Internet notebook about my work: deep listening to facilitate positive change


Friday 16 January 2009

Stakeholder engagement in Montenegro

In selling the idea of new protected area in Montenegro, the issue of trust in the governmental bodies would be the major one, because of the long period of centralized decision-making. This is the issue my student adresses in her communication strategy. And this is my feedback.
Good: Your plan proves you have internalized most of the theory of the CEPA toolkit and the participation cases and exercises of the lecture. What I like is that you thought of collecting names and addresses – such a database is vital in a communication plan. If you add interets, values etc. to nbames you get slowly a relation management system. What I also like is that you specify objectives for the meetings before formulating an agenda. And that you check the agenda with stakeholders. The more stakeholders are involved in the organization of a meeting the more productive such meeting will be. You also thought of how to publicize the meeting. I also like the idea of a local product fair – this also is a way of generating ownership of the process by stakeholders. What you did very well is to include learning from the process through monitoring and evaluation.
To improve: A next time you should formulate the objectives per targetgroup by specifying their existing knowledge to the level of desired knowledge. Or from the level of trust or mistrust they have now, to the level of trust you need (if you do not specify that exactly you never know how to evaluate your communication. So this type of stakeholders analysis is needed to formulate and establish criteria to assess the effect of your interventions.

No comments: