• cifuturG2 consultation inputs2

Comparing

Current Version

by facilitfsm, modified November 27, 2013
to

Version 17

by facilitfsm, modified November 27, 2013

Key

  • inserted
  • deleted
CIfutur | EN ES FR ((inputs2 survey profiles)) EN ESF FR ((inputs2 ic future scenarios)) ENcommenting versions of 2A

Overview of suveys - Vista de conjunto sobre cuestionarios - Vue d'ensemble sur les questionnaires

  • EN - this table is locating the 4 surveys proposed in Survey menu englishwith a categorization of questions by 5 colors

    WSF vision-Generic IC vision- personal participation - recomended changes actions in ICevaluation & change scenarios for IC

    This overview may illustrate the notion of diversity regarding how to tackle theissue of ic future( other surveys are possible ...) and help choose a survey to explore depending on one's time available and profile of the survey
    Link: /projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-consultation-inputs2


    • FR - ce tableau situe les 4 questionnaires proposés dans le menu francais avec une categorisation des questions selon 5 couleurs

    vision du FSM-vision du CI générique-participation personnelle-actions recommandées dans le CIevaluation& scenarios CI

    Cette vue générale peut illustrer la diversité des manières d'aborder le futur di CI (d'autres questionnaires sont possibles...) et d'aider a choisir un questionnaire a explorer selon son temps et son profil

    • ES - esta tablero coloca los 4 cuestionarios propuestos en el menu espanolcon una categorizacion de preguntas por 5 colores -

    Esta vista general puede ilustrar la diversidad de maneras de tocar el tema del futuro del CIy ayudar a escoger una segun tiempo y perfil

    P1200310.JPG.P1200309.JPG.P1200308.JPG.P1200307.JPG.P1200312.JPG.P1200313.JPG

    Statistics2 on Statistics 2A on 10 responses

    Choose_survey_by time & profile

    Escoja_encuesta_segun tiempo y perfil

    Choisir selon temps et profil

    Exploration 1(16 Q)

    PROFILE : developing wsf vision ownership and evaluation & scenarios for IC other facilitation groups

    > 15 minutes

    Exploration 2A(7 Q)

    PROFILE : developing tailoring of IC with proposed adaptations


    > 10 minutes

    Exploration 2B(10 Q)

    PROFILE : developing WSF vision ownershipcontributions - IC vision, and recommendations

    > 20 mn (+ comments)

    Exploration 3 ( 15 Q)

    PROFILE : developing IC vision and concrete options for adapting and enhancing IC or dissolving it

    > 45 mn (+comments)

    STATISTICS

    Statistics1 on responsesLink: /projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-exploration1-statistics

    statistics 1 on 4 responsesLink: /projects/cifutur/cifuturg2-exploration1-statistics


    see_explorations_made

    ver las exploraciones ya hechas

    voir les explorations deja faites

    exploration1_8_responses

    exploration1 espanol

    exploration1 français

    exploration2A_28 responses

    exploration2a espanol

    exploration2Afrançais

    exploration2B_1_responses

    exploration3_1_responses

    Color code for question category

    Code couleur par catégorie de question

    codigo de color por tipo de pregunta

    Describing one’s WSF vision & ownership - decrire sa vision et son rapport au FSM - describiendo vision y relacion con el FSM> lines 3 - 6

    personal participation and contributions - participacion personal y contribuciones > lines 1 2 4 5 18


    Tailoring one's vision of IC scope & organization in general ( ideal) - donner sa vision du CI en général ( idéal) - dar su vision del CI en general

    > lines 7 to 17


    Proposing concrete actions in IC - proponiendo acciones en ci - actions concretes dans le CI

    > lines24 and (partially) 9 to 17

    Giving one's views on evaluation and change scenarios in IC from where IC stands - Donner son evaluation du CI et des scénarions possibles - Dar su evaluacion del CI y de los escenarios posibles> lines19 to 29 (not 24)

    from “current IC” to“minimal adapted IC”, “enhanced adapted IC”“dissolved IC”



    questions / exploration 1
    questions / exploration 2A
    questions / exploration 2B questions / exploration 3

    1

    have you participated in ic meetings

    1. Have you participated in IC meetings in the past?

    Q1 - What is your experience in WSF process


    2


    1. How many IC meetings have you personally attended?
    1b. How many IC meetings has your organisation attended?
    When was the first and last meeting attended by your organisation?

