|
|
| Line 23: |
Line 23: |
|
| |
|
| == Homework 9 == | | == Homework 9 == |
|
| |
| {{comment|# |Please see [[User:Isabell Rumrich#DARM course 2013 – Homework 9]] for an example how to present the characterizations and evaluations of homework 9 in three tables for easier reading and commenting. I recommend everyone to present their answers in this kind of format. You can do it e.g. by copying the tables as such and just replacing their contents.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:57, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
|
| |
| ===''Assessment of Homework 3 of Johnagyemang [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Johnagyemang#Homework_3]]===
| |
| (Groupwork of John Bright Agyemang and Emmanuel Abu-Danso)
| |
|
| |
| {{comment|# |I collected the answers into three tables for easier reading and commenting. You could do the same for the other characterization/evaluation below, e.g. by copying the tables as such and replacing their contents (I recommend doing the same to everyone else as well).|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:44, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
| :{{comment|# |Will get back to comment the contents later.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:51, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
|
| |
| '''Knowledge-policy interaction'''
| |
|
| |
| {|{{prettytable}}
| |
| |+ '''Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
| |
| ! Attribute
| |
| ! characterization
| |
| |-----
| |
| | Impacts
| |
| | Climate Change due to GHG emissions of transport and power plants.
| |
| |-----
| |
| | Causes
| |
| | Present fuels used for transport and power production emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, which play a major role in climate change.
| |
| |-----
| |
| | Problem owner
| |
| |
| |
| * The city council is responsible for implementation of guidelines and recommendation.
| |
| * The owner of the public transport company makes the decision about the fuel options.
| |
| * Engineers to review designing structures to increase energy efficiency.
| |
| |-----
| |
| | Target
| |
| |
| |
| * The city council can use the results to give recommendations or guidelines for fuel choice.
| |
| * Transport commissions can changed their choice of fuel regarding the assessment results.
| |
| * Communication and public relations out fits is responsible for the communication of recommendations. {{comment|# |But are they really the target or a means of delivering the recommendations to the target. Depends a bit on the perspective one wishes to look at the case.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
| * Building and construction out fits is responsible to review designs to increase energy efficiency.
| |
| |-----
| |
| | Interaction
| |
| | The scope of participation is very open, because all stakeholders with environmental concerns are allowed to participate. Based on the assessment draft it is very difficult to group the draft into one category of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework, because the draft gives not enough details to do so.
| |
| {{attack|# |Try to pick one (or two if necessary) of the example categories that you think mostly resembles the type of interaction the draft assessment would promote or aim for.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
| {{comment|# |I picked the examples categories, which mostly resemble the type of interaction in my opinion.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
| |}
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| {|{{prettytable}}
| |
| |+ '''Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
| |
| ! Dimension
| |
| ! Characterization
| |
| |-----
| |
| | Scope of participation
| |
| | All stakeholders are allowed to participate. However no detailed information are given who is considered as a stakeholder with environmental concerns.
| |
| {{comment|# |all with "environmental concerns" is a broad group of stakeholders, but a bit vaguely expressed in terms of who are the stakeholders that get or don't get to participate.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
| {{comment|# |I added a short explanation.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
| |-----
| |
| | Access to information
| |
| | The assessment draft gives no information about it. It only states that the public awareness should be strengthened.
| |
| |-----
| |
| | Timing of openness
| |
| | The draft only states stakeholders as participants. It does not give information whether other parties are invited at some point. The stakeholders have to participate from the beginning on.
| |
| |-----
| |
| | Scope of contribution
| |
| | The draft allows public participation. However, no detailed information are given whether te participation is limited in any way.
| |
| {{attack|# |Looks to me that almost anyone would get to participate, at least in principle (see scope of participation), but I'm not sure based on the description. This attribute considers what aspects could the participants address. Little can be said about that based on the draft assessment, but one could guess that perhaps the intended users would have certain specific parts to contribute to, but this is just guessing, since it is not described.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
| {{comment|# |I corrected the answer.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
| |-----
| |
| | Impact of contribution
| |
| | There is only one group of participants: the stakeholders.
| |
| |}
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.
| |
|
| |
| :It is very difficult to categorize this draft of an assessment into one of the categories, because the draft it too vague and only includes stakeholders as participants. It does not include enough information about other participants or details.
| |
|
| |
| * Isolated: The assessment is not isolated at all if it is done as the draft describes it. The stakeholders are the only participants, which makes in impossible that they do not interfere with making the assessment.
| |
| * Informing: Again, the draft only includes the stakeholders as participants. The city council and other groups are only named as intended user. That way it does not seem very realistic, that the assessment will be done according to gaining the best outcome for all intended users.
| |
| * Participatory: The allowed participation is very narrow and limited.
| |
| * Joint: The draft gives no clear information about planned information or data exchange. But due to the list of possible options to answer the study question, there needs to be data and information sharing among the intended users. Management and follow-up are not included in the draft.
| |
| * Shared: Open collaboration is not intended at any point.
