Atelier WeekNotes w/c 18 Sep 2023
First reflections on #NetZeroHeat Lab
I am writing newsletter of #weeknotes of starting the Atelier of What’s Next (What’s needed, What’s ready? What can we do? What next?). For my rationale for starting the Atelier see here.
Apologies for the delayed posting.
This week was a 5-day 40-person workshop on Net Zero Heat. So, not surprisingly, that dominates. It was a rich and complex experience, which I'm only part-way through processing. Plus, quite a lot of it is confidential (and will remain so for quite some time). So, what follows is only a partial take, and one where I may change my mind over time.
Explaining the Net Zero Heat Innovation Lab.
What are the frontiers here?
Putting into practice a social model of vulnerability.
Different sorts of diversity in participants.
Narrative through day videos.
Getting from concept to project to pitch.
Thank you to, well, everyone.
My leadership: strong, and that’s a problem.
And, thank you to Robin Alfred.
My closing words on the celebration evening.
Oops! Should I get a heat pump?
What next.
Rainbow from end of Day 2.
Explaining the Net Zero Heat Innovation Lab
Last week I was lead facilitator at a 5 day innovation workshop for Innovate UK, the UK's national innovation agency. The main aim: create new consortia that will bid for a portion of a £8.5m fund to "improve delivery and reduce the cost of net zero heat building upgrades through design and system engineering processes", as the rather dry language of the competition has it. (You can find past WeekNotes with mentions of the #NZHeatLab here.)
You can only enter the competition if you had been at the workshop. You could only go to the workshop if you had entered a competition and been selected. My role came after the selection; leading the design and facilitating of the week so that 40 people could go from near-strangers (in some cases competitors) to new consortia with an ambitious innovation.
Crucially, that innovation needed to be a big improvement in the building renovation delivery process.
This was not about better technology. Heat pumps are already pretty good (and will keep getting better through existing market dynamics).
This was about joining up different parts of the heat installation ecosystem in new ways. Then these new consortia can deliver on one or more of the focus areas of the Innovate UK's Net Zero Heat Programme:
Market demand. Standardised information on what renovation to do including where and when for the maximum impact.
System barriers. Bridging scaling gap leading to growth in supply chains and localised deployment.
Design engineering. Reducing capital and installation cost across the system of net zero building upgrades and heat provision.
The competition has two other specific constraints. One of those are the themes a proposal must hit, which show the process innovation focus: energy demand reduction; market demand certainty; heat efficiency; cost reductions for systemised deep renovation; easier to do and faster to initiate building upgrades; using digital technologies; and/or modular design.
The other constraint can be thought of as qualities that a proposal had to demonstrate:
ensuring equality, diversity and inclusion is embedded in approaches to net zero heat in buildings, particularly for those in vulnerable or marginalised groups.
delivery of substantial upgrading of building portfolios.
reducing the cost and speed in delivery of building upgrades.
targeting decarbonisation of the whole system.
delivery of approaches at scale.
solutions demonstrated on real developments.
The team in Innovate UK have had experience of transforming construction to a more industrialised, lower cost, and faster basis. Their hypothesis for the entire Net Zero Heat Programme is that something similar can work on rapidly decarbonising the heating of buildings. The Innovation Lab is part of getting that programme going.
As I type the consortia have made their pitches, but no one has the assessor comments (basically, a recommendation on whether it is fundable and any substantive feedback). Those comments should be coming very soon. The consortia then have until 25 October to assemble final proposals. All of the project ideas are confidential for the foreseeable. Plus we have not had a chance to do our internal feedback yet. So there is a limit to what I can write here.
All that said, here are some things worth writing about (and reading, I hope).
What are the frontiers here?
One of the ways I explain the Atelier of What's Next is that I am trying operate at the frontier of possibility, the fuzzy space of 'what's needed and what's ready'. Here's my attempt to list the frontiers we are operating on here:
Buildings Heat Productivity Frontier ('the sum of existing best practice at any given time'). The aim is for consortia to produce better performance for lower costs. This will expand the productivity frontier.
Here it is useful to use Michael Grubb's model of 3 domains of economics as applied to innovation (explained here in a paper co-written with Dr Will McDowall, who leads on the UCL Masters module I co-lead). In short, my summary would be:
Domain 1. Satisficing. Catching up with best practice. Use: behavioural economics.
Domain 2. Optimising. Incrementally improving best practice. Use: neoclassical economics (ie break up monopolies).
Domain 3. Transforming. Fundamentally altering the structure of the system and direction of innovation. Use: complexity economics.
