1. Guidance Note for the
Programmatic Approach
of the ICCO Alliance
Hettie Walters
2011

2.
4

3. Guidance Note for the
Programmatic Approach
of the ICCO Alliance
Version
31
December
2011
1

4.
This
Guidance
Note
is
based
on
earlier
documents
in
which
insights
gained
in
the
development
of
the
Programmatic
Approach
where
presented:
Briefing
paper
Growing
insights
on
the
Programmatic
Approach,
ICCO
February
2009,
Harry
Derksen
en
Hettie
Walters;
R&D;
Evaluative
Study
on
the
Programmatic
Approach
Erica
Wortel
and
Jouwert
van
Geene,
December
2009;
Synthesis
paper
:
Findings
and
recommendations
gained
from
the
Evaluative
study
and
the
Appreciating
the
Programmatic
Approach
processes.
April
2010,
Hettie
Walters;
A
debriefing
note
from
the
workshop
held
on
February
1-­‐5,
2010,
Appreciating
the
Programmatic
Approach;
a
systematisation
of
experiences,
Consultants
Appreciating
the
Programmatic
Approach,
March
2010
and
the
Appreciating
the
programmatic
Approach
feedback
workshop
2011.
Insights
gained
and
tools
used
in
the
trainings
on
Methodologies
and
methods
for
the
programmatic
Approach
2008-­‐2011
have
also
been
used
as
a
source
(various
reports
by
teams
of
CDI-­‐WUR).
2

5.
Content
Introduction
5
1
Why
we
do
what
we
do
6
1.1
Objective
and
vision
6
1.2
What
is
the
Programmatic
Approach?
7
1.3
The
theory
of
change
of
the
programmatic
approach
7
1.4
Why
do
we
promote
this
way
of
working?
8
1.5
With
whom
do
we
co-­‐operate
in
the
programmatic
approach?
9
2
Theories
of
the
programmatic
approach
11
2.1
Systems
theory
and
complexity
thinking
11
2.2
Multi-­‐stakeholder
Process
theory
13
2.3
Coalition
building
and
network
development
14
3
The
methods
we
can
use
in
the
Programmatic
Approach
16
3.1
Methods
for
working
with
systemic
change
and
complexity
16
3.1.1
Appreciative
Inquiry
17
3.1.2
Methods
for
understanding
systemic
change:
20
-­‐
Four
quadrant
framework
20
-­‐
Institutional
Analysis
22
3.1.3.
Methods
for
working
with
complexity:
24
-­‐
Cynefin
Framework
24
-­‐
Ralph
Stacey's
Agreement
&
Certainty
Matrix
26
3.2
Methods
in
Multi-­‐stakeholder
processes
(MSP)
28
3.2.1
Theory
of
Change
30
3.2.2
Stakeholder
analysis
33
3.2.3
Context
analysis
35
3.2.4
Problem
tree
analysis
35
3.2.5
Large
group
interventions:
Open
Space
Technology
and
Future
Search
37
3.3
Methods
for
Networking
and
Coalition
development
40
3.3.1
Networking
for
social
change
and
knowledge
development
40
3.3.2.
Coalition
Development
42
4
Programmatic
approach
and
the
ICCO
Alliance
roles
and
practices
44
4.1
Roles,
thematic
focus
and
partner
relations
44
4.1.1
Strategic
funding
and
the
Programmatic
Approach
44
4.1.2
Brokering
47
4.1.3
Capacity
development
47
4.2
The
thematic
programmes
in
the
Business
Plan
and
the
Programmatic
Approach
48
4.3.
Governance
models
and
structures
49
Annex
1
Guidelines
for
Developing
programmatic
cooperation;
the
phases
53
Annex
2
Programmatic
Cooperation
scan
59
3

6.
4

7. Introduction
This
paper
intends
to
give
guidance
and
orientation
to
staff
of
the
ICCO
Alliance
as
well
as
to
staff
of
civil
society
organizations
with
whom
the
ICCO
Alliance
cooperates
in
the
context
of
the
Programmatic
Approach.
It
will
describe
what
the
Programmatic
Approach
entails,
what
the
considerations
were
that
led
to
the
development
of
the
approach,
what
its
theory
of
change
is,
and
which
theories
underpin
the
Programmatic
Approach.
In
this
Guidance
note
we
will
describe
what
kind
of
a
donor
and
partner
organization
we
will
be
as
a
result
of
our
choice
to
work
with
and
from
a
programmatic
approach,
and
which
consequences
this
choice
has
for
our
activities.
Our
readers
will
predominantly
come
from
within
the
ICCO
Alliance’s
circle
of
influence,
either
from
organizations
within
the
ICCO
Alliance
or
from
organizations
with
whom
we
directly
or
indirectly
forge
relations.
However,
we
also
expect
readers
to
be
interested
that
belong
to
other
development
organizations
that
are
reflecting
on
their
own
strategies
and
would
like
to
understand
the
ICCO
Alliances
approach.
This
paper
is
the
result
of
several
years
of
learning-­‐by-­‐doing
and
is
certainly
not
the
end
station
in
our
learning
process.
That
is
why
we
called
this
paper
a
Guidance
note
-­‐
calling
it
a
manual
would
imply
that
we
have
a
definite
model
or
that
we
expect
that
a
single
approach
can
be
“rolled
out”
in
different
contexts.
Instead
we
wanted
to
stress
the
ongoing
character
of
the
development
of
the
Programmatic
Approach.
We
will
start
this
guidance
note
with
the
vision
of
the
ICCO
Alliance.
This
will
be
followed
by
a
description
of
what
the
Programmatic
Approach
means
for
the
ICCO
Alliance,
why
we
use
this
way
of
working
and
with
whom
we
work
together
doing
so.
In
Chapter
2
we
will
then
explain
the
conceptual
framework
underpinning
the
Programmatic
Approach.
In
chapter
3
we
will
introduce
several
methods
that
can
be
used
in
the
Programmatic
Approach.
These
methods
help
us
to
understand
the
complexity
in
which
we
work,
to
analyze
the
stakeholder
diversity,
to
assess
where
we
are
in
a
change
process
and
to
which
changes
we
are
contributing,
and
also
to
clarify
how
we
can
help
networks
and
coalitions
to
develop.
In
chapter
4
we
will
discuss
some
of
the
practical
examples
that
we
now
have
of
governance
and
funding
models
for
the
Programmatic
Approach.
The
annexes
contain
two
specific
tools
that
have
been
developed:
The
guidelines
for
developing
programmatic
cooperation
and
the
Programmatic
Cooperation
scan
(P-­‐scan)
We
hope
that
this
guidance
note
will
inspire
you,
that
it
will
support
you
in
your
reflection
process
and
that
it
offers
some
practical
guidance,
helping
you
to
make
choices,
to
direct
processes
and
to
support
others
in
the
development
of
cooperation
for
fundamental
social
change.
5

