Thus far, Chapter 4 has used the primary data to explore how and why the public and civic sectors adopt design activity. The chapter has also considered broad themes about the current state of this field.
The final section of Chapter 4 now examines a specific case study of design activity in policy development, and the wider environment that enabled this approach. The case study discusse s three phases of design activity which took place between 2014-17 led by the UK government and the UK social investment sector. The researcher was the commissioner for the second and third design projects (Sections 4.4.4 and 4.4.5).
4.4.1 Policy Context: Social investment in the UK, 2010-2017
Social investment can be defined as “the use of repayable finance to help an organisation achieve a social purpose” (Good Finance, 2020). This case study concentrates on one aspect of social investment, the provision of loans - known as repayable finance - to social organisations such as charities and social enterprises from intermediary organisations or by direct investment.
This has been described as ‘finance provided for VCSE [voluntary, community and social enterprise] organisations, which the investors expect to both get back and to create social impact’ (Big Lottery Fund et al. 2014, p.3).
During the 2000s, the UK government created several funds and capacity-building programmes to widen funding options for the social sector and concepts of social investment began to take shape. For example, the Futurebuilders Fund47 ran from 2004-10 and provided £117m of loans and £28m of grants to 369 organisations. It was set up to “persuade the voluntary and community sector to make greater use of repayable finance” (Boston Consulting Group, 2015).
Between 2010-2015, the UK Coalition Government developed large-scale social investment initiatives, for example, establishing Big Society Capital48, the world’s first wholesale social investment institution (Cabinet Office 2014): Big Society Capital invests in intermediary organisations and investors that lend on to social organisations. In 2015 the UK government created a second independent organisation called Access: The Foundation for Social Investment49 to provide smaller loans and to build capacity with social sector organisations to take on investment.
47 Future Builders Fund. See: https://www.sibgroup.org.uk/futurebuilders-england
48 Big Society Capital. See: https://bigsocietycapital.com/
49 Access. See: https://access-socialinvestment.org.uk/
By 2013 opinion in the social investment sector suggested that, despite the provision of capital into the market, social organisations still struggled to identify and obtain investment. The work to understand the investment challenges of charities and social enterprises entailed the use of new approaches, including design activity.
4.4.2 Awareness of design activity
The UK government was the original commissioner of design work, but the projects involved a wide range of organisations. The policy team that commissioned the initial design work, the Social Investment & Finance Team, was located in the UK Cabinet Office.
According to the policy team, design was initially deployed in order to understand the needs of individuals and organisations from the social sector who were seeking investment (Design Council, 2014, p.7). In an interview to develop the case study for this research in 2016, one of the original commissioners from the policy team reflected back on the first motivations for working with designers.
“The initial ‘design’ approach was much more of a user-centred approach than a design one - to see what is really going on here” (CS 1)
The desire from the policy team to interact with design activity was influenced by wider changes in UK government policy. In 2012 the Coalition Government published the Civil Service Reform Plan, a strategy document which aimed to make the civil service more skilled and less bureaucratic. The plan stated, “we need better skills, better technology and a mindset that revolves around the user, not the producer” (HM Government, 2012, p.3). Another quote from the original commissioner makes reference to the environment inside the UK government.
“…we had a certain license to see what was going to be creative and transformative in others, and the Design Council gave a talk on some of the work in service design that they had been doing. All conversations were talking about users.” (CS 1)
These quotes and the wider context in the UK government suggest that the awareness of design activity was initiated as a result of a shift in approaches to policymaking towards innovative strategies. This raised awareness about approaches such as ‘being user-centred’ in the policy team, and about design as a potential tool to understanding people on the receiving end of social investment policy.
