Governance transformation indonesia2013 by VivienneTobassa

Good Morning and Gree-ngs to All May God’s love be with you I am here today to present a contextual discussion on good governance in Indonesia in support of a consolidated framework for transforma-on strategy – which is a culmina-on of my background experience in interna-onal senior management consul-ng and a recent PHD phase I disserta-on I conducted in favour of global governance. In this discussion I am taking an inter-‐disciplinary approach to driving reform transforma-on. 2

Throughout this presenta-on terms of good governance that are cri-cal to the development and implementa-on of transforma-on strategy are interchanged with other relevant terms of good governance. For example – references to “peace culture” is more relevant at grass roots layer of the transforma-on model and is used to describe stasis -‐ an op-mum economic aspira-on stated by Indonesia as the “goal for good governance”. In management context – “peace culture” as a term may be replaced or interchanged with “knowledge society”, “heterarchy” or other described elements of good governance. These interchanges of terminology are primarily due to inter-‐disciplinary review and considera-on for holis-c consolidated contextual model. In all cases the same model or components within that transforma-on management context is being referred to.

Read slide

When we conceptualize the paradigm of governance we can use a hybrid vector pictograph to conceive four major categories comprising the governance model typology. These categories are dis-nct and in part diametrically opposed yet are essen-al co-‐existent modes to governing in an environment of diversity. It is here that anomalies between public sector governance and corporate governance become more dis-nc-ve – the public sector management paradigm is contextualized by cultural needs it has lesser control over, whereas a private corporate governance charter is able to s-pulate the types of sub-‐cultures and preferred governance approaches it fosters internally or seeks in stakeholder rela-onships. In this sense, the role of public sector management is ”reac-ve” to societal inﬂuences despite its proposal to administer through hierarchical layers of heavily regulated authority. The ul-mate accountability measure is that of democracy – failure to deliver results according to the expecta-ons of the public will invariably lead to the demise of authority and/or removal of those tasked from oﬃce. © Vivienne Tobassa Eggers 2013 h[p://www.macroins-tute.com – page 42

At summary level this scenario of accountability may seem to ﬁt perfectly with our economic ideology of governance harmony – yet regardless of centraliza-on or decentralized autonomy, the sub layers of public sector government tend to progress into the top le_ quadrant of sta-c, unitary and policy organized bureaucracy with every deeper governance layer in society. This raises the conundrum of dichotomy when seeking to establish a governance blue-‐print and clearly deﬁned goals and objec-ves by which all in the governed society can commonly agree and focus their outputs. This problem has led to moves away from tradi-onal governing organiza-on and expand approaches to governance that hold greater capacity to accommodate diverse and ever changing needs. The impetus of this move now falls to transforma-on management and style of management approaches that have greater reach and visibility in opera-on ac-vi-es. © Vivienne Tobassa Eggers 2013 Diagram: h[p://www.macroins-tute.com – page 42 What public and private sector can commonly uphold are the a[ributes desired as “good governance”

Diagram: h[p://www.todayszaman.com/columnists/ibrahim-‐ozturk-‐314588-‐ governance-‐quality-‐and-‐development-‐in-‐turkey-‐2.html We can use these elements of good governance as high level requirements for developing frameworks; strategies and systems. © Vivienne Tobassa Eggers 2013

For example, the good governance element of “responsive” might form the high level requirement for verifica-on that governance func-on has succeeded its purpose. This indicator might be extrapolated into a series of checks or defined competencies that have been met towards the goal of responsiveness. At each sub level of layer of the governance, the suite of accountability checks vary – relevant to the nature, func-on and opera-onal ac-vi-es taking place at that level – yet mee-ng accountability at each level will contribute to the overall valida-on of “responsiveness” being reported as the result of the en-re governance func-on. The sub layer valida-on represents “how” we have iden-fied responsiveness as relevant to our specific func-on. This tradi-onal V method remains an ideal for holis-c or en-re organiza-on/governance paradigm accountability that is unified, synchronized and commonly adhered. It is also a prime example of how performance can be measured in result outcomes that are quan-fiable as well as qualita-ve – depending on the indicators or measures defined. This model also meets full level or five -er accountability con-nuum – where individual accountability is coordinated through an agreed (collabora-ve or coopera-ve) compliance chain to fulfill the holis-c or highest level accountability sign off. As a transparent framework, any compliance failure is visible and when valida-on is associated to specific ac-vity and -meframe a remedial ac-on can be taken early, without wai-ng for the final measurement outcome. This enables adap-ve flexibility in accountability and performance monitoring – and in essence the model in itself can validate that example of “responsive”.