8. 1
Why we do what we do
1.1 Objective and vision
The
ICCO
Alliance’s
objective
is
to
end
poverty,
assure
just
societies
and
enable
men
and
women
to
live
dignified
lives.
In
large
parts
of
the
world
and
for
many
people
these
aims
are
still
far
from
the
reality
of
their
lives.
Many
countries
still
have
development
levels
in
which
health
and
education
for
all,
sufficient
food
of
good
nutritional
value,
and
income
that
enables
people
to
obtain
services
and
resources
are
lacking.
These
problems
are
often
related
to
underlying
issues,
such
as
absence
of
respect
for
Human
Rights.
This
leads
to
inequality
in
society
because
of
the
marginalization
of
groups
based
on
gender,
ethnicity,
religion,
and
sexual
orientation
or
because
of
their
geographic
location
in
a
country.
Lack
of
control
over
productive
resources
and
markets
by
particular
groups
in
society
(such
as
for
example
women
farmers)
leads
to
injustice
and
poverty.
Many
conflicts
are
grounded
in
inequalities,
and
the
result
of
the
situation
in
fragile
states
where
good
governance
is
lacking,
and
in
which
opposed
interests
of
factions
and
individuals
are
numerous.
The
ICCO
Alliance’s
overall
vision
is
based
on
the
three
basic
dimensions
of
poverty
and
injustice:
social,
political
and
economic.
Poverty
and
injustice
cannot
be
explained
from
one
dimension
only;
solutions
therefore
have
to
take
into
account
all
three
of
them.
Our
choice
for
thematic
areas
is
based
on
these
three
dimensions:
Social:
• Basic
health,
Basic
education
• HIV/Aids
• Food
and
Nutrition
Security
Political:
• Conflict
transformation
and
Democratization
Economic:
• Fair
Economic
Development
• Fair
Climate
Dimensions
and
themes
are
overlapping;
programs
as
defined
in
the
business
plan
can
therefore
have
relations
to
one
or
more
dimensions.
Human
Rights,
gender,
capacity
development,
and
religion
and
culture
are
underlying
and
crosscutting
principles
and
issues
that
connect
the
thematic
areas
and
are
meant
to
reinforce
or
complement
the
actions
on
a
particular
theme.
Staff
from
Regional
Councils
and
Regional
Offices
have
further
defined
the
overall
vision
and
mission
to
fit
the
context
of
their
regions
(e.g.
Central
America,
South
America
and
Central
and
Eastern
Africa).
6

9. 1.2 What is the Programmatic Approach?
The
Programmatic
Approach
is
essentially
about
the
way
in
which
the
ICCO
Alliance1
promotes
cooperation
between
organizations
in
developing
countries
in
order
to
reach
development
results.
Poverty
and
injustice
are
invariably
related
to
complex
problems
in
which
many
people
have
a
stake
and
where
organizations
represent
specific
interests.
All
are
embedded
in
larger
systems
that
often
maintain
existing
inequalities.
Several
systems
combined
make
up
societies.
The
ICCO
Alliance
aims
at
changing
the
systems
that
maintain
inequalities
in
such
a
manner
that
poverty
is
ended,
justice
is
guaranteed
and
rights
of
all
individuals
and
communities
are
respected.
To
be
able
to
do
so
we
propose
to
work
in
an
approach
that
will
support
actors
with
different
stakes
in
systems
to
come
together
and
develop
a
shared
agenda
for
change.
The
Programmatic
Approach
thus
can
be
defined
as
follows:
A
multi
stakeholder
process
that
leads
to
organizations
working
together,
based
on
a
joint
analysis,
shared
vision
and
objectives
and
clear
perspective
on
the
results
of
the
cooperation.
In
such
a
process
all
actors
can
do
different
things,
work
at
various
levels
and
use
their
specific
strengths
for
the
common
purpose
and
objectives,
as
well
as
share
activities,
and
in
particular
participate
in
the
mutual
linking
and
learning
processes.
The
programmatic
approach
aims
at
change
in
systems
rather
than
addressing
single
problems2
The
ICCO
Alliance
Programmatic
Approach
differs
from
a
sectoral
approach.
In
the
latter,
projects
and
programs
generally
are
brought
together
in
one
general
planning,
whereas
the
core
of
the
Programmatic
Approach
is
that
we
support
cooperative
processes
of
multiple
stakeholders
aiming
at
creating
systemic
change.
It
is
therefore
not
only
a
planning
approach
but
a
strategy
for
realizing
fundamental
change
with
our
partner
organizations
and
other
stakeholders
in
the
areas
in
which
we
work.
1.3 The theory of change of the programmatic approach
Kurt
Lewin
once
remarked:
“There
is
nothing
as
practical
as
a
good
theory”.
Any
development
intervention
is
based
on
a
‘theory’
of
how
the
desired
changes
can
be
achieved.
Sometimes
this
theory
of
change
is
implicit,
a
vague
idea
based
on
perceptions
of
poverty
and
assumptions
about
the
factors
related
to
change.
Although
in
many
cases
such
initiatives
yield
good
results,
this
approach
also
has
its
limitations.
Many
of
the
initiatives
focus
only
on
one
particular
aspect
of
the
problem,
leaving
untouched
the
numerous
other
factors
related
to
the
state
of
poverty
and
injustice.
In
addition,
development
efforts
are
often
small-­‐scale,
not
well
coordinated,
and
limited
in
time.
Many
of
the
present
theories
of
change
used
by
(international)
development
organizations
are
based
on
the
assumption
that
development
that
can
be
constructed
1
The
ICCO
Alliance
is
formed
by:
ICCO,
Edukans,
Prisma,
Kerk
in
Actie,
SharePeople,
ZeisterZendingsgenootschap,
Yente.
2
A
system
is
a
set
of
interacting
or
interdependent
entities
forming
a
larger
whole.
These
systems
may
include
organisational
systems,
may
have
geographical
boundary,
and
often
have
multiple
levels
and
actors.
Systems
have
the
capacity
to
change,
to
adapt
when
it
is
necessary
in
response
to
internal
or
external
stimulus.
Complex
Adaptive
Systems,
Heather
Baser
and
Peter
Morgan,
Complex
Adaptive
Systems
Theory,
ECDPM
2004
7