We were trying to operate in Domain 3. (Sidebar: the paper is a must-read, and I would also recommend the Planetary Economics book which is the expanded version.)
Of course, transforming a system is not done through a small number of projects, however brilliant. That was why we kept reinforcing to people that this was about a healthy ecosystem acting over time, probably over decades.
Innovation methods frontier. Other people will have done 5 day innovation workshops (for instance in design sprints (especially for software) and hackathons). But I'm not aware of the particular combination:
Immediate output: pitch from a new consortia.
Desired outcome: successful proposals for grant funding.
Participants drawn from across the ecosystem (rather than in one organisation or an existing collaboration).
Successful proposals needing to transform, not just incrementally improve, the productivity frontier.
Five day residential.
Addressing a broad, process innovation need (rather than a narrow technical challenge).
At the least, all of the people involved were doing something with all these features for the first time. We were all at our or beyond our personal frontiers.
Putting into practice a social model of vulnerability
Every proposal had to ensure equality, diversity and inclusion was embedded (EDI, as the jargon has it). To help with that we had 2 presentations from experts, one of whom was able to stay for a day or 2 as a mentor, challenging the consortia as they developed their ideas.
Fairness is something I value highly. But I'm not sure I would know what I would do with that in designing a project. So, I was glad of their input. In particular, there was a re-framing which I hadn't come across before.
We are used to a frame where the individual has something different about them, which makes them disabled or vulnerable. They have to use a wheelchair. Or they come from a poor household. The onus is on their individual qualities and functional abilities.
The reframe is to put it the other way round. As one presentation had it (quoting Duku EV): "People are excluded from our society and economy because of the way we design systems and things.”
What if we realised that individuals are disabled or marginalised by barriers in society, not by their physical attributes or personal histories? What if we realised that, if society were different, then that same person would be enabled and not at the margins? (The jargon term: the social model of disability.)
That would make disability, vulnerability and marginalisation a feature of society, not individuals, and therefore, at least partly deliberate. As depressing and annoying as that insight might be, it also gives us agency. We can design society differently, so those barriers are not there, so that no one is disabled from taking part in their own way.
The challenge put to the participants was: "How are you putting people at the core of your innovation, and removing barriers for all communities?"
Different sorts of diversity in participants
As you would expect, given the focus on EDI in the competition, there had already been much thought and effort put into the EDI of the participants. It wasn't as racially diverse as I had expected, but there were different sorts of diversity that were present, and which we tried to remove barriers to them fully taking part in their own way.
One woman had a young child who she could not be separated from. So, her partner was also put up in the hotel, so the child had someone looking after them all the time.
Another person could only come if their dogs could come to. These were retired service dogs which, I hadn't known, are so used to being constantly in human company that they get distressed if left alone for too long. The hotel was dog-friendly, and we were able to put the service dogs in a a space at the rear of the main room. The dogs were, not surprisingly, very well behaved. They became quite the feature for many participants, going over to say hello.
Finally, one person had a Tourette syndrome, which caused them to say particular words at random and also some physical movements. It was my first time speaking with someone who I knew had Tourette's, let alone facilitating someone. (It turns out about 1% of school-age children have at least a mild version, so I will have spoken with some people and just not known.)
Very bravely, this person declared that they had the syndrome in our very first session. Everyone, to their credit, just rolled with it. At first I found the words ('duck, duck, goose!') were a bit off-putting. But quickly could be put into the background.
Narrative through day videos
In a future WeekNotes I might unpack the specifics of the 5 days, the design choices I made about the flow of the week, and what did or didn't work. For now, I'll put in links to the videos that Mike Pitts, the most senior Innovate UK person in attendance, for the first 4 days. I’m afraid I can’t figure out how to embed them, so there are th elinks:
Getting from concept to project to pitch
One thing we realised was that the consortia were struggling to go from concept to project to pitch. So, we offered them two tools for that:
Strategyzer's Ad Lib Value Proposition, which should help get to the essence of a project:
The other was the Munroe Motivated Sequence:
Attention. The attention step is audience-focused and uses an attention-getter to catch the audience's attention.
Need. The topic is applied to the psychological needs of the audience members. Monroe believed that it was most effective to convince the audience that they had specific needs tailored to the topic of the presentation.
Satisfaction. Specific and viable solutions to the problems raised in the previous step are presented to the audience.
Visualization. The solution is then described in such a way that the audience can visualize both the solution and its positive effects in a detailed manner.
Action. The audience is then told how to solve the problem using the solution(s) previously presented.