Having discussed the deﬁni-on of “good governance” we now associate its relevance to current economic climate and Indonesia by asking the ques-on What does Indonesia require for con-nued economic reform and good governance?

Ananta and all in their recent publica-on “The Indonesian Economy – Entering a New Era” also refer to Professor Firmanzah of Economics and Dean of Faculty of Economics University of Indonesia who specifically states that a new economic paradigm is needed to overcome old problems (poverty and unemployment, inadequate infrastructure, corrup-on, a complex regulatory environment, and unequal resource distribu-on among regions) with global market opportuni-es. This statement summarizes a unified consensus toward what is needed via strategic approach to governance – that is holis-c and inclusive of so_ economic paradigms in addi-on to apparent fiscal drivers.

This quota+on reflects presiden+al view and official posi+on on high level na+onal economic reform. At the sub-‐na+onal level, coordina+on, ins+tu+onal capacity, and good governance remain key issues. This comes a_er more than a decade since a large decentraliza-on program was ini-ated in Indonesia. With a total of 530 local governments (431 regencies and 99 ci-es) – 205 of which are newly autonomous regions – ver-cal coordina-on across government levels has become more intricate, while horizontal inter-‐ministerial coordina-on could s-ll be improved. Fundamentally, the challenges faced at the sub-‐na-onal level are no different from those at the central level, namely the need to build more capable and accountable ins-tu-ons and to create stronger ci-zen demand. Competent ins-tu-ons face challenges during implementa-on of good governance. Overlap of governmental func-ons result in inefficiencies and some-mes poor delivery of public services. In response to this, the government is currently revising and dra_ing laws. The central government is instrumental in selng the direc-ves and crea-ng enabling mechanisms. A strategic and relevant plamorm capable of impac-ng on decentraliza-on has not yet been formed successfully, despite substan-al support from various donors in the past. The success of Indonesia’s decentraliza-on will depend on the ability of districts/ municipali-es and governance organs to supply the services people need, and on the accountable compliance of officials’ decisions and behaviour through public scru-ny as well as a fair and transparent electoral process.

With clarity of Indonesia’s governance posi-on on “what” is essen-al criteria for progressing economic reform – we move focus to the drivers of that economic call and “who” are the major actors involved in making that call. The stakeholder model for Indonesia economic reform is diverse and complex – some of these agents are proac-ve in driving the economic reform. There are many more who represent various sectors and sub-‐groups in society. Amongst these listed agencies the call for a consolidated reform management strategy is unanimous.

h[p://www.kemitraan.or.id/main/Content3/69/109/115 There are various global governance partnerships for governance reform. One example “Kemitraan” (‘the Partnership’) professes to be a mul--‐stakeholder organiza-on established to promote governance reform. Typical to most partnering organiza-ons, it works hand-‐in-‐hand with government agencies, CSOs, the private sector, and interna-onal development partners in Indonesia to bring about reform at both the na-onal and local levels. Partner agents are o_en cri-cal to bring consilience in all levels of government and civil society to sustainably promote good governance in Indonesia. When we review the diverse representa-on of these societal agents we can glean some insight into why the stakeholder model for Indonesia reform interest is so complex. Yet ul-mately it is visibility and understanding of this representa-on’s complexity rela-onships that will lead to facilita-ng and valida-ng transforma-on and eﬀec-ve good governance.

