big/small society.
During the event I pitched the store idea, and was then joined by about a dozen people to talk it through … with a great mix of tech and nontech expertise. We focussed on the idea of a Social App Store, that had first surfaced in my mind after the Big Society Network Open Night on July 6 – reported here.
Broadly the idea is that there’s decades of expertise in local social action and community development, so let’s not re-invent the wheel. On the other hand, it is very scattered, because funding regimes and organisations’ natural self-promotion does not encourage easy navigation and linking of resources. Those in the main networks will happily swap news of the latest reports, toolkits or smart tools … but then walk into any local meeting in government, community or voluntary sector and there’s maybe 10 percent acquaintance of key resources across the fields. That drops to near zero for any new neighbourhood activist. Just Googling gives you a bewildering mass of resources, and the best stuff may not be online anyway. Even if you find what you are looking for, it may not be in a form that is easily digested and used. There’s too often more thought for the funder than the customer.
So – how could we find or develop useful stuff that’s as easy to use as a mobile phone app, downloaded from the Apple store or Android market?
These need not be tech. One of my favourite examples of a really simple app is the one-page waiver proposed by the National Association for Neighbourhood Management, enabling you to cut the grass on publicly-owned land. John Popham found some great ideas when he visited one of the Big Society vanguard areas, Eden District. Car sharing, village welcome packs, planning applications online, connecting second home owners, using the schools’ IT network.
The idea of the store is that it will be a market place, and so success will depend partly on how it is framed (who manages the space) and who will pitch up with some goodies. (I’ve had some terrific inspiration from Anne McCrossan of Visceral Business on how we might blend experience from retail, social media and open business approaches … more on that another time).
On the night in Sheffield I was delighted that marketing and social media specialist Clare Mackenzie was keen to pull together the discussion and report back, as you can see above.
I’m responsible for taking the store idea forward for Big Society Network, and I’m excited by the possibility of collaboration with Clare, John and other talented and enthusiastic people I met in Sheffield (and then with others).
Meanwhile back in London we’ve been thinking how best to make the store idea real, and decided that a first step is to create a simple showcase of the sort of apps we are talking about. I say create, but in the spirit of open co-design and co-production it will be more a matter of seeding the showcase and then inviting people to put up other ideas. That will also help us think through what might be an app and what not, and who might decide. We’ll need a core group of collaborators and ways of ensuring that the apps are what people really need, not just what we want to put in a store. Sheffield seems like a great place to start with that. (… awaiting early challenge from Birmingham:-)
If you want to keep in touch, I’ll keep reporting back on SocialbySocial, where you can also join in discussion. I’m also in discussion with one network who has the sort of site we might be able to semi-clone for the showcase and more structured discussions. If someone has done it already, let’s see if we can borrow.

• Earlier posts on Big Society Network
• Looking North for Big Society realities
• Big Society in the North event Amplified
• Explorations in no-man’s-land: Julian Dobson
• Videos from BSitNorth event
• Big Society in the North – first event: Emma Lees CDX
• Big Society in the North: John Popham
• Big Society launches in the North: Inside the M60 report
• big society, little hope?: Saul Cozens
• BSitNorth on Twitter
• Discussions about the store at SocialbySocial
• Building the Big Social Apps Store – report of July 6 BSN Open Night

• Discussion about the Store at SocialbySocial.net
• Longer description of the Store idea
• All posts here about Big Society and the Network
• Other information about Big Society developments

Last night I dropped into a West End gallery, tripped lightly over freshly-laid turf towards a barful of delicious Courvoisier cocktails, greeted on the way by engaging young women (and men) with offers of cake, hugs, massage … and sex and intimacy conversations.
Just another PR event in the life of a socialreporter? No, it was promotion of the Mindapples mental health project … so let’s move from tab-style to (slightly) serious.
Not very serious, because the greeter at The Future Gallery was Mindapples co-founder Andy Gibson, who I know from co-authoring our social tech book SocialbySocial could make Drupal configs fun. Almost.
Anyway, the event was the launch of The Big Treat, which you will find at 5 Newport Street today and tomorrow: programme here.
The idea behind Mindapples is really simple. We are familiar with an apple a day keeps the doctor away and the more recent campaign for five portions of fruit or veg a day. Good for bodily health … but what about our mental health? How about thinking of five things that would help maintain our mental well-being – and also be fun.
As Andy explained, mental health doesn’t have to be all about doctors, illness, schizophrenia, depression – it can also be about treats.
The Mindapples web site invites you to share your five treats … and last night we did that by filled in some apple-shaped cards. Andy says his favourite so far is “pet something furry – dog or boyfriend”.
Andy’s co-founder Hege Saebjornen – along with Tessy Britton – told me she hopes “mindapple” will find its way into the dictionary as a term people use a conversation starter: a bit more creative than “how are you feeling today – fine” end of story, when it probably isn’t. The mindapple prompts you to say, “well OK, (or not) and what I’m going to do is treat myself with …”
Mindapples sparked a creative thought for me – perhaps aided by the Courvoisier revolutionary spirit. I’m currently developing ideas for a Big Society Social Apps Store, as I explained here. It will be a place where people looking to do something to benefit their group or neighbourhood will get good ideas and help, made as easy to use as a mobile phone app. Some will be tech, many not – just smart, simple, yet powerful. Andy readily agreed Mindapples is a social app. And looking down the list of Mindapple gardeners I know where to find some more; first stop Tessy and Social Spaces.

