IFF Helix People and Enterprise Technical Workshop 17 – 19 March 2008

Report for Helix Board

IFF Helix People and Enterprise Technical Workshop 17 – 19 March 2008

Report to Helix Board

IFF Helix People and Enterprise Technical Workshop, 17 – 19 March 2008

Introduction Twelve members of International Futures Forum visited for three days from 17 – 19 March 2008. IFF were briefed on the Helix project (both before and during the event), toured the Helix site, visited and interviewed 12 different stakeholder groups and processed this information – including, on the final afternoon, with the assistance of a number of members of the Helix board.

The purpose of the workshop overall was defined in advance as follows:

• To build a firmer foundation of ethos and values across all stakeholders, that will enable the project to fulfil its commitment to “a more inclusive, more extended level of engagement merging innovation, fresh thinking, open minds and a commitment to listening, to understanding and to new structures.”

• To enhance the capacity of the Board and all stakeholders to: • Work together to generate surprising, additional value from the project. • Retain the balance of People, Enterprise and Place in achieving the Helix objectives. • Further reveal the “hidden wow” factor associated with People and Enterprise. • Ensure that the short term successes of the Helix reflect the long term ambition

A full record of the workshop, including all the interview data and the narrative of the engagement, has been prepared separately. This report draws out key insights from the workshop for the benefit of the board and other key stakeholders.

2 The Wow of the Workshop Before getting into detail it is worth recording the ‘wow’ that this workshop generated for IFF. The first IFF encounter in Falkirk was in spring 2002, an occasion that started the shift from ‘action plan’ to ‘living plan’ and the My Future’s in Falkirk process.

This workshop took place six years of shared and varied experience later, both for IFF and for Falkirk. The engagement with a new aspect of MFiF that is both highly complex and clearly puts people and sustainability at its heart allowed us to generate significant new insight into how to deliver a ‘living plan’ in practice.

The final sessions of the workshop involved working with members of the Helix Board and project team on three different aspects of the project: business planning and resourcing; community engagement; and managing and phasing the project so that the whole adds up to more than the sum of the parts. We were excited to find just how congruent and reinforcing the thinking on these three themes turned out to be. The idea of seeing projects as holons within the Helix Space (described below) is particularly generative.

For IFF the engagement represented a breakthrough in our own thinking about how to combine a holistic vision and practical focus. And we were encouraged to think the same may be true for the Helix Board when a representative from British Waterways offered what we assume to be his highest accolade: ‘that idea certainly floats my boat’!

Understanding the Task Initial briefing helped to clarify the nature of the task and the room for manoeuvre for new thinking and insight. IFF was told that the project team is making the transition from a competition bid to a delivery plan. There may be little room for manoeuvre in the ‘place’ elements of the plan that are essentially about construction. ‘The construction phase is five years and we need to get through the money at £1m per month’. But the people and enterprise themes have a longer term perspective. And the Lottery’s terms and conditions do not refer to and are therefore not prescriptive about people and enterprise. So there is an ‘open canvas’.

IFF’s conversations with stakeholders and its own discussions therefore focussed on the how of delivery rather than the what of construction. And the emphasis throughout was on how to deliver value, in a practical sense, above and beyond what can be expected from the existing plan. That is the ‘hidden wow’.

Getting Started: Stakeholder Feedback At the start of the engagement four groups of three IFF members visited 12 groups of stakeholders on 17 and 18 March in a series of learning journeys. IFF find that this experiential approach considerably enhances any learning from the published papers and reports, and introduces a diverse range of perspectives on the project. Each interaction was structured around five vision cards reflecting the project’s published vision; a number of hexagons listing principal objectives for the people, place and enterprise themes, and a set of prompt cards reflecting what IFF have identified on previous occasions as the essence of the My Future’s in Falkirk ethos and approach.

