Managing Large-scale Societal Change

Abstract

In this chapter, we discuss three decisive parameters for successful large-scale societal interventions: 1. The selection of the most representative and relevant stakeholders; 2. The application of an appropriate systemic problem-structuring methodology; and 3. The process used to convert the results of a structured deliberation into a clear strategy accompanied by a roadmap consisting of the most effective actions. We claim that the structured democratic dialog process emerges as an excellent tool for managing diverse types of societal interventions. Two models of intervention for large-scale societal reforms are briefly presented and discussed. The first is based on a quasi-synchronous process using the same intervention delivered at multiple localities. The second starts with one intense focal intervention and a process design that allows it to replicate and expand by creating spin-off agents or communities of change. The chapter concludes with recommendations.

1. Introduction

As our world is constantly evolving, it will, of course, always be in need of changes and reforms. However, the increasing rate of change in combination with the rapidly increasing complexity renders the need for effective large-scale reforms a pressing emergency [1, 2, 3]. International bodies such as the UN, the EU, the G7/20, etc., as well as scientists, philosophers, and activists, alert us to the need for positive change in virtually all aspects of our lives. Reforms are especially critical in (global- and local scale) governance, peace, education, economy, and health. However, we still lack solid scientific models on how to plan and successfully implement large-scale reforms. Also, the number of successful and scientifically validated large-scale interventions is still small. On the other hand, the advances in technology and especially social media render changes previously thought as unachievable entirely feasible. The question is, however, whether we, as a society, must passively welcome changes just because of their feasibility? Does the fact that they are possible mean that they are also desirable or inevitable? Although not the focus of this chapter, humanity is at a point from which it could design and construct positive futures in the realm of what we call conscious evolution [4, 5]. To be able to achieve this, we need visionary leaders but, more importantly, appropriate science, methods, and tools. Effective leaders engaging in large-scale reforms rely on the triad, will, ideas, and execution for guidance [6, 7]. Clear, quantifiable, and ambitious vision and goals are crucial to building will. Those leading should express confidence in their people’s creative potential and goodwill and know when and how to celebrate success. They should put systems and procedures in place to empower those whose lives will be influenced by any reforms to offer their ideas without fear of criticism. They should also allow them to hear or experience others’ innovations and success stories. The execution, vis-à-vis, implementation, requires strategy, roadmaps, continuous attendance to processes, and willingness to adapt to new situations. Finally, the encouragement of cooperation and dialog among groups pursuing similar or identical goals increases the speed and quality of the change process.

In practice, there are many approaches to implementing a desired change. The first is by executive order coming from a gifted leader or from the management/government. Such interventions do not need the “acceptance” of the public, nor do they require lengthy approval processes. They are typical in hierarchical organizations and in emergency situations, such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic, and are often temporary or serve a short-term purpose. Sometimes, they are unwelcome and might even create societal unrest.

The most typical scenarios of societal change are through some form of policies or legislation, which could take place with or without the participation of all relevant stakeholders. In the latter case, the path can be rough (see next section). In this chapter, we are concerned with the case when relevant stakeholders are invited to define the problem collectively but also deliberate to come up with a consensus as to what actions are required to move forward. Thus, the first challenge is the selection of the most representative and relevant stakeholders.

The second challenge for achieving positive change is the availability and application of an appropriate systemic problem-structuring methodology and relevant tools. And the third and probably greatest challenge is how to convert the results of any process of deliberation into a clear strategy accompanied by a roadmap consisting of the most effective actions. We claim that the structured democratic dialog (SDD) process emerges as an excellent tool for addressing these three challenges and successfully managing diverse types of societal interventions.

In this chapter, we present and discuss two models of intervention for large-scale societal reforms. The first is based on a quasi-synchronous process using the same intervention delivered at multiple places. The second starts with one intense focal intervention and a process design that allows it to replicate and expand by creating spin-off agents or communities of change. The chapter concludes with recommendations.

1.1 Stakeholder participation: authenticity, diversity, and equity

Researchers [8] have identified factors that impact large-scale change already in the 90s and they mostly point to human factors. The lack of support by the top management, their attempt to force change, inconsistent actions, unrealistic expectations, absence of meaningful participation, poor communication, unclear purpose, and misplacement of responsibility were found to have a highly negative impact. Factors with a highly positive impact include the management’s tangible and visible support and commitment, good preparation, encouragement of stakeholder participation, a high degree of communication, a reward system, etc. Methods for stakeholder identification and engagement have been well described by Gregory et al. [9]. All of the above boil down to what we call authentic participation. Indeed, the law of requisite action [10] of the science of SDD¹ predicts that “action plans to redesign complex socio-technical systems without the authentic and true engagement of those whose futures will be influenced by the change are bound to fail.” One can think of countless empirical examples.

