Governance Tool

The objective of the Transformative Governance Tool is to help city administrations evaluate their governance structures for a particular transformative task, analyse the strengths and gaps in the current governance setup and identify steps for improvement. The assessment can be done individually or in a workshop with stakeholders relevant to the task in question (see the step-by-step guide). Based on the assessment, the most relevant recommendations with specific material are highlighted to guide improvements.

0. Task definition
1. Goals & Perspectives
1.1. Are the goals and objectives regarding your task well-developed?
Goals for the area of action do not exist or are unclear, so no meaningful action is possible.
Some goals exist but are defined poorly. The goals are not clear, or it is not clear how to go about achieving them. Action is stalled.
Some goals and objectives are set and SMART, but it is not a comprehensive picture. This enables action that meets basic standards.
Many goals and objectives are set and SMART. Action advances effectively in many aspects.
Most goals and objectives are set and SMART. Action advances effectively.
1.2 Does current political action take a comprehensive perspective on your task?
The task is only seen from one perspective, or the question of different components and perspectives has never been considered.
There is some understanding of different perspectives of the task, but no explicit analysis or assessment of these perspectives.
There is some explicit consideration of different perspectives of the task, e.g. with one instrument or in a process between different actors.
There is explicit consideration of different perspectives of the task, through an effective instrument or process that has been established specifically to achieve this.
There is an elaborate instrument or process established to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the task in question, considering a wide array of perspectives on a permanent basis.
1.3. Does setting the goals and objectives include an appropriate procedure to consider different groups of the population?
Different population groups are not at all a topic when goals and objectives for the task are set.
Different population groups are mentioned when goals and objectives for the task are set.
Implications for the different population are discussed in some detail when goals and objectives for the task are set.
Implications for the different population are discussed substantially when goals and objectives for the are set; there is a specific process for this (e.g. assessment).
Implications for the different population groups are discussed profoundly when goals and objectives for the task are set, there is a specific process, and this aspect is monitored.
1.4. Do the goals and objectives for your task account sufficiently for the future, including possible “unknowns”?
Possible future developments are not at all considered in current goals.
Possible future developments are mentioned in current documents that set out goals, but there is no specific indication of what this means for current action.
Possible future developments are mentioned in current documents that set out goals, and there is some indication of what this means for current action.
Possible future developments are mentioned in current documents that set out goals, and it is sufficiently clear what this means for current action.
Possible future developments are integrated specifically in current goals and objectives, and there are specific ways of adapting goals and objectives and dealing with uncertainty.
1.5. Do stakeholders share the goals and objectives for your task (civil society, local businesses, etc.)?
There is no match with or no knowledge of stakeholders’ goals.
In some respects, the goals are shared by stakeholders, but it is mostly coincidental and offers no significant potential for cooperation or synergies yet.
In several aspects, the goals are shared by stakeholders, which offers some potential for cooperation or synergies.
In many aspects, the goals are shared by stakeholders, which offers good potential for cooperation or synergies.
In most aspects, the goals are shared by other stakeholders, which offers excellent potential for cooperation or synergies.
2. Strategies & Instruments
2.2. Is the present mix of instruments (regulatory, strategic, economic, co-operative and informational) appropriate for your task?
Most required instrument types are lacking. Ineffective mix fails to address diverse needs.
Instruments of some types exist, but it is unclear if this allows effective action.
Instruments of several types exist, allowing to tackle several dimensions of the task.
A diverse instrument mix allows to tackle the different aspects of the task well.
A diverse and well-developed instrument mix covers most aspects of the task, and the instruments are complementary.
2.3. Do existing instruments allow to plan in the long term, adapt to change and deal with uncertainties?
The instruments are rigid, do not support long-term planning and do not adapt to changes or uncertainties.
Limited long-term planning and flexibility are possible, while the instruments are rather rigid and do not account for uncertainties explicitly.
Some support for long-term planning exists. The instruments can handle some uncertainties but are not highly flexible.
The instruments support long-term planning and are adaptable. They handle uncertainties reasonably well.
The instruments support long-term planning and are highly adaptable. They have in-built mechanisms to manage uncertainties.
2.4. Do existing instruments promote innovation for transformative change?
Innovation is not promoted by existing instruments.
