A complex problem needs more than a simple solution
(7 min read)
During the last few months, the council have implemented a number of six-month low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) trials throughout the local borough. They have been implemented at speed under new legislation framed around the current pandemic and through funds from Transport for London (TfL), where there were stipulations for their implementation. These schemes have included road closures, reduced speed limits in residential areas and temporary road closures around a number of schools (school street schemes) during school drop off and pick up times.
The majority Liberal Democrat council have stated the purpose is to increase walking and cycling in the borough with the councillor chairing the environmental and neighbourhood committee stating these schemes are to improve safety by reducing traffic level and speeds, reduce air pollution due to lower traffic numbers, make areas more pleasant and safer for children and reduce the number of non-residents cutting through the area. With significant increases in traffic in outer London than pre-lockdown, it is understandable why councils would want to tackle such an issue. With funding made available from TfL, this provided the opportunity for councils to do so, with good intentions to make living and working in the borough a better place. However, the efficacy of the proposed schemes has continued to be questioned. These schemes have divided the local community. A petition wanting the immediate halt of all road closures has over 3,500 signatures, with 89.4% wanting an immediate halt. A second petition, wanting a single scheme to be removed has over 3,200 signatures in support of its removal. There is clearly dissatisfaction from the local community with some or all the schemes, with only small numbers visibly supporting the schemes.
So, with the potential good intentions of the council and the perceived benefits to the local community, why is there so much dissatisfaction? This can be broken down into two distinct points; what has been implemented and how the council have gone about implementing them. Both are related to the contentious action of not widely consulting with the local community to which these schemes will affect the most. The TfL funding has been classed as emergency funding with boroughs only being given a short period to apply for a highly competitive resource between all boroughs with councils asked to implement any successful application by the end of September 2020. These pressures resulted in the council not going to public consultation in an attempt to secure the funding to pay for the proposed schemes.
BY GOING ON YOUR OWN, YOU GO QUICKLY, GOING TOGETHER, WE GO FAR
With a lack of consultation to the residents, the council have put process ahead of the people it serves. It is this point which many local community members are frustrated and upset with. The implication of the implemented schemes will affect many residents and workers within the borough. When there are plans that could negatively affect people and these same people are not consulted around them, there is an inevitability of discontent. When delivering such projects, regardless of constraints, the RACI matrix is an excellent framework to guide decision making with regards to implementation. RACI is an acronym for ‘responsible, accountable, consulted and informed’ (figure 1). Using this model, the council officers are responsible for the project, with the chair of the environment and neighbourhood committee being accountable. The residents and those working in the borough are those who should be consulted (including emergency services and other service providers who are likely to be affected by such schemes), with the wider community being informed. However, it is only until recently that those living and working in the borough are being consulted through the councils website, and well past the implementation of the schemes. It has felt that those living and working in the borough who are most affected by the schemes have only been informed, resulting in a further feeling of being ignored (the difference between consulted and informed is two-way and one-way communication respectively). If the RACI matrix were used prior to the implementation, the chances are the accountable councillors, regardless of process, would have initiated consultation earlier and in a more pragmatic way, allowing for the local community to provide valuable insights into the eventual outcomes.
