Click the image to download.
n “Engaging Society: Sociologist in a War Zone,” Fr. John J.
Carroll, SJ, discusses two contrasting views of society: One view sees society
as built on consensus or shared values, and the other regards power and
coercion as the predominant realities.
The consensus theory puts forward the idea that the members
of society are united by a common set of values and understanding of what the
world and society are all about; on this basis, they agree on the goals people
should pursue, and establish the institutions in society for the realization of
these values and achievement of key goals. Power is held in these institutions
to promote and protect the key values of society. In consensus theory, power
is the servant of society and its values.
On the other hand, coercion theory sees society and the
inequalities it has created as resulting from the power relationships among
individuals and sectors that have developed over time. The values in society
defend, if not preserve, the interests of the elite, and reinforce systems and
structures of inequalities. In contrast to the consensus theory, the coercion
theory considers values as the servants of power.
Take, for instance, the issue of work and the incomes derived
from working. Consensus theorists support the engagement of people in
specialized jobs who logically earn sizable incomes as their competence and
skills are employed for the good of society. On the other hand, coercion
theorists will argue that the huge incomes by these highly skilled workers
result from the scarce and unique talent they possess, and that these
specialists would, in fact, limit the entry of others in their field so as to
exclusively enjoy high earnings and amass the wealth for themselves.
Father Carroll contends that Philippine society can be better
understood in terms of coercion theory rather than consensus theory. “Power has
much more to do with who gets what than do society’s values or the common
good…” he says.
Local communities, for reasons within and beyond their
control, have been increasingly losing command over crucial aspects of their
lives. Aggravated by dwindling or plain lack of resources such as land and
capital, decision-making and overall control of their lives are often relegated
to a few who have the resources from the local to national levels.
Unfortunately, the systems and structures at these levels intended to serve the
people all the way to the communities, among them electoral processes, education,
health, and infrastructure systems, are working more for the service and
benefit of those who wield power.
To reduce these inequalities in power and resources, Father
Carroll proposes what he calls “the Interest Group Model.” In this model,
various local organizations at the lowest strata of society are linked with
each other and connected with broader organizations at the provincial and
national levels. It is no different from the associations, cooperatives and
federations that exist in our country today—e.g., irrigators’ associations,
farmers’ cooperatives, labor unions and federations. The essential thing is that
they organize and come together to advance their common concerns and interests
via policies and programs, and not personal connections or favors.
The PowerPI Project aims to bring to life Father
Carroll’s “Interest Group Model.” It aims to facilitate the transformation of
people and their organizations from being spectators at the margins of society
to being the informed actors at the center of political power. The ultimate
agenda is the transformation of power politics from one that considers social
and individual values as servants of power to one that considers power as
servant of society and its values.
From the fringes to the mainstream (or from the margins to
the center)
Before the PowerPI Project, there had been strong
lobby for institutionalization of people empowerment and participatory
governance approaches to development in the conduct of government affairs as
well as in the design and implementation of government projects. For example,
one of the core legislative processes espoused by the Local Government Code was
the involvement of people’s organizations in an LGU’s legislative processes.
Assumed to represent the voiceless and powerless, these organizations can theoretically
enhance legislation at the lowest levels of government by bringing to the
process the issues of the poor and marginalized members of society.
Community-Driven Development
One of the government’s flagship programs designed to promote
people empowerment while at the same time addressing poverty among the
country’s poorest municipalities is Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive
and Integrated Delivery of Social Services: Kapangyarihan at Kaunlaran sa
Barangay (KALAHI-CIDSS: KKB) Project. This multi-agency funded project is
principally implemented by the Department of Social Welfare and Development in
partnership with local government units. KALAHI has been in operation since
2003 and has now been renamed as National Community Driven Development Program
(NCDDP). Several bills are pending in Congress that seek to institutionalize
NCDDP throughout the country.
A World Bank study says that "the key idea behind...