3 Highest Hopes, Worst Fears Each group was invited to select the vision statement that most inspired or energised them. From the point of view of how that vision might be delivered, they were then asked what the worst outcome might be, and how to recover from that; and what the best outcome might be, and how to build on that. This aims to build on the energy around the vision, whether positive or negative. What this provides is effectively a set of measures – top and bottom end of a scale from highest hopes to worst fears – around the visionary objectives for the project. These are the measures by which this group of stakeholders at least is going to be rating the success of the project.

So, for example, the data from across all the learning journeys suggested that in terms of delivering the ‘people’ outcomes the scale runs as follows (top to bottom):

- Direct and indirect beneficiaries delighted - It is “an experience” - Join Falkirk and together - Get animals back in - Respect Falkirk - Address negative stigma - Feels like it belongs to all communities - Local needs not met – disappointment - Just a big park - Lost important elements (eco park, Kelpies) - Half baked solutions - Underwhelming - Sense of local failure

Similar scales were generated from the data around broad themes of vision, economics and sustainability, process and governance. In all cases these scales are also associated with specific ideas generated by the stakeholders for how to improve performance – avoid the worst and promote the best outcomes. Full detail is included in the workshop record.

4 The most positive group were the Helix Heroes. One small boy insisted that the project could not possibly fail. There could be no bad outcome. However, when really pressed to imagine the worst he suggested that ‘perhaps an amphibious shark might escape from one of the lagoons and eat the tourists!’ This became a potent metaphor for the rest of the encounter for the looming worries and uncertainties that beset the project if we are willing to acknowledge them.

Integrating People, Place and Enterprise Each group was asked to select people, place and enterprise objectives that looked like a good fit, as if they would support and reinforce each other. Some consistent patterns emerged. For example, the link between having a quality place, attracting tourism, and thus growing healthier or stronger communities. Or a high quality place inspiring creativity in communities and thus improving life chances. The pattern on the left was repeated by many groups – with sustainable economic development as the bedrock.

At the same time, when asked to identify any combination of people, place and enterprise objectives that might be in tension, the potential tug between sustainable

5 development as a quality of place and economic development as a quality of enterprise was frequently mentioned.

In both senses: that sustainable development requirements would hamper enterprise; and that economic development goals would reduce commitment to quality and sustainability in other domains. Some groups, for example, referred directly to ‘toxic brands’ like Starbucks and McDonalds that are not usually associated with community cohesion and environmental stewardship.

Prompt Cards and Process At the close of the interview each stakeholder was invited to pick a card at random from the pack of 34 prompts. This is a familiar IFF technique to encourage further thought from a different perspective, or the voicing of thoughts that might otherwise not get into the conversation. It was interesting, for example, to hear a member of the business group reflect on the prompt ‘Economic activity takes place within a moral framework’. Or one of the culture group reflect on ‘Every project is a cultural intervention’. And although this is the opposite of an exact science (!) it is interesting to note that the three prompts selected most often across all the encounters were:

- Disperse responsibility - Create visible signs of success. Spread positive rumours - Learn from your neighbour

6 Overall the feedback from the conversations was very positive. People enjoyed the process, the structure of the dialogue around worst fears and highest hopes, the request to integrate the three elements, and the prompt cards at the finish. One group at least wondered about using the same materials with their client group as a means of making engagement more stimulating. The pack of prompt cards based on the MFiF/Helix ethos and approach might be a particularly valuable common tool. Special Helix packs could be available in boardrooms, in meeting rooms, in communities, with the project team, even on individuals’ desks.

Eight Prompts The stakeholder feedback provides a rich data set – all of which has been made available to the Helix Board. It also gave IFF a good feel for the diversity of views and range of interests around the Helix project. The rest of the IFF workshop sought to combine this data with other information and material about the project and with IFF’s individual and collective previous experience to identify the key ideas, themes and shifts in thinking that might help the Board fulfil the potential of the project. That means not only delivering the plan but also the ‘hidden wow’ that will come from the process of delivery, in particular tapping into the potential of the people and enterprise themes.