In many cases reported in the literature, the “type” of stakeholders engaged was not made explicit, and their role was not specified [11]. Also, certain (possibly marginalized) groups might be excluded for justified or unjustified reasons [12]. A diversity of stakeholders is imperative if all perspectives are to be considered, in line with the law of requisite variety [10, 13, 14, 15].

In sum, the effective, democratic, and equal participation (i.e., equity criterion) of all those who have a stake has the great advantage that assuming consensus is reached, the great majority backs up the decisions for change. Consequently, the change has a higher chance of surviving for extended periods. Some ways by which the application of the SDD methodology guarantees the above are briefly explained in the next sections.

1.2 Choosing an effective problem structuring methodology

The management of complex social problems requires the application of a systemic problem-structuring method (PSM). Matching an appropriate PSM and tools to a specific system is of paramount importance [16]. Polls, surveys, interviews, focus groups, etc. might be appropriate to access the “general attitudes” of the stakeholders or the wider public. If, however, the aim is to enable them to exchange points of view, increase trust between conflicting groups, attempt an in-depth analysis of the issue or challenge at hand, deliberate, consider pros and cons of different solutions, and make choices or informed decisions, then participatory methods, such as world cafés, citizens assemblies, operation research and management science (OR/MS) methods, SDD, etc. become a must. In most cases, different methods and tools need to be used in different phases of the process. Operation research scientists [17] argue that OR/MS methods and tools are often used not so much because of their effectiveness but more for “prestige.” They observe that there is an inverse relationship between the importance of social reforms and the use of OR/MS techniques for their management. Those in charge of change prefer to use political tools (which also serve their “masters”) to avoid addressing the real conflicts, or dealing with the low degrees of bureaucratization. In this chapter, we argue that the structured democratic dialog process has emerged as an excellent PSM capable of managing any type of large-scale socio-technical reforms, exactly, because on the one hand, it relies on well-founded and repetitively validated tools and processes, and on the other hand, it is particularly effective in interconnecting different points of view and positionalities, thus resolving multiple conflicts of purpose and values and generating consensus [18, 24].

1.3 Converting strategies and roadmaps to tangible change

Probably the most significant challenge toward achieving an envisioned societal (or any other type of) positive future is that strategies and plans fail to produce the desired results. The problem lies in what we could call the conversion of a vision and associated strategy and individual steps of action toward achieving the desired goals into a coherent and effective sequence. The orderly (typically timewise) arrangement of sub-actions is called roadmaps, i.e., plans that articulate a specific course of action [19]. In our context, roadmaps could be orderly sequences consisting of goals, phases, processes, or milestones, collectively referred to as steps, each supporting the subsequent ones. A roadmap can also be defined as the compilation of views of a group of stakeholders as to what to do, when, who, and how to get where they want to go [20]. A plan must be supported and backed up by all stakeholders to be effective. In this paper, we argue that interpretive structural modeling (ISM) [21] in connection with the multi-parameter evaluation [22] of impact, feasibility, and probability of happening without intervention serves to help organize the most effective ordering of a roadmap’s steps.

2. Models of intervention

We present two models of large-scale interventions. In the first (Figure 1 left), the same type of intervention is delivered more or less synchronously to multiple groups that are distributed. The term distributed refers to either spatial (i.e., similar stakeholders but in different geographic locations) or contextual (i.e., stakeholders in different communities/sectors or with different perspectives or group interests). In the second model (Figure 1 right), the process begins with one intense focal intervention and a process design that allows it to replicate and expand by creating spin-off agents or communities of change. The premise of both models is that the will, ideas, and pragmatics of implementing the change are generated (or facilitated vis-à-vis “implanted”) and allowed to grow at multiple (spatial or contextual) localities. Awareness, perceptions, identified challenges, visions, and actions grow around each locality and assuming they are strong enough, they gradually connect to each other and eventually embrace the wider community of stakeholders. The approach resembles the metaphor of multiple forest fires (in our example in a positive sense) in which independent fires join forces to form an unstoppable fire. In the next sections, we present examples for both models from our own experience.

