Students:Local citizens (2012 e-learning)

From VCSEwiki
Revision as of 05:34, 1 September 2012 by Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) (Created page with "== Stakeholder profiles == Stakeholder profiles according to the criteria: Assumption: The interests of the local citizens are expressed by represent...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Stakeholder profiles

Stakeholder profiles according to the criteria:

Assumption: The interests of the local citizens are expressed by representatives. Those representatives are mainly taking part in the process voluntarily and are not paid for it. Some representatives are part of local associations, unions or organisations.

Development vision

-

The citizens are certainly aware of the situation as their homes and partly their workplaces are threatened. They want to find a long-term solution because they want to stay in the area. However, it is possible that they don’t consider all of the relevant information because they might be biased by the immediate threat of loosing home and/or workplace.

In addition, a vision is not recognisable at the moment and there might be a lack of new ideas.

Flexibility and innovation

--

The stakeholder has to adapt to changes. However, the citizens won’t do this voluntarily. As citizens they would be affected the most by the extension of the mining limits. So there is much at stake for them. This influences their openness and tolerance in a negative way. They don’t have much room to manoeuvre.

Relationships

+

The citizens are well connected to most of the stakeholders or can even be part of them. Encounters evolve quite naturally and ideas can be exchanges (e.g. with the local government/representatives). However, it is possible that those encounters don’t occur in an organised way.

Communication

-

The stakeholder’s interests are quite diverse. On the one hand, many locals refuse to leave their homes. On the other hand, some of them are willing to move if offered sufficient compensation. Another problem is the loss / the generation of jobs related to the mining limits. Those aspects might lead to an inconsistent approach.

As most of the citizens’ representatives are working voluntarily in this process, their organisational level and communication capacity are presumably low.

However, the cause of the stakeholder is well represented in media.

Transparency

-

As the stakeholder isn’t an organisation in the true sense of word, it won’t have written down strategies and guidelines. The roles of the representatives should be quite clear, though.

Trust

+

The information provided by the citizens is quite clear, e.g. their interests are pointed out straight forward in the media. A hidden agenda is not realistic.

It is difficult to assess if the stakeholder is reliable in regards to agreements and tasks: it’s possible that there will be delays due to the voluntary character.

Operational effectiveness

-

The stakeholder is certainly interested in fast results because at the moment the citizens’ position is very uncertain and they need long-term stability. However, their operational effectiveness might be low.

Conflicts

-

Conflicts will be labelled but they presumably won´t be tackled constructively because there is so much at stake for the citizens (cf. #2). The discussion is stuck because in the point of view of the citizens there aren't many options.

Resources

-

The citizens aren’t funded. The other stakeholders partly have considerable funds and can influence the citizens (e.g. mining industry: compensation for moving).

Strategic options

Neutral viewpoint out of the perspective of the process (meta perspective):

  • Influencing the performance: Help the stakeholder to build a structure and to divide the roles among the representatives. Ensure appropriate funding (e.g. through NGOs, subsidies).
  • Influencing the performance: Providing the stakeholder with process management skills and the ability to see other options, not only two possible outcomes.
  • Relationship: Ensure and/or strengthen collaboration with the regional and national government and local economy to elaborate alternative solutions, especially to counter the threat of job loss.
  • Feed-in new knowledge: Get some information and do some research about similar situations in other regions and the way such problems are tackled in other places.

Options out of the viewpoint of the stakeholder itself:

  • Elaborate a vision/common goal and a step-by-step plan/strategy in order to achieve the vision, e.g. in a moderated workshop.
  • Get involved with other stakeholders who have similar goals and can complement the weaknesses of the stakeholder: NGOs, local government, local commerce (cf. forum post, especially comparison 3).
  • Involve the media and VIPs in order to sensitive the general public for this topic and to get more support.

Open questions

  • How are the citizens represented in the mining conflicts? Who is taking part? Only citizens or also representatives of local organisations and associations?
  • How is the structure and organisational level of those representatives (roles, common strategy etc.)?
  • What do the citizens think in regards to the possible loss of workplaces?
  • What are the local citizens doing against the extension of the mining limits? Are there any actions taken? Are there ideas or solutions present?
  • Do the representatives have any funding? If so, where does it come from?

Sources

Retrieved from "https://vcsewiki.czp.cuni.cz/w/index.php?title=Students:Local_citizens_(2012_e-learning)&oldid=2419"