CDD... is that because communities participate in choosing projects themselves,
the match between what a community needs and the project it receives is much
better than in traditional 'top-down' development projects..." (Rao, 2003)
Rao and Ibanez further say that "the CDD process of
applying and obtaining funds, and constructing and managing a facility, will
improve the community's capacity for collective action... (which) in turn will
result in greater social cohesion, improve the community's ability to manage
its own future and set it on a sustainable path towards poverty
reduction." The term "capacity for collective action" is also
used to mean "social capital" although in a less broad sense, which
refers to "features of organization, such as trust, norms, and networks,
that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions.
It refers to the ability of individuals to build "bonds" within their
own group activity are key sources of a community's strength and its ability to
work for its own betterment."
In Balangiga where I was the KALAHI Area Coordinator from
2003 to 2006, KALAHI has succeeded in raising awareness that development is
everybody's concern. Individuals—young, old, men, women, rich, poor,
government, and private organizations—believed that they all need to contribute
to advance community goals. They need to link arms and pool resources together
to succeed in their community development efforts. Three indicators of capacity
for collective action—namely trust levels, willingness to pool resources, and
participation in group activities—had shown the relative success of the project
in Balangiga.
CDD projects like KALAHI "rely on communities to use
their social capital to organize themselves and participate in development
processes. Thus, concepts such as participation, community, and social capital
are critical to how community participation is conceptualized and
implemented.... The cornerstone of CDD initiatives is the active involvement of
members of a defined community in at least some aspects of project design and
implementation. Although participation can occur at many levels, a key objective
is the incorporation of local knowledge into the project's decision-making
processes. When potential beneficiaries also make key project decisions,
participation becomes self-initiated action—what has come to be known as the
exercise of voice and choice or empowerment. Participation is expected to lead
to better designed projects, better targeted benefits, more cost-effective and
timely delivery of project inputs, and more equitably distributed project
benefits with less corruption and other rent-seeking activity" (Mansuri, 2004)
The World Bank's "Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
Sourcebook views CDD as a mechanism for enhancing sustainability, improving
efficiency and effectiveness, allowing poverty reduction efforts to be taken to
scale, making development more inclusive, empowering poor people, building
social capital, strengthening governance, and complementing market and public
sector activities. CDD is said to achieve all this by reducing information
problems (by eliciting development priorities directly from target communities
and allowing communities to identify projects and eligible recipients of private
benefits), expanding the resources available to the poor (through credit,
social funds, capacity building, and occupational training), and strengthening
the civic capacities of communities by nurturing organizations that represent
them.
An end-of-project report on KALAHI CIDSS in Balangiga,
Eastern Samar, makes a case for individual and community transformation:
“The value of KALAHI lies not in things. It lies in people.
In the final analysis, KALAHI will not be measured in terms of the number of
sub-projects (eg, barangay road, drainage systems, water system, etc.) it has
completed and put into operation, nor in terms of the amount of funds it has
disbursed. The success of KALAHI will be measured in terms of the number of
believers it has transformed from being indifferent to active participants in
community building, from not having enough information and skill to having the
capacity to build consensus and make informed decisions, from being project
beneficiaries to being project managers themselves, or from one who benefits to
one who decides.”
The report further draws insights and lessons from project
implementation experiences in Balangiga:
1) Community
participation in KALAHI activities has been evident. People not used to being
given importance in public discussions and decision making processes found the
barangay assemblies and workshops as veritable watersheds for empowerment.
2) Capacity
building is important to sustain the empowerment process. Communities have at
varying levels gained awareness, skills, and experience necessary to adopt the
KALAHI processes. The challenge is to institutionalize and sustain those
processes.
3) Cooperation
between the barangay officials and volunteers is a major determinant of
success. To sustain cooperation and the high level of interest, people need to
convince themselves of how good the project is. Individual experiences with the
project determined their respective perception and of where they stand.
4) For
whatever success the project might have in Balangiga, the LGU support,
particularly from its officials, has been major facilitating factor.
From the bottom to the top
Local Government Code (LGC)
The country’s legal framework promotes local autonomy and
decentralization, which in turn create conditions for a more meaningful people
participation in governance.