    Q2 : How would you describe yourself regarding “WSF process”



    3

    Q1- Is WSF process our "common good" ?, and should we, participants in this process, actively care about it ?


    Q3 : Select some opinions close to yours regarding WSF process

    Q1 - wsf process area and scope of action wsf ic/ci

    4



    Q4 : What have been/could be your significant contributions to WSF process?


    5

    Q2 - As wsf participant, do you feel motivated enough to support this WSF process by means that are within your reach?


    Q5 : What time and funds would you and your organization POTENTIALLY be ready to contribute to support the process


    6

    Q3 - As wsf participant, do you feel that WSF world events are a useful "tool" in current context?




    7-

    Q4 - Do you feel that a "central body" servicing/facilitating/impulsing wsf process is a necessity?



    Q6 - type of bodyxx- xx

    8-

    Q5 – if you answered rather yes in question 4, what are the relevant minimal missions of such a central body ?

    Q2.What best would represent according to you the mandate/tasks of the IC? * (choose as many optionsas you preferaccording your vision of what is "ideal" IC)
    e?

    Q6 : What is the scope of tasks of IC in supporting / impulsing WSF process?

    Q6bis (optional) What is the relevant role IC on each of the 20 wsf faclitation /impulsion tasks proposedxx-

    Q2 - self defined missions of wsf ic/ci body related to wsf process

    9-




    Q4 - name of wsf ic/ci bodyxx- x

    10


    Q3. 3. What would you consider to best represent the values, attitudes and behaviours of the IC members? (choose as many as you prefer) *

    ?xx

    Q8 : From a general view point, how do you see “ideal" IC members/participants?xx

    Q11 - stimulating contribution of wsf ic/ci membersxx

    11


    Q4. How could the IC tasks be fulfilled? (choose as many as you prefer) ?xx


    Q8 - size & composition of wsf ic/ci body

    12


    Q7. How should the IC take its decisions


    Q9 - consensus decision modalitiesx

    13


    Q5. What are your thoughts about the IC membership?xx

    Q6. How could the IC memberships be expanded? ?xx



    Q7 - who can be members/initiators/stimulators in this wsf ci/ic (whatever their names)?xx

    14




    Q12 - towards which outputs are wsf ic/ci meetings organized?xx

    15




    Q10 - principles and options about organisation - working groupsx

    16




    Q13 - "time for topic" table [

    Q14 "time for situation" table

    17




    Q5 - outwards action of wsf ic/ci entity x


    18


    Q7. Assuming your are ic member, Would you be personally willing to commit yourself to the tasks of an ideal IC members:

    Q9 : How do you see your possible personal participation in or around IC ?


    19 -

    Q6 - What role has played IC in the past 5 years ?





    20


    Q7 - What is your perception of desire and motivation in IC members and potential members to 22change IC ?




    21

    Q8 - Is it possible/desirable to create a dynamics inside IC aiming at "delivering" more than IC has been delivering in the last 5 years?




    22

    Q9 - What are current IC main assets / strengths?




    23

    Q10 - What are IC main problems / weaknesses?




    24

    Q11 - In which directions should a change in IC be worked out, if needed?


    Q7 : Which recommendation would you support regarding IC for the coming period?

    Q15 refining alternatives

    25

    Q12 - Is there enough “political / methodological “ consensus inside IC to move somewhere, or is IC stalled?



    Q3 - your view on securing a future for wsf ic/ci

    26

    Q13 - is it possible /relevant that IC dissolves and proposes another frame of facilitation/service for wsfprocess, without jeopardizing wsf process




    27

    Q14 - is it possible/useful/wise to keep a "minimal" IC afloat at minimal cost ?




    28

    Q15 – Is it be possible/relevant/wise to develop other servicing/facilitating/ipulsing groupswith different contributive capacity/profile?




    29

    Q16 - How can a common vision of "what to do ?" be build in and around IC ?




    30




    Q10 : How about an "exploration 3" , focused on IC missions, IC basic operation, and IC meetings agenda ?

    Q16 assessment of this survey

    x