Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Guidance note for the Programmatic Approach (version 31-12-2011)


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

Guidance note for the Programmatic Approach (version 31-12-2011)

  1. 1. Guidance Note for theProgrammatic Approachof the ICCO AllianceHettie Walters2011
  2. 2.     4  
  3. 3. Guidance Note for theProgrammatic Approachof the ICCO Alliance                                                            Version  31  December  2011   1  
  4. 4.                                                                                        This  Guidance  Note  is  based  on  earlier  documents  in  which  insights  gained  in  the  development  of  the  Programmatic  Approach  where  presented:  Briefing  paper  Growing  insights  on  the  Programmatic  Approach,  ICCO  February  2009,  Harry  Derksen  en  Hettie  Walters;  R&D;  Evaluative  Study  on  the  Programmatic  Approach  Erica  Wortel  and  Jouwert  van  Geene,  December  2009;  Synthesis  paper  :  Findings  and  recommendations  gained  from  the  Evaluative  study  and  the  Appreciating  the  Programmatic  Approach  processes.  April  2010,  Hettie  Walters;  A  debriefing  note  from  the  workshop  held  on  February  1-­‐5,  2010,  Appreciating  the  Programmatic  Approach;  a  systematisation  of  experiences,  Consultants  Appreciating  the  Programmatic  Approach,  March  2010  and  the  Appreciating  the  programmatic  Approach  feedback  workshop  2011.  Insights  gained  and  tools  used  in  the  trainings  on  Methodologies  and  methods  for  the  programmatic  Approach  2008-­‐2011  have  also  been  used  as  a  source  (various  reports  by  teams  of  CDI-­‐WUR).       2  
  5. 5.   Content     Introduction                   5    1   Why  we  do  what  we  do               6   1.1   Objective  and  vision               6     1.2   What  is  the  Programmatic  Approach?           7   1.3    The  theory  of  change  of  the  programmatic  approach       7   1.4   Why  do  we  promote  this  way  of  working?         8   1.5   With  whom  do  we  co-­‐operate  in  the  programmatic  approach?   9      2   Theories  of  the  programmatic  approach           11   2.1     Systems  theory  and  complexity  thinking         11   2.2   Multi-­‐stakeholder  Process  theory           13   2.3   Coalition  building  and  network  development         14    3   The  methods  we  can  use  in  the  Programmatic  Approach       16   3.1   Methods  for  working  with  systemic  change  and  complexity     16   3.1.1   Appreciative  Inquiry             17   3.1.2   Methods  for  understanding  systemic  change:       20   -­‐  Four  quadrant  framework           20   -­‐  Institutional  Analysis             22   3.1.3.   Methods  for  working  with  complexity:         24   -­‐  Cynefin  Framework             24   -­‐  Ralph  Staceys  Agreement  &  Certainty  Matrix     26   3.2     Methods  in  Multi-­‐stakeholder  processes  (MSP)       28   3.2.1   Theory  of  Change             30   3.2.2   Stakeholder  analysis             33   3.2.3   Context  analysis             35   3.2.4   Problem  tree  analysis             35   3.2.5   Large  group  interventions:     Open  Space  Technology  and  Future  Search       37   3.3   Methods  for  Networking  and  Coalition  development       40   3.3.1   Networking  for  social  change  and  knowledge  development   40   3.3.2.    Coalition  Development           42    4   Programmatic  approach  and  the  ICCO  Alliance  roles  and  practices     44   4.1   Roles,  thematic  focus  and  partner  relations         44   4.1.1   Strategic  funding  and  the  Programmatic  Approach     44   4.1.2   Brokering               47   4.1.3   Capacity  development             47   4.2   The  thematic  programmes  in  the  Business  Plan     and  the  Programmatic  Approach           48   4.3.   Governance  models  and  structures           49    Annex  1   Guidelines  for  Developing  programmatic  cooperation;  the  phases   53  Annex  2   Programmatic  Cooperation  scan           59         3  
  6. 6.     4  
  7. 7. Introduction  This  paper  intends  to  give  guidance  and  orientation  to  staff  of  the  ICCO  Alliance  as  well  as  to  staff  of  civil  society  organizations  with  whom  the  ICCO  Alliance  cooperates  in  the  context  of  the  Programmatic  Approach.  It  will  describe  what  the  Programmatic  Approach  entails,  what  the  considerations  were  that  led  to  the  development  of  the  approach,  what  its  theory  of  change  is,  and  which  theories  underpin  the  Programmatic  Approach.    In  this  Guidance  note  we  will  describe  what  kind  of  a  donor  and  partner  organization  we  will  be  as  a  result  of  our  choice  to  work  with  and  from  a  programmatic  approach,  and  which  consequences  this  choice  has  for  our  activities.  Our  readers  will  predominantly  come  from  within  the  ICCO  Alliance’s  circle  of  influence,  either  from  organizations  within  the  ICCO  Alliance  or  from  organizations  with  whom  we  directly  or  indirectly  forge  relations.  However,  we  also  expect  readers  to  be  interested  that  belong  to  other  development  organizations  that  are  reflecting  on  their  own  strategies  and  would  like  to  understand  the  ICCO  Alliances  approach.    This  paper  is  the  result  of  several  years  of  learning-­‐by-­‐doing  and  is  certainly  not  the  end  station  in  our  learning  process.  That  is  why  we  called  this  paper  a  Guidance  note  -­‐  calling  it  a  manual  would  imply  that  we  have  a  definite  model  or  that  we  expect  that  a  single  approach  can  be  “rolled  out”  in  different  contexts.  Instead  we  wanted  to  stress  the  ongoing  character  of  the  development  of  the  Programmatic  Approach.    We  will  start  this  guidance  note  with  the  vision  of  the  ICCO  Alliance.  This  will  be  followed  by  a  description  of  what  the  Programmatic  Approach  means  for  the  ICCO  Alliance,  why  we  use  this  way  of  working  and  with  whom  we  work  together  doing  so.      In  Chapter  2  we  will  then  explain  the  conceptual  framework  underpinning  the  Programmatic  Approach.      In  chapter  3  we  will  introduce  several  methods  that  can  be  used  in  the  Programmatic  Approach.  These  methods  help  us  to  understand  the  complexity  in  which  we  work,  to  analyze  the  stakeholder  diversity,  to  assess  where  we  are  in  a  change  process  and  to  which  changes  we  are  contributing,  and  also  to  clarify  how  we  can  help  networks  and  coalitions  to  develop.    In  chapter  4  we  will  discuss  some  of  the  practical  examples  that  we  now  have  of  governance  and  funding  models  for  the  Programmatic  Approach.  The  annexes  contain  two  specific  tools  that  have  been  developed:  The  guidelines  for  developing  programmatic  cooperation  and  the  Programmatic  Cooperation  scan  (P-­‐scan)    We  hope  that  this  guidance  note  will  inspire  you,  that  it  will  support  you  in  your  reflection  process  and  that  it  offers  some  practical  guidance,  helping  you  to  make  choices,  to  direct  processes  and  to  support  others  in  the  development  of  cooperation  for  fundamental  social  change.         5  
