Like a roadmap guides motorists through unfamiliar territory to reach the final destination, there are effective tools that can help organizations to better navigate the complex environments in which they work, and guide the development of successful initiatives. And just as a map is altered as landscapes evolve, so too should the tools used to help us understand complex issues.

“People services” are the types of program such as health, education and social services that essentially involve one group of people (providers) providing a range of services to another group of people (variously called clients, consumers, patients or students, depending on the context). The planning for these programs has been dominated, over the past 50 years or so, by the desire to create systems intended to standardize the types and quality of the services provided, in the hope of creating similar outcomes for the clients. In this process, it has been generally assumed that any professional that possesses the appropriate qualifications can provide the required service. What has often been overlooked is the actual relationship that gets created between a provider and a client.

Once you have made the decision to introduce virtual meetings to your organization or network, it is important to recognize that this is not just a technological shift, but a cultural one. In any group where training and relationships have been built over years through face-to-face meetings, it is a major change to make the shift to interacting virtually.

This was the situation we experienced in working with the Ontario Network of CAPC and CPNP projects – a group of 150 projects doing very innovative work to support marginalized families across the province. The projects are located in every part of the province – from inner-city Toronto to rural areas and the far North. The diversity and range of experience among the projects is amazing.

Increasingly, organizations and networks whose members are dispersed geographically – and who may be feeling budget pressures – are choosing to meet virtually as a less costly alternative to face-to-face. Meeting virtually can offer many advantages: you can meet more frequently and you can engage many more people at far less cost than face-to-face meetings.

Perhaps many of us don’t think about how easy it is to push open the correct door to the washroom in a crowded building. The truth is, for those who are not physically, visually or hearing impaired, the world around us makes sense. The recent HRSDC conference on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities shed light on just how challenging the world can be for the millions of people living with a disability and the importance of creating environments to accommodate them. Is it a societal issue and whose responsibility is it to ensure a level playing field?

In today’s political, social and economic climate, there’s a real need to build competency in designing and implementing effective processes of engagement, dialogue and consultation. This is the case within all types of organizations and institutions (i.e. public, private and governmental). Many leaders, decision-makers and staff are either searching for more creative approaches to finding sustainable solutions to challenging issues and problems, or are being compelled, sometimes legislated, to engage a wider scope of stakeholders in defining, resolving and carrying through on important issues or problems. In an effort to contribute to such competency building, One World has frequently offered training in this area to specific groups and organizations. Recently we offered an open 2-day introductory workshop called, “Dialogue: Key to Productive Engagement and Consultation”. We were pleased to have been able to work with the very mixed group of participants working in diverse sectors who joined us for this workshop.

Much can go wrong during a planned group facilitation. Unfortunately, even the most well designed event can have mishaps. While it’s easy to think about best case scenarios, let’s understand a few of the things that can go wrong in a facilitation. Highlighting some of these common pitfalls will help you more effectively plan for and lead group discussions in a way that ensures you get the positive outcomes you’ve planned for.

Developmental evaluation can be especially useful in helping to deal with complex issues where more conventional approaches to evaluation fall short. It is a way to support the development and testing of creative approaches to address complex problems; it is well-suited to those situations where you are “learning as you go”.

Jamie Gamble describes three main features of a developmental evaluation:

Mention the word facilitate to people and it can stir up multiple images such as; teachers and blackboards, a conductor with baton in hand, or just someone making things happen.  In fact a facilitator is a type of enabler and to a company undergoing major change, an NGO needing to re-align their vision and programming directions, a multi-interest group working to find new ways to address a pressing issue, and others, a facilitator can be an invaluable asset to draw upon. A skilled facilitator can help spark new ways of thinking and innovation, guide informed and effective decision-making, and bring out the best in people, an organization or a collective.

One of the biggest untapped assets in most organizations is the skills and experience of their own people. When it comes to problem solving, vertical dialogue is an invaluable asset. Frontline workers are often founts of knowledge, but all too often their input isn’t sought by management, even though they may have a superior grasp of critical parts of an issue.

Organizations can benefit greatly by creating a culture of learning — one that includes everyone from frontline workers to upper-level management. It starts with the idea that learning is about more than just going to training sessions. A learning culture exists when all workers are encouraged to be critical, ask questions and constantly look for different approaches and better ways to do things.