Both the Constitution and Republic Act No. 7160, also known
as the Local Government Code of 1991, provide mechanisms to promote the
participation of citizens and their organizations in the facilitation of
development processes. Articles II, X, and XIII of the 1987 Constitution aim to
promote and protect the rights of the people and civil society organizations
and platforms for "effective and reasonable participation at all levels of
social, political and economic decision-making." The LGC and the annual
General Appropriations Act also recognize and support need to provide
conditions for people participation and/or citizen engagement in governance at
the local level.
Through Local Development Councils (LDCs) and other special
bodies in all LGUs (barangay, municipality, city, or province), the LGC
facilitates people’s participation in local governance. LDCs plan and
prioritize local programs and projects. They are mandated to include as their
members NGOs for as much as one-fourth of the entire membership.
There are many ways by which people participate in local
governance. At the barangay level, people have direct access to inexpensive and
less tedious justice, where conciliation can be facilitated. People gather in
general assemblies to discuss issues and approve barangay budgets and reports.
They participate in governance through political exercise such as suffrage,
sectoral representation, initiatives, and recall. In special bodies, they
participate through their accredited organizations. (Tapales, 2003)
However, despite the establishment of various local,
regional, and national structures and mechanisms to promote and mainstream
meaningful citizen engagement in governance, recent policy discussions,
stakeholder consultations, and several studies in this governance area have
identified the following governance gaps between policy issuance and effective
policy implementation both at the national and local levels of government (Independent
Review Mechanism, 2019):
1) There is a
weak system in documenting citizens participation in national and local
governance.
2) The use of
technology in governance, particularly in the area of citizens engagement, is
not fully maximized; and
3) There is a
need for providing more platforms to inform the citizens of the state of local
governance in their respective local governments.
The Open Government Partnership has proposed enhancements of
the legal framework to address the above-mentioned gaps:
1) Issuance
and implementation of National policy on civil society participation in
governance.
2) Implementation
of Civic Technology for Governance Innovations through Citizen Feedback System
(Development Live).
3) Conduct of
Town Hall Meetings (Regional, Provincial and Municipal Level)
4) Oversee
local governments in promoting the establishment and operation of people’s and
non-governmental organizations.
Bottom-up budgeting (BUB)
The Bottom-up Budgeting process was one of the major reform
initiatives of President Benigno S. Aquino III administration. Prior to the
introduction of the BUB, the national government budgeting process was
primarily driven by the national government agencies that implement the budget
although the Regional Development Councils provide LGUs a limited venue to
input into the process. The BUB was also viewed as part of the
democracy/empowerment reform as it opened another avenue for people’s
participation in local planning and budgeting and for generating demand for
good governance at the local level. It was further perceived as part of local
governance reform in the sense that it provided incentives for good local
governance. (Manasan, 2016)
In the three rounds of BUB implementation (2013, 2014, and
2015), the reform initiative appeared to have succeeded in making LGUs aware of
the need to involve CSOs in development planning and utilizing empirical data
for planning purposes. However, the potential of CSO participation in local
planning process has not been realized fully largely because of inadequate
capacity of many CSOs to engage in local planning and budgeting processes and
lack of sufficient facilitation during the BUB processes.
The BUB offered an additional source of funding for the LGUs.
It essentially provided an additional grant from the national government to
LGUs computed at equal to PhP700 times the number of poor people in the LGU
(based on the 2009 small area estimates of poverty incidence in each LGU area
from the National Statistics Coordination Board (NSCB)). Thus, the BUB
allocation for municipalities and cities which have a larger number of poor
constituents is larger than that of municipalities and cities which have a
smaller number of poor constituents.
However, the grant may not be less than PhP15 million nor
more than PhP 50 million per LGU. On the other hand, the BUB required that LGUs
provide a cash counterpart to the national government grant in amounts
prescribed by the national government. The LGU counterpart fund must be sourced
from LGU funds and the allocation of the same must be formalized by its
inclusion in the LGU’s Annual Investment Plan (AIP).
How does the BUB work?