In order to discuss feasibility and poten-al for transforma-on strategy we return to our central reference point of good governance and “what” – the economic paradigm we wish to reform. In order to design and implement relevant transforma-on blueprint we need to establish context or the parameters that form the governance boundaries. Without this context we cannot adequately set up consolidated and coordinated governance valida-on including accountability and performance measures. Without establishing even the most basic reference point for determining governance boundaries, there is limited opportunity to promote visibility of any governance ac-vity from a shared percep-on and realiza-on of what that governance entails. This realiza-on leads to implemen-ng clarity and coordina-on of roles and responsibili-es at sub-‐na-onal level which is essen-al for accountability and performance measurement.

By answering the simple ques-on how do we deﬁne economies? we not only deﬁne the context of an economy but also those major mechanisms that drive it.

What do we want to achieve in managing our economies? The aspira-on is universal – which has lead to a global economy mission of Equity and Sustainability. In recent decades the science of environmental sustainability made the inter-‐disciplinary leap into organiza-on management, regenera-ve capitalist business models, and concepts of internal “health” and wellbeing within governance paradigms. The term “sustainability” has become a primary term in organiza-on design for defining models and strategies in holis-c context that in design need to hold considera-on for individual and inter-‐connected o_en complex and mul--‐direc-onal rela-onships; that need to consider the internal paradigm and the external environmental factors. In other words -‐ sustainability as a term is no longer purely iden-fied with being “green” other than where considera-on of green aspects of a governance paradigm is considered cri-cal to its overall func-on and success. Instead sustainability in business is u-lized to define the condi-on of “whole” of en-ty, its wellbeing and success in mee-ng its performance criteria, aim, mission and objec-ves. Globaliza-on and the synchroniza-on of interna-onal business cycles has resulted in the goal of sustainability as being set for holis-c, consolidated approaches to achieving aspira-ons of economy in global governance capacity.

Read slide

We can view the hierarchy of an economic paradigm through interroga-ng its three major layers of func-on and ac-vity. In the authority and accountability -er we witness the ac-ons of governance authority – these authority points may be situated at local, regional na-onal or global governance level. There is also a dis-nc-on between government and governance where private sector partners and other societal agents contribute to the governance func-on. Legal regula-ons and hard coded mandates, enforceable policies form the umbrella for authority valida-on and compliance. In the second -er of governance organiza-on, management frameworks and measurable indicators are typically arranged and delivered in categories that have deﬁned meaning and repor-ng requirements – i.e. form common and uniﬁed drivers across all societal sectors. Frameworks of accountability may be compliant with legal regulatory instruments or comprise coopera-ve and op-onal guidelines, codes and indicators. The third -er of economic governance comprises frameworks, strategies and management obliga-ons that are coopera-ve and agreed rather than enforced.

Despite being a core driver of economy – ﬁnancial economic factors fall within the construct of general society; where other values are equally important to governance and in turn all submit to the overarching container of environment – through interac-on and impacts that sustain and aﬀect life and survival – also most cri-cal to human civiliza-on. In economy these factors or contexts are interdependent and best managed with this considera-on.

This slide demonstrates why it is necessary to drive and govern economy not solely from financial requirements. Despite being an idealist goal for peaceful well-‐being, succeeding wealth alone as a subset of civiliza-on is inadequate to meet the greater needs of human socie-es for survival. Despite its “voiceless presence”, it is the environment that ul-mately dictates the con-nuance of human civiliza-on and any socie-es and their governance fall within. Realiza-on of this cri-cal dependency and the current risk from climate change and increased natural or development environmental damage has led G8 and UNDP to champion a global remit of “equity jus-ce (human rights and Sustainability for the future of governance). In this governance context we can see how a bi-‐direc-onal feedback and interac-on schema can ul-mately fulfill total economy governance and as such should facilitate economic reforms – providing scope for longer term strategic growth and transforma-on. Yellow Arrows demonstrate the external to internal influences of economic context (note they are uni-‐direc-onal or one way). Red arrows demonstrate the bi-‐ direc-onal “internal to external” drivers or influences of governing – first within financial economic responsibili-es and second from the society that operates and ul-mately that society’s requirement to regenerate – “give back, preserve and protect” environment that sustains the economy or society.

Here we see evident the TBL components or pillars of an economic paradigm. In this example of global governance we perceive the role of global governance, UN and interna-onal law as management driver “agents”. Triple Bo[om Line is a measure of Sustainability and Equity – the primary aim of global and Indonesian governance.

