COMPRAM: A model for collaboration

In October, I attended a webinar run by the Operational Research Society of which I am a member which I thought had some relevance to problems we are trying to solve in the world of pedigree dogs. The speaker was Professor Dorien De Tombe from the Netherlands who has developed a methodology for solving complex societal problems. Examples of complex societal problems include climate change, terrorism, urban planning, poverty. Healthcare issues such as obesity, malaria and SARS-COV2 are also included.

These are real-life problems with a high degree of complexity and with many different individuals, groups and organisations involved; often with conflicting agendas and where emotions can run high. One of the key points is that they are interdisciplinary problems and cannot, therefore, be solved by one particular set of experts or narrow interest groups that have their own “simple solution” in mind.

De Tombe’s COMPRAM model for dealing with these types of problems was endorsed by the OECD in 2006 when they advised governments to adopt the approach to handle problems that threaten global safety. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, of course, and she pointed out that most governments failed to act in an appropriate way to deal with the complexity of SARS-COV2. The result, unsurprisingly, is a whole series of unanticipated and undesirable consequences (a topic I have written about before).

You don’t have to look very far into the world of pedigree dogs to see that we too face a number of complex societal problems. Animal welfare, puppy farming and cruelty are obvious examples where “simple solutions” such as yet more legislation have consistently failed to make much of an impact. Similarly, the health of pedigree dogs including inherited diseases, genetic diversity and exaggerated conformation are also clearly complex. We can add into the mix some of the more current discussions about what should or should not be registered by the Kennel Club and we have a series of interconnected issues with widely diverging views on what “the solution” is.

Knowledge, power and emotions

De Tombe has been developing methodologies and tools for handling these sorts of complex problems since 1994. In fact, she avoids using the term “solving” and prefers to say “changing” because a solved problem for one person or group is often the start of a problem for other individuals or groups. All these problems have 3 main elements: knowledge, power and emotions

We know there are problems with pedigree dogs; lots of data has been collected and analysed and there is ongoing research to develop our knowledge further. Different individuals and groups have “power” and often also their own definitions of both the problem and a desired solution or end goal. We have seen that these complex problems result in high emotions; you only have to read the social media posts of dog owners, breeders, vets and campaigners to see this.

The process for handling these problems can be broken into 2 phases. In the first phase, the problem is defined. In the second phase, the problem is changed (solved). All too often, people who are emotionally invested in the problem leap straight to phase 2 and present their preferred menu of (what they believe are) solutions.

Problem definition is critical

My reflection on the De Tombe approach is that organisations such as the Kennel Club and the International Partnership for Dogs invest significant effort in working with the right people to define the various complex pedigree dog problems. 

Problem definition starts with becoming aware that there is a problem, asking questions about it and actively putting it on the agenda to be handled. In the case of the KC, the Dog Health Group and its 4 sub-groups are multi-disciplinary experts who can analyse data, exchange knowledge and begin to conceptualise the problem. The definition of a problem usually includes some historical perspectives (how did a breed originate, what did it look like, what were its genetic origins) as well as the current situation. It may also include a recognition that the current situation could become much worse if no action is taken.

To the rest of the world, perhaps this looks like delaying tactics or “kicking the can down the road” but the aim is two-fold; firstly to develop an expert understanding of a particular problem and secondly to build collaborative relationships with those who have the power to own and implement solutions.

Start with the end in mind

Changing the problem starts with considering the detailed data and evidence, plus defining the desired goal. The desired goal is the direction in which the experts or those involved in the problem would like to change the problem. Goals are about what we might want to improve, increase or reduce (e.g. increase longevity, reduce welfare harms). They are not what we might want to “do” (e.g. change the Breed Standards, make health testing mandatory, prevent particular dogs from being registered). Start with the end in mind!

In this second phase, other groups or individuals (beyond those experts who initially defined the problem) can come together to develop ways to handle the problem from the basis of good evidence. In the case of pedigree dogs, representatives of breed clubs are key people to involve. For health issues, each breed has a Health Coordinator and many also have health committees and the KC tries to work closely with these to formulate viable changes. The development of Breed Health and Conservation Plans is a good example of the collaborative approach taken. The Brachycephalic Working Group is another example of how a group of people with different views has been brought together to develop a consensus action plan. The 4 International Dog Health Workshops and, more recently, the IPFD’s DNA Test Reporting Workshop are further examples of how a collaborative approach can lead to practical and supported improvement actions. 

