Talk:Municipalities in Transition

From Communities for Future wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Detailed text on Energy Function, for possible inclusion

· Cases’ range of impact (provided by the grid), as a proxy of the degree of transformative collaborations happening in the community.

· Cases’ self-evaluation (Figure C.4), with differentiated weights (integrated score = cooperation between actors x 3 + disruption + improvement of local economy + support of people in leading a healthy and engaged lifestyle x 2 + promotion of equity and social justice x 2)

In order to further examine the governance imprint of these collaborations MiT decided to use a tool presented by one of the cases, the so-called Energy Function (Rossi, Pinca, Cavalletti, Bartolomei, & Bottone, 2014). According to this methodology, the occurring processes can be mapped according to the actors involved and transformative actions developed (or planned) in each experiment (Table C.1).

Table C.1 – Design grid of the Energy Function for the development of system or individual targeted actions. Adapted from Rossi and colleagues (2014). The empirical observation of the Italian experience in using the Energy Function shows that the crucial factors leading to real changes in the way a community organizes itself are new visions developed at the political level, planning occurring at the municipalities’ organization level and a cultural change at the public level. In the grid those cells have a ‘higher’ value (++). A second group of ‘key’ cells are marked (+) and considered as other activation areas with a high potential for change. For example, it is assumed that when organizations develop a new vision, change their culture and plan accordingly we can observe an evolution in the community.

Actors Categories








Suppliers Organizations Public Networks
Vision ++ +
Organization +
Planning + ++ + +
Technical aspects
Cultural change + ++

The Actors’ categories are:

· Municipality, political level: who institutionally contributes to defining policies, e.g., council, commissions, parties).

· Municipality, organizational structure: technicians and other civil servants responsible for performing municipal functions).

· Controlled Entities: entities that are in some way controlled by the municipality.

· Suppliers: public and private suppliers of the municipality.

· Organizations: economic, social and cultural organizations, profit and non-profit (e.g., business, schools, environmental organizations).

· Public: families and citizens.

· Networks: other municipalities and actors outside the territory (e.g., other municipalities, levels of government, partners in international networks).

And the Actions’ categories:

· Vision: actions and processes that tend to create a vision.

· Organization: actions and processes that tend to create or modify the governance (e.g., creating a new office or procedures).

· Planning: actions and processes that tend to create a plan (e.g., setting goals, drafting of documents).

· Technical aspects: actions that modify the system through technology.

· Relations: actions and processes that want to create or improve relationships, namely acting on human and social aspects.

· Cultural change: actions and processes that tend to lead to a “paradigm shift” (including communication and educational activities).

· Networking: actions and processes that tend to create stable connections and comparisons (e.g., benchmarking).

In order to fill the grid for each case, we used the qualitative data collected on the survey, namely the cases’ description (including governance) and the observants’ perspective on the HHH approach (“Where do you see the "head/heart/hands" part in this case?”). We performed a content analyses by assigning a code for each cell in the grid. The frequency of occurrence of each code in the total number of cases (71) is presented in the Table C.2.

--Tom Henfrey (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)