  8. 8. 1Why we do what we do1.1 Objective and vision  The  ICCO  Alliance’s  objective  is  to  end  poverty,  assure  just  societies  and  enable  men  and  women  to  live  dignified  lives.  In  large  parts  of  the  world  and  for  many  people  these  aims  are  still  far  from  the  reality  of  their  lives.  Many  countries  still  have  development  levels  in  which  health  and  education  for  all,  sufficient  food  of  good  nutritional  value,  and  income  that  enables  people  to  obtain  services  and  resources  are  lacking.  These  problems  are  often  related  to  underlying  issues,  such  as  absence  of  respect  for  Human  Rights.  This  leads  to  inequality  in  society  because  of  the  marginalization  of  groups  based  on  gender,  ethnicity,  religion,  and  sexual  orientation  or  because  of  their  geographic  location  in  a  country.  Lack  of  control  over  productive  resources  and  markets  by  particular  groups  in  society  (such  as  for  example  women  farmers)  leads  to  injustice  and  poverty.  Many  conflicts  are  grounded  in  inequalities,  and  the  result  of  the  situation  in  fragile  states  where  good  governance  is  lacking,  and  in  which  opposed  interests  of  factions  and  individuals  are  numerous.    The  ICCO  Alliance’s  overall  vision  is  based  on  the  three  basic  dimensions  of  poverty  and  injustice:  social,  political  and  economic.  Poverty  and  injustice  cannot  be  explained  from  one  dimension  only;  solutions  therefore  have  to  take  into  account  all  three  of  them.      Our  choice  for  thematic  areas  is  based  on  these  three  dimensions:    Social:      • Basic  health,  Basic  education  • HIV/Aids  • Food  and  Nutrition  Security    Political:  • Conflict  transformation  and  Democratization    Economic:  • Fair  Economic  Development  • Fair  Climate      Dimensions  and  themes  are  overlapping;  programs  as  defined  in  the  business  plan  can  therefore  have  relations  to  one  or  more  dimensions.  Human  Rights,  gender,  capacity  development,  and  religion  and  culture  are  underlying  and  crosscutting  principles  and  issues  that  connect  the  thematic  areas  and  are  meant  to  reinforce  or  complement  the  actions  on  a  particular  theme.  Staff  from  Regional  Councils  and  Regional  Offices  have  further  defined  the  overall  vision  and  mission  to  fit  the  context  of  their  regions  (e.g.  Central  America,  South  America  and  Central  and  Eastern  Africa).       6  
  9. 9. 1.2 What is the Programmatic Approach?  The  Programmatic  Approach  is  essentially  about  the  way  in  which  the  ICCO  Alliance1  promotes  cooperation  between  organizations  in  developing  countries  in  order  to  reach  development  results.    Poverty  and  injustice  are  invariably  related  to  complex  problems  in  which  many  people  have  a  stake  and  where  organizations  represent  specific  interests.  All  are  embedded  in  larger  systems  that  often  maintain  existing  inequalities.  Several  systems  combined  make  up  societies.  The  ICCO  Alliance  aims  at  changing  the  systems  that  maintain  inequalities  in  such  a  manner  that  poverty  is  ended,  justice  is  guaranteed  and  rights  of  all  individuals  and  communities  are  respected.  To  be  able  to  do  so  we  propose  to  work  in  an  approach  that  will  support  actors  with  different  stakes  in  systems  to  come  together  and  develop  a  shared  agenda  for  change.  The  Programmatic  Approach  thus  can  be  defined  as  follows:     A  multi  stakeholder  process  that  leads  to  organizations  working  together,  based  on   a  joint  analysis,  shared  vision  and  objectives  and  clear  perspective  on  the  results  of   the  cooperation.  In  such  a  process  all  actors  can  do  different  things,  work  at   various  levels  and  use  their  specific  strengths  for  the  common  purpose  and   objectives,  as  well  as  share  activities,  and  in  particular  participate  in  the  mutual   linking  and  learning  processes.  The  programmatic  approach  aims  at  change  in   systems  rather  than  addressing  single  problems2    The  ICCO  Alliance  Programmatic  Approach  differs  from  a  sectoral  approach.  In  the  latter,  projects  and  programs  generally  are  brought  together  in  one  general  planning,  whereas  the  core  of  the  Programmatic  Approach  is  that  we  support  cooperative  processes  of  multiple  stakeholders  aiming  at  creating  systemic  change.  It  is  therefore  not  only  a  planning  approach  but  a  strategy  for  realizing  fundamental  change  with  our  partner  organizations  and  other  stakeholders  in  the  areas  in  which  we  work.  1.3 The theory of change of the programmatic approach  Kurt  Lewin  once  remarked:  “There  is  nothing  as  practical  as  a  good  theory”.  Any  development  intervention  is  based  on  a  ‘theory’  of  how  the  desired  changes  can  be  achieved.  Sometimes  this  theory  of  change  is  implicit,  a  vague  idea  based  on  perceptions  of  poverty  and  assumptions  about  the  factors  related  to  change.  Although  in  many  cases  such  initiatives  yield  good  results,  this  approach  also  has  its  limitations.  Many  of  the  initiatives  focus  only  on  one  particular  aspect  of  the  problem,  leaving  untouched  the  numerous  other  factors  related  to  the  state  of  poverty  and  injustice.  In  addition,  development  efforts  are  often  small-­‐scale,  not  well  coordinated,  and  limited  in  time.  Many  of  the  present  theories  of  change  used  by  (international)  development  organizations  are  based  on  the  assumption  that  development  that  can  be  constructed                                                                                                                            1   The  ICCO  Alliance  is  formed  by:  ICCO,  Edukans,  Prisma,  Kerk  in  Actie,  SharePeople,   ZeisterZendingsgenootschap,  Yente.  2   A  system  is  a  set  of  interacting  or  interdependent  entities  forming  a  larger  whole.  These  systems  may   include  organisational  systems,  may  have  geographical  boundary,  and  often  have  multiple  levels  and   actors.  Systems  have  the  capacity  to  change,  to  adapt  when  it  is  necessary  in  response  to  internal  or   external  stimulus.  Complex  Adaptive  Systems,  Heather  Baser  and  Peter  Morgan,  Complex  Adaptive   Systems  Theory,  ECDPM  2004     7  