Generally, the BUB process includes civil society
organization (CSO) assemblies that select their representatives to the Local
Poverty Reduction Action Teams (LPRATs). The LPRATs are tasked to identify
projects based on the poverty situation analysis of the CSO assemblies. The
projects identified by the LPRATs are submitted to the Regional Poverty
Reduction Action Team (RPRAT) for review and then forwarded to the concerned
national government agencies for inclusion in their proposed budgets, which are
submitted to Congress and Senate for inclusion in the GAA. (Philippine Institute for Development Studies, 2015)
The BUB process
There are nine main components of the BUB process: (1) CSO
assemblies, (2) LPRAP workshops, (3) submission of the list of priority
projects to the Department of the
Interior and Local Government (DILG) Regional Office, (4) consolidation of the
projects by the DILG Regional Office, (5) validation of projects by the RPRAT
and the National Poverty Reduction Action Team, (6) submission of the revised
list of priority projects together with a Sanggunian resolution to the DILG
Regional Office, (7) integration of the LGU projects in the budgets of
participating agencies, (8) provision of an LGU counterpart, and (9) project
implementation (DBM et al. 2014).
The DILG and the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC)
convene the general assembly of CSOs at the city or municipal level to select
their representatives in the LPRAT. A co-chairperson of the LPRAT from the CSOs
will be elected as well as three co-signatories for the LPRAP. Not eligible to
be elected as CSO representatives are elected local officials and their
relatives, and LGU employees.
Under the leadership of the mayor and the elected
co-chairperson from the CSO representatives, the LPRAT identifies projects to
be included in the LPRAP. Themes that could be used as guide in identifying
projects are attainment of the Millennium Development Goals, poverty reduction,
climate change adaptation and mitigation, and disaster preparedness. The LPRAP
should be properly endorsed by the CSOs and the Sangguniang Bayan through a
resolution.
The regional offices of the DILG consolidate the list of
priority projects by region, which will be provided to all members of the
RPRATs and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). The RPRAT is composed
of the regional directors of the DILG, DBM, and other national agencies, a CSO
representative per province, and representatives from the Department of Energy
and National Electrification Administration (DBM et al. 2012). It validates,
reviews, and revises the list of projects as needed. It will also identify the
appropriate implementing agency for each project.
The DBM consolidates all the plans submitted by the RPRATs
and forward it to concerned government agencies, which will allocate a budget
for the projects under the BUB.
Meanwhile, the LGUs must provide a cash counterpart for the
BUB program equal to a percentage of their current local development fund.
Without the LGU’s counterpart, funding from the national government for these
projects will not be released.
In addition, only LGUs that pass the Good Financial
Housekeeping component of the Seal of Good Local Governance can implement BUB
projects. In case an LGU is ineligible to implement a project, the project will
be implemented by the concerned government agency.
Prospects of the BUB
The BUB process provides a venue for people to express their
needs and, together with the local governments, identify concrete solutions to
problems they face. However, for the BUB to become truly inclusive and
participatory, meaningful participation of basic sector organizations and CSOs
in the process is necessary. These organizations are supposed to represent the
interest and needs of the people in order to promote a more holistic
perspective on poverty reduction and sustainable development. A policy note by
the PIDS on the impact evaluation of the BUB process recommends that an
adequate monitoring, evaluation, and feedback system be integrated in its
implementation cycle to address constraints affecting every stage. The PIDS
policy note also emphasized the need to strengthen CSO’s participation in the
process. To encourage genuine participation (and not only compliance), CSOs
should be given ample time to consult with their members and prepare for BUB
activities. They should also be capacitated on leadership skills, project
proposal development, monitoring, and in engaging with the LGUs and other CSOs.
PIDS Senior Research Fellow Rosario Manasan suggested the
adoption of the enhanced BUB process in more areas. In her paper on the
Assessment of the BUB Process for FY 2015, Manasan observed a more genuine
grassroots participation in local planning process among KALAHI-CIDDS areas.
She attributed this to the KALAHI-CIDDS Community Empowerment Activity Cycle,
which goes all the way down to the sitio level and involves a series of
barangay assemblies, poverty situation analysis, as well as capacitation of communities
in project development, implementation, and monitoring (Manasan 2015).
