5,693
edits
R-I-Peers - Athens Virtual SDD Obstacles we face when designing and implementing GEPs: Difference between revisions
From Future Worlds Center Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
R-I-Peers - Athens Virtual SDD Obstacles we face when designing and implementing GEPs (view source)
Revision as of 05:58, 20 August 2022
, 20 August 2022no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
# Cluster Knowledge-Awareness | # Cluster Knowledge-Awareness | ||
# Cluster Conflict with existing HR | # Cluster Conflict with existing HR | ||
# Cluster Inclusion of employees | # Cluster Inclusion of employees | ||
# Cluster Evaluation | # Cluster Evaluation | ||
# Cluster Not evidence-based | # Cluster Not evidence-based | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
* 31: Failure to assess the interconnection with other issues | * 31: Failure to assess the interconnection with other issues | ||
* 33: GEPs are not yet obligatory under law (as they should have probably mean) | * 33: GEPs are not yet obligatory under law (as they should have probably mean) | ||
As demonstrated in the following Figure, the Influence Map of the virtual Structured Democratic Dialogue workshop includes four different hierarchical levels. The strongest obstacles are considered the root, which also pinpoint to possible drivers for change, i.e., removing them will be most effective. The implementation of these ideas should be prioritised in order to facilitate the implementation of the subsequent practices. These root obstacles are located at the bottom of the roadmap and in particular at the Levels II and to a lesser extend II, as they have the greatest influence among all other practices. It also follows that the practices identified on the upper levels of the Map are the least influential in facilitating the implementation of other practices. | |||
The influence of one obstacle over the other is completely unrelated to the importance of the two obstacles emerging from the voting phase that preceded. In this vein, any obstacle which has received more than two votes during the voting phase, and was thus moved to the Mapping phase, can be considered a root practice regardless of the number of votes it received. Therefore, an obstacle with “low popularity” can end up being a root barrier while an obstacle with “high popularity” can end up at the upper levels of the map. For instance, consider Ideas 24: Copying of ideas without taking into consideration organization's needs (Nafsika); 8: Participation of all employees in developing a successful G&E policy (Kriemadis); and 20: Insufficient commitment of the management of the organisation (Vicky), all of which have received top votes but did not make it to the root. | |||
==External Links== | ==External Links== | ||
[http://ripeers.eu/ R&I PEERS] | [http://ripeers.eu/ R&I PEERS] | ||