  10. 10. from  outside,  and  can  be  managed  and  planned  from  top  to  bottom  if  the  right  means  are  provided.  Development  is  thus  seen  as  a  linear  process  that  can  be  captured  and  followed  in  a  logical  framework.  One  particular  problem  is  that  such  a  logical  framework  does  not  offer  space  for  changes  that  were  not  foreseen  or  expected  but  nevertheless  did  take  place  as  a  result  of  the  intervention  and  therefore  had  an  impact.  As  people  who  form  the  target  of  such  top-­‐down  interventions  are  often  regarded  as  ‘beneficiaries’  instead  as  primary  actors,  the  eventual  impact  on  their  life  is  often  superficial.    A  very  different  angle  of  view  is  offered  by  the  Systems  Thinking.  Systems  are  defined  as  interactions  among  diverse  agents  that  persist  and  evolve  as  a  coherent  whole.  Systems  Thinking  looks  at  the  ‘whole’  first  and  examines  how  parts  of  the  wider  whole  influence  each  other,  or  change  as  result  of  their  relationship  to  their  environment.  Attention  to  the  various  elements  of  the  system  is  secondary  to  attention  to  the  whole  3  4.  Systems  thinking  states  that  changes  in  parts  of  a  system  will  always  cause  the  whole  system  to  change.  This  change  will  however  not  have  a  predictable  result  nor  can  it  be  planned  in  a  linear  fashion.  The  ICCO  Alliance  takes  these  systems  behavior  into  account  in  its  Programmatic  Approach.  The  insecurity  that  is  implied  by  the  unpredictability  of  changes  needs  to  be  reflected  in  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  systems  that  we  use.  In  addition  to  measuring  expected  changes,  they  need  to  be  able  to  capture  the  unexpected  and  ‘notice’  emergent  change  as  well.    This  line  of  thinking  has  resulted  in  the  following  theory  of  change  underpinning  our  Programmatic  Approach:    • Development  problems  are  the  result  of  complex  systems  of  interlinked  actors,   structures,  institutions  and  processes  • Complex  problematics  demand  an  approach  that  can  deal  with  and  work  in  the   complexity.  Therefore  a  Multi  Stakeholder  Process  (MSP)  is  needed  • MSPs  lead  to  joint  learning  and  cooperation  between  the  actors  involved  • The  MSP  represents  the  system  involved  in  the  problematic.  Cooperation  between   actors  and  organizations  leads  to  added  value:  greater  effectiveness  in  change  at  the   institutional  level  and  whole  system  change.  • The  ICCO  Alliance  will  support  existing  cooperative  processes  and  initiate  the   cooperative  process  if  none  exists  yet.    • Coalitions  of  cooperating  actors  have  (and  adhere  to)  ownership  in  the   programmatic  cooperation  (the  program).    • This  also  implies  that  a  coalition  can  identify  possibilities  for  diversification  of   funding  sources  to  assure  sustainability  of  the  cooperation  and  independence  from   the  ICCO  Alliance.  It  is  preferable  that  the  cooperative  process  is  not  solely   dependent  on  ICCO  Alliance  funding.    1.4 Why do we promote this way of working?  Problems  and  issues  of  poverty  and  injustice  in  developing  countries  are  related  in  a  systemic  way  in  what  we  call  problematics5.  For  example  promoting  respect  for  human  rights  is  related  to  the  following  aspects:  the  absence  or  the  lack  of  implementation  of  a                                                                                                                            3   Definition  by  Peggy  Holman  in  Engaging  with  Emergence,  page  220,  Berrett  Koehler  2010  4   ‘The  idea  and  practice  of  systems  thinking  and  their  relevance  for  capacity  development’,  Peter   Morgan,  ECPDM  march  2005  5   Problematics  are  sets  of  single  problems  and  issues  that  together  express  aspects  of  a  system  that  has   negative  effects  for  groups  of  people.     8  
  11. 11. legal  framework,  traditional  and  cultural  norms  and  values  about  rights  of  individuals  and  groups  in  societies,  the  level  of  knowledge  about  rights  of  individuals  and  communities,  claim-­‐making  capacities  in  societies  and  the  capacities  and  intentions  of  duty  bearers  in  assuring  the  human  rights.  This  implies  that,  when  we  acknowledge  that  human  rights  are  not  sufficiently  respected  and  we  want  to  contribute  to  change,  we  need  to  work  on  the  systems  underlying  and  connecting  problems  and  issues  rather  than  on  single  issues  and  problems.  Working  towards  change  of  systems  requires  the  cooperative  effort  of  many  of  the  players  involved  at  different  levels  and  from  different  angles  in  addressing.    This  approach  is  key  to  achieving  coherence,  connection  and  complementarity  in  the  work  of  the  ICCO  Alliance  and  in  the  work  of  civil  society  organizations  whose  partners  we  are  in  development.    Organizations,  when  working  together,  can  take  on  more  responsibilities  for  analyzing  their  society,  developing  a  joint  vision,  developing  strategies,  setting  priorities,  embarking  on  joint  lobby  campaigns,  raising  funding  from  their  own  society  and  engaging  in  a  joint  learning  and  capacity  development  process.  In  this  way  added  value  is  created  by  addressing  the  complexity  at  various  levels  leading  to  greater  effectiveness  in  results.  We  expect  more  fundamental  changes  to  occur  due  to  the  cooperative  work.  In  the  end  the  sustainability  of  the  change  realized  will  increase  as  well  as  the  sustainability  of  cooperative  efforts  and  co-­‐operative  arrangements.  Some  cooperation  will  also  come  to  a  natural  end  while  new  ones  can  also  develop.      1.5 With whom do we co-operate in the programmatic approach?  The  ICCO  Alliance  aims  to  cooperate  with  and  develop  the  capacities  of  civil  society  organizations  in  developing  countries,  sharing  with  them  the  values,  aims  and  strategies  of  working  towards  the  realization  of  just  societies  in  which  men,  women  and  children  are  able  to  live  in  dignity  and  well-­‐being,  where  poverty,  injustice  and  inequality  are  eradicated.    Civil  society  organizations6  play  a  crucial  role  in  changing  systems  of  oppression,  marginalization  and  discrimination  which  exclude  large  groups  of  people  from  wellbeing  and  the  possibility  of  leading  dignified  lives.  