Transparency is also an important component of participatory budgeting.
Participatory budgeting represents a shift from the culture
of patronage that tends to serve a selected few and, at the same time,
strengthens accountability in the government’s budgeting mechanism (Goldsmith
1999). In the Philippines, apprehensions have been raised by various sectors
that the BUB could be used by the administration to advance its own political
interest. However, Manasan pointed out that provisions of the Joint Memorandum
Circular (JMC) No. 4-2013 gives national government little, if not, zero
discretion in the allocation of funds across LGUs. And even if the BUB budget
is a lump-sum appropriation, the guidelines under the joint circular appear to
be applied uniformly regardless of political affiliation of incumbent local
chief executives. Manasan pointed out that funding allocation across cities and
municipalities is based on a formula, in which LGUs with more residents living
below the poverty line get a higher BUB funding. In addition, the evaluation by
regional and national government agencies of the list of projects proposed by
LGUs for BUB funding appears to be limited to checking compliance with the
guidelines set out in the JMC. Since BUB funding across LGUs is rule based
rather than discretionary, Manasan concluded that it is not as vulnerable to
patronage politics at both the national and local levels compared with other
more discretionary funding sources for LGUs.
There are several ways of engaging communities in a
development process.
The common and traditional way is what we may call
set-and-forget formula. Every three years, people elect government officials
who then proceed to plan and implement development projects aimed at improving
the general welfare of their constituents. People set it once during elections
and, bound by an implied “social contract”, leave it all to their elected
representatives in government to make things happen for them.
Another way attempts at a more genuine engagement with the
people, including those who are at the so-called “margins” of society. This
process entails barangay officials calling regular consultative meetings among
community members within their respective jurisdictions. Results of these
meetings inform the barangay development councils (BDCs), whose membership
includes members of the Sangguniang Barangay, representatives of
non-governmental organizations operating in the barangay, and a representative
of the congressman or congresswoman, among others.
Process documentation for the planning, implementation and
monitoring of development projects undertaken by BDCs subsequently informs the
municipal or city development council (M/CDC), whose memberships include the Punong
Barangay of each city or municipal government’s component barangays. The
C/MDC, in turn, enriches the planning and monitoring processes being undertaken
at higher levels of government, such as the provincial development councils
(PDCs) and regional development councils (RDCs). The RDCs feed the national
government, through the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), with
their own prioritized sets of public investments.
In theory, all national government projects, including the
hyped-up infrastructure programs such as “Build, Build, Build” or “Build
Better” or whatever projects, should have been identified, discussed, and
prioritized at the community level. This bottom-up process of managing
security, social and economic development was in fact sought to have been
institutionalized twenty-three years ago with the enactment of the Local
Government Code in 1991.
The problem with the LGC-enhanced development process is that
it is prone to prostitution, filtering, and pilferage. Many things happen from
the time a farmer raises his concern about low returns for his labor (he is not
even asking for aid) to the time national government adopts its investment
priorities. Often, the dysfunction happens at the national level. Like
prostitutes, congresspeople filter the priority projects adopted at the
barangay level with their own agenda for personal gains. Worse, some pilfer
them as their own and use fake organizations to manage them. Such is the lesson
we learned from the Napoles Pork Barrel scam.
Lack of people participation in development planning often
results in defective projects from the viewpoint of relevance and impact (such
as infrastructure projects, including farm to market roads, that benefit the
rich more than the poor), technical and environmental feasibility (such as the
Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, the Manila Bay Dolomite Beach, mining and logging
permits, dams, concrete sea walls or river embankments, etc), and economic and
financial returns (eg ZTE National Broadband Network Project).
I was an aide of former Eastern Samar Governor Lutz Barbo
when the LGC took into effect. Being a radically new law at the time, many LGUs
were at a loss on how to implement the provisions of the Code. They were
supposed to be beneficiaries of the law, but many LGU officials complained
about the new responsibilities imposed on them and hated its author, Senator
Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. for an idea that involved systems that they were not up
to it yet. Even now, we doubt it if congresspeople bother, even just for the
sake of complying with the LGC, to send their representatives to BDC meetings.