Figure 1: RACI Matrix for project management
MYSTIFICATION IS SIMPLE; CLARITY IS THE HARDEST THING OF ALL
Coupled with the lack of consultation is the clarity of outcome, and how this clarity has been effectively communicated. There has been confusing communication in what and how schemes have been implemented. It has been unclear how the council will review the success of each scheme and any measures to track schemes (i.e. traffic flow numbers, air quality, residents’ feedback etc) were not installed simultaneously with the implementation of the schemes. This makes the task of determining success challenging when it is unclear what the starting point is and therefore what has to change and by how much. The change model in figure 2 is a good starting point to review the implementation of any scheme or project by providing clarity around the current, aspirations of the future, the steps needed to attain this future and how everyone will know if achieved. This again requires a high degree of consultation with those living and working in the borough to determine the future as it has to be sustainable for all. As previously stated, there is a perception the council are acting with good intention, in that it is trying to achieve a noble outcome and to make the borough a better place to live and work. Many of those living and working in the borough would in principle share the council’s dissatisfaction with road traffic and air quality, but the vision of the future maybe quite different. A co-created shared and agreed vision between the council and those living and working the borough would give immeasurable clarity and agency to create lasting and meaningful change. An additional point to include is that of confirmation bias from all parties. When evidence is provided in support of ones own existing belief, it us used to amplify the messaging and one’s own beliefs, regardless of all other evidence. It is clear on social media platforms that we all, including myself fall victim to this. There is need to separate facts from opinions. This is why the change framework below, specifically the point around how everyone will know if the change has occurred is so important to establish from the start to avoid or to modulate our biases.
Figure 2: Change Model to outline what will be different and how will we know when achieved
IF YOU ONLY HAVE A HAMMER, YOU TEND TO SEE EVERY PROBLEM AS A NAIL
How problems are viewed will bias the manner in which we try to solve them. Figure 3 provides an overview of different problem types. There are two key components to consider when determining the type of problem. The first is system, task, or process complexity, the second people and behavioural complexity. A tame problem has low task and behavioural complexity and has one best solution, such as driving on the left hand side of the road while in the UK. A messy problem has greater task complexity to it and has multiple solutions and is often viewed as best practice. An example here would be choosing a route to get home from the sat nav. Both of these have known correct solutions. Relationships (such as that between the councillors and the local community) can be viewed as a wicked problem (low task, high behavioural complexity) based on the values, beliefs, and assumptions. There are multiple ways for relationships to be successful, all of them different from the last. The final problem type which is high in both task and behavioural complexity can be viewed as the traffic and air quality problems across the borough. There are many options to consider, some of which are those currently implemented, but are not the only options. When reviewing the implemented schemes, there is a perception that the boroughs traffic and air quality problem is being viewed and resolved as low task and behavioural problem solving (i.e. viewed as a tame problem). When a problem is viewed through one of these problem types, the solution will inevitably be built with the same bias. LTN’s are not a tame problem to resolve. They require a huge degree of human and behavioural adaptation to create sustainable change for both the council and the local community. When appropriate consultation occurs, the real task and behavioural complexities will emerge, providing clarity on the actual problem type, ensuring solutions attempt to resolve the entire problem space, not just those perceived by the individuals who are responsible and accountable for their implementation.
Figure 3: Different types of problems spaces
THE FUTURE OPPORTUINTY
It’s easy to stand on the side-line looking from the outside in pointing out where things could have been different. We cannot go back in time and change the perceived lack of consultation and clarity of outcome. What we can do is identify how we choose to move forward as a local community, including how the local leadership choose to engage the community, to work with them and provide a forum to work through the contentions that exist. There is likely to be common ground between all parties in improving the borough to be a better place to live and work. There are two distinct considerations:
Engagement of the borough’s local community now
Engagement of the borough’s local community immediately prior, during and after the trials end
As previously stated, when process in put before people, the people feel ignored and marginalised. Creating a forum for constructive sharing of insights and experiences of all parties is an important component in the decision making both in identifying contributing factors to measure success of the trials and what goes next post trials. The greatest asset the borough has is its people. When problem solving around the real problems, it is the people of the borough that will understand the problem space and how it affects the community and most likely want to contribute to solving it. By introducing an Asset Based Community Development (ABCD) approach or something similar, the solution comes from within the community. It provides an opportunity for all those who share the same sense of wanting the borough to be a better place to live and work to contribute and be part of the solution. It allows for the leadership to constructively plan for the future, knowing the community has fully contributed. It allows a space to work through contentious points by always referring back to the intended outcome, which in this case is to make the borough a better place to live and work; I don’t think anyone would disagree with that.
If you enjoyed reading this and would like to read more around personal effectiveness, learning and learning, stay connected. No spam, just quality ideas and insights.