Big thanks to Sue Johnson and Mary Richardson for hosting the event at Communities and Local Government, and to Mary for initial questionnaire analysis. Drew turned the data into the map using the Yed mapping software.

Despite assurances of confidentiality, the exercise didn’t go down well with everyone (see Jamie’s post here), and on reflection we would modify the approach. But, hey, it was an experiment … and did show some connecting hubs, and quite a few groups or individuals that were isolated. We have only shown connections, not skills, resources, or openness.

We are now thinking about how to extend the mapping to get a clearer picture of who’s who in the field. We’ll also be going back to those who attended with thoughts on how best to take forward the many ideas generated.

Drew Mackie offers this more detailed commentary, supporting the questionnaire

We talk a lot about networks of all sorts. But often we just mean lists of people or organisations that we connect to in some way. To make real sense of networks, we need to understand their structure – and that’s where network mapping comes in. It’s the process of plotting the actual structure of a network. Not the artificial hierarchical structure that is shown in organograms, but the working structure of links and transactions revealed by survey and interview.

Of course the structures thus revealed are complex and shifting. Using specialised software, however, the underlying patterns of influence and information can be discerned. This process is often called social network analysis (SNA) and is used in business to identify HUBS – parts of the organisation that are central to the network as a whole – and GATEKEEPERS – parts of the organisation that control the flow of information or influence into sections of that network. SNA has been used in situations as diverse as:

• Identifying the key organisations in community cohesion programmes in Lancashire.
• The network of organisations delivering regeneration in towns in Northumberland and Galloway.
• Internal and external links in a local authority Consultation and Engagement programme.
• The identification of patterns of fraud and money laundering.
• The mapping of terrorist networks.

The key to the analysis of networks is the concept of centrality. A node in the network will have importance because of how central it is to the whole network (this is called Closeness Centrality) or because it is the main link into a relatively separate part of the network (this is called Betweenness Centrality). The first type of centrality identifies the HUBS and the second the GATEKEEPERS.

So why map the organisations, groups and individuals? A good map will show:

• Who’s most central
• Where the gaps are
• Who should be connected to improve network performance
• Clusters of closely related nodes

Although the map configurations can be interesting in themselves, the map becomes much more powerful when combined with information on how skills and resources are deployed throughout the network. Coupling the map with an audit of skills and resources can show up issues such as:

• Very central nodes that have no resources or skills – both HUBS and GATEKEEPERS
• The location of needed resources or skills
• New links that should be made to benefit the network as a whole
• The “stock” of skills and resources held by the network as a whole

Mapping the July 6th Event

To map the existing links and assess the skills and resources held by participants, we used a questionnaire asking people to record

• what organisations they worked with most
• their impressions of how skilled or resourced they were under a number of headings.

This allowed us to plot a map showing clusters of organisations and which were most central to the network as a whole (see map). This can be used to suggest where new links might be created (what is often called “network weaving”) and particularly to connect clusters that are isolated from the main network (see boxed clusters at bottom right of the map).

There are some caveats:

• not everyone at the event returned a questionnaire – some people objected in principle to assessing other organisations skills and resources. We received 40 replies.
• we have not estimated the strength of links between organisations. All links are assumed to be equal and thus show potential connectedness – a bit like a road map that shows how towns are connected but doesn’t show the class of road.

