Individual vs team input

When you can have the in-put of a whole team for the same annual cost, why would you pay to have individuals rather than whole teams as 'contributors'?

Used properly, whole teams - via their 'scribes' - can give their collective views and plans, after a discussion within the team. In training and needs analysis, it may often be the views of the whole team that you will wish to gather.

Hopefully this discussion should be valuable in itself; this is where the team's proposals for service development come from, embedded in and arising from their discussions.

But although valuable, this can be costly in staff time. It is therefore bound to be less flexible than getting the views of individuals would be. Whilst it is more costly, per capita, and so may need to be used more sparingly, the benefits of individual in-put are significant.


The key to this is the fact that anyone with a licence code can be invited to be a 'contributor' to any Abacus.

For any specialist or professional staff* whose role may touch on the work of many teams, having your own access then becomes valuable, as you can be invited in to view, perhaps to participate, in many teams; assessments.

Within the agency, topic-specific Abacuses can also be set up for subjects that may completely cut across working hierarchies, geographical and divisional boundaries, where the in-put of specialist and professional staff may be most valuable.


These topic-based Abacuses can also go outside and span the boundaries between agencies. These, like on-line forums, can then be a resource for community of practice discussions on a range of common issues, in service development, action learning, training, professional practice, in local needs analysis, and in research.

It's not often that whole teams will be giving their view here; this function is primarily valuable for individuals, and here - especially in professional practice, often in research - this extra flexibility in participation, combined with the more personal voice, can be worth a lot.


NB: In fact, it is also quite possible to have every member of a 'frontline' working team with their own individual access, to give their views not as a scribe for the whole team, but for themselves.

Despite the extra expense, this may be valuable where individuals work largely on their own, or in small groups; where individual views are particularly important; and perhaps in situations where there is a wide divergence of views within a team, that you wish to explore more.


( * Middle and senior managers similarly may also wish to have forums where their own individual views are heard.)

The simplest, most effective way to evaluate and improve your PIE from Daniel O'Brien on Vimeo.


All PIE Abacus FAQs HERE


Library items

PIE Abacus - essential briefing for PIE leads' (and any others in comparable roles), HERE)

Weighing the costs and 'value added' of the PIE Abacus : HERE


The PIE Abacus - applications in particular settings:

The PIE Abacus – in medium to large agencies HERE

The PIE Abacus – in local practice networks : HERE

The PIE Abacus – in smaller 'stand alone' services HERE

The PIE Abacus – as a research tool : HERE

The PIE Abacus – in communities of practice : HERE

The PIE Abacus – in service user-led assessments : HERE

The PIE Abacus – with services using PIEs1 : HER


All PIE Abacus FAQs HERE