Pitfalls to avoid

There are many pitfalls in the process of handling complex problems. I’ve already mentioned the desire of some people to leap to solutions which they are passionate about before the problem or goal has even been defined.

Inviting the wrong people to participate in the process can also lead to inappropriate solutions if, for example, a small group of “loud voices” dominates the discussion. Groupthink is another team issue whereby poor quality analysis and decision-making goes unchallenged. Inviting “outside experts” to comment or play devil’s advocate can help avoid this.

It’s all too easy to end up with negative reactions to the solutions that are proposed and implemented. A key step in the De Tombe approach is for the decision-making team to take time to discuss the possible consequences and reactions before going ahead with them. Elijah Goldratt said “The world of business is awash with ill-considered solutions to ill-defined problems”

There are already some great examples of collaborative approaches to handle complex canine problems and we should always bear in mind that, for every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong!

An inspirational lecture?

I was recently invited to present what was to be billed as “an inspirational lecture” on the subject of breed health improvement, via a webinar. For those of you who can remember lectures at college or university, the concept of “inspirational lecture” may be something of an oxymoron. The idea of “death by PowerPoint” while glued to a Zoom screen probably isn’t the most exciting thing to look forward to.

I’ve written and presented several times on the subject of breed health improvement strategies, including some of the success stories from my own breed (Dachshunds) and the achievements of the KC’s Breed Health Coordinators. Invariably, I return to the subject of human behaviour change because that’s what is needed in order to improve dog health. There is a major challenge to achieve the necessary changes with such a diversity of views on “the problem” and “the solution”. Some people may not even acknowledge that there is a problem, while others are shouting that it’s somebody else causing the problem. Brenda Bonnett’s call for respectful dialogue, collaboration and collective action aimed to set the tone for accelerating the rate of progress.

3 Horizons for managing change

One of the examples I might use in my presentation is the “3 Horizons Model” which has been developed collaboratively over the past 15 years. It’s a useful way of thinking about how to make sense of complex problems and to explore innovative solutions in the face of uncertainty.

  • Horizon 1 considers what is not working, how can we help it to let go and leave well
  • Horizon 2 questions what is being born and how can we help it arrive
  • Horizon 3 asks what is being disruptive and how it can be harnessed

We look at each of these horizons but in the order 1, 3, 2. All 3 horizons have a role and are a way of thinking about the future and how we might get there.

Horizon 1: Business as usual

From a pedigree dog health perspective, our starting point in the model is that pedigree dogs (KC registered ones in particular) may have peaked in their popularity and are starting to decline as the world is changing. Pet owner demand has moved significantly towards designer cross-breeds (doodles and poos). There are challenges that some breeds are no longer “fit for purpose” and that the self-reinforcing behaviour of the past is no longer achieving good enough results. For example, the consequences of inbreeding (or line-breeding) are well-understood; genetic diversity is inevitably lost and the risk of deleterious mutations causing health problems increases. Similarly, breeding for a particular phenotype to win in the show-ring can lead to exaggerations that also adversely impact on a dog’s health.

It’s also important to ask if there is anything we would want to retain, rather than lose. Here, I would argue that the role of Kennel Clubs is (or should be) central to the future improvement of dog health. The most proactive Kennel Clubs have been the biggest investors in research, education and development of screening programmes. Similarly, many breed club communities have been actively working to preserve their breed for the future and improve its health. It’s hard to see how improvements in dog health would continue without Kennel Clubs and Breed Club involvement.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that while Horizon 1 is often described as “business as usual”, it’s also sometimes “a world in crisis”. The emerging brachycephalic and other animal legislation outside the UK could be that wake-up call. Occasionally, we need a good crisis to focus our minds on the need for change!

Horizon 3: The future we want to create

I suspect this is the horizon that few breed communities have discussed, let alone agreed on any answers. What do we want our breeds to look like in 10, 20 or 50 years? I’ve written before about Preservation Breeders and these really are points that need to be considered if we’re serious about a viable future. I wonder if we went back 50 or 100 years and asked the top breeders what their vision was for their breed in 2021 what their answers would be. 

I doubt there’s a generic, simple answer to this question about the future as each breed has a unique starting point. The answers might encompass one or more of the following: numbers being registered, reduction in health issues, more moderate conformation, improved temperaments and fewer genetic bottlenecks.

