Co-creation cycle

The co-creation cycle

I might be over-simplifying things. But here’s how I see it:

Co-creation cycle

  1. Messy messy mess mess as brains collide and fire off wonderful things.
  2. Funnel thoughts into a to do list and get cracking on the bits we like or want to try.
  3. Take time out to reflect on the process as a whole and our particular involvement in it.
  4. Jump right back into the mess and off we go again.


Messy work

The messy tale: from idea to actual thing

Messy work

If I was one of those bento types, with everything neatly arranged in my life, I may well have figured this all out a long time ago. I don’t know if that undermines or underlines what I’m now writing about, but it adds a neat (ha ha) level of meta-messiness one way or the other.

Let me begin. A little over a year ago, Spark+Mettle was invited to take part in Brainyhacks, a charitable hackathon modelled on a pub quiz organised by digital agency Pixelgroup. Our brief was finding ways of getting awesome but time-poor professionals to connect with aspiring young people. The teams came up with some *rad* [creative-speak] ideas that we took away with us. And we even got a mega-ace-volunteer-turned-trustee, Rina Atienza, out of it too. Here’s a neat little blog post about it from Pixelgroup. And, of course, there’s a video:

Brainyhacks 2 – Dec 2011 from Pixelgroup on Vimeo.

I’m now going to do fast forward for 12 months. Spark+Mettle and Pixelgroup become firm allies >> we try to figure out how we can actually make something happen out of all the *rad* ideas that have been generated >> we get a bit stuck (and Clare from Pixelgroup goes off and founds Code Club—also *rad*) >> then and then and then… the Design Council and Nominet Trust launch the Working Well Challenge >> we are one of three winning teams >> we spend five months working like crazy to make something kinda based on the Brainyhacks ideas but also a lot more than that >> we even have additional amazing support from the folks behind Good for Nothing in a 23rd hour [is that a phrase?] mad-dash-business-hash weekend >> we launch the site formally on January 30, 2013.

Discoverables from Spark+Mettle on Vimeo.

Discoverables founding teamI’ll no doubt spend the rest of the year talking about Discoverables, the platform that we made to help young people uncover, prove and improve key strengths and soft skills needed to succeed both in work and in life. Elevator pitch over,  here all I want to do is credit the brilliance of Dilesh Lalloo, Arfah Farooq, Gianni Bolemole and about 30 other people for turning it from a scribble on a bit of paper into a living, breathing, usable, exciting, revolutionary thing. If you’re super keen to get the ins and outs you can read about ’em here: But the point really of this blog post is to discover how an idea gets turned into an actual something.

Good for NothingPart of the answer, as put succinctly by Paul Miller of Bethnal Green Ventures, comes down to one long to-do list. That’s the neat part. The only neat part. And after about five minutes, at least in my experience, it doesn’t look all that neat any longer anyway. The rest of the answer is a mess. It’s all about a disorderly mix of brains and a huge amount of energy. Just like Spark+Mettle itself, Discoverables would be nothing were it not for the input and insight of lots of people. Young people, youngish people and definitely-not-young-but-nevertheless-youthful people. Amazing. But there’s a problem: I’m not much of a manager. BUT, as I just learned in fast-forward during last weekend’s Good for Nothing #FutureYouth gig, that doesn’t matter. People self-manage. They do it. They do it all the time. Thank you, Good for Nothing, for all sorts of things, but in particular right now, thank you for articulating and encapsulating what I’ve struggled to define and defend for a while (read: lifetime)—

We’re grown-ups, even the 16 year olds, and we can figure stuff out for ourselves. When we collaborate, there are peaks and there are troughs, there are splutters and flares and dead ends, but they are all important and valid. If people do stuff that they like and they feel valued (and there’s a vision and one centralised, updated list of the things that really need doing) then it all kinda falls together. There’s no need for managey-management or leadery-leadership. We don’t need a thorough understanding of group dynamics. With space and respect (and a to-do list), stuff gets done.

Good for Nothing team chatAnd this is a REVELATION to me. I have been jonesing for leadership and management courses, desperate to know the best way of getting things done, all too aware that in my professional world of education and non-profits, efficiency and organisation are rarely, um, optimal. But I can’t afford these courses and they mostly sound pretty dull. I keep looking at those bookshelves in the WHSmith at Victoria Station and nearly buying the “How To Be The Leader You Can Be” or whatever bullshit title is in the No. 5 non-fiction spot of the week. But I’ve always resisted. And I’ve always thought I’ve resisted because I do judge books by their covers and those covers are always horrendous. But actually I’ve resisted because, because, because… I don’t need a book. I figured I was just slapdash and a bit messy and disorganised, but actually, doh!, that’s what the whole co-creation process is about! If I wanted neat and organised, I’d be regional manager, heading up the corporate ladder at WHSmith, or someplace. I am not neat, I am not organised. Not in my work, not in my thoughts, not on my desk, not in my entire house, or car, or inbox. Especially not in my drawers or cupboards. Come over for tea and a rummage through one of my many bags stuffed full of random papers sometime. But I still somehow mostly get things done. And that’s mostly down to my love for (and dependence on) the brains and input of lots of other people. Lightbulb moment: I am brain co-dependent.

This is my conclusion: getting something from idea to thing, for me and anyone else interested in co-creation rather than decree, is messy and splattered. A bit like my kitchen table after my two year-old has finished his breakfast. And that is how I like it. Efficiency and orderliness? I reckon they’re a bit over-rated.

Spark+Mettle hangout session

Digital Technology and Youth Engagement

The following blog post originally appeared on the Social Reporters site. It’s reproduced here with the kind permission of David Wilcox.

