LC 00349

The implementation process is a catch-all term for all kind of activities that are going on in society, including projects, movements and grass-root initiatives. They all have one thing in common, and that is being of relevance for society. This implies that all stakeholders should be involved, including citizens, government, organizations, and companies. These are all members of society who can voice their concerns. However, there are parties, such as vulnerable individuals, oppressed groups, and nature, that can hardly express themselves or not at all, and their concerns should be taken into consideration as well. To this end, the implementation processes are taken place within the confines of the assessment framework.

The assessment framework is comprised of guiding principles, considerations, and rights and obligations. They ensure an equal playing field for all involved by providing the rules of engagement. As such, the assessment framework reflects our cultural identity by expressing in a very practical way what we value and how we ought to behave in generally accepted ways. (On a meta-level, playing by the rules should be part of our cultural identity. And generally speaking, most people stick to this principle, although some people have only an eye on their own concerns. By including the “play by the rules” principle in the assessment framework, the majority has the power to disqualify such self-interest, with the side note that power abuse by those in real power is hard to rule out.)

Acceptabel niveau van leven in relatie tot sociale en fysieke omgeving.

Een paar concrete voorbeelden hier:

• The well-being of a person in relation with his or hers social and physical environment is central.
• A common interest supersedes an individual interest.
• Play by the rules!

The assessment framework is the outcome of a democratic and strategic process. These two processes are influenced by our experiences obtained from implementation processes and reflections on them. So, we act within the confines of the assessment framework, but the framework is subject to change due to a critical assessment of the framework itself. To put it differently, the assessment framework is continuously validated and adapted accordingly by asking whether we are still doing the right things collectively or not.

An implementation processes can be shaped in such a way that it befits the situation at hand, but preferable an EMM process should be deployed.  EMM is a methodology (see …), and as such, it is open to incorporate specific methods and techniques. The important thing to realize is that EMM is about gaining mutual understanding of a problematic situation. This raises awareness amongst those involved. And by really understanding each other’s position, it makes trust possible, and hopefully, it eventually leads to connectedness. Trust and connectedness are not abstract, rational concepts. On the contrary, they can only be lived through on a personal level in the context of an implementation process. Trust and connectedness must be experienced to grow.

Principle: you need someone else to point out your blind spots to you.

Principle: the keyword is understanding. Research approach must be “for you, and with you”, instead of  “for you, but not with you”.

The execution of an implementation process takes place within the context of the assessment framework. This provides the setting for accommodation of worldviews (see SSM). Nevertheless, the assessment framework may fell short to be decisive in all cases. However, this should be seen an asset rather than a deficiency. That is to say, there should be room for disagreement in order, among other things, to voice differences in opinion and to encourage innovation, although this effectively may stall an implementation process. In that case, the ST process provides the means to reassess the assessment framework.

Principle: the relationship between things, including humans, is what matters. Something or someone cannot stand or be taken on its own.

Principle: people differ in worldviews, but nevertheless they typically adhere to aspects of multiple worldviews, which provides room for accommodation.

An implementation process should preferably yield a triple stroke:

• making progress in a problematic situation in the sense that a mutual understanding is obtained, and if possible, ways are found to take action;
• acquiring new skills by all involved, in particular systems thinking as practiced in EMM and ST;
• learning lessons from the experiences gained in the implementation process about cultural identity.

This is quite some list. Initially, skilled facilitators of change can help managing this, in essence, group learning process. Facilitators of change are supposed to be independent, and therefore can be trusted by all stakeholders. The government could fulfill the role of facilitator of change. After all, the government serves in the interest of society. Unfortunately, this point has not been reached yet because the government is looked upon with suspicion, partly caused by potentially conflicting tasks such as stimulating new initiatives and policy enforcement, and partly because of the inherent misbalance in power between the government and a civilian. As long as the government is seen as an outside party of society rather than an insider having distinct roles, rights and obligations, the government is not in a position to facilitate implementation processes. The government is a powerful institution, but it should not abuse its powers (or is perceived as doing so), and play by the rules set out in the assessment framework to evolve into a well-respected and trustworthy member of society. Implementation processes provide opportunities to do so.

Minor Fit for the Future als voorbeeld gebruiken.

Dit is een beveiligde pagina.