Figure 1.

Models of intervention for large-scale social changes.

3. The SDD methodology

The methodology and process of implementing either a single SDD or an array of parallel or sequential processes have been described elsewhere [14, 23]; for arrays of SDDs see [24, 25]. Here we provide a brief overview just sufficient to acquaint our audience with the key steps of a single SDD (Figure 2) or an array (for examples see Figures 3 and 4) of SDDs.

Figure 2.

Steps of a typical single SDDP implementation.

Figure 3.

Reprinted from reinvent democracy manifesto [26].

The first step of any SDD (Figure 2) is the generation of observations concerning the problematic situation in response to a triggering question (TQ). Each participant is invited in a round-robin manner to contribute only one response at a time in the form of a single statement, which should contain only one² specific observation. Contributions are numbered and their authors are registered. Giving individuals space to generate their ideas without criticism from others helps to counter groupthink and clanthink [27]. This approach satisfies not only the equity criterion (see 1.1) but also facilitates active listening and learning.

In a second step each participant clarifies her idea. This can be conducted through synchronous (f2f or virtual) processes, or asynchronously using the IdeaPrism³ (or equivalent) app to record short videos, or through a collaboratively developed cloud-based document where everyone can edit, comment, or ask for further clarifications. During the clarification process, others can ask questions about meaning, but no judgment is allowed. This facilitation technique is intended to protect the autonomy and authenticity of participants so that no participant is discouraged, and no idea is prematurely evaluated and/or rejected. The so-called law of requisite autonomy in distinction making guarantees that “during the dialogue, the autonomy and authenticity of each person contributing ideas are protected” [28].

The next step involves the categorization of observations using a bottom-up approach. This process takes much longer than top-down clustering methods because it encourages discussion. Evolutionary learning takes place as the participants are encouraged to explore how specific aspects of their ideas might make them similar to other ideas; a process that forces them to draw further distinctions. The Law of Requisite Evolution of Observations asserts that “The elemental observations made by stakeholders in the context of a complex design situation, are interdependent” [10, 14, 23]. During the above steps, the participants are invited to reconsider the importance they assign to various observations. While the authors are liberated to clarify their observations with even inventing their own language and collectively searching for similarities in their effort to create categories, they better understand each other’s positions. Only after this, individual participants are requested to choose typically five out of the total set of ideas according to their perceived importance. Known as Boulding’s [29; see also 8, 10, 14] law of requisite saliency, the law refers to the range of importance that people assign to observations relative to other observations. The relative importance of an idea can be understood only when it is compared with the ideas of others (it is rare for people to choose only their own ideas as most important). All the ideas that receive a threshold number of votes (i.e., those that participants consider the most important) enter the ISM process, which comes next. The threshold number of votes is determined as as a function of the amount of time available to conduct the ISM.

In ISM, participants are confronted with two ideas at a time (to reduce cognitive load in recognition of our human limitations; i.e., Miller’s Law of Requisite Parsimony; [30]) and are requested to decide whether one influences the other. In a synchronous implementation, they are invited to present arguments pro or against a relationship and engage in discussion. In our newly developed asynchronous models [31] participants may conduct parts of this process individually.

A relation is established only when it is supported by a large majority (typically 75%) following the constructive deliberation. The application of Warfield’s [21] ISM algorithm reduces the number of questions that the software will ask. The binary connections that are established by the group are used to build up an influence map (see the example in Figure 3). Meaning and wisdom are produced only when the participants begin to understand the relationships (such as similarity, priority, influence, etc.) among their different ideas. The influence map reflects the shared understanding and the consensus of the participants.

Since challenges at the bottom of the structure correspond to the root causes of the problem, the method is also referred to as “root cause mapping.” When the SDD is about exploring actions, the factors at the root are referred to as “deep drivers.” The factors that end up at the root of the map are the ones with the greatest influence.

Participants engage in further discussions on how to resolve the obstacles at the root, and as these influence all the problems further up the structure, the idea is that addressing the root causes should have positive knock-on effects throughout the interlinked system of issues that the participants want to tackle. Analogously, factors at the root of an actions’ SDD should be given priority when developing action plans. This form of problem structuring helps to minimize the erroneous priorities (first observed by Kevin Dye; see [24]) effect, which comes into play when strategic actions are targeted at isolated aspects of the problematic situation without their inter-connections being considered.