These are the eight critical themes that emerged.

1) Wow We were impressed by the importance of ‘wow’ as a mark of success for the project. The conversation with members of the Board and project team in particular was all about affect – how the project would feel, the emotional response and engagement it might evoke. Hence the biggest concern is that the eventual results will be ‘underwhelming’ – the opposite of wow. The process of putting together and winning the bid has emphasised the wow factor and raised excitement and expectation (emotional states). This is clearly the hidden resource, the element that will make the project transformational and that will deliver the outcomes beyond construction and budgetary efficiency. This is where the project will get more ‘bang for the buck’. But how can it be delivered?

Just drawing the graph of money against wow shows that this is not a simple trade off. How much can we save by reducing the height of and yet retain the wow factor? This is an absurd question. You cannot just buy wow. It will be a product of how the project is delivered – the processes and the engagement, the spirit. As one of the prompt cards put it: help to create for others what we would create for ourselves. We cannot create wow without being excited by the project ourselves.

So long as the Helix is seen as a ‘design and delivery’ project it runs the risk of being underwhelming. It is therefore worrying to observe that the BIG Lottery funding regime seems to encourage that approach: design and deliver over five years. As another group said: the biggest fear is expediency – just get it done and get it done quickly. That is not the route to wow.

7 2) Enterprise – The Business Plan The existing 300 page business plan confirms the dominance of the design and delivery framework. The project is framed as a capital spending venture with high social and ethical content and with people placed at the centre. When it comes to enterprise and revenue generation there is a feeling that ecology and the sense of the site as a ‘green space’ have crowded out any activity not directly related to these concepts. If the space is dead now, the business plan reads as if it will be dead in 2018: offering only £600,000 revenue on an investment of close to £50m, and half of that revenue is assumed to be coming from public funds. Most of the investment money is expected to be spent by 2012 – and there are no earnings until then. As framed, this is the route to where many other BIG Lottery projects have ended up: bankruptcy.

To an extent this is a product of the BIG Lottery bidding process, which could not be based around commercial viability. But for long term sustainability of the project the business plan should be reviewed a) to inject enterprise from the start and b) to reframe the BIG Lottery grant as seed investment in a modular approach – creating enabling infrastructure and then adopting a more modular approach to development. This approach allows room for diversity and for experiment – and must include from the start some element of enterprise to generate revenue. In other words, a longer term perspective and a commercial approach need to be incorporated into the business plan alongside the other foundations.

3) Place, People and Enterprise We were struck in all our conversations by the emphasis on people – as participants, dreamers, beneficiaries, sources of energy and ideas. In asking groups to integrate the aims of the Helix project around people, place and enterprise it was striking how often the focus of the project was on the people objectives – inspired communities, healthier communities, stronger communities. Enterprise was seen as essential to enable this – the baseline condition. And the place objectives came to be seen as a vehicle for delivering the other two. So we came to see this not as a place project that might deliver some additional enterprise and people benefits; but as a people and enterprise project facilitated by the opportunity to work together on a specific place. As one IFF member put it: ‘The project is a means to an end. The end is a better quality of life – fun, engagement, hope. A sense of the future. A good place to be. Delivered through an imaginative process and programme’.

This is an important shift in the framing of the project that links closely to the need to get beyond ‘design and delivery’ in order to realise the affective, emotional potential of the project. The Helix is already conceived as an enabling platform for enterprise – in the hope that private entrepreneurs will develop the business opportunities it provides. It is also an enabling platform for people – providing opportunities to engage etc. The difference is that the people theme has already begun. We heard a lot of energy and aspiration in our sessions. The healthier, stronger, inspired communities that the Helix is already seeding are keen to make their contribution now.

