Coproduction and subjectivity
Tom Traub is a member of Independent Futures, our consultants with lived experience. In this blog, he talks about the value of coproduction and what it takes to make it a success.
Coproduction is a topic much discussed within Changing Futures at present, as well as within Independent Futures (IF). IF members have participated in focus groups on this subject and have actively worked with other service providing teams, in a pro-conscience and coproductive format. Only this April, myself and other IF members (with the considerable aid of a Golden Key colleague) put together a document and presentation called a “Starter Guide to Coproduction”.
This document, and the presentation that accompanied it, was intended to raise awareness of the subject, but also to generate debate with regards to what could be considered when doing co-production. Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that other potential factors in connection to coproduction, might turn out to be viewed as less relevant during the development of any particular piece of work, despite the end product remaining the common goal in mind for all participants. With open discussion as to what does and does not constitute coproduction, in addition to the need to introduce “flex” into the system, we can create greater innovation from all sectors with an interest in this field. This is in distinct contrast to the perception of intransigent obstacles being erected through mistrust and conflict, that might otherwise block the progress of any project delivery in its entirety.
To form such understanding and mutual respect, it is essential to be able to (politely) question and challenge each other’s perception of what co-production might look like within the project team, regardless of hierarchy. Being able to reach a consensus is an essential ingredient in the co-production process, as well as gathering a unified purpose for the end product. This ability to reach a consensus has been a reassuring experience for a number of IF members, when working alongside other colleagues from either Golden Key, Changing Futures or other services within the Bristol care system.
While we talk about coproduction in a constructive, positive and reassuring light, we must also acknowledge that in practical terms, some members with lived experience might feel quite anxious when engaging with the process. This could take many forms; whether it be an in-built inferiority complex from those participants, who might otherwise enjoy a less senior position to other members (as viewed by society), outside this specific coproductive project team bubble. While similarly, there may be an expectation of receiving a greater degree of deference by more senior professional members, from those other less-established participants within that same bubble. Actions and behaviours that conform to this perceived, but unofficial, perception of hierarchy could ultimately compromise the quality of the project and even inhibit the end result. Good coproduction takes place in a uniquely egalitarian environment.
However, it is essential to recognise how vital the ‘chemistry’ and ‘positive energy’, that all individuals can potentially bring into any particular bubble of coproduction. In time, any potential clashes of personalities, individual agendas, and in-house competitiveness, will hopefully recede. This in turn creates the essential ingredient of trust within a very diverse group of participants which is needed to successfully complete a coproduced piece of work. Each successful example of coproduction is evidence as to why it is the better way of producing materials and designing services, thus should be recognised as such.