The  systems  of  injustice  are  often  the  result  of  societal  political  institutions;  government  and  state  dysfunction  in  combination  with  a  market  economy  that  maximizes  profits  for  a  few,  and  impoverishes  many  others.  The  ICCO  Alliance  is  itself  an  alliance  of  civil  society  organizations;  we  believe  in  the  strength  of  civil  society  and  the  unique  role  we  have  to  play.        Looking  at  the  complexity  of  problematics  we  recognize  that  for  solutions  and  systems  change  to  occur  we  need  to  involve  in  the  co-­‐operation  other  actors  such  as  private  sector  companies,  government  organizations  and  knowledge  institutions.  The  specific  mix  of  actors  required  depends  on  the  problematic  and  the  system  that  is  involved  in  the  change.  In  particular  the  cooperation  with  the  private  sector  has  shown  to  be  valuable  in                                                                                                                            6   Civil  society  organizations:  As  ICCO  Alliance  we  work  with  the  formal  spectrum  of  civil  society.  These   are  organizations  that  are  registered,  have  a  formal  status,  and  have  developed  a  mission,  vision  and   strategies  and  implementation  capacity.  These  organizations  can  be  CBO’s  movements,  NGO’s.   Organizations  can  be  faith-­‐based  but  we  don’t  restrict  our  co-­‐operation  to  faith-­‐based  organizations.     9  
  12. 12. addressing  poverty  in  the  economic  sector  as  well  as  in  the  social  sectors.  Local  and  national  government  need  to  be  involved  because  system  change  often  requires  adjustment  of  the  regulatory  frameworks  and  the  enabling  environment  in  which  government  agencies  are  very  important.  They  are  also  important  because  for  some  social  sectors  they  perform  the  role  of  duty  bearing  organization.  Knowledge  institutions  play  an  important  part  due  to  their  responsibility  for  innovation  and  deepening  of  certain  issues  and  patterns  in  change  processes,  whether  these  are  technological  or  socio-­‐political.    In  the  programmatic  approach  it  is  important  to  identify  in  developing  countries  existing  networks  and  alliances  of  different  kind  that  could  benefit  from  support  by  and  cooperation  with  the  ICCO  Alliance,  enabling  them  to  strengthen  their  cooperative  processes  and  their  capacity  to  realize  change.  Alliances  in  the  South,  when  facing  global  challenges  or  issues  at  supra-­‐national  level,  can  also  become  linked  to  or  supported  by  strategic  alliances  from  the  Netherlands  or  elsewhere.      As  ICCO  Alliance  we  strive  towards  cooperative  arrangements  that  are  not  exclusively  built  on  the  ICCO  Alliances  partner  network.  The  Programmatic  Approach  is  not  a  replacement  of  the  ICCO  Alliance’s  or  ICCO’s  partners’  policies  although  they  have  much  ground  in  common.  These  will  be  discussed  in  a  separate  paragraph  on  the  programmatic  approach  and  the  partner  policy  (Ch.  4.1.1).       10  
  13. 13. 2Theories of the programmatic approach    The  theories  that  underpin  the  Programmatic  Approach  are:    1   Systems  theory  2   Complexity  theory  3   Multi-­‐Stakeholder  Process  theory  4   Coalition  building  and  Network  Development    It  is  important  to  understand  that  in  the  Programmatic  Approach  we  do  not  make  a  choice  for  any  of  these  theories  and  their  related  methods.  Rather,  the  Approach  is  located  in  the  grounds  the  overlapping  theories  have  in  common.  We  combine  insights  and  methods  linked  to  all  four  theoretical  domains.    These  theories  are  all  expressions  of  the  so-­‐called  constructivist  paradigm.  This  paradigm  basically  states  that  the  world  as  we  know  it  is  the  result  of  the  experiences  that  each  of  us  has  gained  in  our  lives.  We  all  see  our  surroundings  through  the  lens  of  these  experiences:  we  construct  our  own  world.  Analysis  of  what  is  going  on  around  us  and  the  search  for  solutions  for  problems  is  not  an  exact  science  in  which  there  is  only  one  truth  or  one  reality  that  is  experienced  in  the  same  way  by  all  concerned.  Therefore  what  we  need  are  methods  that  enable  us  to  connect  to  the  multiple  realities  and  the  complexity  that  is  the  result  of  many  different  stakeholders.  All  four  mentioned  theories  shed  light  on  the  various  aspects  of  this  complexity.  Each  theory  will  be  introduced  in  the  following  paragraphs.  2.1 Systems theory and complexity thinking  Although  systems  theory  and  complexity  are  two  separate  theoretical  fields,  they  are  also  to  such  an  extent  interconnected  that  we  present  them  here  in  one  paragraph.    The  systems  theory  emphasizes  the  connections  between  different  parts  of  the  system  and  the  notion  of  a  system  as  a  holistic  whole.  A  system  is  defined  as:  “a  set  of  interacting  or  interdependent  entities  forming  a  larger  whole.  These  systems  may  include  organizational  systems,  may  have  geographical  boundaries,  and  often  have  multiple  levels  and  actors.  Systems  have  the  capacity  to  change,  to  adapt  when  it  is  necessary  in  response  to  internal  or  external  stimulus.  Change  in  one  part  of  the  system  therefore  always  causes  the  whole  system  to  change.  How  a  system  reacts  to  changes  in  one  part  is  not  predictable  but  often  shows  itself  in  rather  unexpected  ways.  It  cannot  be  understood  nor  planned  in  a  linear  manner”7.  Morgan8  describes  different  systems:  natural  systems  (e.g.  rain  forests,  climate,  biodiversity);  technical  systems  (e.g.  communication  networks,  tsunami  warning  arrangements  and  human  systems  such  as  families),  groups,  organizations,  networks,  partnerships,  consortia.  These  human                                                                                                                            7   Complex  Adaptive  Systems,  Heather  Baser  and  Peter  Morgan,  Complex  Adaptive  Systems  Theory,   ECDPM  2004      8   Peter  Morgan  Ibid.       11  
