Evidence and Decision Making

Evidence based decision making has been defined as a situation in which a decision was made that followed directly from the evidence.  This has been contrasted with decision-based evidence making which involves marshalling facts and their analysis in an attempt validate a decision that has already been made within an organisation (Tingling & Brydon, 2010) (Buchanan & Huczynski, 2017)

Within any organisation decisions are made at a personal, group and organisational level

At a personal-level, decisions are often influenced by the fact that memory is fallible. Understanding what is ‘real’ versus ‘perceived’ memory over time is a dilemma for all oral historians. (Britten, 2014)

At a group levels, effective group decision making is “characterized by a full use of members’ resources, an efficient use of time, and a high-quality outcome” (Coats & Thompson, 2017). Groups can demonstrate deficiencies in process or roadblocks which can hinder effectiveness of the group as a whole or elements of that group. For example, group members may withhold critical input because they do not want to interrupt another person i.e., “production blocking” which has been identified as an important cause of productivity loss in brainstorming groups (Nijstada, et al., 2003).  Group members may feel apprehensive about being evaluated by other group members, or have been interrupted by another person such as a domineering teammate, or are prone to social loafing which is “the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually” and leads to larger groups being less efficient (Karau & Williams, 1993). Furthermore, members may ignore teammates’ input because they are unwilling to consider alternative viewpoints or because they are distracted as they closely monitor the conversational flow for opportunities to state their own ideas. Collectively, these and other barriers can cause groups to evaluate solutions before all members have provided input or exhausted their supply of ideas and suggestions. (Coats & Thompson, 2017).

Group decision-making techniques have been designed to increase effectiveness by diminishing barriers and roadblocks such as those described earlier. Five of the most commonly cited group decision-making techniques are brainstorming (Kramer, et al., 1997), the nominal group technique – where group members work independently and nonredundant ideas pooled by a moderator (Kramer, et al., 1997) the Delphi technique – using written questionnaires to eliminate the influence of personal relationships and committees being dominated by strong personalities, the stepladder technique, and TOPSIS. These techniques vary in the manner in which they structure group problem solving. They also differ according to the particular process deficiencies they aim to minimize.

Interestingly while the decision to employ groups instead of an individual for dealing with a particular problem typically stems from the belief that a solution produced by a group of individuals working together will be superior to the solution produced by an average individual there are a number of studies that indicate that usually group performance has been found to be inferior to the performance of the best individual (Burleson, et al., 1984) (Libby & K.T. & Zimmer, 1987)

The Objective and Task method

Developed initially to help determine budgets for advertising spend, especially in new markets, The “objective-and-task” method suggests to develop budgets by (1) defining objectives as specifically as possible, (2) determining the tasks that must be performed to achieve these objectives, and (3) estimating the costs of performing these tasks. The sum of these costs is the proposed budget this compares with the “arbitrary” approach where often budget would be set “by ear” first with the hope that it would cover the costs incurred by the objective. (Barnes, et al., 1982)

Forms of Governance within placemaking and the possible impacts of differing approaches to governance and organisational structure

Place management has been described as a “rather haphazard affair” (Parker, 2011). In the UK, there have been a number of neoliberal responses to rising expectations and a lack of engagement in government.  A high number of towns and cities in the UK operate under some sort of place management partnership scheme. These schemes are nearly always a partnership between the public sector and the private sector and exist to achieve economic benefits – demonstrating neoliberal practice and wider trends discussed in the literature (Zapata & Hall, 2012) (Bowden & Liddle, 2017).  The Governance of these place management organisations is often highly politicised (Ntounis, 2018) (Vuignier, 2017) and though epistemological evidence would demonstrate that local authorities working alone are limited in their capacity to influence the fortunes of their high streets and town centres (Peel & Parker, 2017) and reflect the reality which is that no single organisation is solely responsible for place making but that the “function is a complex matrix” (Peel & Lloyd, 2008) Nevertheless differing views of governance  can cause friction, particularly with local authorities which have historically seen themselves as leading on setting placemaking strategies (Peel, 2016) but are increasingly having much of the local agenda driven by other agencies such as Business Improvement Districts and similar.  Grint, suggests that only if local leaders are prepared to “ignore, avoid or subvert central diktats”, are we likely to make much progress on the leadership of place. (Grint, 2010) if this is a truism it will have ad naturam impact on perception, methodology and practice of governance

