|
The Effectiveness of Different
Mechanisms for Spreading Best Practice
A research project report by the Office for Public Management.
Contents
1. Introduction + Methodology
2. Key Findings and Conclusions
3. Specific Mechanisms for Spreading Best Practice
3.1 Networks and Beacons
3.2 Guidance Materials and Databases
3.3 Champions
3.4 Customising Information: What do People
Want?
4. Holistic Approaches and Models
4.1 Overarching Strategies
4.2 Dissemination Models
5. Evaluations Planned or Currently Under Way
6. Key Sources and References
3. Specific Mechanisms for
Spreading Best Practice
In this section we summarise the approaches taken in the main research reports we have
identified, as well as feedback from interviews with civil servants and practitioners. In
each case, key points relevant to the main objectives of the research have been
highlighted. Many of the reports and discussions we cover relate to several linked
mechanisms for disseminating best practice, rather than to one single approach, but we
have grouped the summaries under the following broad headings for ease of reference:
 | networks and beacons; |
| guidance materials, publications and databases; |
| champions; |
| customised information. |
Back to Top
Both networks and ‘beacon’ initiatives incorporate elements of meeting and
sharing of experiences between individuals in a way that encourages a continuing process
of feedback on what works well, and building on what has been developed by others. As we
stated in the Key Findings and Conclusions, these elements are generally seen to be an
important part of effective dissemination strategies. As with most strategies, the
effectiveness of networks and beacons will depend on several other factors, including
levels of involvement; the extent of peer group ‘trust’ and levels of
leadership, support and commitment in participating organisations.
Back to Top
Networks
A wide range of networks has developed over recent years. Many of these consist of
practitioners with a common interest, usually within a sector or specialism, who meet and
exchange experiences as part of a process of developing, sharing and implementing best
practice. The process may be facilitated by ‘electronic’ database exchange,
newsletters and/or regular meetings. Members may work within a specific framework, such as
the Business Excellence Model or a framework of requirements and activities which apply
specifically within their sector or specialism.
Since its emergence in academic literature in the 1970s, the concept of
‘networks’ has steadily grown in popularity amongst policy makers. The main
thrust of the arguments about networks is that they are one of the key drivers in the
spreading of knowledge, innovation and ideas. They are also seen to be a vital response to
the growth in ITC technology, putting key individuals across the public sector in regular
and close contact with one another.
A vast amount has been written about networks. The key pioneer in the networks theory
has been Rogers, who through his studies of ‘diffusion theory’ looked to
‘explain or predict rates and patterns of innovation adoption over time and
space.’(Rogers, 1995). Sayer and Walker have also pioneered much of this work,
helping to develop the theory of ‘inter-organisational networks.’ and how they
play a crucial role in the diffusion of new ideas (Sayer and Walker, 1992). There is also
the crucial input to this debate by Conway, Alter, Hage, Tushman and Scanlan, whose work
has attempted to understand the value of ‘networking’ as a mechanism for
spreading innovation (Conway, 1995; Alter & Hage, 1993 and Tushman and Scanlan, 1981).
Andrew Pettigrew at the Warwick Business School has been leading work on the effect of
networks on organisational competitiveness (Pettigrew, 1996).
More recently there have been specific studies of inter-organisational networks and
innovation. Oswald Jones, Steve Conway and Fred Steward, for example, have studied in
detail the main contributors to the debate on networks and their role in the innovation
process. In Social Interactions and Organisational Change: an analytical review of
innovation networks they study 50 papers on this issue. However, much of their analysis is
critical of the way many studies only provide a crude and simplistic understanding of how
‘networking contributes to the innovation process’ (Jones, Conway, and Steward,
1999).
Aware of the persuasiveness of this literature, many current approaches have responded
positively to the concept of networks as a mechanism for spreading best practice. Many of
those we interviewed in government departments, for example, spoke of their wish to
increase the use of networks. There are also deliberate strategies to introduce more
networking across public services in health, education, local government and central
government.