How can we help make our future aspirations arrive? If there are emerging good practices such as screening programmes, can we accelerate their take-up? We need to identify the breeders who are already embracing that future and give them recognition for the work they are doing. We also need to identify those who are working for a different future, perhaps those who are content with the current direction of travel. Brenda Bonnett suggested there may be some individuals or groups who might simply never want to collaborate in breed improvement initiatives. If that’s the case, how do we prevent their vision from derailing ours?

Horizon 2: Innovations and new activities

Here, we are looking for innovations and new activities that will temporarily support today’s situation and assist us in moving towards a viable future position. We should be looking for innovations that have been implemented successfully elsewhere. For example, the Nordic Kennel Clubs’ RAS and JTO breed strategy documents were triggers for our UK Breed Health and Conservation Plans.

We also need to consider which current assumptions will be most challenged by change. These could be as simple as the requirement to have a DNA profile as evidence for registration as opposed to a pedigree system based on trust. Another current assumption that I have challenged in several previous articles is that “health tested means healthy”. We know it doesn’t and we need breeders and buyers to understand this.

We’re all aware of the pace of change of technology and there must be IT solutions that could help us. In the horse breeding world, we know there are e-passports that are proof of identity as well as providing records of health. These could be easily transferable to our world and would open up all sorts of possibilities not just for health improvement but maybe also for participation in canine activities.

There is always an emerging third horizon

Breed health improvement will be the emergent result of many things going on in the world of pedigree dogs and beyond that world. Some improvements will come as a result of our conscious intent and actions. Others will take us by surprise, whether we like them or not. The health of our pedigree breeds today, was once the third horizon, probably unplanned and largely unknown. We can either help to shape the 3 horizons or they will happen to us anyway. If we take the latter route, we may not like where we end up.

Systems thinking and (non) Breed Standard Colours

Life, the universe and everything!

Last month, I wrote about the importance of seeing the bigger picture as we consider how to address concerns about pedigree dog health in 2021. I argued that it’s easy to leap to solutions that can actually make things worse unless we can actually see how different factors affect each other. I mentioned that one of the particular issues that might benefit from taking a wider perspective is Non Breed Standard Colour registrations (formerly Colour Not Recognised – CNR). The KC now has separate lists of Breed Standard and NBS colours that breeders can choose from when registering their puppies.

Concerns about NBS colour registrations

“Concerns about NBS” is a pretty broad problem statement and, from what I’ve read in the various online discussions, includes:

  • NBS colours “swamping” BS colours so that traditional colours are no longer the most common
  • NBS dogs aren’t  “pure”; they must contain cross-breeding
  • Health issues such as Colour Dilution Alopecia in dilute coloured dogs
  • Lack of participation in health testing schemes by NBS breeders
  • The KC not protecting purebred dogs that conform to the Breed Standard
  • The KC is “only interested in making money” so they are encouraging “greeders” to breed NBS

If we really want to understand any problem associated with NBS registrations we need to have some supporting data. There are some interesting analyses of NBS vs. BS registrations in some breeds and there is no doubt that Bulldogs and French Bulldogs have seen an increase in the popularity of NBS colours. Cassie Smith has published some really useful analyses of the differences between BS and NBS Bulldogs, French Bulldogs and Pugs. Her most recent report examines the rate of Caesarean Sections and shows the BS registered dogs in these breeds all have a higher percentage of litters born by CS than the NBs litters. The reasons for this are unclear and open to speculation. With some other breeds where people are expressing their concerns, there is very little data being discussed.

In my breed, Dachshunds, the main concern seems to be about registration of dilute colours such as Blue and Isabella as there is some evidence that they can be more prone to Colour Dilution Alopecia. Unfortunately, there is very little peer-reviewed evidence of this, which makes it difficult to argue the case for banning their registration on health grounds (unlike double-merle registrations). The situation in Dachshunds is complicated further by the fact that skin conditions/allergies was the second most prevalent health issue identified in our 2018 breed survey (approx. 8% affected). For that reason, the focus of our 2021 breed survey will be skin conditions and we are working with the KC health Team and a veterinary dermatologist on the design and content. We hope this will give us a firm evidence-base for recommendations on the risks of, and factors associated with, skin diseases. 

Systems thinking

Systems models are one way to consider the links and relationships between different factors. They typically start from a statement of a problem. You have to be clear about the problem you are focusing on; in this case I have used the fairly generic term “concerns about NBS colours”.

