Future Finance Poland SDD 2022: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Future Finance Poland SDD 2022 (view source)

Revision as of 02:06, 20 September 2022

5 bytes added , 20 September 2022

no edit summary

Laouris

Administrators

5,715

edits

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 <br>
-[[File: Peers_SDD_Athens_MAP.png |thumb|center|upright=4.0|400px|alt=MAP for R-I-PEERS.|Influence tree from the ideas generated at Towards the identification of obstacles in implementing the Gender Equality Plans within an organisation Workshop]]
+[[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>
@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 * 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.
-Subsequently, they formed a group standing in front of the re-cteated map in a wall and structured a total of 19 to create the influence MAP shown below. <br>
+'''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.
-<br>
-[[File: Peers_SDD_Athens_MAP.png |thumb|center|upright=4.0|400px|alt=MAP for R-I-PEERS.|Influence tree from the ideas generated at Towards the identification of obstacles in implementing the Gender Equality Plans within an organisation Workshop]]
-<br>
-According to the participants of this workshop, the practices that appear to be the most influential were: <br>
+'''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.
-* 31: Failure to assess the interconnection with other issues
+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.
-* 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==
-[http://ripeers.eu/ R&I PEERS]