Leadership within place – organisations and individuals Power and hierarchy

Human interaction is key to the effectiveness of leadership within place and its consequential development of strategies and relationships (Ntounis, 2018). For the purpose of the following analysis it will be useful for practical purposes, at least in part, to take a teleological approach to examining the nature of the critical incident examining the structure of the narrative of the evidence looking into the actors, goals and proximal rather than distal causation. For the purpose of this examination the definition of teleology will be defined as the process of heading towards an end (Katsikis & Kyrgidou, 2009).  There will be an examination of the critical incident and leadership in relation to theories relating to leadership traits (Kirkpatrick & Lock, 1991) (Prentice, et al., 2019), behaviour of leaders, continency and situational theories examining how context influences leadership (Phaneuf, et al., 2016),  the sources of  a leaders power and influence and transformational-transactional leadership theory idealized influence i.e. charisma,  “inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration” (Phaneuf, et al., 2016)

A number of sources are cited indicating effective leaders must also ensure that organizations adapt to the external environment and use resources efficiently (Antonakis & House, 2002) (Mumford, 2006) indicating that effective organizational leadership is not just about exercising influence on an interpersonal level but depends on leader expertise and on the formulation and implementation of solutions to complex social and task-oriented problems (Mumford, 2000). The literature indicates that effective leaders must, identify strategic and tactical goals while monitoring team outcomes and the environment (Morgeson, et al., 2010). In this sense leaders are “instrumental” for organizational effectiveness. Antonakis and House (Antonakis & House, 2002) termed this type of leadership, “instrumental leadership” a form of expert-based power.

Analysis of different approaches to place management and leadership

“A large variety of research work indicates there is consensus that entrepreneurship is a vital element of social, organizational and individual success” (Katsikis & Kyrgidou, 2009) (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003) (Davidsson, 2005)

The last two decades have seen a major shift in the leadership paradigm and this has been widely discussed across the mainstream leadership literature (Cullen and Yammarino 2014; Fitzsimons et al., 2011; Harris, 2008 Martin et al., 2015; Spillane, 2006). Cullen and Yammarino (2014, p.1) have seen the above transition from an orthodox and ‘heroic’ leadership towards collective forms of leadership as “a paradigm shift” within the field of leadership. Such paradigm shift in the field of leadership is one that recognises that “teams, organizations, coalitions, communities, networks, systems, and other collectives carry out leadership functions through a collective social process” (Cullen and Yammarino, 2014, p. 1)

Peter Tingling and Michael Brydon (2010) describe evidence-based decision making as a situation in which a decision was made that followed directly from the evidence They contrasted it with decision-based evidence making which involved marshalling facts and analysis to support a decision that had already been made elsewhere in the organization. They found that managers, when making a decision, used evidence in three different ways: Tingling and Brydon (2010) p.73 MIT Sloan Management review/Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In other instances, social pressure within the group may lead to conformity behaviors, which in turn tend to favor acceptance and silence-disagreement (Maier, 1967). Janis (1982) found that cohesive groups often have more concerns for unanimity than they do for evaluating different courses of action.

Critical Incident Technique (CIT) analysis

Critical Incident Technique (CIT) analysis was initially developed during the second world war by the US Army Air Force to help choose and categorise air crews and utilised the methodology described by one of its developers J.C Flanagan in 1954 (Flanagan, 1954) but has subsequently found much wider use (Holloway & Schwartz, 2014) forming the basis of a widely used research method (Cooper & Cary, 1991) (Britten, 2014) becoming an investigative instrument enabling researchers to analyse critical incidents based on qualitative evidence and study the perception of effects of problems on workgroups. As described by Flanagan and elsewhere in the literature CIT can be used to examine successes and failures of individuals or organizations in specific situations, reviewing the efficacy of action or inaction, studying factors beneficial and detrimental, the collation of functional or behavioural descriptions of events or problems, or determining characteristics that are critical to important aspects of an activity or event (Butterfield, 2005) (Flanagan, 1954)