Existing instruments have a few single levers to promote innovation for transformative change or allow this to happen on occasion.
Existing instruments include some levers to promote innovation for transformative change.
Existing instruments reflect explicitly on the question of promoting innovation for transformative change and include several effective levers to do so.
Promoting innovation for transformative change is an integral part and an explicit dimension of the existing instrument mix.
2.6. Do the instruments of non-public actors play a meaningful role in the area in question, allowing to use synergies and find effective solutions?
Strategies and instruments outside the public sector have no impact or are unknown.
Strategies and instruments outside the public sector contribute marginally. Synergies with the public sector action are limited, and effective solutions are identified and implemented rarely.
Strategies and instruments outside the public sector have some (known) impact. Synergies with the public sector action are observed but are not fully leveraged, and effective solutions are identified and implemented on occasion.
Strategies and instruments outside the public sector have a significant (known) impact. Synergies with the public sector action are used, and effective solutions are implemented regularly.
Strategies and instruments outside the public sector are key. Synergies with the public sector action are extensive, resulting in highly collaborative and integrated approaches. Effective solutions are consistently identified and implemented, leading to significant achievements.
3. Actors & Networks
3.2. For the main actors, please rate if an appropriate mode of interaction exists with regard the area in question.
No interaction modes exist that allow to involve the stakeholders in an appropriate manner. Their potential roles are unclear, and there is no infrastructure for them to get involved.
Limited interaction modes exist to involve the stakeholders in an appropriate manner. Their involvement is sporadic, with ad-hoc roles and support to it.
Some interaction modes exist to involve the stakeholders in a meaningful manner. There are occasional opportunities for and support to this, but they are not consistent.
Adequate interaction modes exist to involve the stakeholders in a meaningful manner, and the roles are clear. There are regular opportunities and support for involvement.
Comprehensive and effective interaction modes exist to involve the stakeholders in a meaningful manner. The actors are consistently involved on numerous opportunities with clear roles.
3.3. Is the private sector involved and takes on active roles in the area in question?
There is no meaningful interaction with the private sector and their perspectives are unclear.
Some involvement of the private sector happens, but it is scattered and not systematic.
Involvement of the private sector happens on several occasions, and this provides some synergies and support for the task.
Involvement of the private sector happens on many occasions, and this provides constant synergies and support for the task.
Involvement of the private sector is steady and strategic, which provides substantial synergies and support for the task.
3.5. For the vulnerable and under-represented groups, please indicate if there is an effective mode of including their needs and perspectives in decision-making process regarding your task.
There are no mechanisms in place to include the needs and perspectives of this group. No documentation or evidence of considers these groups in decision making or planning.
Perspectives of these groups are acknowledged only in a general manner, based on statistical data or demographics without direct engagement. Some policy documents mention these groups, but there is no involvement in the decision-making process.
Some efforts are made to consider the perspectives of these groups, e.g. sporadic surveys or basic consultations. There is some involvement in the decision-making process, but not in a systematic way or rather in later phases.
There are established procedures for including these groups in the decision-making process, e.g. regular consultations, focus groups, or public forums. The feedback is considered in planning and policymaking, but their influence on final decisions may be limited.
Continuous and proactive engagement ensures that the needs and perspectives of these groups are integrated into the city’s governance. There are consistent mechanisms for including them in all stages of policymaking and planning. They are actively involved in shaping public action.
3.6. Do networks exist and are utilised effectively where stakeholders work with the city on the area in question?
There is no noteworthy collaboration in networks.
Networks exist, but are used only on single occasions, with no substantial support.
Networks exist and are used on several occasions for meaningful support.
Good networks exist and often provide meaningful support.
Good networks of different kinds exist and provide steady, meaningful support.
4. Levels & Scales
4.2. Are existing rules and regulations on relevant political levels well-structured and aligned for effective action on the task in question?
Rules, regulations and competences on different levels are scattered and not aligned. No effective action is possible.
On single aspects, rules, regulation and competences are aligned, but this is largely insufficient for effective action.
In some aspects, rules, regulation and competences are aligned and well-structured, and this allows some effective action, while challenges arise regularly.