Back to Top
Beacons
One of the core areas where networks have been emerging is in relation to the
‘beacon’ schemes which are currently being rolled out across the public sector
with the emergence of beacon hospitals, local authorities and schools (DETR, 1999). The
Government’s beacon programme is a cross-government initiative to identify best
practice in the public sector and enable everyone to learn from the experience of others
by setting up organisations to act as centres of innovation, experimentation and learning.
It aims to create a culture within the public service that is based on co-operation and
the sharing of what works best.
Back to Top
Best Practice Working Party Report to the President of the DTI, March 1999
This report recommended the establishment of a national, industry-led,
Government-backed campaign to promote the benefits of adopting better business practices.
The Fit for the Future campaign (led by the CBI) was launched in December 1998, aimed at
achieving ‘a massive increase in the transfer of best practice through publicising
success and networking
The report recommended that the Business Excellence Model (EFQM) should be used as part
of the campaign and that enthusiastic, respected local champions should be used to
champion individual activities.
In the experience of the Working Party, the following were particularly useful in
getting business people to understand and adopt better practices:
| mentoring programmes from experienced individuals in a one-to-one form or in a peer
group situation; |
| working together to exchange good practice through customer and supplier programmes; |
| the use of benchmarking to allow companies to compare performance; |
| ‘seeing is believing’ visits to others who have changed practices and improved
performance; |
business clubs and networks to ag them to become Ôtest bedsÕ for new ideas so that
their views and experiences can be drawn upon;asking them to provide testimonies about
where proven and effective practices have been conducted and spread to others.If the
strategy is implemented successfully, local champions will become key individuals in the
spreading of new ideas and knowledge across the education sector. But there are ways in
which their value could be drained if managers are not careful. Managers should therefore
take care that the entation, researchers at IKON argue that a link should be made between
the diffusion and implementation of innovations, particularly in light of the developments
in IT technology (Hislop, Newell, Scarbrough, Swan, 1997). The main arguments proposed in
the study were that:
| We should seek to construct a framework that links ideas generation, diffusion and
implementation, with inter-organisational diffusion networks as the driver. |
| It is wrong to consider diffusion and implementation in isolation. Instead, there should
be a focus on the process which links these two concepts, with the interface being
networks. |
| We must focus on ‘articulation’ as the link between research and theory. |
Back to Top
Inside UK Enterprise (IUKE)
At the heart of IUKE is a programme of visits, where Beacons in UK industry open their
doors a number of times during the year to other businesses to share their knowledge and
experience in defined areas (The Harris Research Centre, 1998; Sumner Smith 1998).
The key feature of IUKE visits is that they involve a small number of visitors, are led
by practitioners of the beacon service, and are designed to be interactive, stimulating
questions and debate amongst participants. Whilst the beacon receives no funding for
hosting visits, all IUKE beacons report significant benefits to their own business through
the exchange of ideas with visitors. These are primarily:
| the opportunity to network with other companies; |
| learning from other businesses; |
| feedback from visitors. |
These benefits, and the prestige that goes with beacon status, attract great interest
in the programme.
IUKE is administered by a visits contractor who runs a booking service and acts as the
main interface between beacon and visitor. Visits are marketed through an annual
catalogue, with other ‘targeted’ campaigns for particular beacons. A charge is
made for the visit that is used to offset the cost of the visits contractor.
Back to Top
NHS Learning Network – Spreading Good Practice in the NHS
This network is designed to boost the spread of good practice in service delivery and
management by linking appropriate mechanisms for information and good practice
development. It includes NHS Learning Centres aimed at encouraging hands-on practical
learning about good practice in service delivery and management, These include specialist
learning centres based in NHS trusts and ‘learning partnerships’ which connect
organisations and groups in a local or regional area or between regions to tackle a shared
priority for service improvement. Other linked elements include NHS beacon services (which
host open days and enter good practice on a new database), region-wide learning centres, a
good practice sharing facility on the NHS website and a research and development
programme. Each learning centre will be reviewed each year by the NHS Executive against
success criteria.
Back to Top
Civil Service College: Quality Network and Business Excellence Model
The Public Sector Excellence Programme, run from the Cabinet Office, promotes the use
of the Excellence Model across the public sector. This programme includes a range of
publications, events and the provision of advice and guidance.
