Table 3 Main findings of SWOT analysis and Focus Group
From: The experience of a nationwide Community of Practice to set up Regional Prevention Plans in Italy
Strengths | Weaknesses | |
Internal | CoP - Constructivist environment - Participatory, non-judgmental, positive learning climate - Sharing of experiences within a multi-professional and multidisciplinary CoP - Intra- and inter-regional exchanges - Mutual knowledge and motivation - Development of sense of cooperation (joint efforts for shared goals) and collaboration (joint efforts for individual goals) - Construction of a sense of identity - Discussions focused on issues of interest ICT - Web platform as a working environment - ICT Help desk - Relevant to learning experience Outputs and outcomes of the CoP - Tangible (measurable) and intangible (not measurable) outcomes - Adaptive capacity in the face of complex tasks - Knowledge and practice of PCM - Identity, recognition (internal and external) - Common language, culture of planning design - Participation in local and platform | CoP - Poor representation of some relevant stakeholders - Opportunistic attitude, lurking - Some observers were not known by the CoP members - In some cases, hierarchical relationships inhibited plain participation - Low level of ‘active management’ of the group by CNESPS team - Interregional exchange not used at its full potential - The sense of not belonging for member joining the CoP later - Too many topics for discussion - Higher in the presence of CoP - Difficulties in valuing and giving external visibility to the intangible outcomes of the CoP ICT - Excess of messages from the web platform, poor capacity to manage them - Suboptimal use of the web platform with respect to potential - Obstacles in participation due to individual capacity (i.e. not confident with web environments) |
Opportunities | Threats | |
External | - Criteria for selection of participants (in some Regions) - Coordination by CNESPS team - Relevant to regional/national context of planning - Strong mandate - Possibility to develop the planning methodology at Regional level in wider groups, with local stakeholders - Relationships and networks created within the CoP have persisted after the experience | - Non-homogeneous criteria for the selection of CoP members (in some Regions) - Weak mandate at local level (in some cases) - Absence of regional managers and decision-makers - Central support weak (technical group) - Too much caution in sharing drafts of plans - Time constraints, no dedicated time for planning and peer-to-peer exchange - Poor external recognition of the value of the CoP as being in itself an outcome |