accueil > 您的答复对问题单 > 您是否认为您的组织或本人参与这一联盟是有可能的或有意义的？

您是否认为您的组织或本人参与这一联盟是有可能的或有意义的？

reponse de Guy VANDEBROUCK, Non allie. Switzerland , 2005年10月12日

| 同一作者 Guy VANDEBROUCK |

Summarizing my perception after reading, it is excellent to propose the maintenance (or slightly increase) an open network of Allies and the related processes to ensure sharing and capitalizing, it is probably less designed to enlarge the Alliance and attract new members in any form of quantum leap. This perception might be the result of a conscious decision since the FPH is willing to get less involved but it makes the bet that it is not necessary to replace the FPH (even with a new approach) in a sort of active governance. Even if I am not experienced in the running of similar entities, I am a little bit afraid that the Alliance will to the best "kindly survive" with the proposed approach.

Diving a little bit in details, when reading it, I perceive a number of assumptions, and the proposal probably create "de facto" a specific trend for the coming years. Let me share them:
 taking a "marketing and communication hat", the implicit positioning is one of maintaining, with less involvement of the FPH, the current network,
 Therefore it raises the question of the desired goals and of the possible goals,
 Is the desired goal to maintain the current dynamic with a priority on the current allies, or to "recruit", attract a large number of new entrants? My personal perception is that recruiting is a must considering the agenda for a better world, and the progress so far. The impression that comes out of the reading is that the proposed next phase, both in content and style, is designed more for current members, and for entities rather similar to the FPH,
 But there is also a possible goal. And this raises the question of the FPH somehow stepping back. This decision is good by definition, since it is decided by its Board. But it might have been possible maybe to reinforce the ownership of the Alliance image, brand, architecture and processes while minimizing the FPH role by various alternatives. Just an illustration could be a rotating group of Allies in charge of the active governance and promotion of the Alliance. Selecting them would be a key strategic decision would recruitment be a goal. These ownership alternatives could be designed to protect the essence of the open network with implicit governance, which is key in the whole initiative. But it would have created more possibilities to attractively communicate: the solution taken in the current proposal gives a sense of "dehumanization", of coldness, of lack of passion and commitment just because we see nobody in there or behind it. We know the risks of the proposed alternative (appropriation by a small group, power, disagreements among members...), but there is also risk in the current ones, with probable consequence of a somehow sleeping Alliance. But I might be wrong, I hope in fact.

 

 

- alliance -
- fph -