Difference between revisions of "User:Amr Ebrahim"

From Testiwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Homework 6: Collaboration in climate policy assessment)
(Homework 6: Collaboration in climate policy assessment)
Line 47: Line 47:
 
:Information shared using a systemic structure that allows open work space. Used to define research questions to be answered in open assessment. While collaborate to answer questions to with stand critique and build causal connections.
 
:Information shared using a systemic structure that allows open work space. Used to define research questions to be answered in open assessment. While collaborate to answer questions to with stand critique and build causal connections.
  
== Homework 6: Collaboration in climate policy assessment ==
+
== Homework 6 ==
'''Homework 6, part A:''' ( AMR, [[User:Ehab Mustafa|Ehab]])
+
 
 +
'' Homework 6: Collaboration in climate policy assessment ( AMR, [[User:Ehab Mustafa|Ehab]]) ''
 +
 
 +
'''Homework 6, part A:'''
  
 
Questions about identifying roles and participation:
 
Questions about identifying roles and participation:

Revision as of 20:25, 25 April 2017

Homework 1

# : Good. You have answered more questions than asked for. I have added some clarifications to the text. --Jouni (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Homework 1a: Open policy practice 1. What is the main purpose of environmental health assessment?

  • Studying the characteristics of our living environment and its impacts on human health by applying research to validate cause and effect relations.
  • Improving plans using pragma-dilectic theory through knowledge sharing approaches, while taking in consideration complexity.
  • Supply knowledge in regards to facilitating communication and implementation of assessment produced to assist governance to desired outcomes.

2.What is shared understanding?

The purposeful rafting of polarity in final decision options at hand. Employing experts and stakeholders in process of collective understanding of the magnitude of decision options. Involving means of support to execute, evaluate and manage intended knowledge rendered towards decision making. Throughout co-creating and facilitating synthesis utilizing probability and quantitative modeling.

3. What are the main differences between regulatory and academic assessment approaches? Give examples of each.

Regulatory Assessment Approach
Captures the political infusion of societal decision making . They often look at decision from the lens of authorities and its association with communal and private governance. Poor policies can be the results of poor understanding of the interaction dynamics of each party. An example for that can be the COP private funding policies. # : Typically, these are assessments whose content and/or process is regulated by law, e.g. chemical safety assessment by the REACH directive, or environmental impact assessments regulated by the EIA directive. --Jouni (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Academic Assessment Approach
The discipline that recognizes objectives towards decision making process through sufficing information needed.This takes place through a process of decision support by creating research questions that follows pragmatic rational. An example can be energy efficiency and nudge theory.

4. What are co-creation skills? An amalgamating function that insures the execution , evaluation and management ( also referred to as international experience # : Not international experience but interactional expertise, meaning that people working in co-creation (often called facilitators) are able to interact with other disciplines and people. They are experts in making syntheses of the information produced. --Jouni (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)). Which is as set of capabilities that combines expertise, administrative and active involvement to handle the task of collaboration, information objectives and shared understanding. Towards purposeful management of decision making and information. 5. What are the main differences between open assessment and most other assessment approaches?

Open Assessment
is a method that capitalizes on the use of information to generate better policies decision by explicitly introduce value judgement. based on scientific methods and structure to deal with disputes and contending in an open platform based on observation and reason to reject of accept.
other open assessment
all assessment methods has common structure to enable effective automation and rendering of information by structures attributes and sub-attributes encompassing ( scope, answers, rational).# : Question, answer, and rationale are typical for open assessments, not other assessments. Open participation is a key difference between open assessment and other approaches. --Jouni (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

6. What is benefit-risk assessment? The prerequisite for safety procedures , where reveals the intrinsic hazardous component, substance or product.Composed of ( decompose- assessment, exposure-assessment, hazard identification and risk characterization. # : What you describe is a typical risk assessment. Benefit-risk assessment looks also at the benefits of the activity or product. --Jouni (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC) 7. What is open assessment?

Is a method that attempts to answer a set of scientific questions that can improve societal decision making in an open participation context to produce value judgement.

8. What different purposes are there for participation in assessment and/or decision making?

The purpose of participating in an assessment is to improve deliberate plans of actions that guides decision making to reach desired outcomes. It helps set milestones to impact, causes, problem owners, targeted segments and level of interaction.

9. What are the dimensions of openness?

It is a principle framework to insure and monitor deviation from ideal state of openness during execution creating the balance needed for open practice and openness towards closed process.that takes place in a continual fashion to assist with participatory assessment and decision making process in a step-by-step consideration.

10. What relevant stakeholder roles are there in environmental health assessment and related decision making

Knowledge about environmental health relationships and actions influencing them are tightly interconnected. Therefore, categories of interactions are set to facilitate interactions between stakeholders in the level of involvement. ( Isolated, informing, participatory, joint and shared).

11.What is effectiveness' in the context of environmental health assessment and related decision making?

It is the follow up and post hoc analysis of the changes that can be provoked after the delivery of results to insure good assessment and evaluation. Throughout running evaluation approach to influence the decision making process addressing (quality of content, applicability and efficiency). Effective environmental health assessment therefore necessitates collaboration between environmental experts and decision makers.

12.What is the trialogical approach to knowledge creation and learning?

It is the relevant involvement of all parties in the process learning to produce knowledge artifacts in a collective learning explicit linking knowledge creation to practice. It usually is considered in the context of computer support collaborative learning considering issues with knowledge creation and innovation.

13. What is decision support?

A scheme core to evaluate and manage decision in open policy practice.to evaluate what exactly went wrong after results are obtains from the process. Contributing to decision making with high quality of content.

14. What is a pragmatic knowledge service?

is a hybrid system of information technology not only meant for creating practical knowledge but also a vehicle of cultural change from individualistic perspective. Governed by 4 major characteristics: collaboration, knowledge practice, knowledge implementation and adaptability.

15. What is collaboration?

Building and managing networked communities and social relations required for carrying out knowledge advancement effort. Allowing users to learn, lean, share and combine each other’s competences and experiences.

16. What are the properties of good assessment?

Informative, collaborative, coherent) in regards to content. (In regards to applicability (relevance, availability, usability and acceptability) and intra/inter - assessments in regards to efficiency.

17. What is the role of modelling in assessment and policy making?

It is the co-creation and facilitation category used to develop actual assessment models based on generic methods and case specifications.

18. What parts does the open policy practice consist of?

Intentionality, causality, critique, shared information objects, openness and reuse. # : These are principles used. It consists of these parts: shared understanding as the ultimate goal; execution (this work follows the principles you mention); co-creation skills and facilitation; and evaluation and management. --Jouni (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

19. What does it mean that the results of assessments can be considered shared information objects?

Information shared using a systemic structure that allows open work space. Used to define research questions to be answered in open assessment. While collaborate to answer questions to with stand critique and build causal connections.

Homework 6

Homework 6: Collaboration in climate policy assessment ( AMR, Ehab)

Homework 6, part A:

Questions about identifying roles and participation:

  • Who are the relevant participants of the assessment? and their roles?
  • Regulatory participants:
  1. EU room for the river projects and altered discharge regimes at the German-Dutch border.
  2. Delta Committee to parliament.
  3. Regional board consisting of (municipalities, provinces, the waterboards.
  4. ‘bestuurlijke tafels’ national governmental stakeholders.
  • Execution Participants:
  1. Port Rotterdam Company
  2. Rotterdam Delta commissioner.
  3. Deltares research institute.
  4. Network Organisation for Quality of Environnment (NOK).
  5. "maatschappelijke adviesgroep" (MAG) included stakeholders from a range of sectors, including inland shipping, nature NGO’s, logistics, industry, residents and is headed by the mayor of Rotterdam.
  6. landscape architects under supervision of a national atelier.
  • What kind of relevant knowledge they (may) have regarding the assessment?
  • What needs and aims do they represent in the assessment?

'Deltares, Port Rotterdam and NOK:

  1. GIS mapped megasites description: current and planned use, potential and actual risks
  2. Boundary conditions for sustainable development: stakeholders interest, funding options and legislative framework (water quality targets set by water framework directive).
  3. Management instruments and effects: risk-function relations and risk reduction measures.
  4. Description of Management Options.
  5. Option driven rehabilitation scenarios, technical feasibility tests and technical designs.
  6. Cost-efficient management scenarios and selection of final project goals
  7. Embedding principles and organizational models for implementation
  8. Procedure for risk assessment and evaluating the proportionality of hazard prevention measures.
  9. Assessment system for hazard appraisal and measure rankin with regard to subsequent utilization (function-orientated risk assessment).
  10. Guideline for monitoring and predicting the temporal and spatial behaviour of environmental aspects for cost-effective procedures based on the risk-related management of sites.
  11. Evaluation study on sites risk assessments comparing national requirements versus the new harmonized procedures.

EU and regulatory:

  1. Technical guideline for the implementation of MNA for the management of multiple enviromental hazards.
  2. Report on the applicability of existing protocols/guidelines for EU sites.
  3. Protocol/technical guideline for the implementation on MNA (Demona).
  4. Procedure for description of the legislative framework.

‘maatschappelijke adviesgroep’ (MAG) and Delta committee:

  1. Cost-estimation tool, CARO – Cost Analysis of Remediation Options Tool Description.
  2. Comparative analysis of cost-efficiency.
  3. Procedure for description of stakeholder's interest and commitment towards current and future use.
  4. Procedure for listing research needs and site investigation requirements.

Homework 6, part B:

  • How could the relevant participants be involved in the assessment in an effective way?
  1. Continuous update of boundary conditions and discussions about the possible future strategy.
  2. Approval and adjustments of conceptual model concept: discussion on receptors (what are the receptors?)
  3. Decision about further IMS development
  • How can the quality of an assessment be assured if anyone can participate?
  1. Make an overview of boundary conditions.
  2. Build the conceptual model including the transfer pathways that are taken into account and the planes of compliance.
  3. overview of objectives and interests as well as the current and possible future strategy for managing.
  • How can you prevent malevolent contributions where the purpose is to vandalise the process?
  1. Build a process descriptions maintaining confidentiality and the provide clarity in way the results are presented.
  2. Determine risks and derive local standards suggestions for clustering, including organizational arguments as basis for clustering (such as similarity of activities and the cooperation and synergy between neighboring locations).
  • How can you make the outcome converge to a conclusion, because all issues are uncertain and controversial?
  1. Define risk management objectives while bearing in mind that discussion on objectives is ongoing.
  2. Insure Intensive communication between the execution team and regulatory through designing clear orientation and workshops.
  3. Prioritization and optimization of risk, while controlling the propositions in scenarios.
  • How can you ensure that the outcomes are useful for the users?
  1. Build implementation plan that is clear and fortified with comments and open for improvement.
  2. Insure that all parties involved understand and are committed to guidelines set for implementations.
  3. Develop monitoring program built on indicators that provide practical considerations and synergy.
  4. Medium-Long term process reviews with continuous commitment assured.