10. from
outside,
and
can
be
managed
and
planned
from
top
to
bottom
if
the
right
means
are
provided.
Development
is
thus
seen
as
a
linear
process
that
can
be
captured
and
followed
in
a
logical
framework.
One
particular
problem
is
that
such
a
logical
framework
does
not
offer
space
for
changes
that
were
not
foreseen
or
expected
but
nevertheless
did
take
place
as
a
result
of
the
intervention
and
therefore
had
an
impact.
As
people
who
form
the
target
of
such
top-­‐down
interventions
are
often
regarded
as
‘beneficiaries’
instead
as
primary
actors,
the
eventual
impact
on
their
life
is
often
superficial.
A
very
different
angle
of
view
is
offered
by
the
Systems
Thinking.
Systems
are
defined
as
interactions
among
diverse
agents
that
persist
and
evolve
as
a
coherent
whole.
Systems
Thinking
looks
at
the
‘whole’
first
and
examines
how
parts
of
the
wider
whole
influence
each
other,
or
change
as
result
of
their
relationship
to
their
environment.
Attention
to
the
various
elements
of
the
system
is
secondary
to
attention
to
the
whole
3
4.
Systems
thinking
states
that
changes
in
parts
of
a
system
will
always
cause
the
whole
system
to
change.
This
change
will
however
not
have
a
predictable
result
nor
can
it
be
planned
in
a
linear
fashion.
The
ICCO
Alliance
takes
these
systems
behavior
into
account
in
its
Programmatic
Approach.
The
insecurity
that
is
implied
by
the
unpredictability
of
changes
needs
to
be
reflected
in
the
monitoring
and
evaluation
systems
that
we
use.
In
addition
to
measuring
expected
changes,
they
need
to
be
able
to
capture
the
unexpected
and
‘notice’
emergent
change
as
well.
This
line
of
thinking
has
resulted
in
the
following
theory
of
change
underpinning
our
Programmatic
Approach:
• Development
problems
are
the
result
of
complex
systems
of
interlinked
actors,
structures,
institutions
and
processes
• Complex
problematics
demand
an
approach
that
can
deal
with
and
work
in
the
complexity.
Therefore
a
Multi
Stakeholder
Process
(MSP)
is
needed
• MSPs
lead
to
joint
learning
and
cooperation
between
the
actors
involved
• The
MSP
represents
the
system
involved
in
the
problematic.
Cooperation
between
actors
and
organizations
leads
to
added
value:
greater
effectiveness
in
change
at
the
institutional
level
and
whole
system
change.
• The
ICCO
Alliance
will
support
existing
cooperative
processes
and
initiate
the
cooperative
process
if
none
exists
yet.
• Coalitions
of
cooperating
actors
have
(and
adhere
to)
ownership
in
the
programmatic
cooperation
(the
program).
• This
also
implies
that
a
coalition
can
identify
possibilities
for
diversification
of
funding
sources
to
assure
sustainability
of
the
cooperation
and
independence
from
the
ICCO
Alliance.
It
is
preferable
that
the
cooperative
process
is
not
solely
dependent
on
ICCO
Alliance
funding.
1.4 Why do we promote this way of working?
Problems
and
issues
of
poverty
and
injustice
in
developing
countries
are
related
in
a
systemic
way
in
what
we
call
problematics5.
For
example
promoting
respect
for
human
rights
is
related
to
the
following
aspects:
the
absence
or
the
lack
of
implementation
of
a
3
Definition
by
Peggy
Holman
in
Engaging
with
Emergence,
page
220,
Berrett
Koehler
2010
4
‘The
idea
and
practice
of
systems
thinking
and
their
relevance
for
capacity
development’,
Peter
Morgan,
ECPDM
march
2005
5
Problematics
are
sets
of
single
problems
and
issues
that
together
express
aspects
of
a
system
that
has
negative
effects
for
groups
of
people.
8

11. legal
framework,
traditional
and
cultural
norms
and
values
about
rights
of
individuals
and
groups
in
societies,
the
level
of
knowledge
about
rights
of
individuals
and
communities,
claim-­‐making
capacities
in
societies
and
the
capacities
and
intentions
of
duty
bearers
in
assuring
the
human
rights.
This
implies
that,
when
we
acknowledge
that
human
rights
are
not
sufficiently
respected
and
we
want
to
contribute
to
change,
we
need
to
work
on
the
systems
underlying
and
connecting
problems
and
issues
rather
than
on
single
issues
and
problems.
Working
towards
change
of
systems
requires
the
cooperative
effort
of
many
of
the
players
involved
at
different
levels
and
from
different
angles
in
addressing.
This
approach
is
key
to
achieving
coherence,
connection
and
complementarity
in
the
work
of
the
ICCO
Alliance
and
in
the
work
of
civil
society
organizations
whose
partners
we
are
in
development.
Organizations,
when
working
together,
can
take
on
more
responsibilities
for
analyzing
their
society,
developing
a
joint
vision,
developing
strategies,
setting
priorities,
embarking
on
joint
lobby
campaigns,
raising
funding
from
their
own
society
and
engaging
in
a
joint
learning
and
capacity
development
process.
In
this
way
added
value
is
created
by
addressing
the
complexity
at
various
levels
leading
to
greater
effectiveness
in
results.
We
expect
more
fundamental
changes
to
occur
due
to
the
cooperative
work.
In
the
end
the
sustainability
of
the
change
realized
will
increase
as
well
as
the
sustainability
of
cooperative
efforts
and
co-­‐operative
arrangements.
Some
cooperation
will
also
come
to
a
natural
end
while
new
ones
can
also
develop.
1.5 With whom do we co-operate in the programmatic
approach?
The
ICCO
Alliance
aims
to
cooperate
with
and
develop
the
capacities
of
civil
society
organizations
in
developing
countries,
sharing
with
them
the
values,
aims
and
strategies
of
working
towards
the
realization
of
just
societies
in
which
men,
women
and
children
are
able
to
live
in
dignity
and
well-­‐being,
where
poverty,
injustice
and
inequality
are
eradicated.
Civil
society
organizations6
play
a
crucial
role
in
changing
systems
of
oppression,
marginalization
and
discrimination
which
exclude
large
groups
of
people
from
wellbeing
and
the
possibility
of
leading
dignified
lives.
The
systems
of
injustice
are
often
the
result
of
societal
political
institutions;
government
and
state
dysfunction
in
combination
with
a
market
economy
that
maximizes
profits
for
a
few,
and
impoverishes
many
others.
The
ICCO
Alliance
is
itself
an
alliance
of
civil
society
organizations;
we
believe
in
the
strength
of
civil
society
and
the
unique
role
we
have
to
play.
Looking
at
the
complexity
of
problematics
we
recognize
that
for
solutions
and
systems
change
to
occur
we
need
to
involve
in
the
co-­‐operation
other
actors
such
as
private
sector
companies,
government
organizations
and
knowledge
institutions.
The
specific
mix
of
actors
required
depends
on
the
problematic
and
the
system
that
is
involved
in
the
change.
In
particular
the
cooperation
with
the
private
sector
has
shown
to
be
valuable
in
6
Civil
society
organizations:
As
ICCO
Alliance
we
work
with
the
formal
spectrum
of
civil
society.
These
are
organizations
that
are
registered,
have
a
formal
status,
and
have
developed
a
mission,
vision
and
strategies
and
implementation
capacity.
These
organizations
can
be
CBO’s
movements,
NGO’s.
Organizations
can
be
faith-­‐based
but
we
don’t
restrict
our
co-­‐operation
to
faith-­‐based
organizations.
9