  14. 14. systems  are  non-­‐linear,  entangled,  wandering  messes  that  do  not  lend  themselves  easily  to  traditional  analysis  and  action.  In  complexity  theory,  a  change  of  the  system  occurs  through  ‘emergence’.      Emergence  The  short  definition  for  ‘emergence’  is:  order  arising  out  of  chaos.  A  more  nuanced  definition  is:  higher  order  complexity  arising  out  of  chaos  in  which  novel,  coherent  structures  coalesce  through  interactions  among  diverse  entities  of  a  system.  Emergence  occurs  when  these  interactions  disrupt,  causing  the  system  to  differentiate  and  ultimately  coalesce  into  something  novel.9  Change  in  a  system  starts  with  disruption,  with  unbalancing  the  systems  current  state.  It  is  a  challenge  and  maybe  even  a  paradox  to  guide  this  process  in  such  a  manner  that  the  outcome  is  a  new  coalescence  of  relations  (in  the  human  system)  that  lead  to  the  system  being  more  effective,  just,  inclusive  or  equal.  There  are  however  ideas  about  how  we  can  engage  with  emergence  in  such  a  manner  that  all  relations  in  the  system  can  participate  in  the  change  process.    The  practices  involved  in  engaging  with  emergence  are  broadly  related  to  three  iterative  phases  in  emergence:  a)  preparing  for  a  system  change,  b)  hosting  the  system  in  its  change  process  and  c)  engaging  with  the  system  in  its  change  process.  We  use  many  of  the  practices  involved  already  more  or  less  consciously  in  our  work  with  regard  to  promoting  programmatic  cooperation.  In  the  methods  description  in  Chapter  3  we  will  treat  in  more  detail  how  we  can  engage  with  emergence  in  the  context  of  the  Programmatic  Approach.    Complexity  thinking  In  the  last  decade  we  have  seen  an  increasing  influence  of  Complexity  Thinking  on  development  theory  and  strategies.  These  came  up  as  a  result  of  the  growing  notion  that  the  linear  positivist  approaches  in  the  planning  of  development  interventions  do  not  represent  well  the  complex  systems  of  change.  Heather  Baser  and  Peter  Morgan,  Ben  Ramalingam  and  colleagues  at  IDS  and  articles  in  the  Broker10  have  all  pointed  to  the  possibility  of  using  insights  from  Complexity  Thinking  on  development  processes  in  highly  complex  contexts  and  systems.  They  all  adhere  to  the  notion  that:  “we  live  in  a  qualitatively  different  world  to  previous  eras,  one  marked  by  increasing  interconnectedness  and  interdependence  –  economically,  socially,  politically,  environmentally  and  technologically.  In  such  an  interdependent  world,  the  argument  goes,  there  is  greater  unpredictability  and  uncertainty.  In  the  extreme,  standard  operating  procedures,  best  practices  and  grand  designs  can  be  irrelevant,  counterproductive  or  downright  damaging.  Instead,  complexity  theory:   • provides  a  set  of  lenses  with  which  to  look  at  the  world,   • helps  pose  questions  which  can  help  better  understand  the  dynamics  of  real   world  systems,  and   • helps  generate  insights  as  to  how  these  dynamics  can  be  ‘sensed’  and  ‘navigated’  What  does  complexity  theory  offer?  The  Complexity  Theory  can  be  considered  a  more  specific  form  of  Systems  Thinking.  Systems  are  characterized  by  interconnectedness  and  interdependent  elements  and  dimensions  that  are  a  key  starting  point  for  understanding  complexity.  Feedback                                                                                                                            9   Peggy  Holman  Engaging  Emergence:  Turning  Upheaval  into  Opportunity  Berrett  Koehler    Publishers   San  Francisco  2010  pg  18  10     12  
  15. 15. processes  shape  how  change  can  happen  in  a  system  and  change  usually  occurs  as  a  non-­‐plannable  emergent  process  between  parts  of  systems.  When  acknowledging  the  complexity  in  a  system  it  also  means  recognizing  that  change  happens  in  a  non-­‐linear  way.    Sensing  the  initial  state  of  a  system  also  makes  one  understand  the  importance  of  initial  small  changes  to  have  great  effects  (the  butterfly  who  laps  its  wings  leading  to  a  Tsunami  is  an  example  for  this).  A  systems  changes  because  part  of  it  changes,  causing  a  reaction  by  the  entire  system.  This  can  be  based  on  actions  of  so-­‐called  adaptive  agents  that  react  to  the  system  and  to  each  other.  This  might  lead  to  a  disruption  and  creation  of  diversity  in  the  system.  Through  self-­‐organization  (another  characteristic  of  a  complex  system)  a  new  state  of  equilibrium  may  develop.  In  this  process  co-­‐evolution  between  adaptive  agents  and  the  overall  system  may  occur.      In  a  Programmatic  co-­‐operation  process  that  is  tackling  change  in  complex  developmental  problematics  it  is  important  to  understand  how  change  in  these  complex  systems  emerges,  of  how  the  feedback  loops  within  the  system  operate,  and  to  understand  how  we  can  promote  emergence  in  certain  direction.  In  Chapter  3  more  will  be  said  about  how  to  work  with  emergence  and  about  which  methods  can  be  used  to  promote/host  emergence.  Some  methods  like  scenario  planning  and  system  loops  diagrams11  can  help  to  develop  images  of  the  feedback  loops.      An  important  example  of  these  theories  are  the  ideas  developed  by  David  Snowden  presented  in  the  Cynefin  Frame  work  and  by  Ken  Wilbur  in  the  Four  Quadrant  model.  Both  are  presented  in  Chapter  3  in  more  detail  and  can  help  in  working  with  complexity  in  systems  in  a  more  explicit  manner.  Related  are  theories  about  understanding  institutions  and  institutional  change,  as  institutions  are  mechanisms  maintaining  systems.  2.2 Multi-stakeholder Process theory  The  basic  principle  of  the  Multi-­‐stakeholder  theory  is  that  in  every  social  process  in  which  people  are  involved  these  people  will  have  a  different  understanding  of  the  situation  they  are  in.  They  will  not  only  have  a  different  understanding  but  also  a  different  appreciation  of  their  lives,  the  societies  in  which  they  live  and  of  the  problematics  involved12.  Solving  problematics  therefore  requires  that  all  people  having  a  stake  and  an  appreciation  of  the  situation/problematic  be  brought  together  to  jointly  analyse  the  situation  from  their  various  perspectives.  This  process  of  jointly  analysing  and  validating  different  perspectives  is  of  course  not  an  easy  process.  MSPs  are  fraught  with  power  differences  that  reflect  the  power  differences  of  the  very  systems  they  belong  to.  Bringing  multiple  stakeholders  together  (such  as  multinational  companies,  international  traders,  processing  businesses  and  producers  organizations)13,  implies  bringing  power  relations  into  the  process.  This  will  require  dialogue  skills,  keeping  an  open  mind  and  sometimes  the  suspension  of  judgment.  Many  of  the  methods  that  are                                                                                                                            11   Peter  Senge  The  Fifth  Discipline,  Random  House,  1990,    Peter  Senge,  Art  Kleiner,  Charlotte  Roberts,   Richard  Ross,  Bryan  Smith,  Het    Vijfde  Discipline  Praktijkboek,  Academic  Services,  1998,  praktijkboek  12   The  multi-­‐stakeholder  theory  is  based  in  the  constructivist  paradigm.  13   Being  aware  of  the  gender  aspects(  as  a  specific  type  of  power  relation  and  institution)    of  a  MSP  is   important  and  easily  overlooked     13  
