The total amount Sweden spends on regional development is at least 100 times bigger than the biggest number that fits on the display of a regular calculator. We are talking about the Regional Growth Programs, the EU Structural Funds, The Rural Development Program, The European Fisheries Fund, The Regional Service Programs and others like them. Progress is most evident in initiatives that address bottlenecks and barriers blocking the way for improvements. In most initiatives I believe we would expect that fixing the problems is part of the strategy.

However, in a review we made recently of the regional strategies for the implementation of the Rural Development Program in the different regions in Sweden we discovered that problems and priorities in many cases do not match. The priorities set in a strategy do not reflect the conclusions in the SWOT analysis. In other words, it is not clear how the measures planned in a strategy will address challenges that exist in the area. Of course, this does not apply to all strategies. Some regions have a great strategy, but alas, they are way too few.

When we hold seminars and presentations at events and conferences involving public officials we frequently ask if anyone has ever experienced working in a program that, when completed, was unable to demonstrate tangible results. We get roars of laughter. We see nods of recognition from all directions in the room. People confirm they have seen large amounts paid out through programs that only had marginal impact, or less. Public benefit programs are not the only types of project that suffer this sort of fate.

We wonder why this is the case. Is it because we routinely think in terms of inputs rather than results? Perhaps this is not so strange after all. Any kind of grant system is about the distribution of money. And money is an input. The more money we spend the bigger the input, right? In reality, however, results do not only depend on the size of the sum alone. The best results are produced by adequate measures and performance. To get to that, we need to build on the analysis and understand what the problem is that needs to be fixed.

We are also noticing that more and more people are dedicated to ensuring we get more value from public spending. Do you have the same impression? I believe that today both directors and managers at our public agencies are striving for tangible progress. Surely, everyone wants to do a good job.

I appreciated Madeline Smith’s remarks (may require login) at TCI 2009, wherein she outlined her thoughts on how regional clusters can become learning clusters. Clusters, she noted, are complex animals wherein you have “good companies, strong research universities and supportive policy makers, and you sort of mix them all together and magically economic growth pops out the other end.” Ultimately clusters are relationship-based entities, and they are susceptible to the pitfalls that strike most socio-economic initiatives. This includes, as Madeline noted in her talk, changes in the external environment, changing customer expectations, demands to learn to adapt and evolve, and a need for internal systems that allow for incorporation of formative feedback. One can see why it’s a challenge for clusters to achieve the Holy Grail of organizational effectiveness: status as a learning organization.

In addition to the challenges outlined by Madeline, I would argue that a necessary component to becoming a learning cluster is judicious and systematic use of strategy and evaluation. But one takeaway I have from my hallway conversations in Jyväskylä is that neither is happening as well as it should within the cluster community.

What’s keeping clusters from rushing headlong into strategy and evaluation? I’d like to leverage something that Madeline brought up in her talk. In discussing barriers to learning, Madeline talked about how “our current world view restricts our ability to learn” and that everyone brings a cognitive bias and their own cognitive frameworks to a project.

I’d like to suggest that a good deal of the variance in why clusters don’t engage in strategic planning and program evaluation is explained by the world view of cluster stakeholders, or to be more specific, the competing world views of the stakeholders.

It’s quite easy to imagine how this might be the case. The concept of strategic planning and the ideas behind program evaluation, depending on one’s disciplinary background, are defined, applied, and conducted in different ways. Thus the cognitive biases and frameworks of those from business, government, education, and the social sector tacitly and explicitly collide in ways that can lead to inaction, adherence to status quo, and lackluster results in the face of rich resources.

For instance, as Allison and Kay have noted, strategic planning is a term that is often used interchangeably with “long-range planning,” “business planning,” and “operational planning.” In the case of evaluation, its not uncommon to have the term “program evaluation” be confused with “monitoring” or “surveillance,” or “reporting,” all terms which are antonyms to the beneficial, learning-focused nature of quality program evaluation. As Mari Jose Aranguren and her colleagues noted in their presentation (may require login), there are severe difficulties in evaluating clusters due to their implicit characteristics: a mixture of tangible and intangible objectives; the complexity of determining cause-effect relationships. (By the way, I think the application of participatory evaluation frameworks, which Mari and her colleagues are doing, could have great promise in advancing program evaluation within clusters.)

I’d be curious to hear from others who are in the throes of bringing robust strategy and evaluation techniques to clusters. What has been challenging? What seems to be working?

In Sweden, when government agencies kick off domestic development initiatives, we've become accustomed to a common routine: program guidelines are released, criteria for partnerships are set, desired outcomes are described, and an amount of special funds are allocated for the work.

Recently, the Swedish Consumer Agency, Konsumentverket, issued guidelines for an upcoming round of the societal development programs called Regional Service Programs (RSP). This particular RSP, subtitled “Service as Growth Factor in Countryside and Sparsely Populated Areas,” is an effort to increase access to commercial and public services for citizens, focusing on fuel, everyday commodities and increased access for persons with disabilities.

There's something notable in the new guidelines: there are no funds allocated for the programs. Program partnerships are expected to be developed and implemented and supported /within/ existing regular budgets. At first this sounds like a true challenge. How can new programs mandated by the government succeed without new funding? But in thinking about this one step further, a very interesting question that arises: Do we need funds attached to new programs or are we better off without them?

For instance, additional funds usually leads to added activities as a second layer on top of regular business. If the intention of the new program is to enhance performance of regular activities, perhaps more funding is not such a great idea. Besides, who said that better and more efficient work would cost more money?

I suppose the worst case scenario is that with no money, service programs have their hands tied behind their back because an unfunded mandate makes people unable to carry out the program activities that are needed. It is going to be very interesting to see how this develops. We're collaborating now with the RSP in Dalarna region. Their hope is to be able to demonstrate that they can create compelling early outcomes absent funding using existing resources and partnerships, acting on levers that are theorized to be effective but cost little.

I'm curious to know if any of you have had successful experiences making unfunded mandates work. My take on this is that we may have an opportunity for people to focus on improving society without the need for outside funding. Thoughts?