URBACT National Training
Projects marketplace
09/12/2013, Riga
K. Gaučė
There are only two processes in market place
Producing experiencing
Exchanging
and selling
© 2013 TAEM Group. Visos teisės saugomos.
Please prepare your project presentation,
answering:
-So what?
-Says who?
-Who cares?
-Last but not least
And please try to sell it in this market place - best place
for best practice transfer process.
To support the process, please consider yourself as an
“exporter” of best practices examples or of good functioning
policies and think about 1 offers on measures and actions
that have proven to be successful.
At the same time, consider yourself as an “importer” with a
strong demand to learn more about good practices and think
about 1 need for your countries, projects, cities or
organisations.
All in all each participant prepares 1 offer and 1 need that
must be written
Back to marketplace – stakeholders’ analysis
Working in 4 groups with real projects:
-Zirmunai project (Vilnius, Giedrė)
-My generation at work (Dmitrijs)
-4 D Cities (Plunge, Tartu, Vaidos)
USER (Riga, Nika)
Stakeholder’s management:
• SH IDENTIFICATION
• SŠ dalyvavimas (veiklos ir darbai)
• SŠ ANALYSIS
• Interesai, lūkesčiai, susidomėjimas,
įtaka
• SH ASSESMENT
• Subjektyvus (e.g. kategorizavimas).
© 2013 TAEM Group. Visos teisės saugomos.
When work scope is clear - EXAMPLE
EPOMM
Dalis Nr.2 Dalis Nr.3 Dalis Nr.4 Dalis Nr.5 Dalis Nr.6
I
pusmeti
A
State of the art
s
B
A – asis.
Surinkta info
iš teisės aktų B – PV
parengta ir IS
patalpinta
ataskaita
Tinklapis
2 susirinkimai ES
1 renginys Seime
Susitikimai 2
ministerijose
Tarpinė ataskaita
© 2013 TAEM Group. Visos teisės saugomos.
K
L
Suinteresuotų šalių identifikavimas, pvz
Auto
pardavėjai
Aplinkos
Ministerija
Susisiekimo
Ministerija
NVO
(dviračiai,
sveikuoliai)
Viešasis
transportas
TAEM
Seimas
© 2013 TAEM Group. Visos teisės saugomos.
Lobizmas
dėl EU
projekto
Lead
partneris
VGTU
EACI
X partija
Tio manage
their
expectations
Meet the
standards
MAIN SH:
High
II prioriteto:
Užsakovas,
Seimas,
Ministerijos
VT, NVO
Interest
IV prioriteto:
VGTU, auto
pardavėjai
Low
III prioriteto:
Partijos, portfelio
savininkas.
To keep an
eye
Low
© 2013 TAEM Group. Visos teisės saugomos.
influence
High
Inform
SŠ ir strateginių veiksmų (darbų)
registras (planas)
PAVADINIMAS
1.
KATEGORIJA
SUSIJĘS DARBAS
Ministerijos
2. Seimas
NAUJAS DARBAS
1.
Pagrindinė
WP1.K.
Teminiai
susirinkimai –
darbo grupės
ministerijose
ir t.t.
....
© 2013 TAEM Group. Visos teisės saugomos.
Neoficialus
renginys –
paskaita
ministerijų
atstovams:
Renginio
organizavimas
Renginio
globėjų
suradimas
Renginio
kalbėtojų
suradimas
ir t.t.
....
Vėl naujos
darbų
apimtys,
reiškia
įtaka ir
laiko
tvarkarašči
ui ir
papildomi
kaštai
.....
Agenda for the seminar
DAY 1
DAY 2
09.30 – 10.00 Opening
09.00 – 09.30 Lessons from DAY I
10.00 – 11.30 Co-producing the LAP (WHAT)
09.30 – 10.30 LAP sustainability and beyond
11.30 – 12.00 Coffee Break
10.30 – 10.50 Coffee Break
12.00 – 13.00 Co-producing the LAP (HOW)
10.50 – 12.30 Funding the LAP
13.00 – 14.00 Lunch Break
12.30 – 13.00 Closing
14.00 – 15.30 Co-producing the LAP (HOW)
13.00 –
15.30 – 16.00 Coffee Break
16.00 – 17.30 Co-producing the LAP (HOW)
17.30 – 18.00 Reflection time
18.00 – 18.30 ULSGs coordinators
20.00 – 22.00 Networking dinner
Networking Lunch & Departures
HOW DID NTS 1 GO?
FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS – WHAT IT IS
› A practical tool for idea generation
› A framework for looking at the forces that influence
a specific social challenge
› It helps develop strategies to reduce the impact of
opposing forces and strengthen the supporting
ones
TYPES OF FORCES TO CONSIDER
BOTH PRO AND CONTRA
Available resources
Atttitudes of people
Values
Traditions
Regulations
Desires
Vested interests
Personal or group needs
Costs
Organizational structures
Present or past practices
People
Relationships
Institutional policies or norms
Events
OUR CHALLENGE
How can we engage all
relevant stakeholders in the
co-production of the LAP?
CONTRA forces (risks) management
• IDENTYFYING FORCES
• Possible sources where forces can
appear (veiklos ir darbai)
• ANALYSIS OF FORCES
• probability (%) and effect(litais)
• FORCES ASSESMENT
• subjective (e.g. categorization).
© 2013 TAEM Group. Visos teisės saugomos.
When work scope is clear - EXAMPLE
EPOMM
Dalis Nr.2 Dalis Nr.3 Dalis Nr.4 Dalis Nr.5 Dalis Nr.6
I
pusmeti
A
State of the art
s
B
A – asis.