Earlier Big Society posts

After an intro from Paul, and briefing from facilitator Steve Moore, people came to the front of the room at Communities and Local Government, pitched the topic they wanted to discuss, formed groups, and got talking. It was hot, noisy, creative and mostly very positive. You can see the Twitter stream as well as background material on the BSNopen wiki here.
In my role as social reporter I pulled Paul and Steve into the cooler, quieter, foyer for the five minute verson of what was going on then returned to the buzz to capture feedback from the groups. You can see Paul and Steve above, and all videos below.

Once you start to play the first one, the later ones appear at the bottom of the player frame. Or you can find them all here on YouTube.

Paul provided a framework for the discussions by explaining Your Square Mile – above – as a way of bringing together the best advice and services for social action in a locality, enhanced by a range of new products developed by BSN with partners. The Network will be mutually owned by its members … and Paul is talking millions of members. For a few pounds a year subscription they will receive special benefits that might include, for example, low-cost insurance cover. Paul talked about ways to encourage people to invest their saving locally, to think about time as a currency, and to reduce barriers to volunteering and social action.

One of the strengths of the  Big Society idea is that it the reverse of the centrally planned government programmes of the past, where policy-makers developed frameworks, invited people to pitch ideas within those, and attached strong guidelines and targets to any support. It’s to be Your Idea, Your Priority, Your Passion.

The problem is that it is difficult to explain just because it is so diverse. There is no one Big Voice, Big Idea … but potentially many voices, many ideas. Last night was a microcosm of that. So how do you help join up those conversation so people can learn from each other … and so there is a heightened sense of what is possible? How do you create opportunities for people to share and sell, find new partners?

Last night Steve Moore asked me to speak briefly about ideas for a Big Society Commons or Store, which I wrote about here, and here. I said we need space with different levels … information, conversation, exchange, products and services. Maybe it is a mall plus a market, some high tech, some low. It is absolutely not created by government, but by those with something to offer.

Then I started to wonder about the role of the skilled, creative, passionate people at the Open Night. Perhaps one analogy for part of the store is an Apps store, where you can download smart ways of doing things to your mobile phone. Some are free, some you pay for. The fee goes to the developer, with a percentage to the store owner.

It works because there is a framework for the way apps are developed – tight in the case of Apple, more flexible in open sources stores.

So perhaps some of the people at the Open Night were potential developers for the Social Apps Store. If the Network can help to create the store, it will provide a much bigger market for those with social action products and services to sell – or offer free.

The Apps Store offers one metaphor to help us think how we bring good stuff together, what’s in it for the different interests involved, what rules and frameworks we need to make sure things work together.

But then, I like tech stuff. What’s your metaphor?

Over the next few days I’ll pull together the blog posts written after last night, and update the wiki. Meanwhile tonight I’m with colleague Drew Mackie, and Niall Smith of IDeA, at Warwick University where over dinner we are running a version of the Social by Social game for people working in tobacco control alliances around the country.

We’ll be looking at how social media and social reporting can engage smokers and help them quit,  and build stronger partnerships among health organisations. Far fetched? Not at all – just look at the work Steve Thompson is doing in Wrekenton, where we ran a version of the game a few months back. We provided the framework – local people filled it out with their knowledge and enthusiasm.

There’s been lots of discussion around Big Society over the past couple of weeks, as you can see from my bookmarks, the Twitter stream, and this smart way of displaying content generated in many different places.

