Designing for Civil Society: How to start an unsatisfactory engagement

John Moore neatly encapsulates How to start a relationship on the basis of manipulation by describing the way advertising agencies get their work. The creatives have to compete in pitching a 'big idea' to clients, spending a great deal and anxious about their hit rate. Clients think they are getting a lot of free ideas, but end up paying a premium to cover wasted effort elsewhere. John reflects that "starting agency relationships this way virtually guarantees dysfunction."
His item prompted me to think about the way that public bodies choose consultants for community engagement and civil renewal projects, and the resulting dysfunction that can occur and affect a wider range of interests.

Typically briefs are drawn up and put out to tender, teams assembled, methodologies dusted off, and bids prepared without those involved really knowing what the problem is. There is seldom a chance for consultants to meet community interests who (in theory) will benefit from the exercise, or to understand how far the (usually numerous) agencies needed for delivery will actually collaborate.
The teams chosen for interview make sure they present a suitable mix of age, gender and ethnic backgrounds to suit the preferences of the panel. However, they don't know whether the whole thing is a bit of a farce because a local group is favoured for the job, and this is just a matter of going through the motions.
In the event, things may work out fine, and I've seen good jobs done in these circumstances. But it can be that the consultancy brief masks one or more typical problems.
* Financial year deadlines are approaching, and the exercise is a way of showing something happening (and spending the money).
* The various parties central to any realistic solution can't get on, and think that outsourcing the problem will at least put things at arms length.
* Funders have specified community participation or partnership as a requirement for getting the money - and the box must be ticked.
If that is the case, one or more of several typical outcomes may result:
* The consultants and client collude with each other to paper over the cracks. Meetings are held, surveys conducted, reports produced.... people disillusioned again... but not much changes except the bank balances.
* After a few weeks the consultants realise that (yet again) the proposal they made isn't appropriate because the brief was rubbish. But the client knows that too, and they both try and do the best they can. However, it takes a lot longer than planned, and costs everyone a lot more time (and/or money) than envisaged.
* Or sometimes the consultants get sacked because they don't deliver, with much finger wagging on each side.
* Or the consultants may quit. Unusual.
* Or local groups who were promised some involvement and useful results get stroppy. But councils, agencies and consultants know how to deal with that, so they can revert to more meetings, reports etc.
I know it can be pretty difficult on the client side, with demands from all sides and a straitjacket of regulations to guard against corruption or favouritism. Officials can usually only be as good as the politicians they work for. They end up doing a juggling act I wouldn't like to try.
But I do think things can be improved, while still retaining some necessary safeguards.
* Clients can offer consultants an opportunity to find out more about the situation by meeting some of the the interests involved - and doing their own interviews. In some instances they may consider paying several consultants for some front-end work, and choosing when that first stage is completed.
* Consultants can be explicit about the basis on which they work... setting out their values and challenging the brief if necessary.
* Both clients and consultants can be more realistic about how much time everything takes (wishful....)
* Even more wishful....briefs and methodologies can be developed on the basis that satisfactory outcomes depend on a wide range of interests: a big system of stakeholders. The key issues in participation and partnership, for example, are power and control. So you can't really design community processes without thinking about community governance. But that's another story... and meanwhile there's a job to be done. Deadline Thursday? No problem.