Sustainability comes from impact

The likelihood that CLG or others will “roll this out” is fairly small I think, from what heard, but worth hoping for…

However I think we need to think of sustainability from the levels of the interventions and impacts we are hoping to achieve:

• At the individual and community level- sustainability comes through increased social and cultural capital, especially when backed up by available, accessible and intuitive technologies…
• at the mentor level relates to enthusiasm generated to carry on, tools to network as a community of practice and get support, potentially ways to link in to current paid jobs or continue to be paid.
• at the organisational / network level/ training level: motivations to exist and sources of resourcing, inter networking abilities, use of technology to help people maintain relationships, publicly available, online tools, located with a or many sustainable organisations
• at the national level- champion(s) to fight the corner for mentors in Whitehall and seek future funding and tie to future opportunities, a lose alliance of key network organizations makes sense here?

Sustainability must take into account the many regional networks that exist, with current resources that can be built on, or that we shouldn’t lose. It should investigate the potential at the local authority level. It should embrace community development principles.

And I think sustainability should be linked intrinsically with scalability / breaking new ground.

We don’t want to look to create an “in crowd” of technically excited folks… though those types are very cool and helpful.. We need to also think about networks and places where this stuff is needed but may not exist, we might need to build some bridges to other communities where we may totally lack a presence… and where other networks might be inspired by our materials and give us a good spread for not much investment of energy.

Good training comes from good research

I personally think a lot of this “follows” from the research and mapping because you can find out what training exists, including potentially re-usable materials. And you can find out where gaps are.

The trick is going to be finding cost effective ways of delivering training and a variety of training options according to both the type of digital mentor and the outcomes that are intended. By that I mean one demonstrator might look at say, trusted intermediaries, who could be digital mentors, but aren’t currently playing that role, so maybe a health visitor or social worker (!). that demonstrator may be breaking new ground and may require training and development for different kinds of stakeholder.

This links then into the sustainability and scalability issues.

I really do think we need to think widely on this bid…and I see all the parts fitting together… so sometimes it’s a bit tricky to just write on what siloed topic… yet we do need a way to focus!

Research and mapping objectives

What are the objectives of the R&M?

I feel we need to resist here, the desire to collate, in one place, the biggest possible list of every single project that exists. We already know there are 6000 UK online centres, 600 CMA members, 2500 partners on COL database…etc

I think we need to develop an open and flowing process, so that we get as much quality information as possible to understand the types of projects that exist, why they exist (what drives them) and what the benefits are as well as disadvantages in the process, in particular focused on sustainability. What we can learn that is good for training others and what training needs may exist. What else do people think we need to find out?

This could take a variety of formats and we don’t need to necessarily pick one:

1. Mail out to databases of various networks
2. Telephone interviews of projects that come forwards as particularly interested
3. Literature review and desk research (eg Foley mapping of the 198 indicator set- I can explain if needed)
4. Fieldwork interviews where a particular feature seems especially interesting (for example if someone had developed a sustainable social enterprise model)
5. Online discussion amongst the consortium group
6. Use of web2.0 sites

Anything else?

We are “looking for gaps”- this might be in usage of types of technology or socially excluded groups that are underserved, or formats of mentoring such as volunteers, or online mentors, etc.

It helps to think through what gaps might exist, because then you can fill them or not. Gaps in actual fact are also potential demonstrators, because if people have a project they want to extend or start afresh, it may be because they perceive there is a gap…

A proposal for research and mapping of demonstrators

I propose we use the research and mapping to find out both what people are doing and what they could be doing in addition… so the research and mapping questions will help to shape the final selection criteria.

I’m posting this here because people may not find the research and mapping work package very sexy…. yet it could play a key role in defining criteria and therefore its important we get it right!