A significant component of this programme is a good practice database developed and
managed by the Civil Service College. This database informs their evidence based approach
to training and consultancy work. Its aim is to capture good practice information from a
combination of continuing feedback from course participants and external sources and to
disseminate this throughout the college in order to help ensure that all course provision
promotes best practice.
The Database has a specific use in relation to the College’s work on the
Excellence Model. Those working on the model across the public sector are encouraged to
send in information on their scores against the model’s criteria and evidence of the
practices on which those scores are based. This enables the College to build up an
information base which shows organisations where they stand in relation to others and
provides contacts for advice on achieving better scores.
The College runs a ‘Benchmark’ Quality Network for the public sector, also
based on the above process and produces ‘knowledge pool’ reports and
newsletters. It has carried out a survey of its network customers and public sector users
(or potential users) of the Excellence Model, which had questions on how useful the
service had been, including the Database. The findings suggested strong support for making
Internet products available. Graphical reports were identified as the most popular and
useful element of the Database service, with ‘knowledge pool’ reports and
newsletters also being popular. Network meetings were strongly supported, predominantly by
middle managers. Recommendations included a review of marketing strategy.
A number of key points were identified in discussion:
| Effective dissemination requires a mix of different approaches: including documents,
databases, workshops etc.. |
| Keeping newsletters and databases up to date can be labour intensive and requires
attention. |
| Approaches work best if they are coordinated – e.g. to reach people when they are
thinking about an issue because they are currently involved in a project. |
| Using practitioners to describe their own experience works well because it stimulates
others to take their own action. |
| Leadership is important. Organisations should be prepared to act on the good practice
which their staff obtain from courses. |
| Onsite team work can be particularly effective – because there are many
representatives from an organisation who can make things happen |
| Training/learning should focus on what the individuals can do themselves when they
return to their organisation. |
Back to Top
Business Excellence Model
The BEM has had an impact because it raises issues in what is seen as a non-threatening
way and allows best practice to be developed by those who want to make changes. Key points
include the need for organisations to avoid recommending only one route to best practice.
Best practice implementation is encouraged where individuals can carry out their own
analysis and identify the best practice that will work for them. It is important to have a
‘facilitated’ approach – rather than a directed one. The Excellence Model
provides a framework for this.
The Public Sector Excellence Programme is currently being evaluated with a view to
gaining a better understanding not only of the effectiveness of the Excellence Model in
the public sector, but also the effectiveness of central government arrangements for its
promotion, including spreading best practice.
Back to Top
National Foundation for Educational Research
(NFER) Evaluation of Pilot Beacon Schools
Beacon Schools are part of the Department for Education and Employment’s school
centred programme for improving education in areas such as leadership, teaching and
monitoring of pupils’ progress (NFER, 1999). Beacon Schools aim to identify,
disseminate and promote good practice in these areas and thus to provide models for
under-performing partner schools to learn from. The National Foundation for Educational
Research (NFER) undertook an evaluation of the pilot phase of the Beacon Schools
initiative, from March to September 1999, based on annual reports produced by these
schools and fieldwork from eight case studies.