One challenge of developing any systems model is where to draw the boundaries because, ultimately, everything is part of a wider system (life, the universe and everything; or 42!). If you make the boundaries too narrow, you may end up with “simple but wrong” interventions. If you draw them too wide, you end up with so much complexity that it’s hard to see how or where to intervene to make improvements. Here is my initial attempt at a systems model based around people’s concerns over NBS colour registrations.

For those not familiar with how they work, a solid arrow means the 2 variables increase or decrease together (e.g. registration of NBS colours increases KC income). A dashed arrow implies that as one variable increases, the other decreases (e.g. education of breeders reduces the breeding of NBS colours). The value of systems models is that they can help us to understand what the knock-on effects might be of different types of intervention. Interestingly, very often they highlight what might be counter-intuitive options for interventions. They also help us to avoid so-called unanticipated consequences (which, of course are entirely predictable if you apply systems thinking).

Thinking through options for change

We can use this (relatively simplified) systems model to consider actions that might address concerns over NBS registrations. It’s obvious that there aren’t that many “levers” we can pull.

We can’t directly reduce either the demand for, or breeding of, NBS puppies. There are calls for the KC not to register NBS puppies or to place them on a separate register so they can’t be shown or bred from. What does this model tell us might happen if that “solution” is implemented. Firstly, it doesn’t change either supply or demand. These dogs will continue to be bred and bought. However, it does reduce KC income and the consequential ability of the KC to invest in education programmes for breeders and buyers. It will, therefore, be more likely that these puppies will be bred without any awareness of the importance of health screening. Additionally, it reduces the size of the registered gene pool and makes it less likely that NBS dog owners would consider using a KC registered mate when they do decide to breed.

It leaves the breed clubs with the task of educating people and we know how much of an uphill battle that is. Whether anyone breeding NBS puppies outside the KC registration system would even come across or be interested in breed club messages is debatable.

What can we do?

I’m sure there are other factors and relationships that should be built into this type of model but it gives a feel for the potential consequences of decisions. Before deciding on solutions to address concerns, we need to decide what we are trying to achieve. 

For those of us in breed clubs, one of our primary aims must be to preserve our breed for the benefit of future generations of breeders and owners. That means ensuring the breed is viable from a genetic diversity perspective as well as health and temperament. If we don’t think about these longer term goals, any decisions we make today might backfire on us.

You cannot see what I see because you see what you see”. Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

2021: Time to see the bigger picture

If 2020 has taught us anything, it is that focusing on a few narrowly defined issues results in many undesirable consequences that could have been anticipated and avoided, had we remembered to ask about the bigger picture. The mainstream media’s obsession with reporting “cases”, “hospital admissions” and “deaths within 28 days of a positive covid test” meant that many people simply had no other contextual evidence upon which to base any judgements about the impact of coronavirus or the various intervention responses. We’ve seen exactly the same in the world of dog health. Three examples: In the Netherlands, new Brachycephalic legislation focuses on the cranio-facial ratio (CFR) as a means to mandate “healthier breeding”. In the UK, some breed communities are obsessing over colours and whether these should be registered by the Kennel Club. Finally, we continue to find breeders using the results of single DNA tests as the primary criterion for making breeding decisions.

These are just three examples of decisions and calls for action that fail to take account of the bigger picture. In the past, I’ve written about the importance of Systems Thinking; a way of considering how things are connected and how decisions in one part of a system can impact on other parts, sometimes in surprising ways.

As an example, back in March 2020, I wrote: What do we think Covid-19 will do to the downward trend in puppy registrations? The “obvious” conclusion would be that registrations will decline further as people face a period of uncertainty about their jobs and are unwilling to commit to the costs of buying and owning a dog. We now know that Covid-19 resulted in a boom in demand for, and supply of, puppies.

My Christmas reading last year was Daniel Kahneman’s book “Thinking, fast and slow”. Kahneman is a psychologist and economist who won a Nobel Prize for his work on behavioural economics in 2002. Thinking, fast and slow is all about why people think what they do and why they make the decisions they make. Kahneman calls “thinking fast”, System 1, and “thinking slow”, System 2.  System 1 operates automatically and quickly, with little effort and without voluntary control. System 2 requires mental effort and concentration. System 1 can result in simplistic solutions that actually make things worse.

