What seems to be apparent is that in many cases people believe in the idea behind multi-stakeholder processes or platforms- seeing the benefit in bringing together various stakeholders in a process of research and action towards a defined goal.
But where many questions still lie is in how to organise such a process, what model to adopt, which characteristics to capitalise on.
In the previous posts on the Learning Alliance in the WASPA project- Alexandra Clemett from IWMI indicated that trying to use the whole structure proposed for Learning Alliances was too much for her project–and somewhat jokingly said “what we need is Learning Alliance light!”
And perhaps there is some more serious idea in this?
What are some of the main components that should be developed for a multi-stakeholder process?
What are key activities or ways to work with the stakeholders?
How should it be structured? organised?
How can we get the most benefit/value out of a process without it taking too much time, energy and resources to carry out?
What would our Learning Alliance light–look like?
July 7, 2008 at 8:58 am
This is exactly what I keep trying to introduce at IRC! Fantastic to see the same idea appearing elsewhere. At the latest KM4Dev2008 f2f meeting in Almada, I organized (admittedly a still diverging) open space session on the same idea. An experiment to be set up in the context of KM4Dev2009 together with Marc Steinlin in South Africa?
I’d love to become part of a core group creating a global CoP on LA.
Anyone?
Greetings, Peter on his way to the first UCLGA Congress, where I’ll launch the same idea: LAL (LA-light) for local WASH governance involving local governments
July 8, 2008 at 5:24 am
Hey Peter,
Thanks for your comment to this blog post and idea! Yes i think it i a topic deserving alot of discussion. Perhaps we get too bogged down in trying to develop and manage the structure we think or have been told/read that some approach like the Learning Alliance requires to the detriment of actually making use of the principles and opportunities it provides. I believe that none of these approaches can be used as a blue print and their use and operation will depend very much on the context of the project (place, people, plans etc.
SO how do we promote these approaches in their ‘light’ version–meaning that people make use of those things which fit and provide the benefits intended without complicating it too much.
I think one issue is that since the approach is new and many organisations-especially research organisations do not have the personnel involved to be able to have time and skills to be flexible and creative in the operationalization of approaches in this way. People are looking for a A through Z of ‘how to’ which they can follow to get the results. What is needed is an adaptive management approach to all of this.
So we really need to have information and advice to guide this more ‘light’ version. We need to equip the larger community with examples and evidence of how various models done in different ways can bring about good results without all the expense, time consumption and confusion i hear as complaints from the LA approach.
How can we get others involved in this discussion?
We look forward to some feedback from your launch of LAL (LA-light) at the UCLGA Congress.
July 10, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Hi Peter and Nadia,
Happy to see that others are thinking about this — adapting a process/method to a need.
This is something we think about alot at BPD (Building Partnerships for Development in Water and Sanitation).
How we have tackled this so far is focusing on what we want/need (for example clarifying an organisational goal) and then building a process around it. We frequently change our methods or even goals to fit our busy schedules and changing needs of our organisation.
For example, we have been trying out an internal reflection activity to ensure our daily work is connected to overall strategic goals, and aligned with dynamics of water and sanitation issues.
We started with asking ourselves 3-4 simple questions, and briefly cirulated our answers to each other over email. One of the benefits of this is analysing where we are and where we want to be on a monthly basis. We’ve adapted the process to our schedules, changed the questions, and focused our attention to topics that emerged at that point in time. Each time was very different, substantive, and immediately addressed a current need.
Looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts on LA-light.
Best regards,
Urooj Amjad
BPD