Posted on December 4, 2013 by Eva Schiffer
This is an interesting application of Net-Map in the water sector. You can read Nelson’s thesis here. This is the abstract:
“This is a study of water governance in the semi-arid Okanagan valley, British Columbia, Canada. The human dimension of water governance is often overlooked and in this study I use Social Network Analysis (SNA) to gain new insights into the characteristics of the Okanagan water governance network. I explore some of the perceptions held by British Columbia water professionals to pierce the ‘veil’ of opaque decision-making processes – formal and informal – that play a central role in Okanagan water governance. My thesis question for this study is: how does the relationship among actors influence water governance in the Okanagan basin, British Columbia Canada? This study is a descriptive analysis of the social and institutional characteristics of the Okanagan Basin water governance network as it relates to water scarcity policy and practice. I conducted in-depth interviews with British Columbia water experts involved in water scarcity in the Okanagan. Collected data was analyzed using text analysis and SNA. Prominent themes that emerged from the interviewees included: a need to improve the provincial government’s commitment to water governance, public apathy, a lack of succession planning of senior water professionals, a need to improve communications with First Nations, and the need to address tensions that detract from improving water governance in British Columbia. The influence of the Okanagan Basin Water Board, a unique regional local government body in British Columbia, is shown to exert a significant and positive influence on funding and communication relationships within the Okanagan watershed network. Network data is applied to create benchmark Okanagan water governance network diagrams and these diagrams are compared and contextualized using previously developed network archetypes. Social network diagrams are useful to develop a benchmark or snap shot in time of the water governance network and provide practical insights into how policy and communication strategies may be applied to improve communication and social learning among actors in the network.”
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: canada, Multi-Stakeholder Systems, Net-Map, Networkd Analysis, Research, Water Governance | Leave a Comment »
Posted on October 24, 2013 by Eva Schiffer
The most interesting aspect of teaching Net-Map is that our participants bring their own cases to map, so that they can learn how to apply the method to their own problems. And I have had participants mapping torture networks in a South East Asian country (to improve the effectiveness of an anti-torture campaign) and I have seen many different versions of: “Who will influence that I achieve my career goals?” or, even more personal: “Who will influence that I am happy more often and unhappy less often?”. If you join us for our November 15th-16th training, it’s up to you: What are the burning, confusing, exciting and/or painful issues that you want to clarify, where you want to become more strategic and understand the major bottlenecks and opportunities? And yes, in the process you will learn all the nuts and bolts of the method and become a member of our growing community of practice. A few spots are still available. The training will be held at a beautiful event space in the Eastern Market area of Washington, DC. All the details are here and you can sign up here.
Filed under: Uncategorized, case studies, fine-tuning implementation, upcoming events, facilitation, career coaching, training, personal development, opportunities | Tagged: Net-Map, training, learning, Washington DC, Community of Practice | Leave a Comment »
Posted on October 18, 2013 by Eva Schiffer
By reviewing Net-Maps that my colleagues share with me I am picking up on all kinds of typical misunderstandings. Many are easy to fix once you know what they are… Here I would like to share two that you better avoid in order to have clear and specific maps: branches and boxes.
No Branches please
Some participants intend to make things easier and reduce the mess on the map by drawing links that have branches. However, while it looks like it makes things easier; it actually leads to confusion and less clarity as to who is linked to whom. Please insist that each arrow can only link two actor cards.
No Boxes please
This is another attempt to make the picture less messy and save time. Participants put actors in boxes and instead of linking individual actors, they link boxes, put influence towers on boxes, put plus and minus signs on boxes. In most cases this leads to a picture that is incorrect. Because what it means is: Every actor in box 1 is linked to every actor in box 2, which is rarely the case. By putting the actors in boxes, participants paint a generic picture that will not help them develop concrete strategies in how to deal with specific actors.
If they insist that there is a group of actors (e.g. NGOs) who, for the question at hand, act as one, with the same links, goals and influence, give them the option of grouping these actors by writing one actor card that reads “NGOs”. But, in general, only do that with marginal actors, not with central ones.
Help participants to avoid drawing generic maps that will not solve their specific problems.
Filed under: facilitation, fine-tuning implementation, technical details, training, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
Posted on September 25, 2013 by Eva Schiffer
(Picture by Alan Cleaver on flickr)
How do you deal with situations you are not 100% comfortable with? How do you approach your work and your family life when it gets stressful? Are you quick to blame others for whatever goes wrong? Are you inclined to focus on all the different ways that you have messed it up?
How about owning it with a smile?
What does that mean? I started thinking about this last week, attending an amazing creative facilitation training by Retreats that Work (or, more specifically, Merianne Liteman and Sheila Campbell). They highlighted the power of an honest smile, how it can light up the room, make the most difficult group processes more bearable and convey to participants that you approach them in a positive, inviting manner. As a German I come from a culture where you only smile if you have a reason – and even then, you often don’t. My German friends think I have become Americanized… I am not sure my American friends would agree. There is still a lot of room for adding more smiles, with or without concrete reason. So I just started trying it out: What would happen if I smiled more? Not a “I’m sorry I’m in your way” kind of smile but rather a “I own my own space and invite you to join me here” smile.
At the end of the training I realized that “owning it – with a smile” is a powerful guidance for dealing with things beyond group facilitation. So I have looked at a number of issues both in my professional and private life and asked myself: What would happen if you didn’t blame others or yourself for this, but own it with a smile? If feels like breathing in – in a way that makes your lungs expand and fills you with fresh spring air. Now I’m curious where it will get me. And I’d love to hear from you: Do you own it with a smile? What does that mean to you? And what happens if you do?
Filed under: career coaching, exploring new ideas, facilitation, musings, Other people's work, personal development, Uncategorized | Tagged: blame, creative, facilitation, learning, Owning it, personal development, responsibility, self confidence, Smile | 4 Comments »