In this slide we return to the facets of an economy with the addi-on of dynamic movement – drivers and influences that include “top down” authority, enforcement and verifica-on and “bo[om up” drivers and influences arising from environmental events and variant stakeholders in society. We may note that management and opera-on of a governance schema exists at “cultural level” (local) of society as much as it drives from “government or authority” top level (global and sovereign). Economic reform (whether purely financial or “good governance” concerning social and environmental also) and its implementa-on in society must also reach the en-re typology and contexts of governance – hence a “good governance” framework that aligns with a true economy and not a segmented financial accountability schema

We achieve equity through social jus-ce and recogni-on of human rights and laws that support the balance and fair management of human civiliza-on. We achieve sustainability through cultural understanding and considera-on to the conduct of our daily lives.

We ins-l those cultural values through a top down and bo[om up approach to transforma-on management and the fostering of knowledge society.

Sustainability and equity indicators are promoted through fostering a knowledge of society. (read the slide)

By returning sustainable balance to our culture we promote peaceful harmony in society. This in turn supports the cri-cal TBL factors of poverty allevia-on (environmental, social and ﬁnancial indicators), environmental protec-on and resource endurance (social and ﬁnancial as well as environmental indicators)

(read slide)

Knowledge Culture fosters the results of societal competence. (Describe Societal Competencies)

There are issues and risk in managing a knowledge based culture.

(Summarize slide)

At grass roots level we can u-lize the crea-ve economy to sustain an economic management transforma-on – integra-ng and consolida-ng networks to achieve bi-‐ direc-onal management coordina-on for other TBL drivers – i.e. core ﬁnancial indicators. -‐ Must be collabora-ve to work at grass roots level due to technical, poli-cal and cultural management issues in societal governance.

(read slide)

Through proof of concept we can link back to the economic reform call for peace development model – and apply this paradigm to cultural change adop-on.

Read oﬀ slide highlights.

Defini-on of heterarchy is an area of confusion for many academics and prac--oners in society. Consequently, for use in the context of this discussion it is important to make the dis-nc-on between a heterarchic governance driver and organiza-on culture schema under the presence of democra-c authority – as opposed to a commonly accepted view that a collabora-ve network style heterarchy exists and is managed purely by spontaneous, collec-ve agreement and trust. Organiza-ons typically func-on best with more than one “culture” and opera-onal prac-ce. Tradi-onal companies were once incorporated with the stated aims and charter of the directors or managers – commanding a top down hierarchical approach to what was needed for the business success. To minimise cost from growth restructure and adequately service informa-on, repor-ng and communica-ons needs, holis-c considera-on of the organiza-on context, func-on and inter-‐rela-onships is necessary. Sustainability organiza-on design has progressed the concepts of efficiency, strategic planning and design that considers a “whole” organiza-on context as if a living en-ty, preparing its needs and catering for its current func-on; poten-al strategic growth and its ability to respond to business risks, impacts and changes to maintain profitability and success in mission. While mul--‐na-onal corpora-ons and large enterprises have become increasingly proficient in crea-ng the sustainability governance blueprint, the more anarchic nature of general society under democra-c governance has to date failed to match governing frameworks that holis-cally meet evolu-onary change and keep pace with societal trends, technology and economic prac-ces. This is undoubtedly due to the hierarchic structure of government (even democra-cally elected) as much as to the amorphous and disparate nature of sub cultures and sectors in an economy.

