Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present insights into the way in which system change can be activated around the provision of services and support for people experiencing multiple disadvantages in an urban setting.

This paper is informed by a thematic analysis of reflections, reports, learning logs, interviews and experiences of those “activating” system change in the Golden Key partnership in Bristol between 2014 and 2021.

Four themes are identified, including “creating the conditions for change”, “framing your involvement”, “investing in relationships” and “reflective practice and learning”. For each of these, an illustrative vignette is provided.

Practical recommendations and reflective questions are provided with suggestions of further considerations for applying this approach in different contexts.

This paper describes an original approach of activating and supporting people to do system change to improve the lives of people facing multiple disadvantages.

The purpose of this paper is to present a case study tracking the development and engagement of a group of experts by experience (The Independent Futures (IF) Group) who provided a lived experience voice to the Bristol Golden Key (GK) partnership within the Fulfilling Lives programme. The case study reports the genesis and impact of the group, as well as the facilitators of impact and experiences of the group members and those they worked in partnership with.

The research adopted an iterative approach drawing on multiple data sources over an eight-year period. An inductive ethnographic analysis of stakeholder and partnership meetings was combined with documentary analysis and thematic analysis of interviews with experts by experience and service providers.

The voice of lived experience provided by the IF group contributed to the GK partnership through various channels. Evidence of this contribution and its impact was found at programme, city-wide and national levels of the service ecosystem. Furthermore, IF members recognised the value of the group in contributing to systems change and service improvement, but also for themselves.

This case study serves to illustrate the impact of the lived experience voice on services and systems change, specifically the provision of that voice from a formalised advisory group. The successes and challenges of the group and the experiences of its members are reported with a view to sharing learning that may influence future co-production initiatives with experts by experience and service provision for those experiencing multiple disadvantage.

The insights provided by the longitudinal observation of the group as it was formed and evolved, coupled with insights provided by the experts by experience, have important implications for facilitating and supporting sustainable lived experience input.

The purpose of this paper is to report on the experience of attempting a “collaboratory” approach in sharing knowledge about leadership development evaluation (LDE). A collaboratory intertwines “collaboration” and “laboratory” to create innovation networks for all sorts of social and technological problems.

The authors, alongside a variety of public and private sector organisations, created the collaboratory. Within the process, the authors collected various forms of qualitative data (including interviews, observations, letter writing and postcards).

The findings show key areas of resonance, namely, the ability for participants to network, a creation of a dynamic shift in thinking and practice and the effective blending of theory and practice. Importantly, there are some critiques of the collaboratory approach discussed, including complications around: a lack of “laboratory” (hence bringing into question the idea of collaboratory itself), and the need to further develop the facilitation of such events.

The originality is to ultimately question whether the network actually achieved the collaboratory in reality. This study concludes, however, that there were some distinct benefits within our collaborations, especially around issues associated with LDE, and this study provides recommendations for academics and practitioners in terms of trying similar initiatives.

As the world struggled to come to grips with the Covid-19 pandemic, over twenty scholars, practitioners, and global leaders wrote brief essays for this curated chapter on the role of global leadership in this extreme example of a global crisis. Their thoughts span helpful theoretical breakthroughs to essential, pragmatic adaptations by companies.

The purpose of this paper is to present experiences and insights from an higher education‐led initiative to build leadership capacity within the South West of England in order to the shed light onto the processes and mechanisms of regional capacity building.

The approach was one of participative action research, whereby the authors were actively involved in the shaping and delivery of the initiative, responding to ongoing feedback and reflection. The account given within this paper is an autoethnographic case study that identifies the main phases and lessons learned from the initiative.

The paper identifies a number of discrete phases within the initiative, some of the challenges and how they were confronted and concludes with a set of ten principles that may help support regional capacity building initiatives for management and leadership.

Despite increasing emphasis on capacity building and a tendency to promote leadership as a lever for change, limited academic research has been conducted into either of these processes at a regional level. This paper seeks to contribute to both theory and practice in these areas by combining the insights of an academic and a practitioner involved in one such initiative and highlighting the underlying and emergent processes therewith.

Outlines a comprehensive taxonomy of modern manufacturing practices. Previous attempts have tended to be partial in coverage and to concentrate on performance issues, rather than explain the reasons why a particular practice may have been adopted. In order to overcome these problems, the new taxonomy categorizes manufacturing practices according to two dimensions: strategic emphasis and primary domain of application. Suggests 20 different categories of practice for a total of 87 practices. Supplements the taxonomy by a list of definitions which specify each of the practices identified. Considers practical implications of the taxonomy, as well as its limitations. Future research suggestions include using the taxonomy to provide the basis for systematic surveys of manufacturing, as well as closer examination of the links between companies’ manufacturing strategy and financial performance.