The methodology for CIT research as outlined by Flanagan (Flanagan, 1954) included 5 parts which included firstly determining the general aims of the activity being studied for example the topic of this paper – analysing what CIT analysis can bring to an understanding of governance, leadership, organisational structure  and place management.   Flanagan emphasised that there should be flexibility particularly for the method of data collection (Flanagan, 1954).  Generally, CIT represents a set of procedures for systematically identifying behaviours that contribute to the success or failure of individuals or organizations in specific situation. In 2009, Butterfield et al. added nine steps for the purposes of assessing the credibility of the outcomes of CIT (Butterfield, et al., 2009). These new additions have become known as the Enhanced Critical Incident Technique (ECIT). Subsequent literature has examined and postulated different methodologies  (Britten, 2014) (Butterfield, 2005). 

Following on from the perceived and touted successes of European Cities of Culture (EuCoC) such as Liverpool and Glasgow (2017, Boland, Mullan et al. 2018) the UK Government looked to replicate this through a UK organised simulacrum with the hope that the reported benefits of the supranational events would be replicated on a national event evidencing the trend of cultural “neoliberalisation” (McGuigan 2010)where culture is mobilised for alleged economic benefits (Boland, et al., 2018) (DCMS, 2017). The benefits posited included significant economic and social impact (Philip Boland, 2018) (Derry City and Strabane District Council, 2018) and demonstrate the development of a common narrative where culture is used as a tool of economic development (Van der Borg & Russo, 2005) (Cunningham, et al., 2018). This was crystallised in Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s (DCMS) mapping document: “The Creative Industries” (CITF, 1998) under the New Labour government of the time. Although the actual measurable benefits have been branded as “dubious” by some highly sceptical critics of neoliberal cultural regeneration such as Jim McGuigan (2010) and other commentators such as Beatriz Garcia (2004,2005) who also cast doubt on some of the claims made for the potential impacts claimed of City of Culture (CoC).  Some of the impacts promised for Uk City of Culture (UKCoC) were in fact, highly measurable, such as the forecast £100 million of media coverage and £300 million of capital investment (Derry City and Strabane District Council, 2018) and increases in visitors by 563,000 and increases in Hotel occupancy (Derry City and Strabane District Council, 2018) (ILEX, 2014) great promises were also made regarding halting the “brain drain” and in improving retention of young people, although no quantifiable targets were given in UKCoC documents (Derry City Council , 2010) (Derry City Council, 2013a) (Derry City Council, 2013b) (Boland, et al., 2018)

With the object of providing some insight into the direct economic impact of UKCoC, key datasets were identified, and relevant information extracted for analysis.  Sources included Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA, 2017) UK Office for National Statistics (Office for National Statistics, 2020) Derry City and Strabane District Counci (Derry City Council, 2013a) (Derry City and Strabane District Council, 2018)l, ILEX (Derry development Company), Hull City Council (Hull City Council a, 2020) (Hull City Council b, 2020) and Humber LEP (Hull City Council b, 2020) and Centre for Cities (Centre for Cities, 2020).  It should be noted that where possible data has been sourced from organisations external to the UKCoC organisers, who may have a perceived bias to reporting only the positive facts (Hankinson, 2004) (Harvey, 2012).  This research is planned to contribute as part of a dissertation study of the impact, value and opportunity cost of UKCoC and its efficacy as a tool of urban regeneration and place-making.

There is an interesting contrast between the promises made for the UK’s City of Culture  (UKCoC) 2013Derry/Londonderry and those made for Hull’s bid for 2017 where some of the rhetoric – especially regarding measurable economic impact – was scaled down or readjusted to be measured in “soft” impacts rather than “hard“ impacts.  These “soft” impacts are more challenging to measure compared with the the easier to quantify “hard“ impacts such as employment levels  and can include such things as tourist expenditure, improvement in topophilia or reopening of formerly unused buildings for cultural activities and other, more intangible or indirect benefits  (Van der Borg & Russo, 2005). It might be overly cynical to assume a policy of deliberate obfuscation by UKCoC organisers and stakeholders – who were heavily invested in demonstrating UKCoC as a success – however a comparative analysis of the initial bid documents and subsequent post event impact reports by both Derry/Londonderry and Hull UKCoC organisers – ostensibly the local government authorities – show a disconnect between the promised “hard impacts” and the reporting of the actuality which often measures different indices and creates a difficulty for accurate quantifiable data analysis that would allow conclusions to be drawn as to whether the hyperbole was matched by reality – especially in terms of economic impact (Boland, et al., 2016) (Garcia, 2005). This is particularly noticeable in the Derry/Londonderry case where the post event evaluation report claims improvements but often don’t give baselines (Derry City Council , 2010) (Derry City and Strabane District Council, 2018).