One of the people we really wanted to come to our DTYE event – on how digital technologies can support young people to engage socially and economically with their communities – was Eugenie Teasley, who set up Spark+Mettle. It is a highly innovative aspirations agency focussed on “preparing young people who do not have the connections or the resources themselves to map and launch a career that they will love”. The young people aren’t participants – they are co-creators of the programme.

Unfortunately for us Eugenie was in South Carolina at the time, so on her return we invited her to review the top ten messages from the event in the light of her experience.

Here’s a video in which Eugenie explains how the Spark+Mettle Star Track programme blends Benjamin Franklin’s self-improvement programme with an understanding of flourishing as determined by Cambridge University’s Institute of Wellbeing … and then her reflections.

I’m really energised by the messages that have emerged from the Young People and Digital Technology exploration project so far. Too often online interaction for young people is either narrowly social or unengagingly pragmatic; I’m thinking Facebook and Blackboard. The digital space is a thriving one—in fact one of the only bustling, growing ecosystems during these economic doldrums. So to encourage fresh approaches to connect young people and technology is something I value and champion.

It was in the Young Foundation’s report Plugged in, untapped (2010) that I first came across the phrase ‘digital homophily’—something I’d seen time and time again but not named. There’s this tension about the internet: although it has the capability of being a democratising tool, it is currently not bridging many socio-cultural chasms. In fact—for the most part unwittingly—it has a tendency to widen them. Those who’ve learned how to develop broad networks, to research thoroughly and to engage meaningfully online are in a happy place. But for young people who don’t have extensive networks, the internet is a place to reinforce their offline peer community, and to engage with the brands that influence them.

I launched Spark+Mettle a year ago to explore ways to turn this tendency on its head. My aim was to work with young people from tough backgrounds to help them flourish and fulfil their potential. Star Track is a year-long incubator programme that shapes, supports and accelerates the emerging talent in young people. Unlike many similar programmes, the method for the pilot has been to harness digital technology and, working collaboratively with young people, to understand how it can enable them to fulfil their potential.

Spark+Mettle hangout session

I confess this method came out of practical, personal considerations: I had just had a baby and was ensconced in Brighton, not much able to trundle around the country. But I desperately didn’t wanted the programme to be confined to where I was—the need in Brighton for this sort of programme is considerable, but still considerably less than elsewhere. Going a digital route then seemed to be a wholly practical one—a risk, but one that’s paid off. It’s been great for co-creators: one pair “hangout” each week (as above) when one’s in Essex and the other Edinburgh; we’ve teamed young people in York and Bristol with London counterparts. That’s pretty liberating. The fact that it is not location-based has been a huge plus for our team and volunteers too—people are able to commit to us and to the other logistics of their lives. We’ve had team members dial into their sessions from Singapore and New Zealand.

Out of the ten messages that have emerged from the DTYE conversations, there are three that resonate particularly strongly with what we’ve been doing over the last few months.

The first is around the concept of blending online and offline. All our co-creators and team members met, in person, during an assessment day in October. That formed a strong basis for the developing online relationships. We have quarterly lunch parlays during which we all meet, and bring in a number of volunteers to connect with our young people on a variety of projects. The most recent one we held was a huge success. The online/offline blend is mutually reinforcing. And in fact, although I appreciate the benefits of game-based approaches, for the group of young people we target (those who have spark and some degree of mettle but lack the connections and resources to get to where they deserve to go) it is the human-to-human interaction (online or offline) that is key.

I’m also borderline fanatical about co-design – whether it’s with the users or other providers, a multi-brain mash-up is surely an intuitive approach for generating successful online content and design. We were looking for a title for the young people on our Star Track programme: ‘participants’ was too passive for us. The title ‘co-creators‘ came from them. “As we learn from it, we are also shaping it,” said Suraj Rai. I can’t say it any better. For each session I provide a learning aim, a flourishing theme and a suggested list of questions, discussion points and (online) sources of information. I share these with the agents and co-creators and they are left to adapt the discussion to their particular needs, interests, experiences or aspirations. Beyond the session, there are suggested research and reflective activities, but again these are highly adaptive. They blog their responses which we aggregate on our Tumblr. At every stage the co-creators are feeding back to us about the programme design—what’s working and what isn’t. We adapt accordingly. If it doesn’t work for them, then it doesn’t work. We’re excited to be in a state of flux, and to keep that flexibility integral to our structure, however we grow.

The final message that I connect with is around network literacy. It comes back to my earlier point on digital homophily. We shared the Young Foundation’s finding with our co-creators. They agreed with it. Now they’re conscious of it. And our programme deliberately strives not only to reinforce the strong, beneficial peer-to-peer connections but also to help our young people develop the means of connecting with a much wider group, including people from different generations, backgrounds and places. It’s one of the elements of the programme that they enjoy the most and get the most from. What’s key, for me and for the organisation, is that the benefit goes two ways. The UK is shamefully silo-ed. I don’t aim to improve social mobility—not because I like class schisms, quite the opposite. Improved social mobility, to me, means allowing a small number of people to climb the ladder. I’d like to get rid of the ladder.

The digital space seems to be the perfect environment to foster a new, non-hierarchical, complex and interwoven society. But it’s not there yet. Getting young people involved in harnessing technology to fulfil their potential is vital to breaking down the hidden social, cultural and economic barriers that prevent them from doing so offline. Spark+Mettle is a small potato, but we’re excited about what we’ve achieved so far, and we’re keen to engage with anyone who has similar aspirations. Together maybe we can really do something.

More videos from Spark+Mettle