12. addressing
poverty
in
the
economic
sector
as
well
as
in
the
social
sectors.
Local
and
national
government
need
to
be
involved
because
system
change
often
requires
adjustment
of
the
regulatory
frameworks
and
the
enabling
environment
in
which
government
agencies
are
very
important.
They
are
also
important
because
for
some
social
sectors
they
perform
the
role
of
duty
bearing
organization.
Knowledge
institutions
play
an
important
part
due
to
their
responsibility
for
innovation
and
deepening
of
certain
issues
and
patterns
in
change
processes,
whether
these
are
technological
or
socio-­‐political.
In
the
programmatic
approach
it
is
important
to
identify
in
developing
countries
existing
networks
and
alliances
of
different
kind
that
could
benefit
from
support
by
and
cooperation
with
the
ICCO
Alliance,
enabling
them
to
strengthen
their
cooperative
processes
and
their
capacity
to
realize
change.
Alliances
in
the
South,
when
facing
global
challenges
or
issues
at
supra-­‐national
level,
can
also
become
linked
to
or
supported
by
strategic
alliances
from
the
Netherlands
or
elsewhere.
As
ICCO
Alliance
we
strive
towards
cooperative
arrangements
that
are
not
exclusively
built
on
the
ICCO
Alliances
partner
network.
The
Programmatic
Approach
is
not
a
replacement
of
the
ICCO
Alliance’s
or
ICCO’s
partners’
policies
although
they
have
much
ground
in
common.
These
will
be
discussed
in
a
separate
paragraph
on
the
programmatic
approach
and
the
partner
policy
(Ch.
4.1.1).
10

13. 2
Theories of the programmatic approach
The
theories
that
underpin
the
Programmatic
Approach
are:
1
Systems
theory
2
Complexity
theory
3
Multi-­‐Stakeholder
Process
theory
4
Coalition
building
and
Network
Development
It
is
important
to
understand
that
in
the
Programmatic
Approach
we
do
not
make
a
choice
for
any
of
these
theories
and
their
related
methods.
Rather,
the
Approach
is
located
in
the
grounds
the
overlapping
theories
have
in
common.
We
combine
insights
and
methods
linked
to
all
four
theoretical
domains.
These
theories
are
all
expressions
of
the
so-­‐called
constructivist
paradigm.
This
paradigm
basically
states
that
the
world
as
we
know
it
is
the
result
of
the
experiences
that
each
of
us
has
gained
in
our
lives.
We
all
see
our
surroundings
through
the
lens
of
these
experiences:
we
construct
our
own
world.
Analysis
of
what
is
going
on
around
us
and
the
search
for
solutions
for
problems
is
not
an
exact
science
in
which
there
is
only
one
truth
or
one
reality
that
is
experienced
in
the
same
way
by
all
concerned.
Therefore
what
we
need
are
methods
that
enable
us
to
connect
to
the
multiple
realities
and
the
complexity
that
is
the
result
of
many
different
stakeholders.
All
four
mentioned
theories
shed
light
on
the
various
aspects
of
this
complexity.
Each
theory
will
be
introduced
in
the
following
paragraphs.
2.1 Systems theory and complexity thinking
Although
systems
theory
and
complexity
are
two
separate
theoretical
fields,
they
are
also
to
such
an
extent
interconnected
that
we
present
them
here
in
one
paragraph.
The
systems
theory
emphasizes
the
connections
between
different
parts
of
the
system
and
the
notion
of
a
system
as
a
holistic
whole.
A
system
is
defined
as:
“a
set
of
interacting
or
interdependent
entities
forming
a
larger
whole.
These
systems
may
include
organizational
systems,
may
have
geographical
boundaries,
and
often
have
multiple
levels
and
actors.
Systems
have
the
capacity
to
change,
to
adapt
when
it
is
necessary
in
response
to
internal
or
external
stimulus.
Change
in
one
part
of
the
system
therefore
always
causes
the
whole
system
to
change.
How
a
system
reacts
to
changes
in
one
part
is
not
predictable
but
often
shows
itself
in
rather
unexpected
ways.
It
cannot
be
understood
nor
planned
in
a
linear
manner”7.
Morgan8
describes
different
systems:
natural
systems
(e.g.
rain
forests,
climate,
biodiversity);
technical
systems
(e.g.
communication
networks,
tsunami
warning
arrangements
and
human
systems
such
as
families),
groups,
organizations,
networks,
partnerships,
consortia.
These
human
7
Complex
Adaptive
Systems,
Heather
Baser
and
Peter
Morgan,
Complex
Adaptive
Systems
Theory,
ECDPM
2004
8
Peter
Morgan
Ibid.
11