  16. 16. mentioned  in  Chapter  3  on  methods  for  working  with  Emergence,  apply  to  working  in  multi-­‐stakeholder  settings.  The  main  assumption  of  the  multi-­‐stakeholder  theory  is  that  when  people  are  able  to  come  together  they  will  enter  into  a  social  learning  process  which  will  enable  them  to  find  solutions  that  respond  to  the  needs  of  multiple  actors  in  a  system14.  The  system  then  enters  into  a  process  of  change.  It  is  obvious  that  this  process  is  not  easy  and  will  often  require  facilitation.  In  the  Programmatic  Approach  the  roles  of  brokering,  learning  and  facilitating  capacity  development  are  very  often  required.  In  Chapter  4  we  will  discuss  how  we  have  organized  these  processes  so  far.  It  is  our  responsibility  as  ICCO  Alliance  to  assure  that  we  play  our  roles  well  and  only  when  they  are  required;  we  need  to  be  aware  of  our  place  in  the  system.  Being  a  part  of  the  system,  we  inevitably  bring  our  own  interests  and  stakes,  our  own  power  position  into  the  process.  We  are  never  a  neutral.  This  is  also  why  it  is  important  that  we  reflect  on  the  consequences  of  who  we  are  and  what  we  want  to  be  if  we  promote  systems  change  and  change  our  position  if  this  is  required.  2.3 Coalition building and network development  The  ICCO  Alliance’s  Programmatic  Approach  is  an  approach  that  is  about  emerging  forms  of  organizations:  organizations  of  organizations,  or  a  group  of  groups  that  come  together  to  collaborate.  These  organizational  forms  are  known  by  different  names  such  as  coalitions,  alliances,  networks,  partnerships,  joint  ventures  or  federations.  The  name  used  is  often  related  to  the  context  and  what  is  within  that  context  considered  a  current  label  for  associative  forms  of  organizing.  In  the  ICCO  Alliance  we  have  initially  called  them  Program  coalitions  or  even  shorter:  programs.  This  last  term  is  however  confusing  because  it  is  also  used  for  the  ICCO  Alliance  policy  level,  for  a  set  of  objectives,  results  and  activities  (projects)  related  to  a  thematic  domain  and  for  the  cooperation  between  stakeholders  on  a  problematic.  In  this  paper  we  will  use  the  term  coalition  for  the  associative  form  of  organizations  working  together  for  the  realization  of  a  joint  purpose.    Following  the  definition  of  Thomas  Cummings15  we  are  discussing  an  inter-­‐  organizational  system  that  has  become  semi-­‐autonomous  but  maintains  accountability  and  feedback  loops  to  its  organizations  of  origin  (the  constituent  organizations).  He  called  this  system  a  Trans  Organizational  System.  We  will  call  it  a  coalition.  In  a  coalition  the  constituent  organizations  will  maintain  their  separate  identities  and  goals.  In  its  development  a  coalition  can  be  ambiguous  for  a  long  time.  The  group  and  the  structure  are  co-­‐created  through  process  and  dialogue.  This  form  of  organizing  is  a  response  to  turbulent  and  complex  environments.  In  these  environments  non-­‐linear  and  expansive  approaches  are  required  because  these  contexts  are  often  messy  and  complex.  In  such  contexts  (individual)  organizations  face  meta  level  problems  (problematics).  This  organizational  ecology  perspective  aims  to  draw  together  a  wide  range  of  social  organizations  in  order  to  develop  a  meta  organizational  response  to  meta  problems,  that  individual  organizations  do  not  have  the  capacity  to  solve.  Turbulence  caused  by  complex  problems  in  the  environment  can  be  addressed  by  consulting  the  consolidated  resources  and  knowledge  base  of  coalitions.                                                                                                                              14   Woodhill,  J&  van  Vugt,S,  The  Power  of  MSP,,  edition  December  2010  15   In  Joan  M.  Roberts,  Alliances,  Coalitions  and  PartnershipsBuilding  collaborative  organizations.  New   Society  Publishers  ,  2004  p  5     14  
  17. 17. There  are  different  levels  of  intensity  possible  in  the  cooperation16  (see  Chapter  3  for  an  overview)  ranging  from  networking  to  collaboration.  In  the  Programmatic  Approach  we  also  see  the  different  levels  in  intensity  and  integration  of  activities  occurring  in  the  coalitions.  This  is  often  a  response  the  meta  problem  that  needs  addressing,  and  the  ongoing  trust-­‐building  and  power  dynamics  developing  in  the  coalition.  Coalitions  often  start  as  linking-­‐and-­‐learning  networks,  develop  slowly  towards  coordinating  their  efforts  and  further  into  cooperating  and  sometimes  collaborating  with  full  sharing  of  resources,  risks,  responsibilities  and  rewards.  But  this  takes  time  and  not  all  coalitions  (need  to)  develop  into  the  (full)  collaboration  type  (see  also  the  table  in  paragraph  3.3.2).                                                                                                                              16   Ibid  pg.  28     15  