I first came across this in this podcast on political speeches. But, once you know what to listen for, you can hear it in every start-up pitch ("I was a young mother who couldn't get the clothes I want. I realised it was a bigger problem for mothers, and the planet. I created this circular economy business. Imagine if every mother could subscribe. All I need is £Xm for the next phase").
Thank you to, well, everyone
It was a rich, complex week, with some success (though we won't know for sure for a while) and lots that could be improved. Even so, I can definitely give some appreciations.
First, to the folks Innovate UK for trying out a new way to get certain kinds of innovation started. Great to see the national innovation agency being innovative on its own programmes.
Second, to the facilitators from Carbon Limiting Technologies, which "works with industry and government to commercialise low carbon innovations and accelerate clean growth". Beforehand, they took a risk doing this project with me (we hadn't really worked together before). During the week they had to put with my leadership approach (more below). They also did far more of the work with consortia, both on the technical side (what makes for a good project or good pitch) and also emotional labour (groups that got stuck, and participants who had various struggles).
Finally, to the attendees. They ran with the possibilities. I think everyone had their emotional journeys, as part of coming up with new process innovations. They put in huge effort, on both those dimensions of technical and emotional labour.
My leadership: strong, and that’s a problem.
I had had hopes for a co-creating the design beforehand, and then rotating on delivering through the 5 days. What ended up happening was, before, me doing the design and inviting comments (and perhaps in ways that didn't help people give their ideas). During the five days, I took on the role of MC/compere fully. There was no space for anyone else to do that stuff.
I can give various reasons and excuses. I could feel what the group needed. We hadn't worked as a team together before, so it was hard for us to pass along the sense of 'holding the space' (one of those soft-sounding facilitator phrases which, if you get what it means, is soft like the ocean is soft, to mis-quote Iain M Banks). It was my first time co-facilitating in a while, and I've lost that muscle, for now. Besides, it all worked out well (based on the initial feedback from participants).
Hmm. Maybe. But, let's be sceptical about such motivated reasoning and self-justification, shall we? Quite apart from this project, it points to a deeper problem.
When I set up the Atelier, I said there were 2 broad tracks:
Small version Atelier. I run the Atelier, with innovations coming out and my own practices getting deeper. This is the default; a sharper version of the status quo.
Large version Atelier. Maybe others start to join in, bringing their own ideas to work on, or being part of the team. The Atelier becomes an on-going incubator / accelerator / supporter of many different 'innovations', initiated by many different people.
Frankly, if I behave like that going forward, there isn't going to be the larger version. Having the larger version of the Atelier requires people are more than just invited in. They will have to feel they can be part of driving it's development. It can't be dominated by me. That's something I'm going to pick up (and do lots of inner work on) over the coming months.
And, thank you to Robin Alfred
At one point, one of the participants said that I was a natural facilitator. After thanking them (in a very English way), I had to tell them that it took me 20 years of practice to become a natural.
I did a lot of facilitating at Forum for the Future. But I'd say the key person in me getting to where I am is Robin Alfred. He ran a series of events at Findhorn which I attended. The quality of attention -- to the group, to the individual, to the space in between and beyond -- was just exceptional. While Rowan Conway's version of the Double Diamond gave the overall structure, it was Robin's approach which underpinned what I did moment-by-moment.
The participants were getting from me a small impression of what Robin can do with groups. Very grateful to have had him as a coach and teacher. (And any mistakeswere mine.)
My closing words on the celebration evening
Here's what I said to end the last evening, which was called a 'closing ceremony'.
What's next for us all is living in the climate era. Tomorrow are pitches, and good luck to you all. Next month -- feedback and writing the proposals. The next quarter: the final assessment and news.
And what else could you be doing with this group, over the coming months? Either from ideas you've already had or something else?
Next year the successful projects will start. There will be more need for Net Zero heat, more climate change. People in cold homes that are too expensive to heat. Energy wasted on other buildings, adding to climate change.
Over the next decades, there will be a huge need for rapid decarbonisation, and for adaptation. There will be more Net Zero Heat Programme from Innovate UK, as part of creating a Net Zero economy, and lives. We will all be working together, so that people can live their version of the good life, in a climate-safe world.
That is the task of our generation. Let's go! (Also, let's get our food!)
Oops! Should I get a heat pump?
I didn't even ask anyone. I should have done, shouldn't I?
What next
Review meeting to get feedback. (This will give rise to more actions, I'm sure.)
Get testimonials!
Design guide (even a playbook) for next time.
The larger version of the Atelier: inner work, and planning for Q4 2023.
Ask someone who knows about these things how to put my own dwelling on course for Net Zero Heat.