Group Action Planning — Paul Duignan Consulting

Duignan’s Group Action Planning D-GAP

Faster implementation of similar initiatives in multiple organizations, sites, settings or communities using the D-GAP peer-to-peer planning and implementation method.

In many instances, a number of similar initiatives are being implemented at the same time within different organizations, sites, settings or communities. In some cases a central agency is attempting to fund or encourage these different initiatives. In other cases, it just so happens that a number of similar initiatives are occurring at the same time. This can be because a particular need has arisen, or because a number of organizations or sites need to innovate or change in similar ways in response to changes in their operating environment.

Multiple similar initiatives of this type are often implemented with minimal, or only informal, peer-to-peer collaboration. Where a central agency agency is involved, it often ends up having multiple separate one-on-one discussions with each individual initiative.

This traditional approach is inefficient and time-consuming. It often results in the different initiatives having to ‘reinvent the wheel’ whereas good practice could have simply been shared between initiatives.

A new, faster, more agile approach

In contrast, Duignan’s Group Action Planning (D-GAP) approach brings together one (or more) people from each of a set of similar individual initiatives that are being implemented. This group meets on a regular basis either face-to-face and/or virtually over a lengthy period of time (often several years). In these regular workshops, the group uses peer-to-peer planning to collectively work on aspects of the implementation of their different initiatives. Where a central agency is involved it can help fund these workshops and it can also participate in them.

Key features of the process

Four key features of the process are:

The ‘initiatives’ can either be actual stand alone initiatives, or it can be a case of similar organizations or sites being faced with the need to change or innovate in similar ways.
The initiatives do not need to be exactly the same in each organizations, site, setting or community.
The process is a peer-to-peer process (rather than an hierarchical one) where the ‘responsibility’ for the success of the initiatives is shared between those participating (and a central agency if one is involved).
The people who attend the Group Action Planning workshops should be selected for their enthusiasm for the initiative or change rather than simply being appointed as representatives of the different initiative or organizations. This is important because for the D-GAP process to be the most effective, those participating should have a personal commitment to making the initiative or the change happen in their particular circumstances. This will mean that they are willing to work together to push through organizational inertial and barriers to achieving success.

Similar to other peer-to-peer planning processes

Group Action Planning is a particular flavour of a range of peer-to-peer planning processes. For instance, it can be seen as similar to the collective impact approach. As it is often implemented, collective impact consists of a group of stakeholders and agencies getting together to work on a common issue.

The advantages of Group Action Planning D-GAP

It uses the energy of committed enthusiasts who just want to get things done and it builds on peer-to-peer interaction.
It shifts the ‘change dynamic’. It has advantages over an hierarchical situation where a central agency is trying to get individual organizations or sites to change through one-on-one individual interactions with each of them.
It focuses on immediate action in multiple organisations or sites and adjusts strategy ‘on the fly’.
It’s agile in the face of rapidly changing risks and opportunities.
It reduces paperwork because what people report back in workshops can be used to document, monitor and evaluate progress. If wished, the approach can also be described as a ‘group formative evaluation process’.
It encourages evidence-based practice through input and peer cross-organisation and cross-site fertilization and critique.
It facilitates best practice being shared amongst people working in different organizations and at different sites.
It allows system-wide problems to be quickly identified by the group and collective representations made to external stakeholders to rapidly fix such problems.

How to run a D-GAP

Committed and dynamic participants identified. Identify a small group of key dynamic people working at different sites or in different organizations. Don't just bring in figure-head organizational leaders. The criteria for participation is that group members should be motivated and impatient for change whatever level they are working within an organization.
Bring the participants together for an initial workshop. Tell them that they're going to be meeting every three (or six months or more frequently) either virtually or physically until outcomes are achieved (e.g. over several years).
Have the workshop independently facilitated. Depending on the situation, if a central agency is involved, it may decide to have the workshop independently facilitated by a Group Action Planning facilitator - someone who has run this type of process. This changes the dynamic from a central agency 'telling' people what to do to it working alongside the group working in a peer-to-peer fashion to solve problems, bringing about change and achieve the outcomes that are being sought by each organization or site.
Identify outcomes for initiatives. At the first Group Action Planning Workshop, identify the outcomes the group is trying to achieve and the steps required to achieve these. Each group member then identifies what they will be focusing on in the period until the next meeting. If wished, Fast Visual Planning can be used to develop a generic visual strategy diagram of the outcomes and steps leading to them to be achieved by each initiative. Each initiative can then adapt this strategy diagram in terms of their own situation and current priorities.
Get commitment on what participants are going to do next. Get group members to commit to the work they have identified the will do in the period between workshops.
Provide evidence-informed input. Throughout the process, provide input about the best way of addressing the issue(s) that arise. This input might provide evidence to inform evidence-based practice; information on legal requirements the group needs to take into account; or it might be in the form of practice suggestions.
Initiatives share their own best-practice suggestions. At each meeting, provide time for group members to share their own best-practice approaches that they’re already, or planning, to use within their organizations or at their sites.
Encourage participants to set up working sub-groups. These consist of participants addressing issues that could benefit from them working collaboratively. Identify any system-level issues individual initiatives are facing that need to be addressed collectively. Make representations from the Group Action Planning group to external stakeholders in a position to fix these system-level issues.
Work out how to monitor and evaluate progress and outcomes. Get Group Action Planning group members to work out how they're going to monitor and evaluate their progress. Work out how to monitor and evaluate outcomes and overall progress on the issue.
Start each Group Action Planning meeting by members reporting back. Get them to report on the progress they've made in their organization or at their site. Keep a record of these reports as documentation of the progress that's being made as part of documenting, monitoring, evaluating and improving the initiatives and the Group Action Planning work.
Encourage virtual networking between meetings. This is so that Group Action Planning members can share best-practice; keep motivation and morale up; and identify any issues that need to be addressed immediately or at the next workshop.

We have facilitated a number of D-GAP processes in different sectors and have seen how individual initiatives can benefit from this approach.