Beware unintended consequences

It really isn’t too difficult to see how some of the 2020 dog health actions could actually make things worse. The Dutch CFR legislation may well stop brachycephalic breeding in the Netherlands but it may increase the importation of poorly-bred examples of these breeds from other countries. It may also drive breeding underground because it will do little to reduce the demand for these dogs. It’s already obvious that the legislation has fueled more polarising conversations and further divided groups who should have the same objective of improving canine health.

The Colour Not Recognised (CNR) – now “Non Breed Standard Colour” – debate here in the UK has led to calls for the KC not to register these dogs or to put them on a separate register where they are not permitted to be shown or bred from. The KC’s first Object (3.1.1), listed in the Red Book, is to promote in every way the general improvement of dogs. Object 3.1.2(b) is the registration of dogs. Although 3.1.2(a) refers to the classification of breeds, there is no mention of Breed Standards anywhere in the 7 Objects. The latest Dogs Trust UK welfare report suggests there are around 10 million dogs in the UK. With annual KC registrations of about 250k and an average lifespan of 10 years, there are probably around 2.5 million KC registered dogs in the UK; i.e. just 25% of the population. If we are looking at the bigger picture, do we really want to reduce the number of dogs that the KC registers? Along with that, do we want to reduce the number of dog owners the KC can influence so that dogs’ lives can be improved?

Readers will recall my earlier articles where I argued that “health tested does not mean healthy” and I really think breeders (and buyers) need to step back and see the bigger picture beyond the world of DNA tests and clinical screening programmes. This is particularly true for breeds that may have just 1 or 2 DNA tests for simple recessive mutations. Removing dogs from the breeding population where there is often already low genetic diversity, on the basis of one mutation, can only make things worse. Similarly, breeders flocking to use a few Clear stud dogs reinforces the Popular Sire issue, reduces genetic diversity and makes it more likely that further recessive mutations will become evident. Puppy buyers are equally at fault; they have been lured into believing that good breeders do every possible health test, irrespective of whether it is relevant or important in a particular breed, or the fact that there are no tests available for other potential diseases.

What do we need to do differently?

Although I have often said that improving dog health is a complex problem and that simple solutions won’t work (on their own), it doesn’t mean that we need to be looking for complex (or even complicated) solutions. We simply need to step back and consider how any proposed solution might impact on the bigger picture. Questioning helps us join the dots and identify how a proposed solution fits in the wider system:

  • How much of a difference will this actually make to the overall problem?
  • What will it cost to implement this?
  • Can it be implemented practically for the target audience?
  • To what extent will this idea be considered acceptable by different groups affected? 
  • Are there any potential unintended or undesirable consequences?

We need to set aspirational goals for the future health of all dogs and recognise that these can’t be achieved overnight. We also need broad policy directions to guide our decision-making. These are probably the areas where different stakeholders need to collaborate, at least initially. Without this agreement from the different interest groups, the detailed proposals for actions will inevitably lead to polarised views and confrontational conversations. Please can we make it a New Year’s Resolution for dog health improvement to keep in mind the bigger picture of what we’re trying to achieve for the benefit of dogs? 

Do we need to get MEAN to improve dog health?

Last month, the International Partnership for Dogs published its call for collaboration in a paper (Think globally, act locally) that was discussed in the Our Dogs editorial and by David Cavill in his column.

The paper reviews actions and attitudes that influence ongoing developments relative to pedigree dogs. It is a call for open, respectful discussions, within and across stakeholder groups (e.g. dog show enthusiasts, kennel and breed clubs, legislators, dog owners, veterinary and welfare groups), as well as countries and regions. It is a call for everyone to examine how our personal biases, attachments, and beliefs affect these discussions; and a call to work together for what is truly in the best interest of dogs and the people who care for them.

It concludes by saying “There are no quick and easy solutions. IPFD is working with collaborators to help create a roadmap to engage all stakeholders. Those deeply committed to ensuring the survival of all that is good about pedigree dogs need to participate in open and respectful dialogue to identify actions for the benefit of all dogs and people. Each of us should honestly consider how our own attitudes, and our actions – or inaction – have contributed to the current situation. And then, together, let us find a positive way forward.

There is a clear message that each of us can and should take action to improve the health of dogs,, i.e. a “me first” approach. However, it is also evident that some individuals and groups are better placed to take a leadership role that has the potential to accelerate the pace of health improvement. I make no apology for repeating my hobbyhorse theme that what is needed is human behaviour change.