Leadership of heterarchies is formed by alliances of power and authority that come together for a specific task or to oversee an opera-on that is relevant to their unique interest and func-on. Dynamic rela-onships of control may be more clearly defined and agreed by the par-es when appoin-ng representa-ves to or from a semi-‐autonomous management consul-ng u-lity to oversee the success of mission and objec-ves. The agreed devolu-on of authority may change from task to task or according to variance in func-on – o_en likened to program or mul-ple project management where leadership is appointed on a needs and competency basis from a central pool of resources. Where the heterarchy also upholds a constant, more stable charter of governance, the consultancy driver may be overseen by a consistent representa-on of management – such as a governing consulta-ve board or taskforce. This may include complement of transforma-on drivers who add strategic exper-se and leadership to an appointed knowledge and area specialized steering commi[ee (the heterarchic alliance). In this scenario the steering commi[ee will comprise represented stakeholder groups who administer and facilitate the governance opera-on, while the consulta-ve taskforce will facilitate the ac-vity of managing reform and governance delivery. The ideology of horizontal drivers for governance management is to ensure that otherwise isolated silos of power can be brought together to mutually engage and share the holis-c purpose of the governance model; reducing internal expenditure and waste; ins-lling a more adap-ve resilient culture that may quickly respond to business environmental impacts as a unified opera-on. Where the heterarchy involves external stakeholders the emphasis on network collabora-ve management is increased; opera-on alliances are nego-ated as voluntary agreements for mutual benefit. The dogma of consulta-ve taskforce is proposed as a rapid forming, dynamic matrix style of transforma-on driver that supports and transfers knowledge and skills to incumbent ver-cal pillars and societal sector stakeholders. The consulta-ve taskforce may be capable to “float” – advise, manage and operate at all levels and across all sectors without the burden of direct line responsibility – instead repor-ng and receiving delegated authority as and when required from presiden-al and government direc-ves. © Vivienne Tobassa Eggers 2013

With Indonesia’s iden-fied economic needs and transforma-on strategy, good governance may also be well supported by the described sustainability heterarchic consilience format and consulta-ve taskforce management driver. In addi-on to taskforce resourcing, the key a[ributes of the transforma-on consultancy will ul-mately feature assets available to members of the heterarchy and society in general. These are highlighted as: knowledge (and its ins-tute or capacity of learning and dissemina-on), skill (including resource sharing, training, mentoring and advisory), coordina-on (a central point of “consilience” -‐ bringing together and ensuring provision of the governance model a[ributes) and essen-ally a wide area distributed technology plamorm that enables the heterarchy to func-on and communicate through the common reference points of the governance framework (such as rules, roles, awareness and accountability repor-ng). This solu-on is perceived as an ideal way forward to meet highest peace development aspira-onal ideals of good governance and concurrently fulfil the prac-cal needs and requirements for general economic reform and management. The emergence of the technology era and rapidly changing consumer market pre-‐empted the enterprise need: to integrate and build businesses that can cater for frequent mergers and acquisi-ons. The take-‐over or frequent restructure of public and private corpora-ons required organiza-ons to merge and operate singularly with the mul-ple management processes, informa-on and communica-ons systems required. As a result strategy and change leadership has become a pre-‐ eminent feature of management consul-ng and governing board func-on. The con-nued unifica-on of global financial management and economic ac-vity, the development of integrated informa-on and communica-ons technology (ICT) and the development of internet has changed the global prac-ces of economies and the way socie-es conduct their daily lives and business. The -me, resource and cost investment of economic management in the technology era has determined that the tradi-onal hierarchical structure alone cannot adequately fulfil an organiza-on’s func-on. © Vivienne Tobassa Eggers 2013

In this slide we view the features or a[ributes of a heterarchy organiza-on meet the needs of good governance in diversity. The role of organiza-on forma-on and management is now beyond a charter direc-ve of governing board – extended to architectural design. Architecture requires planning and laying solid founda-ons as a plamorm for the business to operate. This base layer; hard asset, infrastructure and technology rich is more sta-c than any other area of the business apart from the ar-cles of incorpora-on and high level governance. The emergence of the technology era and rapidly changing consumer market pre-‐empted the enterprise need: to integrate and build businesses that can cater for frequent mergers and acquisi-ons. The take-‐over or frequent restructure of public and private corpora-ons required organiza-ons to merge and operate singularly with the mul-ple management processes, informa-on and communica-ons systems required. As a result strategy and change leadership has become a pre-‐eminent feature of management consul-ng and governing board func-on. The con-nued unifica-on of global financial management and economic ac-vity, the development of integrated informa-on and communica-ons technology (ICT) and the development of internet has changed the global prac-ces of economies and the way socie-es conduct their daily lives and business. The -me, resource and cost investment of economic management in the technology era has determined that the tradi-onal hierarchical structure alone cannot adequately fulfil an organiza-on’s func-on. © Vivienne Tobassa Eggers

