One of the problems with funding models is that they can turn everything into a flowchart. We want systematic service delivery, with clear observable steps, key performance indicators and accountability built in. The tax payer deserves to know what their money is being spent on after all.
The trouble is that neither change, nor conversations about change, tend to follow the course outlined in those tidy pathways. It tends to be more fluid, more iterative and a whole lot messier.
Sometimes change is a plodding grind, tiny step after tiny step. Sometimes it leaps and crashes like a manic ballerina, or false starts like a unreliable lawnmower. Or darts in all directions like a hamster on amphetamines or slips on and off the path like a drunken snake. It might come in the form of a proud march toward victory or seemingly nothing before all the work beneath the surface pays off in a sudden, unexpected and dramatic transformation. Or a combination of some or all of the above or something entirely different.
Flowcharts are like the picture of a frozen meal on the outside of the cardboard box, an idealised representation, unlikely to be what you see when you open the lid. Luckily the nature of change is far more fascinating than that meal is likely to be. And if we can tune into this particular person’s rhythm, it might be easier to join them on their pathway.