One criticism of the seductive rhetoric of of UKCoC and European CoC is the appropriation of successes that are unrelated to the CoC bid (Connolly, 2013) (García, 2004).  The infographic attempts to represent this utilising the specific example of job levels, which were promised to increase through the efforts of Derry/Londonderry UKCoC (Derry City Council , 2010)and Hull UKCoC (Hull UK City of Culture 2017 Ltd, 2015). As shown in the infographic employment rate improved in the Hull NUTS3 area did have a faster rate of improvement c.f. national employment rates.  However the infographic demonstrates the importance of the port sector to employment in the city and that preceding and over the period of Hull UKCoC, Hull had become the base for supporting the world’s largest offshore windfarm with Siemens alone creating 1000 new jobs (Hull City Council a, 2020).This demonstrates the complexity of measuring the any proposed causal relationship for the longer term economic impact of UKCoC  (Liu, 2014) (Li & McCabe, 2012)

The long term legacy of the UKCoC programme was expected to include: culturally led regeneration, youth retention, youth employment, overall employment, inward investment both direct and indirect, increase in tourism, increase in media coverage and in the case of Hull a drop in retail vacancies (Derry City Council, 2013b) (Hull UK City of Culture 2017 Ltd, 2015)

Infographics can be used to explain an object, idea or process using clear illustrations in a way that unlocks the information being provided to give insights and clarity or present data in an interesting format that paints a narrative (Lankow, 2012) The attached infographic aims to present a critical analysis of some of the secondary data sources which represent the recorded impact of UKCoC and which challenge some of the existing narrative from organisers (Arts Council England, 2012) who almost consistently represent UKCoC as a driver for economic growth and job creation.  As such, rather than provide an holistic view of the impact of UKCoC, data sets chosen were those which emphasised the quantifiable impacts, especially, although not exclusively from an economic impact. The infographic exposes dichotomies between the hype and the reality of the impact of UkCoC and invites further analysis of the value proposition of UK CoC and whether it is ‘life and place changing’ or a ‘12 month party’? (Boland, et al., 2016), it further invites research into the opportunity cost of staging events such as UKCoC  as, if the wished for outcomes are – for example – a new cultural venue, more hotels, inward investment and more jobs, the question could be asked as to whether resource should be applied to achieving the outcomes directly rather than indirectly through a proposed and seemingly unproven “economic osmosis”. Indeed the major success in Hull in creating jobs seems unrelated to the CoC initiative but relate to port and wind farm activity (Hull City Council a, 2020) (Hull City Council b, 2020)  These questions become more pertinent as cities around the UK and the wider world face difficult decisions about the future shape of their place as the ongoing decline of traditional retail and the effects of Covid 19 impact the vitality of city centres and traditional uses. The homogenisation effects of assigning resource to, what appear to be, top down imported CoC “roadshows” could in fact act as a dampener on the creation of home grown local talent and the diminishing of indigenous, authentic and potential Foucauldian heterotopic assets within a city, that offer the promise of a more sustainable conduit to coherent communities, wealth and job creation. (Ntounis & Kanellopoulou, 2017)

References

Arts Council England, 2012. Measuring the Economic Benefits of Arts and Culture – practical Guidance on Research methodologies for Arts and Cultural Organisations. London: Arts Council England.

Bianchini, F. & Parkinson, M., 1993. Cultural policy and urban regeneration: the West European experience. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Boland, P. B., Murtagh & Shirlow, P., 2016. Fashioning a City of Culture: ‘Life and Place Changing’ or ‘12 Month Party’?. International Journal of Cultural Policy.