In a corporate organiza-on design context the heterarchic culture ideally operates within a governance paradigm that o_en comprises ver-cal pillars (such as func-onal units), layers (e.g. founda-on infrastructure, mid opera-ons, management) and a cultural paradigm. O_en these internal parameters will be extended into market and ci-zen society; incorpora-ng stakeholders who may hold interac-ve interest, partnership or even cultural responsive communica-ons. This stakeholder arrangement will depend on the purpose and func-on of the governing model and in the case of heterarchies may include a dynamic interplay of en--es that engage in governance rela-onships solely for speciﬁc ac-vi-es or projects. This anomaly determines the complexity of the stakeholder rela-onship model and sets it apart from other constants of the organiza-on management framework. To reﬂect these described advances in architecture and corporate governance, the socio-‐ poli-cal good governance paradigm will op-mally comprise three major organiza-on models to successfully func-on and achieve mission: the hierarchy of authority, the heterarchy of collabora-on and the autonomy of individuals and inter-‐dependence. The sustainability framework will take this governance model one step further to induce transparency, personal and macro level accountability, considera-on and fairness to all involved; compliant to a clear modus operandi under a recognized umbrella of authority. Transforma-on and management of this model should best mirror the format of successful corporate consultancy driver: semi-‐autonomous skilled, interna-onal and na-onal exper-se that provides knowledge and advisory to government and management; mentoring as needed and combining project oriented direc-on. © Vivienne Tobassa Eggers

(this slide demonstrates how in Indonesia a consolidated peace or economic governance transforma-on framework implemented into culture as a heterarchy collabora-ve organiza-on plamorm can be inclusive in collabora-ve networks at local, regional and interna-onal levels that are ﬂexible depending on the purpose of governance.

Why would consulta-ve task force drive the reform from this level (as opposed to say UNDP or Global Partnership) – Answer – Indeed these and other stakeholders are most likely as cri-cal partners – but in their exis-ng format and cons-tu-on their role and ac-vity has been passive. Finance and Educa-on can together form as HARD drivers – Finance due to its role as a core economic driver of global society and UN -‐ Educa-on because it has “holding” capability – can form a so_ melding layer of enabling feature – for knowledge society.

Principles based Governance – Basic structure depicts the 5 inﬂuen-al documents with the board’s opera-onal involvement. The governance area is strictly the responsibility of the board, whereas the delegated area is the primary responsibility of the CEO. The collabora-ve sec-on -es together the board and CEO to support understanding and mutual commitment. The board is less involved but not fully removed in developing the collabora-ve and delegated documents. © Vivienne Tobassa Eggers 2013

This slide shows major governance mechanisms across a true economic contextual paradigm. We see that management of economy may strategically derive or exist in any aspect or layer and direc-on of the democra-c paradigm. Actors or Stakeholders who share in the governance and opera-on of society are found throughout the en-re governance paradigm iden-fied and through external rela-onships with other global socie-es. In Indonesia Authority Governance oversight commences with President elect and other members of government, the cons-tu-on and laws for opera-on of governance within the country. Despite an exis-ng first world tendency to focus on the fiscal goals and drivers of economic management, the President elect and voted members of government have legal responsibility and accountability to manage ALL contexts of society including external obliga-ons as members of global society within the environmental context of our planet and her atmosphere.

As we progress through considera-ons of “good governance” requirements we can easily perceive that an understanding of ﬁnancial management obliga-ons require considera-on of all facets of the economic paradigm – in order to “reach” and manage opera-on at business cultural or local community level. We also recognize that there are many a[ributes of presiden-al government obliga-ons to meet “good governance” objec-ves at highest economic level i.e. to promote and maintain harmony and well-‐being of civil society and global community. The more “GOVERNANCE COORDINATION”, visibility and support mechanisms we have exis-ng in place at local cultural level, THE EASIER IT BECOMES TO IMPLEMENT TRANSFORMATION, MONITOR AND VERIFY ACCOUNTABILITY OF FINANCIAL AND OTHER GOVERNMENT REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.

