5,712
edits
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
[[File: | [[File: FutureFinananceMAP_1.png |thumb|center|upright=4.0|800px|alt=MAP for Future Finance|Influence tree from the ideas generated at Towards the identification of ...]] | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
* Action: # 2: Promotion campaign on business centers in Poland | * Action: # 2: Promotion campaign on business centers in Poland | ||
Following the 90-min formal structuring session, the facilitators have asked the authors of the actions that have received 3 or 2 votes to take the printouts of their ideas from the wall, to go and stand in front of the MAP that has been reconstructed at another place in the room, and discuss with the rest of the group whether that particular action can be placed at some location within the existing structure. | Following the 90-min formal structuring session, the facilitators have asked the authors of the actions that have received 3 or 2 votes to take the printouts of their ideas from the wall, to go and stand in front of the MAP that has been reconstructed at another place in the room, and discuss with the rest of the group whether that particular action can be placed at some location within the existing structure. They formed a group standing in front of the re-created map in a wall and structured a total of 19 to create the influence MAP shown below. <br> | ||
<br> | |||
[[File: FutureFinananceMAP_2.png |thumb|center|upright=4.0|800px|alt=MAP for Future Finance|Influence tree from the ideas generated at Towards the identification of ...]] | |||
<br> | |||
This step was less formal, and the outcomes were not grounded on strict majority voting as in the previous step. The justification for such a “manual” continuation of the mapping step is that participants have already understood and internalized the use of transient logic and of influence relations, and they are therefore in a good position to make such “surgical” insertions to the MAP. The resulting MAP is shown in Fig. Y. The new MAP is different from the original in the following ways: | |||
'''1. A new Action at the top'''<br> | |||
Action #38: Building a decentralized network of FFP supporters (beyond Warsaw) has been inserted at the top of the MAP. As explained above, ideas at the top are typically more visionary and their implementation requires support from other actions. The participants justified the placement of action #38 at the top because they agreed that it would be easier to implement once Action #33 is implemented. | |||
'''2. A new Action at the root'''<br> | |||
The participants inserted Action #4: Support local partnerships between fintechs and local FS sector at the root, supporting Action #8. In other words, they looked at Action #8: Partnership with other Financial Centers throughout the world, and agreed that Action #4 could significantly support it. | |||
'''3. Two new levels added'''<br> | |||
Probably the most interesting outcome of the follow-up manual mapping is the fact that the participants have created two new levels to the MAP, one below and one above Factor #17, which continues to stand out as an important intermediary step. Action #31: Public-private collaboration and Action #16: Creating a program like Erasmus for startups were inserted below Action #17. Action #11: Develop new products and markets that have export potential was inserted above Action #17 and below the actions that made it to the top of the tree. | |||
The discovery of actions that lie at the root, as well as actions that lie within the structure (e.g., the actions that lie below and above Action #17) is of great importance, because they render the implementation of the overall action map smoother and more effective. | |||
==External Links== | ==External Links== | ||