4) Holons and Phasing What struck us early on in the engagement, particularly as we walked the site, is the physical scale of the Helix area. Although we were shown detailed maps delineating

8 the boundaries and artists’ impressions of the site, we were having trouble forming a coherent picture of the whole. That led to another potent theme. Isaiah Berlin wrote a famous essay about Tolstoy asking if he was a hedgehog or a fox: ‘The fox knows many things, while the hedgehog knows one big thing’. So is the Helix a hedgehog or a fox: one big thing or a collection of many things?

The answer is that it is both. And the delivery challenge is to keep both in play – a combination of diversity and overall integrity. The Council planning framework and the design concepts from Ironside Farrar can help provide the latter – but they are likely to assume a ‘design and delivery’ model. Delivering the Helix project might in practice require in addition something closer to IFF’s aspiration to ‘holism with focus’.

We saw the impressive Gantt charts for delivering the project, in which each activity is phased and budgeted for and the result at the end of the process is a coherent whole. The danger in that approach is that it can fall victim to uncertainty (unforeseen events – like amphibious sharks) and therefore to running out of money before completion. And there is no linear relationship between spend and value: what is the value of 1/3 of a lagoon, or one Kelpie?

IFF has a long interest in an alternative approach to connecting parts and wholes. It revolves around the concept of the ‘holon’. A holon is both complete in itself and part of a larger functioning whole. It is self-sustaining and self-generating. Like the child that grows into an adult, it starts out as the minimal viable system version of itself and grows into its potential. What if the Helix were a collection not of projects but of holons, each viable in itself and each contributing to and growing into a wider functioning whole?

The defining features of a holon are what it does, what it does not do, and the trade across its boundary into the wider system. To test this idea we took the , an existing project, and examined its holonic properties (see the table below).

9 Falkirk Wheel as Holon Is Is not Boundary trades Moves boats Falkirk identity/marketing Water, Boats, Cruises Looks impressive Falkirk Tourism Income tax Attracts visitors Community training Staff / workers skills Generates money for own Water flow control development use Boat storage, maintenance Stakeholder X Y Z

In order to consider the Falkirk Wheel as a holon, that has the capacity to sustain and develop itself, the ‘what it is not’ column is probably most interesting. Thus while it certainly helps Falkirk tourism, recognition and identity, that is a side effect, not the primary purpose that sustains it. We can get a better sense of the distinction if we consider what the avenues for self-development for the Falkirk Wheel holon might look like:

- More attraction, brand, marketing - Higher value use of the facilities - New ‘wows’, delighting visitors - Maintenance extension - Extending geographical and conceptual scope - 24/7, 365

These are paths to growth for the Falkirk Wheel holon that are consistent with its original purpose. Interestingly, if you do the same exercise with the Kelpies you get a very similar list – suggesting that there is a generic holon template that could be designed for the Helix project.

The benefits of designing and managing each project as a holon are numerous:

- the holons are like modules, but designed so that they are viable at whatever scale. Thus they can grow from a base that is not embarrassing – so long as that base designs in the components of future viability and potential. The challenge at the Wheel has been retrofitting to meet new opportunities. The holon approach designs in potential from the start (for example, the capacity for people to ascend the Kelpies) even if it is not developed immediately. It is a form of future proofing;

- it reframes the notion of making ‘sacrifices’ in order to protect the budget. Keeping a holon at a lower level of development that is still viable is not a sacrifice, because it fulfils its purpose even at that level and the potential for future growth is designed in. This is a tool to manage the budget but not ‘underfulfil’;

- the holon concept links to the people and enterprise themes. It is people and enterprise that give each holon its viability, that make it alive. In particular a holon whose purpose is to generate revenue (like the Falkirk Wheel) needs to have that aspect of its essential character included in the minimal viable system from the start. You cannot wait to introduce enterprise later. The minimal viable

10 system for the Kelpies may already be in place – with the scale models. But where are the Kelpie mugs, the Kelpie T-shirts, the minimal signs of enterprise activity associated with it?

This starts to offer an alternative approach to ‘design and delivery’ that promises greater potential over time, programmes in ‘wow’, and minimises the risk of ‘underwhelm’ by insisting on viability at all scales. A complementary approach to design integrity for the site as a whole would therefore identify the criteria for viable Helix holons.