Our team has applied the SDD in more than 100 different contexts, including peace and conflict resolution [32, 33, 34]; government and societal challenges (e.g., “Wine Villages” [25] and “Merging of taxation systems,” conducted by CAPA [35]); discovering and collectively agreeing on research agenda priorities, thus influencing European Commission funding [36]; the support and capacity building of youth and civil society [37]; Uniting for Citizenship and Participation [38]; envisioning and designing new educational systems (Reinventing Education, [39]); and reinventing democracy [18, 26, 40]. For a complete list of Future Worlds SDDP applications, see Footnote.⁴

4. Real-world examples of large-scale interventions

In the following sections, we briefly introduce two examples, one international and one national, for each type of intervention.

4.1 Quasi-synchronous, spatially distributed interventions

4.1.1 Reinventing democracy bottom-up

The “Reinventing Democracy in the Digital Era” project [18, 26, 40] was a global project funded by the UN Democracy Fund. The aim was to identify shortcomings of our current systems of governance that could be improved through technology, and come up with concrete actions, policies, etc. capable of alleviating them. The process engaged about 1000 youth, from about 50 countries, in structured, face-to-face as well as virtual deliberations (Figure 3).

Selection of participants: Eleven weighted criteria were applied to the evaluation of a few hundred applicants in order to choose ca 20 Core Participantsper region (i.e., five regions: Africa, Europe, Latin America, MENA, and Australasian; a total of 100). Gender (weight .2) and age (.15; young people 18–30 years old) had the largest weights. Four (i.e., anti-discrimination criteria; years of relevant experience or/and prior relevant activities; potential for organizing follow-up activities; availability of sponsors) had a weight of .1, and the remaining five (i.e., belonging to associations with wide networks; communication skills; reliability/commitment; country of origin/nationality; uninterrupted access to social networking) were weighted with .05.

Each core participant had to use similar criteria to invite 10 so-called shadow participants (who contributed throughout the 2-year period virtually), thus bringing their number to ca. 1000.

Methodology: Five identical interventions have taken place in the five different regions over a period of two years with the core participants. Week-long sessions followed the same format: Two days were spent on a critical systemic examination of shortcomings, with a view to considering the potential for improving democracy in the digital age. Then two days were spent on developing a collective understanding of the “deep drivers for change,” which could serve as an inspiration for significant action to be pursued (by the participants or by others inspired by the maps), which were later made accessible on the internet via a Manifesto [26]. On the fifth day, participants formed groups to create action plans for themselves to pursue, springing from the collective work in locating leverage points for significant types of action while working on the second TQ. The last day was reserved for exploration of the city and joint activities to facilitate bonding.

Action: To compile the hundreds of shortcomings and actions (from a total of 10 SDDs) proposed by the participants into a short and clear actionable whole, we applied a novel multi-methodology for data compression (Figure 3). Five, weighted, data processing methods (the numbers on the arrows pointing toward the “Manifesto Themes” box in Figure 3 correspond to the weights) were applied to extract seven prevailing themes, which were summarized in the Manifesto [26], where also the details of the methodological process are explained.

4.1.2 Reforming local authorities in Cyprus

The objective of the “Provision of Services for the Diagnosis of Learning and Development Needs for the Local Authorities of Cyprus” project was to improve the skills of the human resources of the Cypriot Local Government Authorities (LGAs). The overarching goal was to strengthen their administrative and leadership capacity with the view of facilitating the clustering of services and the eventual merging of LGAs to optimize the services offered to the public. The project was implemented between 2009 and 2015 under the special objective “enhancing administrative abilities in services provided in the public sector.” The Cyprus Ministry of Finance supported this initiative using a palette of European funding, including structural and social cohesion funds.

Selection of stakeholders: The participants were selected from local communities. They included mayors, local authority employees, local educators, local and global business people and developers, local agricultural and other producers, repatriated citizens, older people, and youth. To secure requisite variety of their conflicting interests and objectives, particular emphasis was placed on conflicts between central and local governments, conflicts between neighboring local authorities, and conflicts between different stakeholders within the same local community.

Methodology: In this model, the diagnosis of the learning and development needs of the LGAs was embedded within a rich set of activities (Figure 4). It was preceded by identifying best practices in the EU member states and face-to-face interviews with LGA officials (left boxes in Figure 4). These actions informed the selection of the most relevant stakeholders and supported the framing of the TQ.

Figure 4.

Reprinted from [24].