Findings from the Beacon Schools themselves included:
| It is important to keep Beacon School related activities within manageable limits and
without being too ambitious. Several schools found that the demand for assistance from
partner institutions was a key issue. Publicity materials should state what the Beacon
School could and could not offer to partners. In addition, it was important not to
overload the work of a Beacon School teacher and to be mindful of the effects such
activities could have on the needs of their own pupils. |
| The training, support and models of good practice which they disseminated should be
clearly based on the needs of the partner school and have specific, agreed objectives. In
many cases, the training was seen as building upon or expanding already existing examples
of good practice. It was not considered useful to rely on a model of dissemination whereby
the Beacon School offered a general, systematic presentation of the correct way to
implement policies which was not tailored to the individual circumstances of the partner
school. Moreover, the mutuality of the dissemination process should be stressed. It ought
to be seen as a two-way learning process, benefiting both parties. Focusing on reciprocity
avoids dangers of over dependence and helps schools compare and contrast their own
practice with others’. This generates mutual support and does not single out a school
as either ‘a failure’ or ‘knowing it all’. |
| Beacon Schools should seek advice from each other on the dissemination of good practice
and build on networks already in place. Local Education Authorities should be involved,
particularly in a co-ordinating role, matching the needs of partner institutions to the
strengths of Beacon Schools. LEAs could also help ensure that participants remain focused
on their goals and that the process of learning is sustained. |
The partner schools found that:
| The opportunity to visit other schools and observe lessons was greatly valued by
teachers, often above other kinds of training. In many cases, changes to their own
practice had been implemented as a result of what they had witnessed; in a few cases,
there were radical and/or whole-school changes. |
| Contact with Beacon Schools promoted action in areas such as pupil monitoring,
curriculum design and delivery, school systems and structures, and pastoral provision. |
| In a few cases there were claims that standards of pupil achievement had already
improved as a result. |
| It was important to engage in a process of self-review before involvement with a Beacon
School began so that needs could be correctly identified. |
The NFER makes several recommendations for the future. These include the need for the
DfEE to ensure the Beacon Schools initiative is seen as being inclusive, i.e. built on
partnership and mutuality, practical and classroom-based. The DfEE should also actively
encourage LEAs to play a role in promoting and managing mutual class-room based learning
amongst school staff. There needs to be thinking on how the work of Beacon schools can be
linked with other related policies and initiatives so that synergies are developed,
overlap and duplication minimised, and positive developments sustained. Beacon and partner
schools should think of the initiative in terms of capacity-building rather than as
recipes for success. They ought to build partnerships and networks to ensure long-term
development, whilst at the same time acknowledging the need to set limits as to what the
Beacon initiative can deliver.
Back to Top
Networks and beacons are fast becoming the favourite mechanisms for spreading best
practice across the public services. Several core reasons have been put forward for this:
| Networks are becoming easier to construct, sustain and develop due to the advances in
communication technology such as the Internet. |
| Unlike indirect sources of best practices, like publications and guides, they allow
people to interact with and learn form one another on a regular basis. |
| They allow people to learn from their peers, rather than from those from outside the
organisation or from ‘above.’ |
| Beacons, like pilots, offer the opportunity to support risk taking and experimentation
without bringing in large-scale policy changes in different parts of the public sector at
once. |
| Beacons have a clear obligation to spread what they have learnt, providing a focal point
for other public servants seeking new ideas and practices. |
Some drawbacks have also been identified, which provide useful learning points for
their future development:
| They can place too much pressure on individuals at the centre of networks. |
| They can exhaust the goodwill, time and capacity of local champions and leaders who make
the networks function coherently. |
| Networks increasingly rely on the Internets or intranets to be successful, but this is
not necessarily without problems. In a case study provided by the IPD, for example, it was
found that ‘certain individuals, who were often at the centre of organisational
networks, tended to become overloaded with basic communication as a result of the
dissemination of information via the e-mail (IPD, 1999).’ (Cohen’s wider comment
on the effectiveness of Internet dissemination is relevant here, in describing the
Internet as ‘a powerful tool that when used correctly can enhance communication and
collaboration, streamline procedures, and provide just-in-time information to a globally
dispersed workforce. Misused, however, an intranet can intensify mistrust, increase
misinformation, and exacerbate turf wars (Cohen 1998)’) |
In the case of beacons, some of those we spoke to felt that they were still not being
visited enough by outside agencies, which casts doubt over the extent of their influence.
There were also some concerns raised about the extra workload beacons were placing on
managers and front-line staff involved in delivering the scheme. One positive early
finding was that the opportunity to visit and learn directly from experienced teachers in
beacon schools was greatly valued by teachers (NFER, 1999). There have been few
evaluations of the impact of beacons to date, a factor which could usefully be addressed
in future work. However, the NHS Executive does have a Working Group on Beacon Evaluation
which is devising, from discussions with those managing Beacon hospitals, a model to
improve the dissemination of best practice (NHS Executive 2000a). |