I also had an opportunity to help teams facilitate community
processes for projects that aimed to reduce poverty, empower communities, and
protect the environment. These projects included the World Bank funded
Community-Based Resource Management Project, the Bottom-up Budgeting by the
Department of the Interior and Local Government and the KALAHI CIDSS Project by
the Department of Social Welfare and Development (also World Bank funded).
These projects apply tools that facilitate and encourage
people participation, promote inclusiveness, increase awareness, and engage
them in a more meaningful and effective process. These tools include
participatory rural appraisal, problems and solutions three analysis, visioning
and missioning exercises, strategic planning workshops, situational analysis,
logical framework analysis, etc.
Technology of Participation
Developed by the Institute of Cultural Affairs, Technology of
Participation (ToP) is a popular tool applied by community development
facilitators. It consists of customizable structured facilitation methods such
as brainstorming, workshop, and action planning. It helps community members to
think, talk and work together.
The methods were crafted over 20 years of global
action-research efforts exploring group decision-making and collaborative
governance, and ToP’s deep philosophical roots go beyond "tips and
tricks" to empower profound and lasting transformation. (Participation, 2024)
The approach “enables people to actively create and
participate in the changes that affect them—in their own lives, in their
groups, teams and organizations, and in their communities and societies.”
ToP workshop methods enhance participation “all the way from
the initial brainstorm to the final statement of consensus. They spark creative
solutions and breakthrough strategies. Through surfacing of diverse
perspectives and using questions to guide an open inquiry, groups are able to
form ideas. They engage participants in ways that lead to genuine commitment.
When people contribute their own ideas, they make a commitment to them in ways
they do not when ideas are handed to them. The emphasis is on realistic plans
that ensure the strategies, plans and decisions are implemented.”
Whatever the method, the key is to guide people so that they
are able see and accept the development issues around them as their own. That
way they are committed to helping the development projects meant to address
those issues become sustainable over the long term.
From our experiences in facilitating community workshops, we
noted that people from the fringes of society prefer, as a matter of priority,
livelihood projects and trainings over infrastructure investments. The
proposition is that the less people are involved in development planning, the
more desirable infrastructure projects become.
Appreciative Inquiry
Originally proposed by David Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastva
in 1987, Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is a theory, methodology, and process of
organizational and social change that has given rise over the past few decades
to a global network of researchers, practitioners, trainers, and consultants.
AI grew out of the fields of organizational management, development, and action
research, but it has since evolved into a process that is widely used and
adapted by engagement professionals and facilitators.
Appreciative Inquiry is an approach to organizational change
which focuses on strengths rather than on weaknesses—quite different to many
approaches to evaluation which focus on deficits and problems. It is about the
coevolutionary search for the best in people, their organizations, and the
relevant world around them. In its broadest focus, it involves systematic
discovery of what gives “life” to a living system when it is most alive, most
effective, and most constructively capable in economic, ecological, and human
terms. AI involves, in a central way, the art and practice of asking questions
that strengthen a system’s capacity to apprehend, anticipate, and heighten
positive potential. (Cooperrider, 2024)
AI is a group process that inquires into, identifies and
further develops the best of “what is” in organizations in order to create a
better future. Often used in the organization development field as an approach
to large-scale change, it is a means for addressing issues, challenges, changes
and concerns of an organization in ways that build on the successful, effective
and energizing experiences of its members. Underlying AI is a belief that the
questions we ask are critical to the world we create.
AI is an energizing and inclusive process that fosters
creativity through the art of positive inquiry. It builds new skills in
individuals and groups, develops new leaders, encourages a culture of inquiry,
and helps create shared vision and purpose by building on an organization’s
core values and strengths. Perhaps, most importantly, are the outcomes that
emerge during the process which provoke action, inspire commitment, and lead to
results.