In discussing this approach it became clear that today’s drivers for project management are construction, BIG lottery spending requirements, the delivery programme, purchasing and procurement plans.

But there is also an alternative set of leverage points that could open the way to a more holonic approach:

- the exemplar designs can be framed and judged according to holonic principles;

- the process of packaging elements for procurement can be influenced by holonic ideas;

- if there is to be ‘competition’ for using the Helix space to develop ideas (what some groups called a ‘land grab’), the holonic principles give a set of criteria for project design and selection that will ensure overall coherence and viability;

- we can appoint holon owners rather than project managers (with implications for governance, job description etc);

- holons have interfaces with the wider system not infrastructure. Design those in. The land use plan identifies those interfaces – holons can grow into them and make the implicit infrastructure explicit only as necessary. Sim City is a model for this. Design option value in from the start;

- we can modify the approach to phasing and risk management to embrace ‘get to the minimal viable system then stop’ as a base line deliverable for each element;

- always ensure that the minimal viable system for any element will attract people and enterprise;

- treat the BIG lottery funding as seed money, or investment – not as the money that delivers the complete project. Minimal viability is worth investing in and should generate and grow itself;

- look for the low hanging holons. In other words, experiment with this approach with the more obvious holons. The Kelpies is one obvious place to start (today!). The full workshop report explores in more detail the application of the idea to building a skate park;

11 - start to speculate about the longer term benefits to as yet unidentified stakeholders as the holons grow. We take up this last point in the next section.

A further attraction in this approach is that it need not be disruptive of existing plans. One board representative described it as a ‘subtle shift in perspective’. It would be possible to take a look at the existing Gantt delivery charts and reconfigure them around the holon idea. It is equally possible (though less likely to fulfil full potential) to take the holonic approach only with some projects and not all.

5) The H-Space Once we conceive of each project or distinct element in the Helix programme as a holon we can see that it is really an activity set – not a thing that is constructed, but a purpose pursued by people.

Each holon, each activity set, each project can therefore be seen as a product of the interaction of the needs, desires, constraints etc of a diverse set of stakeholders – all, incidentally, wanting to be wowed.

In our sessions with stakeholder groups we heard a variety of perspectives, some of which might be in tension. In making sense of this input we found it useful to map them into a cube with three dimensions:

- The nature of the benefits, ranging from welfare to development. This is an important scale. Welfare goals are achieved through the distribution of resource, development is about the concentration of resource in order to get something started that will develop benefit over time.

12

- The stakeholders and beneficiaries, ranging from narrow to broad focus. This distinguishes immediate, local beneficiaries like the local unemployed youth we heard about, and the broader, more distant constituencies like the region, Scotland, foreign tourists who also stand to benefit from the Helix.

- The time horizon over which the benefit is delivered, ranging from short to long term. Health benefits, for example, are likely to become apparent on a longer time scale than local construction jobs. We found that we were able to map the hopes, interests and concerns of the different stakeholder groups we met in this three-dimensional Helix Space or ‘H-Space’. And that the pull of the conversations was strongly towards the short term, narrow focus, welfare benefits corner of the cube. In other words people tend to see the Helix project as a spending programme rather than an investment programme, they are therefore looking for welfare benefits, they want them for local people first, and they want them now – not in 15 years time. This in spite of the fact that our own conversations started with the 15 year vision for the project. There are other strong factors that will pull all consultation towards this corner.

