Reflection Process
The reflection process serves the purpose of transforming experiences and insights obtained from the implementation processes to a vision of cultural identity (shared meaning): who are we, what do we do and what do we value most? Whereas the implementation process could more or less be seen as a process “free of values” (it explicates different values and worldviews but does not indicate which are perceived to be of greater value or importance) the reflection process is not. This process forces all involved to take a stance, not individually but as a community. It revolves around making choices about what we together value most and voicing this in a shared vision. This is not a vision in an abstract sense, but contains elements that could be part of the assessment framework.
Aiming at shared meaning does not mean trying to reach a situation in which all people always fully agree. In many cases this would be trying to reach Utopia. It means understanding each other’s perspectives well enough to accept them and to agree what binds different stakeholders together, agreeing upon and acting according to a set of shared values. These values prevail individual values as they will benefit community as a whole and not only a limited group of stakeholders.
Changing the assessment framework
As said before the assessment framework should display shared meaning. When shared meaning changes, the assessment framework should be changed as well. The reflection process itself does however not automatically result in adjustment of the assessment framework. The owners of the democratic and strategic processes carry the ultimate responsibility for the content of the assessment framework. Within municipalities this would for example be the responsibility of the college of mayor and alderman and the members of local council within municipalities. Within organizations the board of directors and the supervisory board are at play.
Those involved in the implementation and reflection process are often hierarchically speaking not in place to take decisions within the democratic and strategic process. However, they can give unsolicited advice to those that are in that position, and this way they can organize social pressure. This advice is grounded in mutual understanding. It is the result of an implementation processes in which different stakeholders (all stakeholders the owners of the democratic and strategic process should represent and preferably they themselves as well) were present. And as such the advice could hardly be ignored.
The reflection process can best be seen as a form of deliberative democracy in which the voice of society as a whole is heard and taken seriously. The goal is to reach shared meaning and to share this with the owners of the democratic and strategic processes.
Council of Wisdom
A deliberative democracy can take on many forms, including referendum and citizens council. One specific form is discussed here that benefits the ST process. It is called the Council of Wisdom (CoW). In particular, the concepts of the assessment framework and mutual understanding play a central role in a CoW. The CoW, as it name suggests, consist of wise people from the ranks of professionals, entrepreneurs, government, researchers, and experience experts. They preferably are experienced in facilitating change conform ST. They have the desirable trait of having the willingness to see things broadly and across party lines. Their task is to transform mutual understanding into a well-founded vision on cultural identity expressed in terms of the assessment framework. Since the CoW has no monopoly on wisdom, the vision is open for discussion in all kind of forms, such as a broad dialog or internet consultation. Once this consultation round is over, the revised, widely supported vision is handed over to the government as an unsolicited advice. Once new shared meaning has been agreed upon, the assessment framework should be adjusted, following democratic and strategic processes.
The shared meaning thus established steers a governance process leading to an assessment framework to frame solution directions. Of course, not everyone will agree with proposed solutions – e.g., the not in my backyard syndrome is famous for that– but whatever decision taken, the assessment framework that guides decision making is grounded in mutual understanding and shared meaning.