The GAT can be used by stakeholders themselves, or as a guidance for interactive workshops with stakeholders. In the DROP project we had the opportunity to
use the GAT in a very elaborated way. Thus it makes sense to first explain some
options on how to use the GAT in a situation that time and involvement are limited.
Thereafter we will explain how we used the tool in the DROP project and what we
recognised to be the main success factors.
3.4.1 Diagnosing with the Governance Assessment Tool
in a Short Period and with a Limited Number
of People
The structure of the Governance Assessment Tool and the guiding questions it
poses in each cell, enables any individual stakeholder (e.g. a project leader, or
policy advisor, or policy makers) who understands the dimensions and criteria to
assess the governance context s/he is working in. All it requires is a few hours to
assess the situation for each cell, on the basis of knowledge held by heart.
Obviously such assessment is limited by the degree of correctness of such estimates. But that is no reason to be negative about it. Such an individual thought
experiment at least turns implicit knowledge and perceptions into explicit ones that
can later be shared with others in a systematic way. It also serves the purpose that
the individual stakeholder becomes more aware of the issues on which there is
uncertainty or even lack of knowledge. Lastly, assuming that the perceptions of
such ‘insider’ make some sense indeed (as often will be the case), it provides an
assessment of one’s own working circumstances that can be practical in finding
ways to improve them or otherwise deal with them.
A next step in elaborated use of the tool is when a group of practitioners
interactively uses it for a systematic brainstorm on the governance context of their
common policy or project. This could take for instance the form of a half day
workshop. Compared with the previous approach there are more people that can
contribute knowledge and that can counter one-sided bias in perceptions, creating a
degree of “inter-subjectivity”. The joint effort is also an important aspect in itself, as
it provides a basis for sharing information and sharing perceptions, that can later be
of utmost value for productive collaboration (HarmoniCOP 2005). The session can
be concluded by brainstorming on how to deal with the governance context about
which by then a joint understanding has evolved. In as far as differences of opinion
occur and persist, the session has probably pinpointed more precisely than before
where the disagreement is all about.
A variant of the above is the situation in which an experienced analyst, for
instance a scientist that worked with the tool more often, leads the session, turning it
into a guided workshop. An obvious advantage is that the governance expert has a
good understanding of the precise meaning of the concepts and the reasons why
they are included in a model explaining the degree to which the context is
58
H. Bressers et al.
use the GAT in a very elaborated way. Thus it makes sense to first explain some
options on how to use the GAT in a situation that time and involvement are limited.
Thereafter we will explain how we used the tool in the DROP project and what we
recognised to be the main success factors.
3.4.1 Diagnosing with the Governance Assessment Tool
in a Short Period and with a Limited Number
of People
The structure of the Governance Assessment Tool and the guiding questions it
poses in each cell, enables any individual stakeholder (e.g. a project leader, or
policy advisor, or policy makers) who understands the dimensions and criteria to
assess the governance context s/he is working in. All it requires is a few hours to
assess the situation for each cell, on the basis of knowledge held by heart.
Obviously such assessment is limited by the degree of correctness of such estimates. But that is no reason to be negative about it. Such an individual thought
experiment at least turns implicit knowledge and perceptions into explicit ones that
can later be shared with others in a systematic way. It also serves the purpose that
the individual stakeholder becomes more aware of the issues on which there is
uncertainty or even lack of knowledge. Lastly, assuming that the perceptions of
such ‘insider’ make some sense indeed (as often will be the case), it provides an
assessment of one’s own working circumstances that can be practical in finding
ways to improve them or otherwise deal with them.
A next step in elaborated use of the tool is when a group of practitioners
interactively uses it for a systematic brainstorm on the governance context of their
common policy or project. This could take for instance the form of a half day
workshop. Compared with the previous approach there are more people that can
contribute knowledge and that can counter one-sided bias in perceptions, creating a
degree of “inter-subjectivity”. The joint effort is also an important aspect in itself, as
it provides a basis for sharing information and sharing perceptions, that can later be
of utmost value for productive collaboration (HarmoniCOP 2005). The session can
be concluded by brainstorming on how to deal with the governance context about
which by then a joint understanding has evolved. In as far as differences of opinion
occur and persist, the session has probably pinpointed more precisely than before
where the disagreement is all about.
A variant of the above is the situation in which an experienced analyst, for
instance a scientist that worked with the tool more often, leads the session, turning it
into a guided workshop. An obvious advantage is that the governance expert has a
good understanding of the precise meaning of the concepts and the reasons why
they are included in a model explaining the degree to which the context is
58
H. Bressers et al.