We see that using the H-Space to make sense of diverse perspectives on the project offers the following benefits:

- longer term viability for the Helix project overall depends on extending activity beyond the short term/welfare/narrow focus approach to cover other areas of the H-Space and to move the project towards long term/developmental/broad focus sustainability. This is the green, helical line sketched on the diagram on the right. It shows the direction of travel;

- Since the space is defined by stakeholder interests (including funders’ interests) it can help to reveal a) who the stakeholders are who might be able to shift projects towards broader developmental goals; and b) the kind of stakeholder groups that might need to be identified or encouraged in the wider community in order to counter tendencies to narrow welfare interests (eg Chinese travel agencies could be a stakeholder for tourism objectives; or a stakeholder group with an interest in real long term sustainability in the context of IFF’s work on ‘the adaptive imperative’ etc);

- the tool also provides a framework for a more honest and sophisticated conversation with existing stakeholders, especially about short and long term benefits;

- it can also reveal the need for more intentional dialogue between stakeholder groups who find themselves in different parts of the H-Space for specific projects.

13 At the moment these might be seen as competing viewpoints, but a dialogue or partnership between them could actually start to shift the project in a more generative longer term direction. For example, the short term objective of getting young people into work through the Helix is not at odds with longer term health objectives around volunteering and community engagement even though they show up in different parts of the H-space. The trick is providing a view of the whole in which these can find their relationship as complementary parts;

- by looking at activity sets rather than just projects, and by encouraging a broader view of stakeholders, the H-Space also encourages a stretch from Helix- focussed activity to Helix-connected activity. This is particularly relevant in considering the interfaces between Helix holons and the wider pattern of activities beyond the site. The link with the Gateway project, for example. Our discussions also dwelt on the potential role of the Grangemouth refinery (already an imposing part of the visual dimensions of the site, and a potent source of waste heat amongst other things) – something that inevitably comes much more sharply into focus when considering the ‘connecting Falkirk and Grangemouth’ purpose of the project.

A further set of interesting thoughts and benefits are triggered in combining the H- Space with the idea of activity sets as holons.

The process might go as follows:

1. identify holon 2. identify the stakeholders in the activity set represented by the holon 3. locate the stakeholders in the H-Space

This will provide a three dimensional view of the holon from which can be derived:

- a set of instructions for the holon owner about the space we want him or her to grow into. Note also that this is not just about geographical space – there is also conceptual, or market, or mindset space to grow into;

- appropriately phased management and governance processes for each project/holon as it develops. Different parts of the H-Space need different governance approaches (eg the difference between a start up and the delivery of a benefits programme);

14 - an appreciation of the immediate concerns of stakeholders that must be met – seen as a set of present constraints rather than the goal of future development. This is what allows us to deliver the plan (now) and the wow (later).

To some this might look like a very mechanistic, engineering approach to what should be an organic process of development. Like any tool it cannot be applied mechanically – especially since it is essentially about stakeholder engagement, people, interests and affect. But what it will do, for the Project Board, is to provide a recognisable planning framework that can maintain coherence and direction whilst holon owners are allowed to develop their activities in a much more emergent and organic manner. It is a tool for organising self-organisation.

6) People : Community Engagement If the Helix project is reframed as a people project supported by enterprise and facilitated by the opportunities offered by a particular place, that shifts our understanding of community engagement. In a sense community engagement – leading to healthier, stronger, more inspired communities – is the project.

A number of themes emerged on this issue. One is the recognition that there is no community on the Helix site. The communities assumed to have a direct interest are located next to the site. There are also communities that have an interest in the site but are not located next to it. Clearly we need to see the Helix not only as a viable ecology in itself, but also located in a wider ecology.

That will raise boundary issues – about where the Helix ethos ends and another begins. The farmers we met made a plea for common standards across those boundaries – you can’t cross from a manicured footpath to a muddy field. Others looked at the boundary between Forth Valley College and the Helix: can the Helix take on the nature of a campus for the College, opening up opportunities for learning? That relates to an earlier IFF idea about the College becoming a centre for internships from other Universities – to start to provide a higher education holon in the area. There were countless other examples.

We developed a formula to express this reciprocal relationship between the Helix and its communities: ‘what the Helix can do for you is a function of what you can do for the Helix’.