Appreciative Inquiry is often presented in terms of a 4-step
process (5 in other sources) around an affirmative topic choice:
1) DISCOVER:
What gives life? What is the best?
Appreciating and identifying processes that work well.
2) DREAM:
What might be? What is the world calling for? Envisioning results, and how
things might work well in the future.
3) DESIGN:
What should be--the ideal? Co-constructing - planning and prioritizing
processes that would work well.
4) DESTINY
(or DELIVER): How to empower, learn and adjust/improvise? Sustaining the change
Affirmative Topic
Once the basic concept of the positive core is understood,
the 4-D Cycle can be better explained. The first step in an AI intervention is
selecting the affirmative topic choice. This is, in short, the selection of
topic(s) that will become the focus of the intervention.
Selecting the affirmative topic choice begins with the
constructive discovery and narration of the organization’s “life-giving” story.
The topics, in the initial stages, are bold hunches about what gives life to
the organization. Most importantly, the topics (usually three to five for an
inquiry) represent what people really want to discover or learn more about. The
topics will likely evoke conversations about the desired future.
Positive Core
The positive core of organizational life is one of the
greatest, yet least recognized, resources in the change management field today.
AI has demonstrated that human systems grow in the direction of their
persistent inquiries, and this propensity is strongest and most sustainable
when the means and ends of inquiry are positively correlated. In the AI
process, the future is consciously constructed upon the positive core strengths
of the organization. Linking the energy of this core directly to any change agenda
suddenly and democratically creates and mobilizes topics never before thought
possible.
Discovery
The primary task in the Discovery phase is to identify and
appreciate the best of “what is.” The distinguishing factor of AI in this phase
is that every carefully crafted question of the topic choice is positive.
This task is accomplished by focusing on peak times of
organizational excellence, when people have experienced the organization as
most alive and effective. Seeking to understand the unique factors (e.g.,
leadership, relationships, technologies, core processes, structures, values,
learning processes, external relationships, planning methods, and so on) that
made the high points possible, people deliberately “let go” of analyses of
deficits and systematically seek to isolate and learn from even the smallest wins.
Dream
Once an organization “discovers” its positive core, the next
step is to imagine and envision its future. The Dream phase of the AI 4-D Cycle
accomplishes this step. One aspect that differentiates AI from other visioning
or planning methodologies is that images of the future emerge out of grounded
examples from its positive past. These images are compelling possibilities
precisely because they are based on extraordinary moments from an
organization’s history. For many organization stakeholders, this is the first
time to think “great” thoughts and create “great” possibilities for their
organization. The process is both personally and organizationally invigorating.
Design
The Dream phase articulated the strategic focus, such as a
vision of sustainability, a powerful purpose, and a compelling statement of
strategic intent. In the Design phase, attention turns to creating the ideal
organization in order to achieve its dream. Future images emerge through
grounded examples from an organization’s positive past. Good-news stories are
used to craft provocative propositions that bridge the best of “what gives
life” with a collective aspiration of “what might be.”
The Design phase of the 4-D process is key to sustaining
positive change and responding to the organization’s most positive past and
highest potential. The positive core identified and expounded in the first two
phases begins to take form.
Destiny
The Destiny phase represents both the conclusion of the
Discovery, Dream, and Design phases and the beginning of an ongoing creation of
an “appreciative learning culture.”
The Destiny phase delivers on the new images of the future
and is sustained by nurturing a collective sense of purpose. It is a time of
continuous learning, adjustment, and improvisation (like a jazz group) — all in
the service of shared ideals. The momentum and potential for innovation are
extremely high by this stage in the process. Because of the shared positive
image of the future, everyone is invited to align his or her interactions in
co-creating the future.
Stakeholders are invited
into an open-space planning and commitment session during this phase.
Individuals and groups discuss what they can and will do to contribute to the
realization of the organizational dream as articulated in the provocative
propositions. Action commitments then serve as the basis for ongoing
activities.
As
mentioned earlier, bills are now pending in congress that seek to
institutionalize and scale up KALAHI CIDSS, now rebranded as the National
Community-Driven Development Program.
.png)
Posts
