Proposal #36: Real Think Tank.
I propose to create a CISV Think Tank.
Rationale
"A think tank is an organization, institute, corporation, or group that conducts research, typically funded by governmental and commercial clients, in the areas of social or political strategy, technology, and armament." (wikipedia)
There is a need for a group of people experienced in CISV and also experienced in diverse professional areas to serve as a think tank for the development of CISV. This could be anything from helping committees run evaluations of their own work or their programs, to projects such as re-thinking AIM. They could, and should, also address anything they think relevant and be able to submit motions to the board. When there is a study of some kind that needs to be done, they should actively involve experts outside of CISV. They should have a lot of freedom in their ideas and projects – the idea is a think tank, not a taskforce for anyone to offload the work they don't want to do.
This is something that is largely ad-hoc and somewhat ignored in CISV. A lot of the "re-thinking" that we are and should be doing would benefit from a largely objective body that could give and bring in new perspectives on the subject. Having both CISV knowledge and outside knowledge helps stretch the CISV way of thinking.
The group could be flexible – it could be comprised of a few core people who manage bringing in new people for each project – or it could be completely fluid. Ideally, it would have minimal bureocracy and a lot of turnover – it shouldn't be a "cool kids club" for people with no other job (as fun as that would be.) but should retain a kind of "devils with a budget" attitude toward crossing set lines. That said, it would provide a really useful way to involve, in a small or easily manageable way, people who have had a lot of CISV experience and also have useful outside experienc - but can't or don't want to take on large, intensive roles in CISV.
It could easily be included under the ODC "internal development" group – a largely defunct but already created space for this type of thing. Thus, no new bureocracy needed.
Respectfully submitted, Sarah (USA)
{ ODC= Organisational Development Committee, check: resources.cisv.org/odc }
9 Comments:
I love the idea! I have the feeling that a lot of these thinkings are happening right now un-coordinated and unstructured and thus depend a lot of those thinking to find ways in which to realise them. A think tank, where people can go crazy would be great! I think they should have a chance to meet in person and not during AIM, so that there's really only thinking going on and discussing and not 100.000 other things.
I agree!
I really love the idea- and nothing else to add to what Sarah and Basti are saying.
Hmmm. I'm not sure. I'm all pro think-tanks and re:thinking (in general), i.e. I love this page. However, to create an official structure for it might side-line rather than encourage all and everyone (at all levels, from CISV Halmstad to the IEC) to critically and with respect look upon CISV and it's structures.
The best body in our organisation to analyse and reflect over our structures is the AIM. However, the AIM is so buried in bureaucracy that little (or none) space is given to discuss, analyse and re:think the organisation.
I say, make the AIM into a modern General Assembly to where ideas are brought, shared and debated – rather than a meeting where we point out what hard working volunteers have not done (the Reports) and where we in detail control what hard working volunteers can and can't do (the Plans).
But I do miss a priority on the "internal organisational development" leg of the ODC.
In general I think, yes, we need more development and research rather than administration, so something should happen in this direction. If a new "think-tank-(sub)-committee" is the right way...I tend to agree with Adam's doubts.
1) In CISV, I always have thought, we may need more "Do-ers" than "Thinkers". All great ideas have been there before, but many times there has been a lack of people who make thinks happen. Walk the talk. Spot the great ideas between the good ideas, adapt them to reality, and make them become real. I do think that at AIM there is plenty o room for thinking outside the box - but where is the structural link to the decision making, and realisaton process??
2) The other problem I see, is that it may be difficult for a group to be influential, when they are working outside the "political circle". What I'm trying to say, is that if new concepts are developed, they may not be in line with the general plan, that the IEC (international executive committee) might have. So if you create a structural division between "thinkers" and "doers", a lot of time would be wasted. In an ideal world, everybody is a think tank! As Adam points out, less administration, more analyzation, development for the people! At AIM, in the committees, everywhere.
Hm... Adam and Nick have a point there. I've been to the one or the other AIM and the one I found most stimulating was the one in Israel, when we did the Open-Space, Strategic Planning process. Now, these things don't make sense to be done every year but, in fact, a lot of time has to be devoted to realizing what has been come up with. I don't agree with Nick that we need more doers rather than thinkers. I believe we need doers that think and thinkers that do. Doers need a chance to sit down and just think, without the preassure of having to implement everything they think of. And thinkers need to get their bottoms up and do what they have been thinking. To me, a think tank is not only about sitting around and discussing and analysing. It's also about planning an implementation.
Anyone seen the new committee Terms of Reference? The EEC has a new one (the first, I think), and many of the ideas from the "think tank" concept are contained there. I think it's a good place, although it might not involve the same degree of spontaneity as another format might. What do you think?
Sarah, can you provide us with a link to those terms of reference - or is that document not online yet? Thanks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The docs Sarah are talking about should be published soon - the terms of references have been reviewed and a TOR for EEC has also been drafted. It should come out by the end of June.
Now, I can see the reason for having EEC be a think tank with all the different expertise there but at the same time, the EEC is a busy group of people spending enough time on their own committee, doing administrative stuff, filling out forms and reports and other stuff. There's just not time in the day to be more innovative in the EEC. Even though it ideally would be the perfect place.
A think tank could be a good thing to try out. I say we try it out for a few years and see what happens. I think it could be very valuable in the long run for CISV Int'l.
And then when the tank has been there for a while, they have ensured that AIM will be less bureaucratic and more in lines with what Adam and Nick is proposing..
Post a Comment
<< Home