A second theme was about the shift in the nature of the consultation process now that the bid has been won. Many of the people we met have been involved in consultation on the Helix already. They scan the papers for evidence that their thoughts have been taken on board. There is a danger of the erosion of trust if they are not and a reinforcement of existing prejudices about the Council in particular. And there is a tendency for all consultation to take place in the context of the narrow, short term, welfare corner of the H-Space. The meeting with children representing Helix Heroes felt different – full of hope, liveliness and the future – but equally knowing about the things that had been taken from them by planners (‘they did away with the ice rink and the bowling alley’) and the undeveloped sites tied up by Tesco.

As the project moves into detailed design and implementation phase it seems a different kind of engagement is now necessary and possible. Transparency about

15 the H-Space and about the detailed constraints in the planning and delivery processes can lead to a much better informed dialogue about true possibilities rather than frustrating conversations based on different technical premises. The time dimension in the H-Space also allows for delayed gratification – how would you like to see things develop over time?

The introduction of multiple perspectives (the three dimensions of the H-Space) could also provide a way into exploring the kinds of tensions we observed in the meetings we held. In a design and delivery model these appear to be praxis dilemmas – should we build this or that, with these people or those people, now or later? But the heat in our discussions was more about ‘why’ certain things are planned rather than ‘how’ they are going to be delivered.

That suggests that these might also be values dilemmas, which can undermine the project if not addressed. To cite one example, the planners told us they did not want something like M&Ds theme park near ; the children told us that was exactly the kind of thing they wanted – although not exactly the same since they can get to M&Ds already. There are dialogue and inquiry processes that are designed deliberately to engage communities in value choices – processes that always reveal far greater common ground than anyone appreciates. This too might be an avenue to explore in community engagement work as the project moves from bid to delivery.

Finally, there is an opportunity to place people at the heart of the project in a way that links a number of the other perspectives already covered above. One view of the Helix at the moment – the worst – is that it is a dead space, a litter dump, under the dead hand of bureaucracy and surrounded by alienated communities. The aspiration is clearly to create a ‘spirit of place’ not just good architecture and design. And the spirit will live in the people. This aspiration is clear from the photographs already in the Helix material – a compelling vision of beauty, life and community.

16 Equally, we know that we cannot just step from one reality into another. The transition will not take place on a set day at a set time. There must instead be a process that evokes the spirit of place through people investing something of themselves in it now and engaging with a spirit of adventure and appropriate risk.

We know too that innovation is often generated at the margins – potentially by the communities that neighbour the Helix site. And that even if the kinds of projects that will bring life to those parts of the site are in the delivery plan it will take time before they can be implemented. And the money might run out along the way. Why not invite the evocation of life at the margins? No need to negate anything that is planned – just declare some of the unplanned spaces as open for development by the communities themselves. The projects can be temporary if necessary. They will get the spirit of place going at marginal cost. But it is vital to get them started now. There is a delicate position on trust and the energy may fade if we wait. As one IFF member put it: ‘this is a way of injecting extra ‘oomph’ into the project. Oomph is a longer lasting form of wow.’

We heard lots of ideas in our conversations. The children, if given a limitless fund, said that they would build a secret garden with facilities for midnight swimming; we heard about spaces for ritual and celebration – weddings, even woodland burials; picnic sites; camping etc. There is plenty of energy that could be brought to bear today to start the process of transformation from dead space to living spirit. And we also heard about the 7000 hours of volunteer activity in the area per week: that is the equivalent of a 200 person organisation, part of whose effort could already be devoted to the Helix site.

Finally there is the question of how and what to measure in order to detect signs of life. We came up with a ‘pulse board’ (not a dashboard) looking at scales of spirit of the place (alive – dead), meaning (engagement – disengagement), aesthetics (beautiful – ugly), contribution (participation – apathy), trust (building – undermining), feelings (good – bad). These would become qualities to assess as part of ongoing community engagement.

17 7) Leadership and Resources The theme of leadership and human resources came up early on in our engagement. It is clearly vital. There are a number of dimensions.

