Knowledge Transfer

You may have heard the phrase 'Knowledge Transfer' already, if not, you will be shortly as it is now being used directly in terms of the Landscape and Landscaping Industry. These are the key buzz words being bandied about from Government, local and central through to the colleges, quangos and NGO's in the UK. And they relate to the practitioners and designers operating in the landscape industry - us.The European Landscape Convention ideals have been filtering through the bureaucratic system for a couple of years now and they are reaching the regulators on the ground. Unlike much of the paperwork and policies filtering from government either central or from the EU, these policies are very much a good thing. They seek to empower the public and practitioners in protecting the landscape as a whole.Many academics who were involved in the process from the outset are now busy publishing the local and regional aspects to be applicable and usable to local authorities and quangos. It is also meant to be published and available to us the practitioners, but evidence at the moment, as habitually seems to happen is that much of the information is yet to be made readily available to those who could use and benefit from it.The fracturing of the Landscape and Landscaping industry has been written about on the LJN before, we all know that there is a huge void existing between the practitioners on the ground and periphery academics and policy makers. This is increased year on year to the extent now that there is a plethora of quangos and NGO's in existence to bridge the gap - but who have failed to do so. The reason is abundantly clear when perusing the LJN, as for the first time it has been made fundamentally clear through this network that the truth is that the abundance of smaller operatives have devised their own systems and techniques to match with their zone of working. And this is exactly what the ELC and 'knowledge transfer' policies have believed and wanted to highlight to the public at large in order to protect the landscape as a whole.But given the fact that, (and certainly now more than ever before), local authorities and quangos are having to fight hard to justify their existence, these facts are being somewhat distorted in a bid to protect their own remits and this problem is amplified by the fact that by and large the small business practitioners often shy away completely from involvement with said authorities and quangos. This is hardly surprising, I know that when I have decided to work with such groups there tends to be little allowance to the fact that the practitioner is self employed and is losing an income when dealing with the huge layers of bureaucracy the local authorities and quangos are capable of churning out.The Forestry Commission have for years been very effective at bridging the gap between practitioners and the echelons of the industry and I have always felt sad that there has never been an equivalent for the landscaping industry. But this is certainly not the time to lobby for a new quango. The FC are well established and have proven themselves over many years and any new quango would struggle in the current system.The LJN is sitting well to be at the forefront of any real move to publicise and allow the process of knowledge transfer to occur in the manner identified and desired by those who first coined the phrase and saw the reality that it is the only way to not save our landscapes, local and nationally but also the landscape and landscaping industry. The LJN is surely the place to have this information and new policies translated, displayed and debated on.However if and when you hear the phrase 'knowledge transfer' used it is important to realise that it is you, the practitioner, who is the local hero in respect of this phrase and it is you and your knowledge they need to help adopt and maintain the schemes and policies being introduced. And for once this must be done on your terms.

These changes in feeding of information and bridging of the voids filled by quangos is fascinating. It is very apparent that many of the plethora of quangos are missing out considerably and will continue to do so. I can quote so many examples where clients and people I know have approached quangos for advice and met with a block wall or opened themselves up to unnecessary scrutiny, yet the advice sought would be easily obtained on the LJN. Furthermore as far as I am aware there is not one representative from a quango (although some from NGO's) - why is this? asides from the probable fact that they unable and restricted from doing so, there is also a strong self interest within this middle tier where nepotism and self congratulation runs rife.

As the periphery / policy makers and practitioners start to engage and the public are made aware of this also, the existing strength of these two wings of the Landscape and Landscaping industry will be strengthened still further and thus only the NGO's will be left to fill the void left behind by the demise of the ineffectual quango. This fills me with huge optimism particularly if the funding void is then left to help out the worthwhile NGO's, Charities, Research and to assist the practitioner in being able to share his knowledge.

I may come across as a having a blanket disapproval of all quangos, this isn't the case - the large well established organisations, such as the FC and DEFRA perform a vital role, which must never be subject to cuts.

"Plus it doesn't matter if we all know plants are better value. I'd make the point of this to the customer but if they want trough grown at the extra cost that's their choice I'd just do it"

"I've done 5ft Thorne troughs. Very easy to plant just got a mini digger dug the trench then drop them in couldn't be easier however £250 per m does seem expensive. "

Thought I'd sign up to this forum. And I hope I'm allowed to post stuff for sale on here as this will be a one off? I have for sale a tiny pro robot, it's not the new edition but it's the bigger one of the two. If anyone is interested then please…

Comments

PRO

Craig McGinty June 1, 2010 at 11:20am

Right up my street this is Pip! Must agree that pressure is growing to release data and make information available in an accessible way.

This will help people discuss and feed back their thoughts and opinions regardless of budget, influence or technical skills.

I've seen a few examples of government consultations papers being made in an easily accessible format that allows people to discuss the points being made.

For example: http://consultation.dfid.gov.uk/

I am pretty certain something similar could be developed on the network that would allow those with an interest to debate future legislation etc.
Pip Howard June 1, 2010 at 12:25pm

These changes in feeding of information and bridging of the voids filled by quangos is fascinating. It is very apparent that many of the plethora of quangos are missing out considerably and will continue to do so. I can quote so many examples where clients and people I know have approached quangos for advice and met with a block wall or opened themselves up to unnecessary scrutiny, yet the advice sought would be easily obtained on the LJN. Furthermore as far as I am aware there is not one representative from a quango (although some from NGO's) - why is this? asides from the probable fact that they unable and restricted from doing so, there is also a strong self interest within this middle tier where nepotism and self congratulation runs rife.

As the periphery / policy makers and practitioners start to engage and the public are made aware of this also, the existing strength of these two wings of the Landscape and Landscaping industry will be strengthened still further and thus only the NGO's will be left to fill the void left behind by the demise of the ineffectual quango. This fills me with huge optimism particularly if the funding void is then left to help out the worthwhile NGO's, Charities, Research and to assist the practitioner in being able to share his knowledge.

I may come across as a having a blanket disapproval of all quangos, this isn't the case - the large well established organisations, such as the FC and DEFRA perform a vital role, which must never be subject to cuts.
Pip Howard June 1, 2010 at 2:22pm

By way of a footnote, I had an email just now from a representative for one of the larger UK quangos, part of his email copied and pasted -

''Public servants cannot enter into discussion which may conflict with their brief and therefore are restricted to issuing opinion on websites like the Landscape Juice despite temptation.
But as we now see referral to our services from the private sector and principally the smaller businesses who dominate the landscape industry outweigh personal discovery or referral from other governmental bodies or NGO’s, this new medium is vital to us.'

Stating also that there is 'considerable' flow of ex public servants into the private sector there appears to be a growing feeling that the potential power of the smaller outfits is the future of the industry.

However as some Universities are using the Knowledge Transfer ideals principally as a new name for work placement programs, for which the private sector employer pays for (thus only being applicable to large businesses due to funding issues) the true ethos of what this new line of thinking could achieve is diminished.