Three scales

In the last post I examined three useful perspectives to improve services. In this post I look at three scales – the individual, organisational and society-wide – that can help in understanding and improving services.

Society-wide

At this scale, observation is on the broad impacts of actions. For systems thinkers, this is the ecosystem around your system that you often do not have agency to change. Major shifts at the society-wide scale often impact upon the experience your service users have at the individual scale. Whilst, usually, major shifts within your organisation or services rarely have an immediate impact at the society-wide scale.

For our peers in government reading this blog post, the policy and legislative changes that occur at governmental level do often completely shift the landscape at the society-wide scale. Legislative change especially impacts at the organisational scale and upon individual experiences within society.

Collective action at the organisational and individual level can lead to macro (society-wide) change. Yet government action can immediately impact at the society-wide, organisational and individual level.

The complexities in service design arise when you dig a bit deeper into what society-wide really means. Community experience within Bristol differ to the experiences and issues impacting upon the community within Glenboig. This is where co-production on a local scale can help to ensure a service meets the needs of the local community. Embed teams within the local community, build trust and understanding, modify your service to meet local needs.

Organisational

At the organisational scale actions and services impact upon three main actors; your service users, employees and partners. All three actors’ experiences are important. These stakeholders are often segmented further to ensure your culture – the unconscious ways you act – impact well upon all parties.

From a service perspective, considering what needs to change at an organisational level to allow your service to succeed is relevant but also subject to tension. It is hard at the service level to impact upon organisational culture at the speed required to make a difference to your service users. It is often due to these tensions that services struggle to succeed.

Take for example a service that favours a person-centred approach but where the wider organisation favours consistent experiences for all users across all services. Person-centred approaches equate to equity. Consistent experiences equate to equality. At an organisational level the tension is often between equity and equality. Equity requires tailoring services to the needs of the individual even if this means spending more time or money on this individual compared to others. Equality means providing exactly the same amount of time or money on this individual even if their personal circumstances mean they require additional resources.

This is where co-production can help. By involving all stakeholders in the service design process (from internal organisational executives to a broad span of service users) and sharing openly the results of discussions, entire organisations can be brought along on the journey whilst providing valuable input at the right moment ensuring the mismatch between organisational culture and service culture is minimised. This is why placing your organisational experts through professional experience at the same level of importance as your service users, the experts through lived experience, is of utmost importance.

Individual

The individual level looks at the experience of service users, employees and other people that are impacted by the service. This is where user-research through in-depth interviews can allow people to express their experiences in a safe manner. Experiences can also be observed from a distance or shared throughout the co-production process.

There are of course individual actors that can have an outweighed impact upon your service; perhaps the CEO of your organisation, executives, program leaders or charismatic change makers. On the whole though, it is harder for individuals to make their voice heard. Providing as much opportunity for voices to be listened to is important. Changing the power relationship by listening to your community in the spaces they feel most comfortable in, rather than online or in your own spaces, is the first step to building the trust for previously unheard voices to be heard.

As we move into a time where AI is impacting upon social change, it is important to evaluate what data we hold at an individual level and whether this is actually reflective of the experience of individuals when thinking contextually. The data held may build up an inaccurate picture of the experiences at an individual level for example when considering the experience of Black women during pregnancy compared to White British women.

Co-production and qualitative research can unearth the inaccuracies that the quantitative data hides. Data-driven decision making is of utmost importance but it must be contextual.

Why might these three scales be useful?

Considering the landscape of your service on a society-wide (macro), organisational (meso) and individual (micro) scale allows the identification of areas of tension, possible leverage points and prospective future disruptions. The tools of systems thinkers can help visualise and articulate what you observe to make change within your service and to gain buy-in from stakeholders.