4.4.3 Phase 1: Initial design activity
The first phase of design work was a qualitative research project commissioned by the Social Investment & Finance Team and undertaken by the Design Council. The project brief was described by one of the policy commissioners:
“…to better understand the experience of ventures [social organisations] in taking on social investment.” (CS 1)
The project was carried out by a small research team at the Design Council over a 10-week period and findings were published in 2014 the report Social Finance in the UK: designing the experience for social ventures (Design Council, 2014). The research comprised a literature review, interviews with 12 funders and 20 social organisations, and separate focus groups with 6 social organisations and 15 funders (p.7). The research team used the design tool of a User Journey Framework, shown in Fig. 4.5, to map out key needs of social organisations on their investment journey.
Fig. 4.5: Key needs of social ventures mapped against the stages of applying for investment.
Source: Design Council (2014, p.58)
The project highlighted challenges for social organisations such as knowing about “different funding routes upfront”, and “language barriers”. It also found that “understanding of repayable finance is low and it is perceived as too risky” by social organisations (Design Council, 2014, p.58). The final design brief proposed by the research team was “a solution that allows social ventures [social organisations] to find their best fit in the most efficient way” (p.61).
Interviews with the policy team who commissioned the design work show that the extent of work required was unclear from the outset and that user insights were difficult to interpret.
“If you had found me immediately after the first piece, I’d report that I was disappointed with progress. Find me now, more familiar, with the benefit of time, some things have panned out that I’m very happy with. Maybe there’s something about explaining. I imagine many people like me might go through something similar. [they need to] see ideas explained - “ah, that is an angle that might help me with the sort of thing I know I’m struggling with”.” (CS 1)
The Design Council project was the first of its kind for the policy team and the UK social investment market. Although it was challenging for both the policy and design teams, it also set the ground for two later design projects.
4.4.4 Phase 2: Prototyping activity in the UK social investment sector
In 2014, the Social Investment and Finance Team commissioned a second design project. Work took place between January and June 2015 and was carried out by two consultancies, The Point People and Snook. The project and findings are published in the report Designing Social Investment: Prototyping and testing solutions to improve the social investment sector (The Point People & Snook, 2015).
Whilst the first design project led by the Design Council focused on the needs of social organisations, the second set out to work with investors and funders. From the outset, work was conceived as finding ways to strengthen the “overall effectiveness of the ecosystem” (The Point People & Snook 2015, p.4). The researchers aimed to “align the ventures’ [social organisations]
needs expressed in the Design Council report with the context within which funders operate”, thereby building a more complete picture of the social investment sector (2015, p.6).
The initial project workshop included 12 investors and funders, and participants split into four
groups, each developing one of four ideas: improving peer-to-peer support between social organisations; opening up and sharing data; creating digital signposting and guidance about social investment, and improving investors’ approaches to due diligence (2015, p.5). The designers then used prototyping to help investors and funders develop their ideas into practical solutions. The project was the first time that prototyping had been used in the social investment sector and there were practical and cultural barriers. The investors and funders had limited time and were initially unclear about the commitment that would be required of them, and the design team found that prototyping was not a ‘“natural” process (2015, p.24). Nonetheless, the approaches taken resulted in new insights from the perspectives of social investors and funders.
At the end of the project a workshop was also held with social organisations to gather their responses to the prototypes.
The project operated on two levels. The team set out to create tangible initiatives that could be readily implemented. However, by putting practical ideas in the form of prototypes in front of investors and funders, their work also prompted participants to make much wider observations about the social investment sector. From the research, the team developed broad principles about the working relationship between investors and social organisations, such as
“empowering social ventures with knowledge” (2015, p.7).
One of the four teams found that language, education and navigating to the right investment opportunities were all challenges for social organisations seeking investment. They developed a digital prototype called Finance Central, which was a “simplified user interface unpicking the social investment landscape, educating the sector about the marketplace and creating a succinct digital offer around preparation for investment” (2015, p.27). Of the four concepts Finance Central was prioritised for development in the third phase of design work. A wireframe for the Finance Central website is shown in Fig. 4.6.