Action: Following the implementation of 10 SDDPs across the country, a network was set up comprising regional learning management groups and a coordinator for each group to support the management of learning in LGAs (see right side of Figure 4). Learning activities were designed and implemented to enhance management and leadership. The overall intervention was supported by a strong awareness campaign, the engagement of political and government agencies, the expertise of technical advisors, and a network of digital ambassadors, many of them visiting foreign countries to research best practices. The intervention has eventually facilitated political decisions (in 2021/2022) for reforming the local authorities [24].

4.2 Single-focal intervention followed by evolutionary replication

4.2.1 Facilitating peace dialog across war zones

The “Civil Society Acts Beyond Borders” project [34] was funded by the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights of the European Commission. The aim was to empower civil society actors, youth, and local authorities in Israel and Palestine to actively promote human rights and democratization.

Selection of stakeholders: Participants were selected from diverse local communities by expert informants. The key criterion was to secure a mixture of peace activists but also a few who were against any peace “rapprochement.”

Methodology: The project was designed as participatory action research grounded on the science of dialogic design. The project began with three consecutive (within a week) SDD processes (develop shared vision, identify obstacles, and explore actions) outside the conflict zone (in this case, Cyprus) engaging committed, already active peacebuilders (see left side of Figure 5). Between the second and the third SDD, the participants co-organized an international peace conference together with Greek and Turkish Cypriot actors. Having identified four target groups (business, informal education, students, and women) they created action groups (i.e., AG labels in Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Organization of activities in the CSABB project (from [34]).

Action: Each AG selected and invited additional participants and organized their own SDD process, which was then followed by a comprehensive set of participatory intra-communal nonformal workshops (NFWS boxes in Figure 5). In parallel, a number of other activities were taking place. Following a training of trainers (top of Figure 5), those trained implemented a number of (up to 10) civil society strengthening pieces of training (purple boxes with a “W” in Figure 5), as well as multi-communal public debates (blue boxes with a “PD” in Figure 5), and a conference (purple box in Figure 5).

The above design offered the conditions for the objectives of the project to go viral, engaging several thousand people in various activities, i.e., to continue through self-replicating processes beyond the lifetime of the project.

4.2.2 Local development of the wine villages in Limassol, Cyprus

The “Limassol Wine Villages Local Development Pilot Project: the contribution of heritage to local and regional development” was implemented through funding given by the Council of Europe’s Local Development Pilot Projects Program⁵ to the Department of Town Planning and Housing, Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Cyprus.

Selection of stakeholders: This project was implemented in phases. For the first SDD, 29 participants, representing many stakeholders’ organizations were selected following standard stakeholder identification techniques [9]. In the following phases, a total of more than 150 stakeholders ‘entered the scene’ when they were acknowledged as stakeholders by other stakeholders [41].

Methodology: The intervention began with an SDD using TQ: “Which are the obstacles to the development of the Wine-villages of Limassol?” The participants identified 71 obstacles (Figure 6; left), which they clustered into 7 themes of sectoral (thematic) or strategic nature (society and culture; architecture and settlements; economy and entrepreneurship; infrastructure and services; agriculture, environment, and landscape; education and information; and governance and Administration; second column in Figure 6). In order to develop each theme, a respective working group was created, which engaged further stakeholders thus allowing the base to drastically enlarge. Most working groups conducted a SWOT analysis (to obtain a better understanding of the area’s real limitations and potentials at the local and macro-regional level) followed by a Vision-SDD using as TQ “What are the descriptors of the desired situation for the sustainable development of the wine villages in the field of… (relevant thematic)? ” aiming to develop a shared vision. In a concluding SDD, the most influential factors from each Thematic SDD were selected and structured to develop an overall vision across all thematic areas (Figure 6, right).

Figure 6.

Organization of activities in the wine villages project.

Action: In total 150+ individuals from ca 75 different stakeholders’ groups were involved in 10 SDDPs and 5 SWOT analysis workshops. The intervention allowed stakeholders to get involved in the policy process and in the formulation of the vision along with the strategy and its objectives. The model promoted territorial sensitivity and fostered identity and heritage. Most importantly, the intervention began with only 29 actors and ended up engaging actively more than 150.

