Case study taken from:
Learning Labs - Evaluation of the Pilot Projects 
University College Northampton

A new call centre, ‘Customer First’ had been initiated in November 1999 to which staff had been seconded from all areas of the county. This was a pilot dealing with social care referrals from one geographical area of Suffolk, which emphasised a rapid response. This initiative had been caught up in considerable controversy from many directions. A formal evaluation was ongoing and a mixed working party of frontline staff and managers was convened to discover their perspectives before the service was extended to the whole county.

Senior staff in Social Services had encountered the learning lab initiative and suggested that this group could become the first lab. This would be an exemplar to introduce the idea of learning labs into the local authority. As the first lab it would be part of the learning process for the development of future labs. The remit would be to reflect on the progress of the pilot of ‘Customer First’, to gather information about how the pilot was perceived and make recommendations about how it could be improved and extended throughout the county. This would be one input among many, as other groups, especially high level policy groups were also involved in decision-making on this issue.

Frontline staff had been asked by managers to consider participating in the working group which would include some managers. After some explanation members of this group, were then asked if they would agree to take a learning lab approach. All participants agreed to continue. By the second meeting another group of people had heard about the learning lab and volunteered to join. Participants saw the learning lab as a genuine opportunity to make an input into the future of ‘Customer First’. One volunteer member explained her motives. "I wanted to participate in the future shaping of ‘Customer First’. There were lots of things that I thought could be done differently". Another participant explained " I saw it as a chance to input from my knowledge of working on the frontline with the customers".

A steering group was set up to oversee lab development consisting of senior staff, the facilitators and an evaluator. A member of the training staff facilitated the group. Six meetings were scheduled at regular intervals and an evaluation session was later added. At the first meeting, lab participants discussed the areas to be covered. The facilitator started by mapping perceptions of ‘Customer First’. A number of exercises were tried, both visual and verbal. According to the facilitator "different perceptions emerged and these differences had to be synthesised and negotiated". The facilitator logged every meeting and fed back to participants over email. She suggested that her job was to keep the process moving forward, and avoid getting stuck in negativity. "Although the discussion should be no holds barred, at the same time that process has to be managed….it must not just turn into a moaning shop". There were conflicting interests within the group and this conflict manifested in some meetings. The facilitator felt that she needed considerable support to steer the process, which had not been anticipated at the outset.

One of the ground rules, negotiated in the first session, was that participants could only miss one session. This helped to stabilise the membership, which had varied up to the third session. Participants commented on how they worked together as equals and said they did not feel constrained by their staff titles even though managers were present.

There were issues raised about attendance at the group. The lack of commitment from some members was described as "upsetting" by others who did prioritise the meetings. A sense of group solidarity was eventually created. "I felt very loyal to the people I was working with on the lab". said one participant.

Some members of the lab were managers in ‘Customer First’ and had an investment in the current organisation. For this reason, it was possibly difficult for some to make genuine criticisms of Customer First.

At one stage some non-lab managers suggested areas for discussion by the lab. At first the lab agreed to consider their suggestions but then decided that the members should control the lab agenda.

No clients or professionals from other services were invited to the lab and this omission was a concern to some members as ‘Customer First’ affected a range of people. Lab members undertook to canvass opinion from their contact groups as a substitute for their presence.

At one point some members felt discouraged. They experienced some aspects of the lab as hard work. "I thought we are never going to get anywhere". However towards the end of the six sessions the process began to deliver results. "It came together in a positive way and we came up with some good ideas". The lab members who stayed the course praised the process. "I found it useful to meet people and work in this way. I was also heartened to meet frontline staff with energy and enthusiasm". The idea of learning labs also emerged from the process as a convincing way to involve staff. Members all expressed commitment to the document which resulted from the process. "It was full of practical suggestions". The major concern was that action should result from the work of the lab.

Members of the learning lab have been concerned the lack of action on the recommendations of this learning lab. "It was all done and dusted and it has been floating around in the ether ever since. That is disheartening". said one lab member. The issue was also a concern for the facilitator. "If we are talking about empowering staff and embedding that as a culture then there has to be a commitment to listening and acting in a rapid time scale".

Concerned by the lack of action and that they might be accused of having wasted time by fellow frontline staff, lab members got an agreement that their recommendations would be available on the internal computer system (Public Folders).

Senior managers are reassuring that aspects of the lab’s work will be reflected in the development of ‘Customer First. One manager explained "There is an intention to look at out-based staff, which was one of the key recommendations of the lab. The other aspect is to tailor different call centres for different parts of the county". Lab members have now received this feedback and the development of the second learning lab has built on this experience. A feed back session with managers has been built in for future labs.

Contacts for further information

Debra Lawrence
County Hall
Emergency Plans Department
St Helens Street
IPSWICH
Suffolk
IP4 QJS

01473 584141

Debra.Lawrence@secsolr.suffolkcc.gov.uk

Back to Involving Front-line Staff home page                 top of page