Behavioural Insights Team

In 2010, the Prime Minister’s Office set up the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) as ‘the world’s first government institution dedicated to the application of behavioural science to policy’. The team applies behavioural insights to inform policy and improve public services. One of the first papers describing their work was “MINDSPACE: influencing behaviour through public policy”. It describes ways of “nudging” citizens into new ways of acting by going with the grain of how we think and act. Hence, the BIT was sometimes referred to as the “Nudge Unit”.

MINDSPACE is an acronym for:

Messenger  – we are heavily influenced by who communicates information 

Incentives – our responses to incentives are shaped by predictable mental shortcuts such as strongly avoiding losses 

Norms – we are strongly influenced by what others do 

Defaults – we “go with the flow‟ of pre-set options 

Salience – our attention is drawn to what is novel and seems relevant to us 

Priming – our acts are often influenced by subconscious cues 

Affect – our emotional associations can powerfully shape our actions 

Commitments – we seek to be consistent with our public promises, and reciprocate acts 

Ego – we act in ways that make us feel better about ourselves 

While all 9 elements of MINDSPACE may be relevant to nudging the desired behavioural changes needed to improve dog health, I want to focus on just 4: MEAN. As an aside, the imposition of legislation to address brachycephalic health is an Incentives intervention; people will generally act to avoid losses (e.g. fines or bans). However, compliance-based approaches don’t have a great track record, particularly in the world of animal welfare.

The Messenger matters

The weight we give to information often depends on the reactions we have to the source of that information. We are affected by the perceived authority of the messenger (whether formal or informal).  One study showed that interventions delivered by health educators were more effective in changing behaviour compared with interventions delivered by either trained facilitators or teachers.

Whilst expertise matters, so do peer effects. Role models from our peer group can be very influential; people often like to be seen to do what the “top people” do. 

We also have to be wary of messengers that people dislike and who are, therefore, not likely to be influential. For example, if breeders have negative views of their governing body (KC), they may be less likely to listen to messages coming from representatives, however expert they may be, from that organisation.

Ego trips

We tend to behave in a way that supports the impression of a positive and consistent self-image. When things go well, we take the credit; when things go wrong, it‟s other people’s fault. We have an inherent drive to protect our ego and to act and think in ways that make us feel better about ourselves and that we’ve made the right decisions for our dogs. 

Legislation may enforce a degree of compliance, through fear, but rewards and recognition can also be used to nudge people in the right direction. The brachycephalic breeds that have Gold-Silver-Bronze Health Award schemes are a good example of a positive approach. Recognition of early adopters and financial incentives such as screening subsidies can also help make people feel better about the actions they are taking to safeguard their breed’s health.

Affect – the act of experiencing emotion

Emotional responses to words, images and events can be rapid and automatic, so that people can experience a behavioural reaction before they realise what they are reacting to. I wrote recently that “More data won’t improve dog health” where I argued that beating people over the head with more facts was likely to fail. Of course we need data and evidence but, all too often, we have failed to engage with people on an emotional level. 

We sometimes talk about the Instagram Generation and, perhaps, we should give more thought to the power of images and videos (via YouTube), particularly to encourage behaviour change in dog buyers. Stories from owners and buyers talking about their experiences can be very powerful. Infographics are another useful medium but if they are simply used to present yet more data they won’t really engage at an emotional level. 

Norms and peer-pressure

Awareness of “social norms” – the commonly held views of our peers – can exert pressure on people to conform. If everyone else is using a health screening programme, it’s hard to be one of the few who are not. The reverse also applies, of course. Normative pressure depends on there being visibility of who is exhibiting the desired behaviour, so published lists of screened dogs or Gold Certificate holders, help to reinforce what is wanted.

Social networks (online and offline) are incredibly important in explaining group behavioural norms. It’s the echo chamber effect on Facebook; it’s hard to be a dissenting voice when a group is constantly repeating a particular message. However, in changing behaviours for dog health, there’s not much value in “preaching to the converted”. We will need to have some challenging conversations with different groups!

Different strokes for different folks

One of the really important pieces of work now being done by the IPFD is to develop a “roadmap” of tactics and options to help the various stakeholders act on breed health improvement. There are no simple or one-size-fits-all solutions. The MINDSPACE model might just be a useful checklist to help shape the roadmap and identify creative possibilities.