| |
|
| |
| {{comment|# |The explanations for the example categories for "Interaction" are just to help you choose the one that most closely describes the type of interaction indicated by the draft assessment you have looked at. No need to make any further analysis according to them.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:39, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| '''Evaluation of the assessment draft'''
| |
|
| |
| {|{{prettytable}}
| |
| |+ '''Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
| |
| ! Attribute
| |
| ! Score
| |
| ! Explanation
| |
| |-----
| |
| | Quality of content
| |
| | 1
| |
| | The complete draft it very vague. The assessment question is already. It does not state a specific city or mentions specific actions taken into account in the assessment. It is a very open question because the way it is written it has to include all European cities and actions taken there. Moreover, important parts of the assessment are missing totally. The variable and the results are not included. All in all it seems like not much effort was put into the draft. The whole concept of open assessment was not used for it and no details about the options considered in the assessment are mentioned. Furthermore, including only the stakeholders as participants would not work in a real assessment.
| |
| |-----
| |
| | Applicability: Relevance
| |
| | 1
| |
| | The draft does not contain any information about how the results are communicated and who is allowed to use them. The time framework is until 2020. All in all, if the draft is developed further, the results could be available for all important groups within a limited period of time (maybe months to a year). The outcomes of the assessment, if it is improved and further developed, can be of a use for the intended users. The assessment can give good advice, how the GHG emissions can be decreased.
| |
| {{attack|# |Perhaps the communication issue relates more to availability and usability. Although the question and the description overall is quite vague, it seems that the intended users could have a real need for the results such an assessment could bring (if improved sufficiently).|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
| {{comment|# |I made small changes in the answer.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
| |-----
| |
| | Applicability: Availability
| |
| | 0
| |
| | The draft does not contain any information about how the results are communicated and who is allowed to use them. The time framework is until 2020. All in all, if the draft is developed further, the results could be available for all important groups within a limited period of time (maybe months to a year). It depends on how the assessment is done and on which data it is based. It has good potential to have a useable outcome, though.
| |
| {{comment|# |This is hard to evaluate due to limited information. If e.g. Opasnet were used in making the assessment, it would increase at least the potential of availability. Again based on guessing. |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
| {{comment|# |I made small changes in the answer.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
| |-----
| |
| | Applicability: Usability
| |
| | 2
| |
| | If the assessment is not developed further, the output of the assessment would be very limited, because the stakeholders are the only ones participating in the assessment and their knowledge is limited in assessment. If the draft is developed further and the study question is more limited, there is potential that the assessment might have a useful outcome, which can be understood by the stakeholders, the city and the public. Therefore, the output might be useable for them. {{defend|# |Good. I agree, there is potential and reasonable thinking behind, but should be developed further.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
| |-----
| |
| | Applicability: Acceptability
| |
| | 0
| |
| | Again, the draft is too vague to be able to evaluate this. In the current state the assessment would not be accepted by anyone, I guess, because too many information are missing. The draft does not even give an idea about the expected results. The fact, that the scope of participation is very broad, can be seen as a good aspect for the acceptability of the assessment. I guess, all groups, who participated in the assessment, will accept the outcome in the end.
| |
| {{comment|# |I see broad openness, which seems like a good thing. On the other hand, very little is said about how the assessment would be done and kind of knowledge it would be based on, so hard to say.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
| {{comment|# |I added an explanation.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
| |-----
| |
| | Efficiency
| |
| | 1
| |
| | The assessment described in the draft, would not be efficient. The question is so open that it would be very expensive and time consuming to answer it, if it is possible to find an answer. The whole assessment can be divided into smaller assessment so that more things can be done in the same time and more people can work on it. The different options need different expert knowledge so that it would make sense to assess them in different groups. Of course, the different expert groups would need to share knowledge and data, in order to make the assessment good as a whole. It is a matter of shared understanding.
| |
| {{comment|# |On the other hand, practical problems typically requires many kinds of experts and non-experts to co-operate. Good reasoning still.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
| {{comment|# |I added an explanation.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
| |}
| |
|
| |
| {{comment|# |If something is very difficult to evaluate based on the given information, also 0 can be given as score for that attribute.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
|
| |
| '''Comments and ideas how to improve the draft'''
| |
|
| |
| * The structure of the assessment should be more obvious (eg like the example assessment clearly stated the scope with question, the answer and the rationale.). It is very hard to follow draft with the current structure. Moreover the draft is too vague as a total. There are no details mentioned at all, which would be needed to be able to evaluate the draft.
| |
| * The question is very open and makes the assessment very hard. Maybe it would be better to focus on one city and one small part of your current assessment (eg transport or energy production.
| |
| * It would be nice if it would be written in whole sentences and in a fluent text. It would make it easier to read. {{comment|# |Also use of headings, lists, indents an other kinds of technical editing would be helpful.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
| * The listed intended users are a good start, but not enough regarding your open question.
| |
| * The stakeholders as only participants seems unrealistic. Inviting experts and the public for the evaluation of the options and so on should be considered?
| |
| * The decision should be something like: Option x is the recommended, because…
| |
| * Overall the options are good. It would be nice though, if they would explained them a little better.
| |
| * The rationale is missing nearly completely. Endpoints and variables are not mentioned at all.
| |
|
| |
| {{defend|# |Good recommendations. Please add them as arguments to the draft assessment description text.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |
| :{{comment|# |I added the recommendations to the draft assessment description text.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| |