Debriefing sessions—Through a series of short debriefing sessions by the
governance assessment team directly after each round of interviews, the data was
extracted and analysed in the context of the 20 evaluation items of the GAT matrix.
Within a week after each session, a teleconference (phone or skype meeting)
provided additional exchange and inputs to the main authors of each case report.
The draft case reports were distributed for comments among the governance team
members, and ultimately discussed with the practice partners during the second visit
to the case areas. These draft reports also formed the basis for judging what issues
to focus on in the second round of interviews—as the development of these reports
allowed the identification of issues or stakeholder perspectives missing in the
assessment.
Careful summarising of results—The results of a GAT analysis can be summarised, even in the form of figures or tables. The issue is that transferring the
richness of the data gathered by numerous documents and interviews into more
condensed layers of summary and ultimately into an overview has both positive and
negative aspects. On the one hand it is necessary to enable comparative analysis
between several cases. On the other hand, the summary should not hide away
essential observations that form the evidence for the scores. In the DROP project
this has been achieved by assessing each of the twenty cells of the matrix by a brief
statement and sometimes a score at a three or five point scale, followed by a
paragraph to page length of observations on which this statement is based. The
scores on a three point scale have also been translated into graphical visualisations
showing the matrix with colours (‘score cards’) indicating the value of each cell.
These visualisations enable a quick overview of the results. However, one should
always keep in mind that such a summary of summary is a derivate of a much richer
set of observations and its interpretation.
Comparative analysis—The multiple case study character of the use of the GAT
helped us to develop recommendations based on what works well elsewhere and
what stands out in one region compared to other regions. Insights from pilot cases
that face similar challenges are potential sources of advices, with the benefit of
having a clear example to illustrate the ideas with concrete outcomes. Additionally,
as a contribution for the learning experience of the practice partners, hearing about
the governance assessment conclusions regarding other regions provides the possibility to refresh the way their own context is reviewed.
Procedure to compile recommendations—Statements of the different cells and
questions of the assessment matrix were screened carefully. Important connecting
issues were then highlighted. Especially the critical statements, which the stakeholders made during the interviews, were screened by the governance team to
identify the improvement areas. This brainstorming exchange within the governance team was useful in developing and structuring ideas relevant to the recommendations. Comparisons between the different case studies were also explored to
identify common issues as well as opportunities among the case studies. Different
approaches and experiences could be compared and used as the basis for further
discussion. One major step was to gather feedback to the developed recommendations. It was evident that the recommendations were developed with limited
62
H. Bressers et al.
governance assessment team directly after each round of interviews, the data was
extracted and analysed in the context of the 20 evaluation items of the GAT matrix.
Within a week after each session, a teleconference (phone or skype meeting)
provided additional exchange and inputs to the main authors of each case report.
The draft case reports were distributed for comments among the governance team
members, and ultimately discussed with the practice partners during the second visit
to the case areas. These draft reports also formed the basis for judging what issues
to focus on in the second round of interviews—as the development of these reports
allowed the identification of issues or stakeholder perspectives missing in the
assessment.
Careful summarising of results—The results of a GAT analysis can be summarised, even in the form of figures or tables. The issue is that transferring the
richness of the data gathered by numerous documents and interviews into more
condensed layers of summary and ultimately into an overview has both positive and
negative aspects. On the one hand it is necessary to enable comparative analysis
between several cases. On the other hand, the summary should not hide away
essential observations that form the evidence for the scores. In the DROP project
this has been achieved by assessing each of the twenty cells of the matrix by a brief
statement and sometimes a score at a three or five point scale, followed by a
paragraph to page length of observations on which this statement is based. The
scores on a three point scale have also been translated into graphical visualisations
showing the matrix with colours (‘score cards’) indicating the value of each cell.
These visualisations enable a quick overview of the results. However, one should
always keep in mind that such a summary of summary is a derivate of a much richer
set of observations and its interpretation.
Comparative analysis—The multiple case study character of the use of the GAT
helped us to develop recommendations based on what works well elsewhere and
what stands out in one region compared to other regions. Insights from pilot cases
that face similar challenges are potential sources of advices, with the benefit of
having a clear example to illustrate the ideas with concrete outcomes. Additionally,
as a contribution for the learning experience of the practice partners, hearing about
the governance assessment conclusions regarding other regions provides the possibility to refresh the way their own context is reviewed.
Procedure to compile recommendations—Statements of the different cells and
questions of the assessment matrix were screened carefully. Important connecting
issues were then highlighted. Especially the critical statements, which the stakeholders made during the interviews, were screened by the governance team to
identify the improvement areas. This brainstorming exchange within the governance team was useful in developing and structuring ideas relevant to the recommendations. Comparisons between the different case studies were also explored to
identify common issues as well as opportunities among the case studies. Different
approaches and experiences could be compared and used as the basis for further
discussion. One major step was to gather feedback to the developed recommendations. It was evident that the recommendations were developed with limited
62
H. Bressers et al.