  18. 18. 3The methods we can use in the ProgrammaticApproach    In  this  Chapter  we  will  present  methods  that  can  be  helpful  in  shaping  the  programmatic  cooperation  processes.  They  are  organized  as  follows:    1   Methods  for  working  with  Complexity  and  Systemic  change  2   Methods  for  Multi-­‐Stakeholder  Processes  3   Methods  for  Coalition  and  Network  development  3.1 Methods for working with systemic change and complexity  Introduction  methods  for  working  with  emergence  Emergence  is  the  process  by  which  novel  structures  emerge  out  of  interaction  between  elements  of  the  system17.  Programmatic  cooperation  aims  to  promote  change  in  complex  systems  through  coherent  actions  of  agents  within  the  system.  In  complexity  theory  the  result  of  such  a  process  is  called  emerge.    Emergence  starts  with  the  disruption  of  a  static  situation  in  a  system.  At  the  moment  that  I  am  writing  this  paper  we  are  in  the  midst  of  major  systemic  change  that  starts  with  upheaval  and  disruption  in  the  countries  in  Northern  Africa  and  the  Arab  World.  Seemingly  unmovable  and  unchangeable  political  systems  are  in  a  change  process  that  is  forced  by  agents  from  within  the  system,  who  are  not  the  established  power.  So  as  a  consequence  the  diversity  in  the  system  is  also  increasing.  In  such  complex  systems  there  are  mechanisms  of  self-­‐organizing  which  in  the  end  will  cause  the  system  to  find  a  new  equilibrium.  This  new  balance  is  the  result  of  emergence.  In  the  Programmatic  Approach  we  would  like  to  promote  emergence  through  the  creation  of  conditions  that  favor  this  process.    In  preparing  for  emergence  there  are  three  rather  vague  ‘processes”  that  we  need  attention.  These  processes  are:  a)  accepting  that  we  don’t  know  and  understand  everything,  but  that  we  should  be  very  curious  to  understand  as  much  as  possible,  b)  choosing  possibility:  being  open  to  and  sense  the  (new)  opportunities  for  changes,  c)  following  where  the  (life)  energy  of  the  system  is  going,  recognize  it  and  trying  to  give  it  space.  Where  are  the  hopes,  aspirations,  and  visions  pointing?  What  drives  or  motivates  the  people,  what  change  is  needed?    By  promoting  emergence  we  create  the  conditions  for  change  to  happen.  By  hosting  this  process  we  create  a  welcoming  environment  in  which  people  really  feel  that  their  contributions  matter,  we  create  focus  in  the  intentions  of  all  involved;  what  is  it  that  really  matters  to  us,  what  would  we  like  to  maintain  and  what  would  we  like  to  change?  Also  we  create  the  space  to  be  open  to  diversity;  diversity  of  people,  of  opinions,  of                                                                                                                            17   Peggy  Holman  pg.  18     16  
  19. 19. experiences.  For  this  process  to  be  as  inclusive  as  possible  we  make  sure  that  all  those  who  ARE  IN18,  those  with  Authority,  Resources,  Expertise,  Information  and  Need  are  present  and  are  welcomed  to  participate  actively.    In  the  engaging  process  we  use  several  steps:  we  inquire  appreciatively,  we  reflect,  we  connect,  we  listen,  we  are  open  to  what  emerges  and  we  will  act  /react  accordingly.    In  many  of  the  meetings  of  organizations  and  stakeholders  in  the  context  of  the  Programmatic  Approach  this  is  the  process  that  we  strive  to  follow.  Al  three  phases  are  followed  in  an  iterative  process  and  happen  either  at  the  same  time,  in  sequence  or  without  sequence  at  all.  Some  concrete  methods  that  we  can  use  in  this  process  are:  Appreciative  Inquiry,  Open  Space  Technology,  Future  Search,  and  Scenario  Planning.  Story  telling  and  active  listening  plays  an  important  role  in  all  of  these  methods,  as  are  dialogue  techniques  and  conflict  handling.  3.1.1 Appreciative Inquiry  ‘Those  who  do  not  have  power  over  the  stories  that  dominate  their  lives,  power  to  retell  them,  rethink  them,  deconstruct  them,  joke  about  them,  and  change  them  as  times  change,  truly  are  powerless  because  they  cannot  think  new  thoughts."   (Salman  Rushdie:  One  Thousand  Days  in  a  Balloon)    What  is  Appreciative  Inquiry?  Of  all  new  tools,  schools  and  methods  for  change  in  organizations  and  communities  that  have  dominated  the  discussions  of  the  last  years,  Appreciative  Inquiry  (AI)  sticks  out.  It  is  not  a  new  tool.  It  is  not  a  new  school.  And  it  is  not  a  method.      AI  can  be  best  described  as  a  new  paradigm  in  how  we  approach  change  in  organizations  and  communities.  It  invites  people  to  tell  the  stories  they  wish  to  tell,  and  to  jointly  search  for  what  gives  life  to  organizations  and  communities.  It  is  increasingly  applied  in  both  small  and  large  change  processes,  ranging  from  small  personal  change  to  mega-­‐cities  or  entire  regions  and  multi-­‐national  companies  such  as  McDonalds  or  British  Airways.    It  builds  on  the  power  and  the  experience  of  the  stakeholders,  it  values  what  people  are  ready  to  contribute  and  it  changes  human  mindsets  by  switching  the  focus  of  their  attention.      AI  relates  to  what  OD  practitioners  call  the  ‘power  of  mental  models’.  The  concept  of  mental  models19  (or  mental  maps)  has  been  described  by  most  authors  on  personal  and  organizational  change.  Peter  Senge  has  also  devoted  one  of  his  famous  five  disciplines  on  the  issue  of  mental  models.    What  is  radically  new  in  AI  is  the  notion  that  the  adaptation  of  certain,  resourceful  mental  models  can  help  us  overcome.  By  focusing  a  group  of  people  on  questions  such  as  ‘What  has  been  there  already?’,  and  ‘What  could  be?’,  an  implicit  intervention  in  the  group  is  created  that  causes  a  shift.  Referring  to  the  famous  metaphor  of  system  thinkers,  the  introduction  of  AI  into  an  organization  is  not  a  single  butterfly  (that  causes  a  tornado  5000  miles  away  by  a  single  flap  of  its  wings),  it  is  a  large  group  of  butterflies.                                                                                                                            18   Peggy  Holman  pg.76  19   Source:  http://www.change-­‐management-­‐     17  
  20. 20. Or  an  entire  flock  of  birds  as  was  described  by  Kevin  Kelly  in  ‘Out  of  Control’,  where  he  describes  that  a  group  of  flying  geese  react  as  a  whole  when  they  change  the  direction  of  their  flight.  This  is  what  AI  does,  when  done  with  an  entire  organization  or  community  -­‐  it  changes  the  direction  of  peoples  actions.    The  recent  development  of  AI  is  dominated  by  a  desire  to  put  the  philosophy  into  a  process,  which  can  be  applied  to  many  different  assignments,  e.g.  strategic  planning,  visioning,  or  monitoring  and  evaluation.  Figure  1  -­  The  4D  Model  of  Cooperrider  and  Srivastva  (taken  from  Watkins  and  Mohr,  2001)    The  models  and  how  they  can  be  applied  for  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  AI,  as  it  was  developed  by  Cooperrider  and  Srivastva  is  based  on  the  4-­‐D  Cycle,  which  runs  through  4  stages  (see  Figure  1):    1   Discovery  (appreciating  that  which  gives  life)    2   Dream  (envisioning  impact)    3   Design  (co-­‐constructing  the  future)    4   Delivery  (sustaining  the  change)    In  the  Discovery  phase,  people  start  to  explore  the  resources  of  the  organization  or  the  community  they  relate  to,  by  conducting  interview  across  the  organization,  and  even  including  external  resources  such  as  clients.  