14. systems
are
non-­‐linear,
entangled,
wandering
messes
that
do
not
lend
themselves
easily
to
traditional
analysis
and
action.
In
complexity
theory,
a
change
of
the
system
occurs
through
‘emergence’.
Emergence
The
short
definition
for
‘emergence’
is:
order
arising
out
of
chaos.
A
more
nuanced
definition
is:
higher
order
complexity
arising
out
of
chaos
in
which
novel,
coherent
structures
coalesce
through
interactions
among
diverse
entities
of
a
system.
Emergence
occurs
when
these
interactions
disrupt,
causing
the
system
to
differentiate
and
ultimately
coalesce
into
something
novel.9
Change
in
a
system
starts
with
disruption,
with
unbalancing
the
systems
current
state.
It
is
a
challenge
and
maybe
even
a
paradox
to
guide
this
process
in
such
a
manner
that
the
outcome
is
a
new
coalescence
of
relations
(in
the
human
system)
that
lead
to
the
system
being
more
effective,
just,
inclusive
or
equal.
There
are
however
ideas
about
how
we
can
engage
with
emergence
in
such
a
manner
that
all
relations
in
the
system
can
participate
in
the
change
process.
The
practices
involved
in
engaging
with
emergence
are
broadly
related
to
three
iterative
phases
in
emergence:
a)
preparing
for
a
system
change,
b)
hosting
the
system
in
its
change
process
and
c)
engaging
with
the
system
in
its
change
process.
We
use
many
of
the
practices
involved
already
more
or
less
consciously
in
our
work
with
regard
to
promoting
programmatic
cooperation.
In
the
methods
description
in
Chapter
3
we
will
treat
in
more
detail
how
we
can
engage
with
emergence
in
the
context
of
the
Programmatic
Approach.
Complexity
thinking
In
the
last
decade
we
have
seen
an
increasing
influence
of
Complexity
Thinking
on
development
theory
and
strategies.
These
came
up
as
a
result
of
the
growing
notion
that
the
linear
positivist
approaches
in
the
planning
of
development
interventions
do
not
represent
well
the
complex
systems
of
change.
Heather
Baser
and
Peter
Morgan,
Ben
Ramalingam
and
colleagues
at
IDS
and
articles
in
the
Broker10
have
all
pointed
to
the
possibility
of
using
insights
from
Complexity
Thinking
on
development
processes
in
highly
complex
contexts
and
systems.
They
all
adhere
to
the
notion
that:
“we
live
in
a
qualitatively
different
world
to
previous
eras,
one
marked
by
increasing
interconnectedness
and
interdependence
–
economically,
socially,
politically,
environmentally
and
technologically.
In
such
an
interdependent
world,
the
argument
goes,
there
is
greater
unpredictability
and
uncertainty.
In
the
extreme,
standard
operating
procedures,
best
practices
and
grand
designs
can
be
irrelevant,
counterproductive
or
downright
damaging.
Instead,
complexity
theory:
• provides
a
set
of
lenses
with
which
to
look
at
the
world,
• helps
pose
questions
which
can
help
better
understand
the
dynamics
of
real
world
systems,
and
• helps
generate
insights
as
to
how
these
dynamics
can
be
‘sensed’
and
‘navigated’
What
does
complexity
theory
offer?
The
Complexity
Theory
can
be
considered
a
more
specific
form
of
Systems
Thinking.
Systems
are
characterized
by
interconnectedness
and
interdependent
elements
and
dimensions
that
are
a
key
starting
point
for
understanding
complexity.
Feedback
9
Peggy
Holman
Engaging
Emergence:
Turning
Upheaval
into
Opportunity
Berrett
Koehler
Publishers
San
Francisco
2010
pg
18
10
www.thebrokeronline.eu
12

15. processes
shape
how
change
can
happen
in
a
system
and
change
usually
occurs
as
a
non-­‐plannable
emergent
process
between
parts
of
systems.
When
acknowledging
the
complexity
in
a
system
it
also
means
recognizing
that
change
happens
in
a
non-­‐linear
way.
Sensing
the
initial
state
of
a
system
also
makes
one
understand
the
importance
of
initial
small
changes
to
have
great
effects
(the
butterfly
who
laps
its
wings
leading
to
a
Tsunami
is
an
example
for
this).
A
systems
changes
because
part
of
it
changes,
causing
a
reaction
by
the
entire
system.
This
can
be
based
on
actions
of
so-­‐called
adaptive
agents
that
react
to
the
system
and
to
each
other.
This
might
lead
to
a
disruption
and
creation
of
diversity
in
the
system.
Through
self-­‐organization
(another
characteristic
of
a
complex
system)
a
new
state
of
equilibrium
may
develop.
In
this
process
co-­‐evolution
between
adaptive
agents
and
the
overall
system
may
occur.
In
a
Programmatic
co-­‐operation
process
that
is
tackling
change
in
complex
developmental
problematics
it
is
important
to
understand
how
change
in
these
complex
systems
emerges,
of
how
the
feedback
loops
within
the
system
operate,
and
to
understand
how
we
can
promote
emergence
in
certain
direction.
In
Chapter
3
more
will
be
said
about
how
to
work
with
emergence
and
about
which
methods
can
be
used
to
promote/host
emergence.
Some
methods
like
scenario
planning
and
system
loops
diagrams11
can
help
to
develop
images
of
the
feedback
loops.
An
important
example
of
these
theories
are
the
ideas
developed
by
David
Snowden
presented
in
the
Cynefin
Frame
work
and
by
Ken
Wilbur
in
the
Four
Quadrant
model.
Both
are
presented
in
Chapter
3
in
more
detail
and
can
help
in
working
with
complexity
in
systems
in
a
more
explicit
manner.
Related
are
theories
about
understanding
institutions
and
institutional
change,
as
institutions
are
mechanisms
maintaining
systems.
2.2 Multi-stakeholder Process theory
The
basic
principle
of
the
Multi-­‐stakeholder
theory
is
that
in
every
social
process
in
which
people
are
involved
these
people
will
have
a
different
understanding
of
the
situation
they
are
in.
They
will
not
only
have
a
different
understanding
but
also
a
different
appreciation
of
their
lives,
the
societies
in
which
they
live
and
of
the
problematics
involved12.
Solving
problematics
therefore
requires
that
all
people
having
a
stake
and
an
appreciation
of
the
situation/problematic
be
brought
together
to
jointly
analyse
the
situation
from
their
various
perspectives.
This
process
of
jointly
analysing
and
validating
different
perspectives
is
of
course
not
an
easy
process.
MSPs
are
fraught
with
power
differences
that
reflect
the
power
differences
of
the
very
systems
they
belong
to.
Bringing
multiple
stakeholders
together
(such
as
multinational
companies,
international
traders,
processing
businesses
and
producers
organizations)13,
implies
bringing
power
relations
into
the
process.
This
will
require
dialogue
skills,
keeping
an
open
mind
and
sometimes
the
suspension
of
judgment.
Many
of
the
methods
that
are
11
Peter
Senge
The
Fifth
Discipline,
Random
House,
1990,
Peter
Senge,
Art
Kleiner,
Charlotte
Roberts,
Richard
Ross,
Bryan
Smith,
Het
Vijfde
Discipline
Praktijkboek,
Academic
Services,
1998,
praktijkboek
12
The
multi-­‐stakeholder
theory
is
based
in
the
constructivist
paradigm.
13
Being
aware
of
the
gender
aspects(
as
a
specific
type
of
power
relation
and
institution)
of
a
MSP
is
important
and
easily
overlooked
13

