Virtual SDDP MedBEESinessHubs 2022

From Future Worlds Center Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Virtual SDDP MedBEESinessHubs 2022
Virtual SDDP MedBEESinessHubs 2022
Report Title Mechanisms that ensure successful technology transfer in accessible and assistive ICT products and services
Project MedBEESinessHubs
Triggering Question “In the context of your work, what are obstacles that prevent efficient stakeholders’ dialogues?”
Dates Feb - May 2022 virtual (zoom)
Author(s) Yiannis Laouris
Editor(s) Camille Lechoux
Total Duration 5 weekly Zoom meetings
Statistics Participants=18
Number of ideas=35
Number of Clusters=6
Ideas received Votes= 17 indicating Spreathink = 40%
Ideas on MAP R= 7
Download Download Report



Executive Summary

This SDD was implemented in the context of the MedBEESinessHubs project. The results presented here are from a virtual Structured Democratic Dialogues (SDDs) that was organized and managed from Cyprus between March and June 2022. The aim was to he participants from the five countries for a full-scale week-long training in SDD facilitation that took place in June 2022. The representatives from the participating countries were prepared on how to apply SDDs to address local challenges in their respective rural communities.

This first part of the SDD training took place between May and June 2022. It was organized as a sequence of 5 weekly Zoom meetings. The Triggering Question was: In the context of your work, what are obstacles that prevent efficient stakeholders’ dialogues?

The participants produced 35 ideas, which were clustered into 6 categories.

Visual Overview of List of Clusters

Clusters


Visual Overview of Mapping

After voting for their top 5, 17 ideas received votes (indicating Spreathink = 40%), and 7 were structured.


Influence MAP

The following ideas made it to the root of the tree:
Idea 3: (9 Votes) Lack/absence of a clear common goal for the group to work on
Idea 2: (7 Votes) Moderator/facilitator
Idea 5: (4 Votes) Inconsistency and incompatibility between group members (age, educational level and experience, etc.)
Idea 20: (4 Votes) Conflict of interest
Idea 13: (3 Votes) Not knowing the contents of the topics well
Idea 35: (3 Votes) Some members might not have the appropriate knowledge and the skills for stakeholders’ dialogue
Idea 1: (1 Votes) Logistical arrangements

The striking finding is that the group identified #2: Moderator/facilitator, as the most influential factor.

Participants

Name
Abdalaziz, Al-Salhi
Amal, Wehaibe
Amr, Daoud
Androulla, Xenophontos
Ayed, Abdel Aziz
Christos, Tanteles
Demetra, Palaonda
Elia, Wehbe
Evi, Kazamia
Fady, Abou Fayad
Fransesco, Bachis
Geogia, Venizelou
Greca, N.Meloni
Khaldoon, El Hassanieh
Luigi, Manias
Mai, Darwish
Merna, Ziadeh
Noni, Demetroula
Noor, Alzaben
Osama Mourise
Said, Gedeon
Samra, Raconcic
Savvas, Maliotis
Yiannis, Laouris
Marios, Michaelides
Camille, Lechoux