In many aspects, rules, regulation and competences are aligned and well-structured, and this supports effective action, even though challenges arise occasionally.
Rules, regulation and competences are aligned and well-structured, and this enables action, with no major gaps or challenges.
4.3. Are appropriate mechanisms in place to ensure sufficient coordination of these political levels?
No channels of communication and coordination exist between political levels.
There are limited channels of communication. Some coordination mechanisms exist but are mostly insufficient.
Some channels of communication and coordination structures exist. Helpful coordination takes place on some issues.
Good channels of communication and coordination structures exist. Helpful coordination takes place on many issues.
Channels of communication and coordination structures work very well. Helpful coordination takes place on most issues.
4.5. Do the relevant departments collaborate in an appropriate way, regularly and with consistent participation?
There is no meaningful interaction between relevant sectors/units.
On some occasions, there is interaction between relevant sectors/units, but is mostly not sufficient for appropriate collaboration.
On several occasions, there is interaction between relevant sectors/units, and it is sometimes sufficient for appropriate collaboration.
On many occasions, there is interaction between relevant sectors/units, and it is often sufficient for appropriate collaboration.
On most occasions, there is interaction between relevant sectors/units, and it is almost always sufficient for appropriate collaboration.
5. Resources & Responsibilities
5.1. Are the roles and responsibilities for your task clearly and appropriately distributed?
There is no clarity or documentation on roles and responsibilities, so overlaps and gaps in tasks are prevalent.
There is some information and minimal documentation on roles and responsibilities. Gaps, overlaps and ambiguities are frequent.
Most roles and responsibilities are defined and documented, but some ambiguities as well as gaps and overlaps remain. Overall, the structure is functional.
Roles and responsibilities are defined clearly and documented adequately, with only occasional gaps or overlaps. The structure works well in most situations.
Roles and responsibilities are defined clearly, and sufficient documentation is accessible to everyone involved. Gaps or overlaps are an exception. The structure works smoothly, enabling actors to deal with challenging and new situations.
5.2. Are the main actors tasked with responsibilities well-equipped to take them on (e.g. time, skills, organisational support, technology/tools)?
The limited resource availability hinders task performance.
The resources for the assigned tasks are available only sporadically, and these can only be performed if respective actors are highly motivated and at the expense of other tasks.
Some, yet insufficient resources are available, so that the tasks can be performed to a minimal standard.
Sufficient resources are available most of the time, so that the tasks can be performed well and constantly, if no extra requirements arise.
Sufficient resources are available, so that the tasks can be performed well and constantly. Additionally, there are resource buffers for extra requirements and measures to expand the resources for the future.
5.4. Is sufficient budget allocated to the activities and/or units involved in your task?
No budget is allocated, so tasks cannot be performed due to lack of funds.
Budget allocation is insufficient and significantly limits performance, but some tasks can proceed. Financial planning and review mechanisms are emerging.
Budget allocation allows a basic level of task performance, and some financial planning and review mechanisms exist.
Budget allocation is sufficient for all major tasks, and occasional budget issues are manageable. There are effective financial planning and review mechanisms.
Budget allocation allows performing current tasks well and expanding tasks for the future, with robust financial planning and review mechanisms in place.
5.5. Are there workable procedures and knowledge to acquire additional resources if needed (incl. financial, human, knowledge)?
No procedures or knowledge exist for acquiring additional resources, and there is no contingency planning.
Some information and ideas exist, but this is not available to everyone involved and requires a lot of effort. The is no contingency planning.
Procedures and knowledge are available to responsible actors, but there are regular delays and difficulties. Contingency planning happens on occasion.
Effective procedures and knowledge are in place, and this generally happens in a timely manner. Contingency planning is established.
There are highly effective and efficient procedures with institutionalised knowledge. Resources are acquired swiftly and without significant issues. There is effective contingency planning.
5.6. Is there sufficient allocation of financial and human resources to the task by private actors?
No financial / human resources are allocated, so tasks cannot be performed.
Resource allocation is insufficient and significantly limits task performance, but occasional contributions happen.
Resource allocation allows a basic level of task performance.
Resource allocation is sufficient for all major tasks, and occasional bottlenecks are manageable.
Resource allocation allows performing current tasks well and expanding tasks for the future.