Digital project types revisited: reactive vs proactive

A few weeks back, I wrote about mapping digital project types as a way of understanding what's meant (or perhaps should be meant) by 'digital transformation' in an arts and culture context.

If you missed it, or your eyes glazed over too soon, I came up with a simple way of categorising different types of projects:

1. everyday
2. stretch
3. transformational

I then made the point that 'transformational' activity, for the most part, should only really apply to big, ambitious stuff that reshapes a part of "what a cultural organisation does, what it's known for, and perhaps even how it sustains itself".

In that post, I focused on project scope, although I also mentioned that projects could be described as reactive or proactive.

This is my attempt to pick up that other thread, then I think I'm done on this topic.

It's not either/or

Reactive and proactive. Both have their place.

Being able to react well, and in a timely fashion, to things that come up is a good organisational trait to have.

Software needs updating, platforms change their algorithms, and new legislative requirements come out. These things happen, and they need dealing with.

Being able to take these things in stride is a sign of a more digitally mature organisation (and probably one that isn't constantly at breaking point capacity-wise).

Some (I'd go as far as to say most) arts and culture organisations are only really capable of reacting when it comes to digital activity.

Whereas the organisations that really stand out on the digital front, the ones doing genuinely interesting digital work, are making significant proactive moves.

How reactive and proactive map to project scope

Going back to my earlier post, there's a pretty clear pattern in how reactive and proactive approaches distribute across my simple categories of project scope.

At the 'everyday' end, most projects are reactive by nature. A software vendor announces an upgrade. Audiences abandon a social platform. Your website needs security patches. These aren't choices. You're just responding to external forces.

At this end, the impact isn't likely to be huge. In most cases, you're running to stand still.

When you move into 'stretch' territory it becomes more mixed. Sometimes you're still being pushed. For instance, GDPR forced a lot of HR teams to digitise their processes, and the shift in audience expectations pushed many organisations toward online ticketing systems. But there's often an element of choice involved. It's then about how you respond, when you respond, and what you decide to layer on top of what's necessary.

The impact might vary. After all, just because a project has a larger scope doesn't mean that effort will necessarily create an organisational step change. Take briefs for new websites as an example - in reality, most could be rewritten as 'We'd like the same but more up to date, please'. Sidenote: there's a whole hairdressing analogy to be explored here.

It's at the 'transformational' end where proactivity really comes into its own. Major web platforms that introduce significant new experiences for users, large-scale digitisation projects, strategic content initiatives, and ambitious in-venue installations – these don't happen by accident. They require vision, dedicated resourcing, often significant fundraising, and usually a good amount of internal persuasion to get off the ground.

The impact tends to be bigger here, too. We're no longer replacing like with like. If we're adding something, then we should see added impact too.

What makes proactive possible

The thing about proactive digital work is that it requires the people with the big job titles to be alive to opportunities. And not just aware of them, but willing and able to weigh them favourably against all the other stuff an organisation could be doing.

That's harder than it might sound. Especially in a sector where resources are often stretched and there's always another pressing need demanding attention.

Which is why I'd never criticise an organisation for sticking with the reactive stuff.

At a certain scale of organisation (which I reckon probably covers the majority of the ACE NPOs, and it certainly applies to many performing arts orgs that are significantly venue-based), 'just' treading water digitally can be hard enough.

Susan Oman made this point in the report that came out of her 2022-24 AHRC-DCMS Fellowship, Digital culture - a review of evidence and experience, with recommendations for UK policy, practice and research:

Digital maturity or digital transformation as concepts work for larger institutions, but do not necessarily describe resilience in the face of wider social change.

And:

Where guidance is clearer on digital maturity and digital transformation, it may be relevant at the scale of organisations but less applicable to individual projects and flexible activities and unaccommodating of the multiple barriers at these scales. Changes or innovations may also be small and thus less valued by these evaluation processes, despite their contextual significance.

But at the same time, there are opportunities out there. To grab them, someone senior enough needs to look at the digital landscape and see the possibilities rather than just problems to be solved. They need to ask "what could we do?" rather than just "what do we have to do?"

But opportunity-seeking on its own isn't enough. You also need the understanding to properly judge what's involved. The more digitally savvy a senior team is, the better equipped they are to assess both the potential and the risks of proactive moves.

Without that understanding, you end up with either paralysis (everything seems too risky), recklessness (everything seems straightforward), or choosing to spend valuable resources on something that fails to push the organisation forward.

The scaffolding for proactive work

Transformational projects need what I'd call scaffolding – the structures and people dedicated to making them happen. This is different from reactive work, which can often be absorbed into existing workflows and responsibilities.

Proactive projects need someone to champion them through the inevitable moments of doubt. They need:

• internal buy-in that goes beyond the initial decision to proceed
• senior air cover when things get complicated or take longer than expected.
• dedicated budget that isn't constantly at risk of being redirected to more urgent needs (which is where funding comes in, but that can bring as many problems as solutions)
• skills and experience brought in from the outside.

Plus a good dose of luck and a fair wind.

The confidence factor

This brings me back to something I touched on in my original post: confidence matters, and it matters even more for proactive work.

With reactive projects, the case for action is usually clear. The external pressure provides the justification, so doing something just makes sense.

But proactive projects require internal conviction. You need to believe not just that the idea is good, but that your organisation can execute it.

That confidence often comes from having a track record of delivery. If an organisation isn't reliable with everyday digital work, it's probably not ready for any transformational proactive projects. The basics need to be solid first.

There's also a chicken-and-egg element here. Confidence comes from successful delivery, but you need some confidence to attempt delivery in the first place. Which is why I think the gradual progression along the scope spectrum makes sense. You build capability and confidence through smaller proactive moves before attempting larger ones.

To illustrate the point, I always point people to the eye-catching work that Sarah Ellis has been doing at the Royal Shakespeare Company for a while now. The collaborations with Google, Intel, Imaginarium, Magic Leap, and the new Macbeth game get the headlines, but it all started with a series of much smaller digital commissions.

Accidental transformation

Within all of this, there's a thing nagging at me.

Transformation isn't always deliberate. It's possible to edge there one step at a time. Or for an organisation to have large-scale transformation thrust upon it. It's rare, but there are examples of it happening from time to time.

Or maybe this is more about opportunities presenting themselves for an organisation to grasp (or let wither on the vine). I'm not quite sure where this fits in yet.

Questions worth asking

If you work at an arts and culture organisation, here are some questions it might be worth asking:

1. How much of your digital work is driven by external pressures versus internal vision?
2. When did you last pursue a digital project because you saw an opportunity rather than because you had to respond to a problem?
3. Do the people making strategic decisions have enough digital understanding to properly assess opportunities and risks?
4. What would need to be different for you to take on more proactive digital work?

The answers might be instructive. Or they might confirm what you already suspected. Either way, it might be worth thinking about.

This is part of my ongoing attempt to make sense of how digital work actually happens in arts and culture organisations.

If you want to keep up to date with digital happenings in the sector, you'd probably like my newsletter, Cultural Digital.