16. mentioned
in
Chapter
3
on
methods
for
working
with
Emergence,
apply
to
working
in
multi-­‐stakeholder
settings.
The
main
assumption
of
the
multi-­‐stakeholder
theory
is
that
when
people
are
able
to
come
together
they
will
enter
into
a
social
learning
process
which
will
enable
them
to
find
solutions
that
respond
to
the
needs
of
multiple
actors
in
a
system14.
The
system
then
enters
into
a
process
of
change.
It
is
obvious
that
this
process
is
not
easy
and
will
often
require
facilitation.
In
the
Programmatic
Approach
the
roles
of
brokering,
learning
and
facilitating
capacity
development
are
very
often
required.
In
Chapter
4
we
will
discuss
how
we
have
organized
these
processes
so
far.
It
is
our
responsibility
as
ICCO
Alliance
to
assure
that
we
play
our
roles
well
and
only
when
they
are
required;
we
need
to
be
aware
of
our
place
in
the
system.
Being
a
part
of
the
system,
we
inevitably
bring
our
own
interests
and
stakes,
our
own
power
position
into
the
process.
We
are
never
a
neutral.
This
is
also
why
it
is
important
that
we
reflect
on
the
consequences
of
who
we
are
and
what
we
want
to
be
if
we
promote
systems
change
and
change
our
position
if
this
is
required.
2.3 Coalition building and network development
The
ICCO
Alliance’s
Programmatic
Approach
is
an
approach
that
is
about
emerging
forms
of
organizations:
organizations
of
organizations,
or
a
group
of
groups
that
come
together
to
collaborate.
These
organizational
forms
are
known
by
different
names
such
as
coalitions,
alliances,
networks,
partnerships,
joint
ventures
or
federations.
The
name
used
is
often
related
to
the
context
and
what
is
within
that
context
considered
a
current
label
for
associative
forms
of
organizing.
In
the
ICCO
Alliance
we
have
initially
called
them
Program
coalitions
or
even
shorter:
programs.
This
last
term
is
however
confusing
because
it
is
also
used
for
the
ICCO
Alliance
policy
level,
for
a
set
of
objectives,
results
and
activities
(projects)
related
to
a
thematic
domain
and
for
the
cooperation
between
stakeholders
on
a
problematic.
In
this
paper
we
will
use
the
term
coalition
for
the
associative
form
of
organizations
working
together
for
the
realization
of
a
joint
purpose.
Following
the
definition
of
Thomas
Cummings15
we
are
discussing
an
inter-­‐
organizational
system
that
has
become
semi-­‐autonomous
but
maintains
accountability
and
feedback
loops
to
its
organizations
of
origin
(the
constituent
organizations).
He
called
this
system
a
Trans
Organizational
System.
We
will
call
it
a
coalition.
In
a
coalition
the
constituent
organizations
will
maintain
their
separate
identities
and
goals.
In
its
development
a
coalition
can
be
ambiguous
for
a
long
time.
The
group
and
the
structure
are
co-­‐created
through
process
and
dialogue.
This
form
of
organizing
is
a
response
to
turbulent
and
complex
environments.
In
these
environments
non-­‐linear
and
expansive
approaches
are
required
because
these
contexts
are
often
messy
and
complex.
In
such
contexts
(individual)
organizations
face
meta
level
problems
(problematics).
This
organizational
ecology
perspective
aims
to
draw
together
a
wide
range
of
social
organizations
in
order
to
develop
a
meta
organizational
response
to
meta
problems,
that
individual
organizations
do
not
have
the
capacity
to
solve.
Turbulence
caused
by
complex
problems
in
the
environment
can
be
addressed
by
consulting
the
consolidated
resources
and
knowledge
base
of
coalitions.
14
Woodhill,
J&
van
Vugt,S,
The
Power
of
MSP,
Capacity.org,
edition
December
2010
15
In
Joan
M.
Roberts,
Alliances,
Coalitions
and
PartnershipsBuilding
collaborative
organizations.
New
Society
Publishers
,
2004
p
5
14

17. There
are
different
levels
of
intensity
possible
in
the
cooperation16
(see
Chapter
3
for
an
overview)
ranging
from
networking
to
collaboration.
In
the
Programmatic
Approach
we
also
see
the
different
levels
in
intensity
and
integration
of
activities
occurring
in
the
coalitions.
This
is
often
a
response
the
meta
problem
that
needs
addressing,
and
the
ongoing
trust-­‐building
and
power
dynamics
developing
in
the
coalition.
Coalitions
often
start
as
linking-­‐and-­‐learning
networks,
develop
slowly
towards
coordinating
their
efforts
and
further
into
cooperating
and
sometimes
collaborating
with
full
sharing
of
resources,
risks,
responsibilities
and
rewards.
But
this
takes
time
and
not
all
coalitions
(need
to)
develop
into
the
(full)
collaboration
type
(see
also
the
table
in
paragraph
3.3.2).
16
Ibid
pg.
28
15

