Beyond Assessing, Observing: Or How to Achieve More with Less for a More Co-creative Journey
How should the developmental evaluation of an ecosystem in its construction phase be approached? This is the question that has been ‘hovering over our roof’ for the team of ‘Observing and Evaluating’ throughout the year. We have distinguished two roadmaps: the progress of the process itself, on the one hand, and the impact or significance of the results in relation to the vision and mission, on the other.
For those of us accustomed to navigating local projects, when focusing on evaluation, the temptation to directly resort to measuring impact is too great to bypass assessing the extent of mission or objective fulfillment. However, does the evaluation of a network of this nature not require a more measured and extended respite; especially when we are at the stage of establishing common operational foundations? Our journey has led us to observe the evolution of the process itself and to surface and share the ‘creative tensions’[1] that arise with it.
Our ecosystem has lofty goals; we are ambitious, nonconformist, and iconoclastic. Precisely for this reason, although it may seem paradoxical, our approach to evaluation has been as simple as possible. No matter how grand the intentions, the intensity each of us could contribute has not been very high, as we are all involved in many other projects and tasks. Therefore, we have worked following a maxim; to observe more than to evaluate. To be attentive, observant, to make room for the flow of events, and to let what emerges find its way. And to document, descriptively. In the life system[2] that we humans generate, observing habits, relationships, attitudes, and awareness, the emergent collective consciousness by the participants, in conjunction with being open to welcoming emerging creative tensions, is of vital importance for its evolution.
The Co-creation Ecosystem, established within Arantzazulab, embarked on a new cycle in 2023. This cycle is grounded in the collaboration of various agents, with its primary mission being to establish the foundational bases and principles of action for the ecosystem through the co-creation of all participants. As such, it has largely been an inward-focused year. While this has raised certain concerns, we believe that by the end of the year, we have come to understand that this was a necessary approach. Before engaging outwardly, it’s crucial to work on and reach a consensus on the foundational principles with the network participants. This has led us to observe the whole from each individual, from objects to relationships, from various scales of operation, focusing on quality over quantity, in a living community.
The co-creation ecosystem itself has been our experimental hub.
At the beginning of the year, the organization was structured into working groups: a group of connectors that links each member of every group to guide and promote them, entangle and connect them, experiment and observe them, and evaluate them, as well as ensuring their relationship and coherence. Integrated units have been formed that act as a functional whole; a living community has been created at different levels or scales; we have been observing this structuring. The teams have worked throughout the year, and the four meetings held in Arantzazulab have been the key moments for co-creation: February 9, July 13, September 28, and November 23.
The observation and evaluation team aimed to approach the process from the perspective of developmental evaluation. To this end, we drew inspiration from the Oñati experience, ‘Developmental Evaluation – Oñati Pilot Project.
This encompasses the ORID and MSC/MSL (Most Significant Changes/learnings) methodologies. Both employ a descriptive viewpoint and are grounded in the perspectives and narratives of the subjects. In fact, there has been an effort to collect experiences and stories from these participants in progressively broader circles: first as individuals, then as work groups, and finally as ecosystems.
What kind of studies have we received? Many, and they are valuable.
The living systems approach posits that evolutionary processes are primary, and that any structure is merely a manifest expression of underlying interaction processes. We believe that the emergence of listening devices and tension-generating mechanisms is beneficial for the ecosystem. It aligns with the principles of action and serves as a collaborative strategy. However, this must be approached with caution, or at least, choosing the right moments is essential so that reflection can give way to action.
The mission and vision of the ecosystem are encapsulated in the interviews conducted within the teams, representing an exponential advancement. It can be said that these have been embraced by the teams. However, it is evident that in this initial phase, they are not yet manifested in external actions. There is a journey to traverse between mission, visions, and interventions. This is positive news, as the foundational groundwork is already established.
This may be partially related to expectations. Because we have had to adjust what was proposed by all the teams at the beginning of the year. The goals set by the work teams were ambitious at the start of the year, and the teams have been able to self-regulate according to the demands of the system. What has been achievable is what lies within the system’s coordinates, and in this edition, the work teams have focused on these to the extent that they have been internal. Nonetheless, we have initiated discussions with several public institutions and social stakeholders, and we will follow up on these in the coming year, 2024.
Given all this, the ecosystem’s operation has been reflective at different times, and it must be acknowledged that the methodology we have proposed also tends towards this. Therefore, on too many occasions, there has been a tendency towards introspection and meta-analysis at this year’s meetings. Hasn’t our team been responsible for this situation at times? Would it be more productive to intervene less on our part and focus more on observation? To let the system itself navigate the path after each step, rather than provoking questions and reflections about it? Isn’t it a significant advancement in the co-creation of common foundations, especially when we find ourselves in a context of rapid decline of major meta-narratives?
As an optimistic point, we believe that at times these questions have served to raise awareness of what has been done and to provoke conscious conversations about it, which has generated a reaction and helped to reorient certain inertias or tendencies.
For the next year, we have learned a lesson: if we make an intervention, it should be beneficial for the system. Because if we question the baby at every step it takes, do we really help it walk more freely from its emerging authenticity?From the OBSERVATION AND EVALUATION team, we can affirm that the common foundations of the experimental ecosystem have been co-created. The progress in 2024 will serve as the best confirmation of this. 2024, Happy New Year to everyone.
The co-creation ecosystem members are: Arantzazulab, Apitropik, Beta, Be&Lab, Colabora, Elhuyar, Emun, Farapi, Impact Hub Donostia, Ko-garri, Kutxa fundazioa, Maraka, Pez estudio, Tipi and Wikitoki.
The Evaluation and Observation group members are: Be&Lab, Emun and Tipi.
[2] Capra, Fritjof y Luisi, Pier Luigi (2014). The Systems View of Life. A Unifying Vision. Cambridge University Press.