The standard project management approach would lead through stages from Purpose to Proposal to Design, Plan, Implement, Operate and Renew. There is likely to be some disjunction now between the Proposal phase and the Implementation phase – not least because different parties (including the BIG Lottery) may have different perceptions of just how much detailed design and planning work is still to be done, how open the project still is.

This is a delicate transition. The ethos of the project, the ‘wow’ in the initial purpose and vision that generated such a compelling bid, could easily be lost, especially with the necessary change of personnel. That is why the MFiF/Helix prompt cards might be useful – to propagate the genetic code at the heart of the Helix.

This is a huge project. You can measure the scale of a project either in terms of size or of complexity. This is not a particularly large project in terms of the budget, but it is hugely complex, visionary and long term.

We became convinced that it will need some very special people to deliver it. Recruiting the best will be crucial. The phased, organic, holonic approach advocated above, which sees the BIG Lottery funding as seed investment rather than the capital for a spending project will help manage risk. Investment in learning journeys to other similarly complex projects; in ongoing coaching and support for the delivery team; and in finding someone to manage the overall delivery of the project who has previous experience of projects of this scale of complexity will all increase the chances of long term success.

8) Management of Symbol A number of exchanges during this engagement led us to regard what we might call the ‘management of symbol’ as an important element. This goes beyond logos and branding. Symbols are given significance by people. Thus the Wheel is iconic, but its meaning as an icon is different for different groups. We heard a lot of stories about the Wheel that confirmed this, including as a cautionary tale from which the Helix project can learn.

Paying attention to managing the symbolics means both appreciating the symbolic significance of events and considering ways to encourage people to invest symbols with appropriate significance. We were impressed by the story we heard from the positive transitions team about how a disadvantaged, marginalised young person can

18 walk home feeling ten feet tall when given their first set of overalls for a first job. What about volunteers getting a set of Helix overalls?

We need to create occasions for celebration, symbols of involvement, squeeze every activity for ways that bring people on board and reinforce the mythic element of the project. Having individuals sponsor a plate in the Kelpies, for example, and having their name embossed on it is both a personal investment in the symbol, and potentially a real investment if the opportunity is sold. At the holonic level this could be sold now – naming plates on the scale models. Helix dollars could be earned through contributing to Helix projects – a symbol of the self-reinforcing nature of the Helix ecology.

The pylons running across the site (like the neighbouring refinery) are also iconic. It would be a huge symbolic act to remove them. That may seem a very costly choice today. But if we consider such a move in the context of the H-Space it may be that on a longer time scale there is a convergence of interests between the Helix and the national grid’s renewal programme. And the calculation of the value of removing the pylons might look different if we also consider the additional options the removal would provide for other holons to expand and exploit new opportunities.

We must also pay attention to the opportunities for spectacle. The delivery and placement of the iconic Kelpies, for example, could be seen as a tricky engineering task. It will also be a spectacle, an artistic performance, a tremendous symbolic event in the economy of attention. What if the Kelpies were paraded through the streets of Falkirk on their way to Lock 2? What if part of the M9 were cordoned off for an hour during delivery? What if they were towed up the river by a team of shire horses?

There will be opportunities throughout the project to play with iconic significance, at all holonic levels from the planting of a shrub to the installation of a Kelpie. These too must be anticipated and planned for: some of the more spectacular will generate wow way beyond Falkirk. But they will be missed if there is not some appreciation of this transformative project not just as a showcase for public art, but as an artistic performance in itself.

19 APPENDIX – IFF PARTICIPANTS

Tony Beesley Max Boisot Napier Collyns Pat Heneghan Tony Hodgson Graham Leicester David Lorimer Andrew Lyon Wolfgang Michalski Maureen O’Hara Ian Page Jennifer Williams

GUESTS

Day 1 Maureen Campbell Jane Clarke

Day 3 Maureen Campbell Jane Clarke David Lamont Simon Rennie

20