5. Discussion

A large-scale societal intervention aims to support a community of stakeholders to develop a shared understanding of their problematic situation, converge on a clear shared vision, and ultimately generate collaborative action toward a desired future. This chapter proposed two models for large-scale interventions and presented examples of applications. Both models replace the hierarchical management of change in the design arena (i.e., relying predominantly on leaders or experts) in favor of models that include all parties with a stake (i.e., the stakeholders) in the definition and resolution of complex issues confronting them. Our first model applies the same intervention delivered at multiple places quasi synchronously. The term “places” could denote geographical or communal localities, but it could also denote corporate, religious, secular, local or international groups, etc. Our second model begins with one intense focal intervention using SDD and a design that allows the momentum generated to replicate, migrate, and/or expand by creating spin-off agents or communities of change. Assuming the momentum is strong enough, the waves of change will gradually reach each other and merge to embrace the wider community of stakeholders.

Both models presented here have not achieved extensive social change. The first reason is that the number of stakeholders engaged was a few hundred; i.e., too small compared to the total population. Second, some interventions were not extensive enough to generate a robust social wave toward change, because they lack the necessary political support and will. Nevertheless, eventually reforms did take place, even with a delay. To accelerate the process and achieve positive social change in a fraction of the time, we should probably utilize more social media and virtual-hybrid applications. We also need a new theoretical grounding of massive collaboration. Challenges of scalability and applications that made the participation of large numbers of participants possible are discussed only scarcely (e.g., [15, 42]) in the literature. A recent example of a large-scale project combined SDD with an interactive software called “Pathways to Wellbeing,” [43] where the latter was aimed at facilitating citizen involvement in thinking together about choices being made to move toward inclusive well-being. In other examples utilizing virtual communications, the author’s team has experimented with organizing SDDs in Second Life⁶ and/or engaging participants in asynchronous processes using asynchronous ISM and IdeaPrism [31]. Such attempts may violate to some degree Laws of SDD. For a critical review see [31]. An additional bottleneck is trust. Of course, when the envisioned change is constrained within a local environment, the issue of trust might be lessened because the participants might already know each other [44].

6. Conclusions and recommendations

Contemporary liberalism has progressed to the point that it inhibits collective decision-making that serves the common good. It also undermines collective responsibility. Everyone agrees that we can be free and diverse only to the extent that our freedom and diversity do not undermine the rights of others. We, however, lack models of governance capable of balancing individual vs. collective needs and interests. This chapter proposes that the SDD methodology, embedded within a larger framework of OR methodologies, is ideal for engaging large groups of stakeholders in productive and efficient dialogs for the collective and systemic definition, as well as the resolution of their issues. It ensures that the deliberation produces high-quality observations by imposing structure and discipline and not allowing them to converge prematurely to preconceived choices of issues, options, and solution alternatives. It also creates an environment that facilitates openness to the ideas of others, which is vital for next-generation democracy.

Agents of change can choose from a wide range of strategic designs for large-scale improvement, considering available resources and constraints. Examples range from executive mandates, which may be appropriate for specific, small-scale changes that can be immediately implemented in a hierarchical system, to campaigns, which may be applicable for medium-scale interventions that rely on broad will-building [45, 46], to large-case change, which requires bringing together teams of stakeholders from numerous, often interdependent sectors, for structured interactions and learning [47]. The SDD approach addresses complex challenges, including sustainability, climate change, democratic deficiencies, pandemics, etc., all of which require new forms of stakeholders’ engagement to work across conceptual and spatial boundaries [48, 49]. Some of the examples presented here have failed to reach the threshold for achieving extensive social change, primarily not because of theoretical limitations but because they were not supported by those who have the power. Democracy will rise to the level of collective wise decision-making that serves the common good only when the people manage to hold their leaders accountable for their choices and actions and put novel systemic approaches, instruments, and tools in all democratic processes.

Acknowledgments

The implementation of the projects has been the result of a team effort of dozens of experts and associates acknowledged in cited project pages and/or publications. The specific case studies received funding as follows: Reinventing Democracy in the Digital Era was funded by the UN Democracy Fund (Contract number: UDF-GLO-13-532), “Provision of Services for the Diagnosis of Learning and Development Needs for the Local Authorities of the Cyprus” was funded by the Republic of Cyprus (Contract number 6/2009), “Human Rights and Reconciliation – Civil Society Acts Beyond Borders” was funded by European Commission, European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (Contract Number EIDHR/2009/167-502), and “Limassol Wine Villages Local Development Pilot Project: the contribution of heritage to local and regional development” was funded through structural funds managed by Marios Michaelides, acting head of the Cyprus Academy of Public Administration and various Ministries.