Boland, P., Mullan, L. & Murtagh, B., 2018. Young people in a city of culture: ‘Ultimate beneficiaries’ or ‘Economic migrants’?. Journal of Youth Studies, 21(2), pp. 178-202.

Centre for Cities, 2020. Centre For Cities. [Online]
Available at: https://www.centreforcities.org/data-tool/su/506a2355
[Accessed 1 March 2020].

Connolly, M. G., 2013. The ‘Liverpool model(s)’: cultural planning, Liverpool and Capital of Culture 2008. International Journal of Cultural Policy , 19(2), pp. 162-181.

Cunningham, Isaac & Platt, L. C., 2018. Bidding for UK City of Culture: Challenges of delivering a bottom-up approach ’in place’ for a top-down strategy led scheme. Journal of Place Management and Development, Volume 11.

DCMS, 2017. UK City of Culture 2021: Bidding Guidance, London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Derry City and Strabane District Council, 2018. Post Project Evaluation of City of Culture 2013, Derry City: Derry City and Strabane District Council.

Derry City Council , 2010. Cracking the Code. City of Culture 2013, Derry: Derry City Council .

Derry City Council, 2013a. Our Legacy Promise. Building on the Success of 2013, Derry: Derry City Council.

Derry City Council, 2013b. Legacy Plan 2013–2023, Derry: Derry City Council.

García, B., 2004. Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration in Western European Cities: Lessons from Experience, Prospects for the Future. Local Economy, Volume 19(4), pp. 312-316.

Garcia, B., 2005. Deconstructing the City of Culture: The Long-term Cultural Legacies of Glasgow 1990. Urban Studie, 42 (5/6)(May), pp. 841-868.

Garcia, B., 2017. ‘‘If everyone says so …’ Press narratives and image change in major event host cities’. Urban Studies, Volume 54(14), p. 3178–3198.

Hankinson, G., 2004. Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place brands. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2), p. 109–121.

Harvey, D., 2012. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London: Verso.

Hull City Council a, 2020. Greenport Hull. [Online]
Available at: https://greenporthull.co.uk/jobs-training/job-roles-in-offshore-wind-1
[Accessed 20 March 2020].

Hull City Council b, 2020. InvestHull. [Online]
Available at: https://investhull.co.uk/sectors/port-logistics
[Accessed 12 March 2020].

Hull UK City of Culture 2017 Ltd, 2015. Hull UK City of Culture 2017 Strategic Business Plan 2015-2018, Hull: Hull UK City of Culture 2017 Ltd.

ILEX, 2014. Final Monitoring Report, Derry City of Culture, Derry/Londonderry: ILEX- .

Lankow, J., 2012. Infographics: the power of visual storytelling. s.l.:Wiley-Blackwell.

Li, S. & McCabe, S., 2012. Measuring the Socio‐Economic Legacies of Mega‐events: Concepts, Propositions and Indicators. International Journal of Tourism Research, pp. 388-402.

Liu, Y.-D., 2014. Socio-Cultural Impacts of Major Event: Evidence From the 2008 European Capital of Culture, Liverpool. Social Indicators Research, 115(3), pp. 983-998.

McGuigan, J., 2010. Neoliberalism, urban regeneration and cultural policy. In: Cultural analysis. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 117-128.

NISRA, 2017. People and Places, Local Government District Tourism Statistics (Northern Ireland), Belfast: Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (Tourism Statistics Branch).

Ntounis, N. & Kanellopoulou, E., 2017. Normalising jurisdictional heterotopias through place branding: The cases of Christiania and Metelkova. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 49(10), pp. 2223-2240.

Office for National Statistics, 2020. Office for National Statistics. [Online]
Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/

Philip Boland, L. M. B. M., 2018. Young people in a city of culture: ‘Ultimate beneficiaries’ or ‘Economic migrants’?. Journal of Youth Studies, Volume 21:2, pp. 178-202.

Van der Borg, J. & Russo, A., 2005. The Impacts of Culture on, Rotterdam: European Institute for Comparative Urban Research (EURICUR) Erasmus University.