Yesterday's post was self indulgent and silly (not to mention giving 'OldAndrew' an open goal). To have something different on my homepage, I am posting from my mini break in France.
I am looking for thoughts on a question which is at the front of my mind right now: what are the best conditions for small groups of people to develop good ideas and (the ' and' is very important) commit to taking the ideas forward.
A few suggestions to get us going:
1. A group incentive is good but it should not be so large that it distracts (see Dan Pink's world beating Animate) or introduces perverse incentives.
2. Apparently, according to some research I plan to look into properly next week, 12 is the optimum group size to develop ideas (strikes me as a bit big).
3. There needs to be clear norms - or even explicit rules - which stop the people with the loudest voices or strongest opinions from dominating.
4. Like the incentive, the focus should be medium sized - not so wide that the conversation lacks a thread, not so narrow to stifle imagination.
There's four to be going on with - over to you dear readers ...
Fabian Wallace-Stephens (Foresight Lead)
What mix of soft, technical, and digital skills will be needed in different sectors or local economies in the future?
Riley Thorold explains how recent RSA work on public participation can inform this broader shift towards a more active and empowering democracy when levelling up.
Complex interactions between health, economic and social outcomes are at the centre of health outcome inequalities. RSA Chief Executive Andy Haldane examines the interventions that could break this adverse health/economic cycle.