Insafe SDDP: Getting The Best Out Of Our Network - Problématique
This report has been developed to describe the first series of results in the context of the "Getting the Best out of our Network" SDDPs co-laboratories. Co-laboratory A explored the weaknesses of the current model of interactions within the network, while co-laboratory B envisioned the ideal model of a European network of Safer Internet Nodes, and co-laboratory C generated action options to be taken to overcome the obstacles in order to achieve the ideal model of an Insafe network.
On the 17th of September 2007, half of the staff of the European network of Safer Internet Nodes engaged at St. Raphael Hotel, Limassol, Cyprus, for five hours in a structured dialogue focusing on the triggering question:
"What are obstacles that prevent our current network of EU safer Internet Nodes from being optimal?"
In response to the TQ, the 19 participants came up with 61 obstacles. The ideas were then clustered in 6 categories in an interactive manner, thus providing opportunities for further and deeper clarifications of salient distinctions between separate ideas. The ideas were clarified and discussed throughout the SDDSM, thus enabling participants to achieve a better understanding of the views of other members and greatly expand their own and others. Following the voting process, 26 ideas received one or more votes and were structured to create the influence MAP shown below.
The voting results were used to select factors for the subsequent structuring phase to identify inter-relations among the generated factors. According to the participants of this workshop, the obstacle appear to be the most influential was:
- Obstacle #6, Unclear roles and responsibilities between nodes/coordinator
The SDDP co-laborarory was facilitated by Yiannis Laouris, Ilke Dagli, Tonia Loizidou, Elia Petridou, Tatjana Taraszow and Kerstin Wittig. The workshop was attended by 19 participants from all over Europe.
In sum, the participants of the dialogue reported their satisfaction that their voices have been heard and documented and communicated their expectations for follow-up activities to address the diagnosis of their needs.