Surinkta info
iš teisės aktų B – PV
parengta ir IS
patalpinta
ataskaita
Tinklapis
2 susirinkimai ES
1 renginys Seime
Susitikimai 2
ministerijose
Tarpinė ataskaita
© 2013 TAEM Group. Visos teisės saugomos.
K
L
Identifying forces –
“going through” project activities
State of the art
Tinklapis
2 susirinkimai ES
1 renginys Seime
Susitikimai 2
ministerijose
Tarpinė ataskaita
© 2013 TAEM Group. Visos teisės saugomos.
Forces:
-Insufficient competence of personel;
-neveiks prisijungimas prie IS
-Projekto organizacijoje nėra
pakaltinamo sprendimo dėl rezultato
tinkamumo priėmėjo
-bus nepakankamas fiksuotų kelionės
išlaidų biudžetas
-Seimas neleis organizuoti renginio
-Seimas diskredituos renginio idėją
-ministerijoms neįdomus projektas;
-ministerijose nėra projekto nauda
suinteresuotų valdininkų;
-Ataskaitos vertėjai paves dėl terminų
Forces analysis
Forces:
-Insufficient competence of personel;
-neveiks prisijungimas prie IS
-Projekto organizacijoje nėra
pakaltinamo sprendimo dėl rezultato
tinkamumo priėmėjo
-bus nepakankamas fiksuotų kelionės
išlaidų biudžetas
-Seimas neleis organizuoti renginio
-Seimas diskredituos renginio idėją
-ministerijoms neįdomus projektas;
-ministerijose nėra projekto nauda
suinteresuotų valdininkų;
-Ataskaitos vertėjai paves dėl terminų
© 2013 TAEM Group. Visos teisės saugomos.
PROBABILITY
EFFECT
50%
10%
10000LT
100LT
90%
GĖDA
30%
2500LT
20%
60%
20000LT
GĖDA
20%
20%
GĖDA
15000LT
20%
GĖDA
Forces assesment
PROBABILITY
EFFECT
50%
10%
10000LT= 5000
100LT = 10
90%
GĖDA
30%
2500LT = 750
20%
60%
20000LT= 4000
GĖDA
20%
20%
GĖDA
15000LT= 3000
20%
GĖDA
© 2013 TAEM Group. Visos teisės saugomos.
There must be proper
logic: e.g. please consider
only those forces, which
effect value – no less than
3% of whole project value.
Force assesment – 2.
Tinkamas planavimo stadijoje
Strong
MAIN FORCES:
II priority:
Insufficient
competence of
personel
Disinterest
(Parliament,
Ministries)
Effect
III priority:
IV priority:
Weak
IS is not working
properly,
Low
© 2013 TAEM Group. Visos teisės saugomos.
Lack of knowledge in
IT and web issues
Unreliable translators
Probability
High
Planning forces management
METHODS:
1. To decrease with particular actions;
2. To move responsibility;
3. To avoid
4. To “face up”...
© 2013 TAEM Group. Visos teisės saugomos.
Planning response against forces
To decrease
with particular
actions;
High
To
avoid
MAIN FORCES:
II priority:
Effect
Weak
To
ignore
Insufficient
competence of
personel
Disinterest
(Parliament,
Ministries)
IV priority:
III priority:
IS is not working
properly,
Lack of knowledge in
IT and web issues
Unreliable translators
Low
© 2013 TAEM Group. Visos teisės saugomos.
Probability
High
To move
responsibi
lity
List of new actions to actions plan?
Title
Category
Related action
1. Insufficient
competence of
personel
2. Nepalankus
politinis Seimo
sprendimas
MAIN
WP1.A.
ir t.t.
....
© 2013 TAEM Group. Visos teisės saugomos.
NEW ACTION
1. Strict
requirements
to personnel;
2. Testing
candidates
3. Extremely
detailed tasks
and
monitoring of
personnel
during 3 first
months
....
If successCONTRA
FROCE
BECAME
PRO
FORCE
.....
EXERCISE: FORCE FIELDS
How can we engage all relevant stakeholders
in the co-production of the LAP?
How can we engage all relevant stakeholders
in the co-production of the LAP?
The worst possible outcome: what
would be the consequences of
failing completely at co-producing
the LAP?
The best possible outcome: what
would be the consequences of
succeeding at co-producing the
LAP?
How can we engage all relevant stakeholders
in the co-production of the LAP?
The worst possible outcome: what
would be the consequences of
failing completely at co-producing
the LAP?
The best possible outcome: what
would be the consequences of
succeeding at co-producing the
LAP?
All the FORCES that are All the FORCES that are
currently
pulling
the currently
pulling
the
situation towards the situation towards the
WORST outcome.
BEST outcome.
How can we engage all relevant stakeholders
in the co-production of the LAP?
The worst possible outcome: what
would be the consequences of
failing completely at co-producing
the LAP?
The best possible outcome: what
would be the consequences of
succeeding at co-producing the
LAP?
All the FORCES that are All the FORCES that are
currently
pulling
the currently
pulling
the
situation towards the situation towards the
WORST outcome.
BEST outcome.
Brainstorm
as
many
ACTIONS as possible to
minimize the impact of
these "negative" forces.
Brainstorm
as
many
ACTIONS as possible to
leverage or maximize the
impact of these "positive"
forces.
CHALLENGE
1
Worst outcome
Best outcome
2
Forces against
Forces in favour
3
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
troppo all'ultima, lascerei
perdere questa volta, poi
Actions
Actions