18. 3
The methods we can use in the Programmatic
Approach
In
this
Chapter
we
will
present
methods
that
can
be
helpful
in
shaping
the
programmatic
cooperation
processes.
They
are
organized
as
follows:
1
Methods
for
working
with
Complexity
and
Systemic
change
2
Methods
for
Multi-­‐Stakeholder
Processes
3
Methods
for
Coalition
and
Network
development
3.1 Methods for working with systemic change and
complexity
Introduction
methods
for
working
with
emergence
Emergence
is
the
process
by
which
novel
structures
emerge
out
of
interaction
between
elements
of
the
system17.
Programmatic
cooperation
aims
to
promote
change
in
complex
systems
through
coherent
actions
of
agents
within
the
system.
In
complexity
theory
the
result
of
such
a
process
is
called
emerge.
Emergence
starts
with
the
disruption
of
a
static
situation
in
a
system.
At
the
moment
that
I
am
writing
this
paper
we
are
in
the
midst
of
major
systemic
change
that
starts
with
upheaval
and
disruption
in
the
countries
in
Northern
Africa
and
the
Arab
World.
Seemingly
unmovable
and
unchangeable
political
systems
are
in
a
change
process
that
is
forced
by
agents
from
within
the
system,
who
are
not
the
established
power.
So
as
a
consequence
the
diversity
in
the
system
is
also
increasing.
In
such
complex
systems
there
are
mechanisms
of
self-­‐organizing
which
in
the
end
will
cause
the
system
to
find
a
new
equilibrium.
This
new
balance
is
the
result
of
emergence.
In
the
Programmatic
Approach
we
would
like
to
promote
emergence
through
the
creation
of
conditions
that
favor
this
process.
In
preparing
for
emergence
there
are
three
rather
vague
‘processes”
that
we
need
attention.
These
processes
are:
a)
accepting
that
we
don’t
know
and
understand
everything,
but
that
we
should
be
very
curious
to
understand
as
much
as
possible,
b)
choosing
possibility:
being
open
to
and
sense
the
(new)
opportunities
for
changes,
c)
following
where
the
(life)
energy
of
the
system
is
going,
recognize
it
and
trying
to
give
it
space.
Where
are
the
hopes,
aspirations,
and
visions
pointing?
What
drives
or
motivates
the
people,
what
change
is
needed?
By
promoting
emergence
we
create
the
conditions
for
change
to
happen.
By
hosting
this
process
we
create
a
welcoming
environment
in
which
people
really
feel
that
their
contributions
matter,
we
create
focus
in
the
intentions
of
all
involved;
what
is
it
that
really
matters
to
us,
what
would
we
like
to
maintain
and
what
would
we
like
to
change?
Also
we
create
the
space
to
be
open
to
diversity;
diversity
of
people,
of
opinions,
of
17
Peggy
Holman
pg.
18
16

19. experiences.
For
this
process
to
be
as
inclusive
as
possible
we
make
sure
that
all
those
who
ARE
IN18,
those
with
Authority,
Resources,
Expertise,
Information
and
Need
are
present
and
are
welcomed
to
participate
actively.
In
the
engaging
process
we
use
several
steps:
we
inquire
appreciatively,
we
reflect,
we
connect,
we
listen,
we
are
open
to
what
emerges
and
we
will
act
/react
accordingly.
In
many
of
the
meetings
of
organizations
and
stakeholders
in
the
context
of
the
Programmatic
Approach
this
is
the
process
that
we
strive
to
follow.
Al
three
phases
are
followed
in
an
iterative
process
and
happen
either
at
the
same
time,
in
sequence
or
without
sequence
at
all.
Some
concrete
methods
that
we
can
use
in
this
process
are:
Appreciative
Inquiry,
Open
Space
Technology,
Future
Search,
and
Scenario
Planning.
Story
telling
and
active
listening
plays
an
important
role
in
all
of
these
methods,
as
are
dialogue
techniques
and
conflict
handling.
3.1.1 Appreciative Inquiry
‘Those
who
do
not
have
power
over
the
stories
that
dominate
their
lives,
power
to
retell
them,
rethink
them,
deconstruct
them,
joke
about
them,
and
change
them
as
times
change,
truly
are
powerless
because
they
cannot
think
new
thoughts."
(Salman
Rushdie:
One
Thousand
Days
in
a
Balloon)
What
is
Appreciative
Inquiry?
Of
all
new
tools,
schools
and
methods
for
change
in
organizations
and
communities
that
have
dominated
the
discussions
of
the
last
years,
Appreciative
Inquiry
(AI)
sticks
out.
It
is
not
a
new
tool.
It
is
not
a
new
school.
And
it
is
not
a
method.
AI
can
be
best
described
as
a
new
paradigm
in
how
we
approach
change
in
organizations
and
communities.
It
invites
people
to
tell
the
stories
they
wish
to
tell,
and
to
jointly
search
for
what
gives
life
to
organizations
and
communities.
It
is
increasingly
applied
in
both
small
and
large
change
processes,
ranging
from
small
personal
change
to
mega-­‐cities
or
entire
regions
and
multi-­‐national
companies
such
as
McDonald's
or
British
Airways.
It
builds
on
the
power
and
the
experience
of
the
stakeholders,
it
values
what
people
are
ready
to
contribute
and
it
changes
human
mindsets
by
switching
the
focus
of
their
attention.
AI
relates
to
what
OD
practitioners
call
the
‘power
of
mental
models’.
The
concept
of
mental
models19
(or
mental
maps)
has
been
described
by
most
authors
on
personal
and
organizational
change.
Peter
Senge
has
also
devoted
one
of
his
famous
five
disciplines
on
the
issue
of
mental
models.
What
is
radically
new
in
AI
is
the
notion
that
the
adaptation
of
certain,
resourceful
mental
models
can
help
us
overcome.
By
focusing
a
group
of
people
on
questions
such
as
‘What
has
been
there
already?’,
and
‘What
could
be?’,
an
implicit
intervention
in
the
group
is
created
that
causes
a
shift.
Referring
to
the
famous
metaphor
of
system
thinkers,
the
introduction
of
AI
into
an
organization
is
not
a
single
butterfly
(that
causes
a
tornado
5000
miles
away
by
a
single
flap
of
its
wings),
it
is
a
large
group
of
butterflies.
18
Peggy
Holman
pg.76
19
Source:
http://www.change-­‐management-­‐toolbook.com/mod/book/view.php?id=74&chapterid=45
17

