GAUGING ORGANISATION RESILIENCE
Source: Extract from Chapter 7 in “Gauging the Resilience of City and Town Government: A manual for Strategists” Author Louis van der Merwe PhD
Available from Amazon internationally and TakeAlot locally in SoA
- THE DIAGNOSTIC INSTRUMENT FOR GAUGING CITY GOVERNMENT RESILIENCE
Building a city government resilience strategy may be viewed as a learning process. Such a process may be facilitated by a quality strategic conversation between city government executive leaders and executive managers. This learning may take place at an individual level, within the executive team or among the members of a forum, consisting of executive leaders and executive managers who link this strategic conversation to the entire organisation.
Gauging organisation resilience using The CIL Resilience Strategy Hierarchy™ (RSH)
Figure 7.1:
The Resilience Strategy Hierarchy (RSH)™ A process framework
WE LOVE GOOD QUALITY
This diagnostic instrument has been designed for use by the city government organizations and organizations in general in a facilitated conversation. Its purpose is to stimulate reflection on the factors (and the items within them) and to assist in scoring these factors and items. The associated scores provide a basis for diagnosis for the purposes of improving city government resilience strategy. After instructions for scoring the instrument have been considered, a two-phase process of assessment of city government resilience may be used, facilitated by skillful conversation quality and engagement among executive leadership and executive management. Meta-factors were engaged in completion of the eight factors, followed by considering items within each factor. Greater weight may be given to factors and items where there may be agreement on scores among respondents. Prioritisation and action planning of the remedies for dealing with a lack of resilience will ensure that a process of continuous improvement takes place within a specific city.
Using the Resilience Strategy Hierarchy (RSH)™ A Process Perspective
Scoring using the Resilience Strategy Hierarchy (RSH)™ using a diagnostic process is described below starting with factors and followed by items.
2 FACTORS AND ITEMS FOR GAUGING CITY GOVERNMENT RESILIENCE
A focused strategic conversation on the current reality pertaining to the various factors and items in the instrument, accompanied by associated actions, will result in a more robust resilience strategy.
A quality strategic conversation and engagement among executive leadership and executive management may enable so-called double-loop learning to “retune the minds” of decision makers. Double-loop learning describes a type of conversation where assumptions shift as a result of them being loosely held. Then, in a second learning loop, incoming information is allowed to influence these assumptions. It is envisaged that this diagnostic instrument, when applied by executive leadership and executive management teams in municipal government, will enable the development of an effective city government resilience strategy.
The use of this instrument may be considered successful when it enables learning, including any new insights and actions regarding a city government resilience strategy. Factors and items within factors have been selected based on their leverage for enabling a robust city government resilience strategy. The Green Growth (GG) and Smart Cities (SC) factors have been added based on assumptions about predetermined forces that may have an impact on cities. Accordingly, forces such as climate change and the increased use of technology, which may initially challenge city government resilience, have been considered.
For city government, raising capability through capacity building is an essential ingredient and first step in building city government resilience. A regular biannual review of city government capability will result in the capacity to mobilise the factors in the diagnostic instrument.
3 SCORING AND USING THE DIAGNOSTIC INSTRUMENT
The city government resilience diagnostic instrument consists of two levels of assessment and scoring, namely, factors and items.
Factors provide an overarching meta-perspective for determining a resilience strategy. They include:
- Capability (C)
- Cross-cutting Competencies (CC)
- Anticipation (An)
- Adaptation (Ad)
- Recovery (R)
- Sustainable Development (SDev)
- Green Growth (GG), and
- Smart Cities (SC)
The second level of assessment and scoring can be found at item level within the factors.
Assessing and scoring factors and items in the diagnostic instrument
Respondents are invited to respond to the descriptive statements for the factors as a whole, as the descriptors contain more than one element.
Scoring factors
Score all factors by registering the level of agreement or disagreement on a descending Likert scale:
- “Agree Completely”: Score 4
- “Agree Somewhat”: Score 3
- “Disagree Somewhat”: Score 2
- “Disagree Completely”: Score 1
Scoring items within factors
All items within factors are also scored as above, except for items in Capability (C) and Cross-cutting competence (CC)
In Capability (C) and Cross-cutting Competence (CC), items are assessed and scored on a four-point ascending Likert scale to facilitate the development of competencies:
- “None”: Score 0. None or little competence currently exists.
- “Basic/Emergent”: Score 1. Guideline: Basic knowledge, skills and attitudes may exist, and greater proficiency may emerge over time. Comprehensive learning resources need to be identified and engaged.
- “Intermediate/Competent”: Score 2. Guideline: An intermediate to competent range in current knowledge, skills and attitudes and overall proficiency exists. Learning resources are known, engaged and being developed.
- “Advanced”: Score 3. Guideline: A deep and complete basis in current knowledge, skills and attitudes and commensurate proficiencies exists. Learning resources have been comprehensively mastered and applied.
Note: When questions of clarification arise from technical descriptions and metrics such as “Networked Readiness Index (NRI) or Sendai framework” and “The new urban agenda (Habitat3)” the scorer should indicate a low score for that item.
Factors for gauging city government resilience