Interviews  are  principally  ‘appreciative’,  and  are  developed  together  with  a  steering  group  composed  of  different  stakeholders.  In  the  monitoring  of  a  program,  an  interview  could  look  like  this:     • If  you  revisit  the  history  of  the  conflict  transformation  program  and  your   engagement  in  the  program,  which  was  a  moment  when  you  felt  deeply   connected  to  its  core?  A  moment  in  which  you  were  able  to  contribute  to  the   achievement  of  purpose  and  overall  objective?  Please  describe  this  moment  in   detail.     • What  was  your  particular  contribution?  What  did  you  do  to  help  others  to   contribute?     • What  were  the  nurturing  framework  conditions  that  supported  that   extraordinary  performance  of  yours  and  other  stakeholders?     • What  was  the  particular  outcome  at  that  time?     • If  you  had  three  wishes  for  the  future  of  your  organization  (or  the  program),   which  would  they  be?       18  
  21. 21. In  this  phase,  people  share  stories  and  write  down  the  answers  in  interview  protocols,  which  are  the  base  for  the  next  phase.      In  the  Dream  phase,  stakeholders  engage  in  a  conversation  about  the  organization’s  or  community’s  potential,  future  or  vision.  The  future  is   In  the  Conflict  described  in  a  ‘Provocative  Proposition’.  In  an   Transformation   methodology  which  is  evaluation,  this  proposition  could  be  about  what   developed  by  ICCO  use  is  should  be  changed  in  the  set-­‐up  of  the  program  to   made  in  several  phases  of  replicate  the  peak  performances  that  have  been   this  process  of  techniques  experienced  by  the  stakeholders.  But  the  provocative   that  stem  from  Appreciative  proposition  can  go  far  beyond  that  and  describe  a   inquiry.  It  starts  with  a  deep  vision  that  had  so  far  not  been  conceptualized.  In   reflection  by  all  participants  monitoring,  this  is  the  coaching  phase.  The  team  sits   of  the  situation  and  its  together  with  the  stakeholders  to  find  out  what  parts   history,their  role  in  it;  then  of  the  project  are  worth  to  expand.     invites  participants  to  dream     up  a  future,  followed  by  a   translation  into  concrete  In  the  Design  phase,  the  results  are  transferred  into   proposals  which  are  then  architecture.  Structures  that  exist  might  have  to   implemented  in  the  change  (or  to  be  strengthened)  to  facilitate  the   programme  cooperative  replication  of  the  peak  performance  and  the   process.  Monitoring  is  a  implementation  of  the  new  dream.  In  monitoring,   process  of  going  back  to  the  this  is  the  time  for  concrete  recommendations  for   original  analysis,  the  dream,  action  that  concern  all  involved  stakeholders.     its  proposal  and  the  way  the     implementation  process  The  final  Delivery  phase  is  the  phase  of   manages  to  realize  some  of  implementation  and  experimenting.  The  design  is  put   the  dream.  into  practice,  and  a  constant  learning  environment  is  created.  This  forms  the  base  for  a  new  monitoring  cycle,  not  out  of  the  blue  but  grounded  in  constant  research  on  what  gives  life  to  the  organization  or  community.      The  4-­‐D  Model  has  been  altered  by  Bernhard  Mohr  and  MetteJacobsgaard  into  a  Four-­‐I  model,  which  has  the  following  steps  (see  Figure  2):    1. Initiate  (Introduce  AI  to  key  stakeholders  and  create  temporary  structures)  2. Inquire  (Conduct  generic  interviews)  3. Imagine  (Collate  and  share  interview  data;  develop  provocative  propositions)  4. Innovate  (Engage  maximum  number  of  stakeholders  in  conversations;  implement   design  changes)    The  advantage  of  the  4I-­‐Cycle  is  that  institutional  capacity  is  systematically  built  up.       19  
  22. 22. Figure  2  -­  The  4I  Model  of  Mohr  and  Jacobsgaard  (taken  from  Watkins  and  Mohr,  2001)  3.1.2 Methods for understanding systemic change:Four quadrant framework  Ken  Wilbur  is  an  author  who  has  published  many  important  insights  into  change  and  transformation  of  systems.  A  key  product  of  this  work  is  what  is  now  referred  to  as  the  ‘four-­‐quadrant’  diagram20  presented  in  the  table  below.    The  table  suggests  that  a  successful  strategy  must  address  four  challenges  for  change.      These  concern  the  relations  that  individuals  or  that  groups  of  people  have  to  systems  and  the  way  they  relate  to  a  systemic  change  process.  In  the  quadrant  the  vertical  axis  shows  two  categories:  the  individual  and  the  collective  (group)  level.  The  horizontal  axis  reflects  the  difference  between  what  people  experience  and  develop  as  their  mindset  (individually  or  collectively)  .  The  external  column  represents  what  people  (individually  or  collectively)  show  in  their  behavior  as  part  of  the  system  towards  the  outside  world.  The  broad  change  theories  that  are  mentioned  for  each  of  the  quadrants  show  the  assumptions  behind  change  that  is  inspired  from  one  of  the  quadrants.  The  idea  behind  the  four  quadrants  is  that  change  in  a  whole  system  involves  change  in  each  of  the                                                                                                                            20   Steve  Waddell  Networking  Action  for  the  21st.  Century  Four  Network  Change  Strategies  for  Complex   Systems     20  
  23. 23. quadrants.  Only  if  al  four  quadrants  have  coherent  and  effective  change  the  systemic  change  can  develop  into  a  new  state  of  equilibrium.    The  first  figure  shows  the  four-­‐quadrant  diagram.  The  second  figure  shows  how  we  have  used  the  framework  to  present  the  changes  that  have  happened  in  each  of  the  quadrants  for  the  process  of  introducing  the  ProCoDe  Approach  in  the  ICCO  system21    Quadrant  1  deals  with  intention,  personal  identity  and  ways  of  perceiving,  Quadrant  2  with  behavior  and  how  it  is  developed,  Quadrant  3  with  culture,  beliefs  and  values,  and  Quadrant  4  with  the  structures  and  processes  of  social  systems.      Figure  3  -­    The  four-­uadrant  diagram                                                                                                                            21   By  Machteld  Ooijens  and  Hettie  Walters  for  IODA  conference:  August  2010  Budapest     21