Choosing an alternative: making the choice
Evaluating an alternative
When choosing to take part in an alternative project, for
many people what counts is "feeling part" of the project. Is the group one which you identify
with and would like to be part of? That, for many people, is the crucial
question. Choosing an alternative in this case involves a subjective approach,
in which mutual feelings of empathy play a strong role.
However,
this approach does have its pitfalls. Firstly, there is the danger that
romantic first impressions gained at an open day may fade away when confronted
with the reality of daily work in the project. The extreme version of this is
found in the stories of people being taken in by religious sects and finding it
very difficult to escape. These stories in turn give a bad name to alternative
projects of all descriptions, even those that are not religious or sect-like.
Secondly,
there is the question of how the project fits with your own plans in life.
Those who think in terms of a career might consider how it will affect their
career. Some alternatives such as VSO attract people partly out of a belief
that a period spent with them will benefit your career in the long run. Those
who don't think in terms of careers (since it sounds too much like the
rat-race) might still consider how joining the project fits with their
long-term goals.
A systematic approach
The
question then arises of whether it is possible to assess alternatives
objectively. At first this might seem almost impossible given the diversity of
alternative projects. However, a possible method is as follows.
This
method takes the "stakeholder" analysis made famous by British Prime
Minister Tony Blair, but adds a more radical element in the form of the
"ladder of participation".
Stakeholders
are those individuals or groups of individuals who either have some input into
the project or are affected by it. These include groups with a clear
participation (funders, project workers, clients, etc.)
and those who are less involved but nevertheless affected (such as local
government or the owner of the building in which the project is based).
The
set of stakeholder groups can be seen as a train of gearwheels, with one
gearwheel typically "driving" the project (click here
for a diagram courtesy of The
Animated Software Company).
The "ladder of
participation" comes in various versions. Some versions have as many
as 7 or 8 rungs, while others have just 4 or 5. Here we present an 8-rung
version, adapted for the stakeholder model.
---
Manipulation
- the lowest level. In this stage, stakeholders are deceived as to the nature
of the project.
Decoration
- a stakeholder group is regarded as “just there for show” and not really part
of the project, and are only given superficial information about it.
Information
given - stakeholders are told what is happening but are not consulted in any
way.
Comments
requested - stakeholders are asked for comments on the project, but the
comments are not taken into account during decision-making.
Consultation
- a stakeholder group is actively consulted and their comments are taken into
account during decision-making, but the stakeholder group does not participate
in actual decision-making.
Token
representation - a group of stakeholders is formally represented on the
decision-making body but is in a minority and has limited influence in
decisions. For example, an informal "pre-meeting" of the key
decision-makers may make the real decision and then present it as a fait
accompli to the full committee.
Genuine
representation - a representative of a group of stakeholders plays a full part
in the decision-making process. The individual stakeholders in the group take
part indirectly via their representative, who they themselves can choose.
Collective
decision-making - individual members of the stakeholder group are able to take
part directly in the decision-making process.
---
If
every group of stakeholders stands high up on this ladder of participation,
this suggests that the project is both responsive and responsible, respecting
democracy in its work. On the other hand, if the project uses
"manipulation" to deal with any group of stakeholders, this should be
seen as a warning sign. Most projects, however, will be between these two
extremes, with varying levels of participation among different stakeholder
groups.
Of
course, this model is a very general model, and does not take into account
project-specific issues. For example, laws vary from country to country (and in
some countries as the