Using paper.li you can agree a hashtag (keyword with # before it) then ask people to post links (URLs) of blog items or other content in a tweet containing the hashtag. Set up paper.li to search for the tag, and it displays both the tweets and the original articles – creating your own news page refreshed daily (thanks @evangineer).
Next week the Big Society Network is holding its first open get-together, and that should produce a real storm of converations and ideas to follow up. As part-time social reporter for the Network – as I explained here – I’m wondering how best to handle this, since we don’t yet have a substantial online presence, and funds are very tight. Paul Twivy, Steve Moore and Piotr Brzezinski are concentrating on interim fund-raising while dealing with a host of invites to run meetings, develop ideas and generally explain what Big Society is, and what part the Network will play.
I now understand why people say “I just don’t have time” when encouraged by social media enthusiasts to blog their work in progress … and why we get lots of Twitter instead. It can be done on the phone between, or even at meetings. But this content doesn’t usually get collected, curated, made accessible to the majority of people who don’t follow Twitter avidly.
I could do some video interviews, blog stuff myself, scan the tweets, collect the bookmarks, digest …but it would be a full-time job and soon we would need more help, and just end up with an unsustainable centralised operation.
So how to avoid that on the one hand, and on the other hand help people make more sense of everything that’s bubbling up around Big Society? (Meanwhile Network launch material here; if you need an independent briefing on BS, NEF have a good one. I also like this article by Jonathan Rosenberg in New Start Magazine on collective ownership as the new consensus. Conclusion: “Politicians are offering power: let’s be gracious by seeking to take it.”)
For me, one of the key ideas surfaced in Big Society discussions is not how to do More (public services, social action) with Less (money because of cuts) … but how to do More with More, where the More comes from releasing assets in the social fabric. I heard it from social capital specialist David Halpern at the Radical Efficiency report launch.
I guess we all know of situations where far more could be done if people would climb out of their organisational and professional silos, share knowledge better, collaborate rather than compete, use technology effectively. Big Society Network (BSN) aims to foster those approaches locally through the Your Square Mile programme.
The BSN team want to evolve the programme collaboratively with the many organisations in the field: starting with next week’s get-together. How can we demonstrate collaboration from the start, with so little time to offer?
A coffee with Piotr this morning helped me crystalise an approach that’s partly tech (like the paper.li example), and partly in the spirit of collective ownership summarised so well by Jonathan Rosenberg. (The Network is going to be a mutual).
Instead of practising traditional reporting approaches of researching, gathering, sifting, packing, and then publishing on a central strongly-branded site… aim to increase the reporting skills of others and then pull their their work together.
Instead of co-opting people’s stories and projects as examples of Big Society (thereby causing great annoyance), encourage people to tell their stories in their online spaces, and then promote them and increase traffic.
And instead of spending a lot of money building new systems, see if people will lend you some of theirs, or just use free stuff.
My friend Amy Sample Ward explains how you can build a listening dashboard to collect news feeds. People can collaborate in collecting bookmarks (URLs) about Big Society (or any other topic) using delicious; they can tweet using a hashtag as I mentioned. If we all agreed on the additional tags to use to separate out conversation topics (including the groups at the event next week) we could produce aggregated content that’s fairly accessible: I’m sure the Amplified team would give us some tips from their pioneering work.
But what about all the more developed ideas that are coming in to the Network team? How can we store, acknowledge, encourage and build support?  The other day Chris Quigley of Delib showed me their excellent DialogueApp and offered it for use free of charge. You can pitch ideas, comment, rate and so build a community of interest.
If we want to move beyond brainstorm and crowdsourcing to offers of service – whether free or paid for – and create a marketplace, then Dom Campbell and the team at Futuregov will be able to offer Simpl. Richard Wilson and team at Izwe have a tool to “bring people together to discuss the issues that matter, generate ideas and find solutions that will help create change in your community”.
The local government innovation organisation IDeA is developing their knowledge hub, and I have a hunch that the Central Office of Information will become more of a hub of engagement … moving from broadcast and consultation on behalf of government towards the development of civic space for us all.
I’ve written before about the idea of a Big Society or Good Society DIY Store, that could be a place to gather conversations, ideas, howtos, and offers of service at local and national level.
One way to make a start could be to bring together some of the excellent people I’ve mentioned above – and others who might help – to create the Big Society Commons as a knowledge gathering and sharing space.
What’s the benefit for the Network, against more traditional approaches of centralised content, promotion and branding? Why go for more tag than logo?
Firstly, a lot of people will be very greatful if we make it easy for them to see what Big Society is about, and what’s happening … from the Minister, through Civil Servants, to many organisations and activists. They’ll also contribute more readily if we say “just add #bigsociety so we can find it” instead of “post something under our banner”.
Secondly, we’ll be demonstrating that we want to complement rather than duplicate, support rather than co-opt.
Thirdly, we’ll build relationships with smart people who could become partners when there are funds to pay for the development needed to stitch all of this together properly, and develop new products.
And perhaps most importantly, it is a lot easier and a lot more fun.
I haven’t cleared any of the above with the Network team, but I think I know what they’ll say. Get started, and then pitch it as a conversation at next week’s open event, and see who responds.
Will people bother to help? Yes, if they believe that a mix of sharing and selling is the best way to go.
As Karl Wilding reports here, we recently had a very interesting but quite complex presentation of research into how to make people do things, or more gently put, get them involved. Is it better to nudge people or get them to think things through. Karl liked my rather simpler proposition:

• If you want people to give, ask them
• If you want people to act, support them
• If you want people to talk, listen

So if Big Society Network wants to encourage people to do more, give more, then a good place to start is by listening ourselves, and making it easier for people to talk to each other.