20. Or
an
entire
flock
of
birds
as
was
described
by
Kevin
Kelly
in
‘Out
of
Control’,
where
he
describes
that
a
group
of
flying
geese
react
as
a
whole
when
they
change
the
direction
of
their
flight.
This
is
what
AI
does,
when
done
with
an
entire
organization
or
community
-­‐
it
changes
the
direction
of
people's
actions.
The
recent
development
of
AI
is
dominated
by
a
desire
to
put
the
philosophy
into
a
process,
which
can
be
applied
to
many
different
assignments,
e.g.
strategic
planning,
visioning,
or
monitoring
and
evaluation.
Figure
1
-­
The
4D
Model
of
Cooperrider
and
Srivastva
(taken
from
Watkins
and
Mohr,
2001)
The
models
and
how
they
can
be
applied
for
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
AI,
as
it
was
developed
by
Cooperrider
and
Srivastva
is
based
on
the
4-­‐D
Cycle,
which
runs
through
4
stages
(see
Figure
1):
1
Discovery
(appreciating
that
which
gives
life)
2
Dream
(envisioning
impact)
3
Design
(co-­‐constructing
the
future)
4
Delivery
(sustaining
the
change)
In
the
Discovery
phase,
people
start
to
explore
the
resources
of
the
organization
or
the
community
they
relate
to,
by
conducting
interview
across
the
organization,
and
even
including
external
resources
such
as
clients.
Interviews
are
principally
‘appreciative’,
and
are
developed
together
with
a
steering
group
composed
of
different
stakeholders.
In
the
monitoring
of
a
program,
an
interview
could
look
like
this:
• If
you
revisit
the
history
of
the
conflict
transformation
program
and
your
engagement
in
the
program,
which
was
a
moment
when
you
felt
deeply
connected
to
its
core?
A
moment
in
which
you
were
able
to
contribute
to
the
achievement
of
purpose
and
overall
objective?
Please
describe
this
moment
in
detail.
• What
was
your
particular
contribution?
What
did
you
do
to
help
others
to
contribute?
• What
were
the
nurturing
framework
conditions
that
supported
that
extraordinary
performance
of
yours
and
other
stakeholders?
• What
was
the
particular
outcome
at
that
time?
• If
you
had
three
wishes
for
the
future
of
your
organization
(or
the
program),
which
would
they
be?
18

21. In
this
phase,
people
share
stories
and
write
down
the
answers
in
interview
protocols,
which
are
the
base
for
the
next
phase.
In
the
Dream
phase,
stakeholders
engage
in
a
conversation
about
the
organization’s
or
community’s
potential,
future
or
vision.
The
future
is
In
the
Conflict
described
in
a
‘Provocative
Proposition’.
In
an
Transformation
methodology
which
is
evaluation,
this
proposition
could
be
about
what
developed
by
ICCO
use
is
should
be
changed
in
the
set-­‐up
of
the
program
to
made
in
several
phases
of
replicate
the
peak
performances
that
have
been
this
process
of
techniques
experienced
by
the
stakeholders.
But
the
provocative
that
stem
from
Appreciative
proposition
can
go
far
beyond
that
and
describe
a
inquiry.
It
starts
with
a
deep
vision
that
had
so
far
not
been
conceptualized.
In
reflection
by
all
participants
monitoring,
this
is
the
coaching
phase.
The
team
sits
of
the
situation
and
its
together
with
the
stakeholders
to
find
out
what
parts
history,their
role
in
it;
then
of
the
project
are
worth
to
expand.
invites
participants
to
dream
up
a
future,
followed
by
a
translation
into
concrete
In
the
Design
phase,
the
results
are
transferred
into
proposals
which
are
then
architecture.
Structures
that
exist
might
have
to
implemented
in
the
change
(or
to
be
strengthened)
to
facilitate
the
programme
cooperative
replication
of
the
peak
performance
and
the
process.
Monitoring
is
a
implementation
of
the
new
dream.
In
monitoring,
process
of
going
back
to
the
this
is
the
time
for
concrete
recommendations
for
original
analysis,
the
dream,
action
that
concern
all
involved
stakeholders.
its
proposal
and
the
way
the
implementation
process
The
final
Delivery
phase
is
the
phase
of
manages
to
realize
some
of
implementation
and
experimenting.
The
design
is
put
the
dream.
into
practice,
and
a
constant
learning
environment
is
created.
This
forms
the
base
for
a
new
monitoring
cycle,
not
out
of
the
blue
but
grounded
in
constant
research
on
what
gives
life
to
the
organization
or
community.
The
4-­‐D
Model
has
been
altered
by
Bernhard
Mohr
and
MetteJacobsgaard
into
a
Four-­‐I
model,
which
has
the
following
steps
(see
Figure
2):
1. Initiate
(Introduce
AI
to
key
stakeholders
and
create
temporary
structures)
2. Inquire
(Conduct
generic
interviews)
3. Imagine
(Collate
and
share
interview
data;
develop
provocative
propositions)
4. Innovate
(Engage
maximum
number
of
stakeholders
in
conversations;
implement
design
changes)
The
advantage
of
the
4I-­‐Cycle
is
that
institutional
capacity
is
systematically
built
up.
19

22. Figure
2
-­
The
4I
Model
of
Mohr
and
Jacobsgaard
(taken
from
Watkins
and
Mohr,
2001)
3.1.2 Methods for understanding systemic change:
Four quadrant framework
Ken
Wilbur
is
an
author
who
has
published
many
important
insights
into
change
and
transformation
of
systems.
A
key
product
of
this
work
is
what
is
now
referred
to
as
the
‘four-­‐quadrant’
diagram20
presented
in
the
table
below.
The
table
suggests
that
a
successful
strategy
must
address
four
challenges
for
change.
These
concern
the
relations
that
individuals
or
that
groups
of
people
have
to
systems
and
the
way
they
relate
to
a
systemic
change
process.
In
the
quadrant
the
vertical
axis
shows
two
categories:
the
individual
and
the
collective
(group)
level.
The
horizontal
axis
reflects
the
difference
between
what
people
experience
and
develop
as
their
mindset
(individually
or
collectively)
.
The
external
column
represents
what
people
(individually
or
collectively)
show
in
their
behavior
as
part
of
the
system
towards
the
outside
world.
The
broad
change
theories
that
are
mentioned
for
each
of
the
quadrants
show
the
assumptions
behind
change
that
is
inspired
from
one
of
the
quadrants.
The
idea
behind
the
four
quadrants
is
that
change
in
a
whole
system
involves
change
in
each
of
the
20
Steve
Waddell
Networking
Action
for
the
21st.
Century
Four
Network
Change
Strategies
for
Complex
Systems
20

23. quadrants.
Only
if
al
four
quadrants
have
coherent
and
effective
change
the
systemic
change
can
develop
into
a
new
state
of
equilibrium.
The
first
figure
shows
the
four-­‐quadrant
diagram.
The
second
figure
shows
how
we
have
used
the
framework
to
present
the
changes
that
have
happened
in
each
of
the
quadrants
for
the
process
of
introducing
the
ProCoDe
Approach
in
the
ICCO
system21
Quadrant
1
deals
with
intention,
personal
identity
and
ways
of
perceiving,
Quadrant
2
with
behavior
and
how
it
is
developed,
Quadrant
3
with
culture,
beliefs
and
values,
and
Quadrant
4
with
the
structures
and
processes
of
social
systems.
Figure
3
-­
The
four-­uadrant
diagram
21
By
Machteld
Ooijens
and
Hettie
Walters
for
IODA
conference:
August
2010
Budapest
21