It seems that several of us have been worrying about the Self Assessment framework. This note articulates the concerns that I have, sets out some ground rules that I think are necessary to address the issues and some ideas about a programme to deal with the issues.
Why the concern?
There are several issues of detail that that we need to work on with the Self Assessment framework. But there is one overarching issue that convinces me that we need to look at the framework once again. If we are to have a credible system to 'Measure progress' based around the Self Assessment framework, then that framework has to be internally consistent and clear. If you would like a detailed explanation of why I think this to be the case you can find it in the note on this site called 'Measure progress'.
So what are the issues in the Self Assessment framework?
1. The generic definition of levels.
I think of the big issue as the 'Level 2 problem'. Here is the problem in a nutshell. In the current official Constellation Self Assessment framework, there is a generic description of the 5 levels and Level 2 is defined as 'We react'. However a version of the Self Assessment framework is widely used within the Constellation in which Level 2 is defined as 'We know enough to act'. If we look at the definitions of level 2 for each of the 10 specific practices, we find that some link to 'We react' generic definition, some link to the 'We now enough to act' generic definition and many don't link to either of the definition. There is a more detailed discussion of this subject in the attachment '100719 The Level 2 problem for the Self Assessment framework.docx'.
2. The definition of the practices
The title of some of the practices still cause confusion. Many (most) of the people who will use the Self Assessment framework have English as a second (or third) language. We know that this text will often be translated into other languages before communities will use it. And, in spite of this, we favour complex, abstract language rather than simple, active words. Our practices cause confusion.
I've put down the areas where I have difficulties understanding the practices and the areas where I've noticed consistent problems that others have. You will find them in the file '100721 Comments on the names of the 10 practices.docx' attached to this document.
3. The definition of the levels for each of the 10 practices.
If we define the practices clearly and if we define the generic levels for practices clearly, then there is a case to be made as to whether we need anything more to do a Self Assessment. Perhaps there are practices where the generic levels are not easy to apply.But, perhaps there is no need for the somewhat overwhelming content of the framework. Perhaps we could see it as an optional extra that facilitators and communities can use if they so wish. My personal feeling is that it is something that is nice to have, rather than essential.
4. The definition of Level 5
I think that the material that is coming out of Geoff's Knowledge Asset project has the potential to be a package that leads to a good Self Assessment and a relevant Action Plan. This will include a well considered definition of Level 5, the Principles for Action for each practice and the stories (experiences) that support those principles.
Clarity or consensus?
The Self Assessment framework sits at the heart of the CLCP. Everything revolves around it. It is the skeleton on which everything else is built. And as such, my personal sense that it is one of the very few items where the overarching need is to be clear and to be concise. We should look for a very small group to work on the Self Assessment framework to ensure that it meets these criteria
The translation test
I think that we should work hard to ensure that we maximise our chances to get a good translation of the Self Assessment framework. So we should be willing to translate the produce into a local language and then translate it back to English with a different local speaker and see what we get back.