Fig. 4.6: prototype of the Finance Central digital resource. Source: The Point People and Snook (2017)
4.4.5 Phase 3: Value from design activity, building a digital platform
The work to develop the Finance Central prototype created a set of insights about social organisations’ desire for simple language and explanations of social investment. However, more work was needed to understand how the idea could be implemented.
In March 2016 the Cabinet Office’s Social Investment & Finance Team commissioned the design consultancy Snook, who were also involved in the second design project, to undertake a third phase of work to develop the Finance Central concept. Big Society Capital took this third phase of work through to delivery, setting up a Steering Group of sector organisations, and pairing Snook with the digital development agency, New Digital Partnerships. The name of the project was also changed to Good Finance, which was published as a beta website with basic information about social investment in March 2016. The fact that the project was implemented by a social investment organisation - Big Society Capital - indicates that they, and the steering group, were convinced by the value of using design approaches in the first two phases of work.
Work ran for six months and key insights are captured in the report Designing Social Investment: Good Finance User Research Report (Snook, 2017). The research confirmed findings from the earlier phases of work, particularly regarding the relationship between investors and social organisations. One social organisation interviewed by Snook for the project commented “the stars haven’t aligned to allow corporate financiers to work with social enterprises” (2017, p.13)
Initially the project team from Snook and New Digital Partnerships worked with the Steering Group to focus the research around key groups of people who were most likely to use social investment and the website. In the course of the project, the design teams conducted 19 interviews with social organisations and intermediaries, they also received 83 responses to a survey about attitudes to investment and preferences for accessing information (2017, p.4). The team was able to identify five areas of friction between investors and social organisations including: mindset: language: knowledge: connection, and influence (2017, pp.14-20). For example, participants in the research commented:
“I see it as a necessary evil - a fast fix. But the stimulant will wear off after a while and you’re left with debt.” (2017, p.14)
“I’m having to get to grips with the finance/ corporate sector language.” (2017, p.15)
“I wouldn’t shy away from borrowing. You have to be sustainable.” (2017, p.28)
In the final phase of the project the design team held workshops with social organisations to refine the features for the website. They then quickly moved on to digital prototyping. The project finished with a specification for the website and design principles for future work, including “straight forward”, “trusted’ and “empowering” (2017, p.60). Snook also made recommendations to sustain the website, including recruiting a dedicated project manager, maintaining the Steering Group and funding the Good Finance platform for five years. Fig. 4.7 shows the live Good Finance website.
Fig. 4.7: Screenshot of the front-page of the Good Finance website, April 2020. Source:
goodfinance.org.uk
The design activity had a significant impact on the policy team and wider social investment sector. After the first project, the government team employed a full time member of staff to build design activities into their wider work – the author of this research. Big Society Capital, has since commissioned and continues to use design activity. At the time of writing in 2020 Good Finance is still in operation.
4.4.6 Analysis: social investment case study
This case study sets out a sustained set of design projects in UK social investment policy, and it illustrates the entry points, activity and value created by this design activity in a strategic context. The design projects indicate how design activity was deployed in UK government policy development to understand a complex sector and to articulate a specific area of need - around
‘education and language’ about social investment for social organisations. It shows how this need was translated into a practical resource, through the creation of a new digital platform called Good Finance.
At the beginning of the projects, the policy team were unfamiliar with design activity and it was difficult to find a starting place for the work. The wider introduction of design activity to UK Government policymaking through the Civil Service Reform Plan was a crucial catalyst for them to experiment with design approaches. Social investment is a complex sector with its own
terminology and for the designers it was challenging to quickly grasp the issues whilst introducing new approaches, like prototyping. The three stages of work between 2014-17 also demonstrate the significant time it can take to translate user insights into a practical design output in a complex, strategic context.
Nonetheless, in this situation design activity was deployed to understand a strategic challenge relating to the uptake of social investment amongst social organisations, to frame a policy goal around better understanding the needs of social organisations, and to develop a design-led response in the form of Good Finance.