The more rigid organiza-on constructs of governing within the economic paradigm require dynamic, flexible and adap-ve exper-se and oversight to coordinate, support and project manage reforms and ongoing governance accountability by all relevant stakeholders in global and territorial society. The role of a governance support management is change leadership, monitor and advisory. In corporate organiza-on change this key mechanism is o_en referred to as a Change Driver that operates as a “floater” – i.e. it has no fixed ver-cal or horizontal func-on and mode of opera-on. The more flexible the change management “governance mechanism” the more government is able to be recep-ve and adap-ve to systemic fluctua-ons and issues, and the more accountability is able to be enacted and validated in society.

Exis-ng constructs of economic governance (i.e. government) are hierarchical and rigid. This statement does not draw judgment that exis-ng government is inadequate, nor does the unique transformer “bypass” government. With all paradigms of management a base rigid or “secure” skeleton is necessary to deﬁne and oversee the context of government. Yet within democra-c society there are numerous issues and pimalls to governing that exist out of installed structure and process. These issues and thus iden-ﬁed risks include – silos of power (corrup-on at various levels due to poor accountability), unnecessary waste and expenditure (o_en social service sector, commerce and government overlap with services and governance provisions due to there currently being poor visibility or oversight of stakeholder ac-vity in the context of general society and environment. Certain layers of society enablement should remain rela-vely constant and untouched – regardless of incumbent elected government. O_en governments introduce sweeping changes of economic reform with elec-on and former government ini-a-ves are made defunct or le_ incomplete. This results in heavy loss of tax payer and funded expenditure where some of the ini-a-ves are relevant to society regardless of “who” is governing. The prime example approached in this demonstrated model (heterarchy) is technology and infrastructure. Good governance is best ensured through ongoing accountability monitoring and audit that retains a semi-‐autonomous rela-onship with incumbent government. Yet the suppor-ng “transformer” must also be able to account its own ac-vi-es to government and society in general – i.e. high transparency and collabora-on in opera-on.

What is the solu-on we require for transforma-on? (read slide).

A heterarchy provides the scope for good governance within the true economic paradigm described.

(read slide)

Founda-on (or incorpora-on) (Robert Ticker Model of Governance) See also Corporate Governance Principles and Guidelines

The transforma-on ac-vity is a change management process involving the following life-‐cycle and tools.

This slide depicts the typical phases of change implementa-on. These are the phases that constrain a transforma-on strategy to set up valida-on matrices and deliver outputs that are measurable and accountable within -me frames.

This is a standard example of stakeholder analysis model. -‐ refer also to the earlier examples of heterarchy and peace cluster (which also depict stakeholder rela-onship diagrams or organiza-on). Stakeholder modelling is cri-cal to consolida-ng coordina-on and implemen-ng accountability valida-on – regardless of whether the outputs are focused purely on ﬁnancial management and performance or the more integrated holis-c outcomes of social environmental capacity in culture and commerce. We conduct stakeholder modelling to iden-fy those components who may have an interest in governance – those who may be cri-cal to the success of our own implementa-on process, those who may also be able to assist with successful cultural adop-on. Stakeholder rela-onship models essen-ally provide the “road map” to success of transforma-on. They iden-fy cri-cal links in society and those who play a role in governance. From this ac-vity we are then able to develop strategies; conduct risk assessments and mi-gate likely impacts and resistance to change as well as bring on change supporters or champions.

The blue print for transforma-on strategy will include a map that deﬁnes the cri-cal stakeholders by sectors or category. This is a generic textbook example above.

This is a model used for assessment across triple bo[om line. It facilitates accountability measures and valida-on across all categories – by output relevance in terms of their sustainability ac-vity. It can also be used to iden-fy, rate and mi-gate risks under sustainability categorisa-on.

Risk may arise from defects in design, methodologies, systems and managerial direc-ves. It may also arise from failure to implement or carry out direc-ves, agreed principles and process. It may present in the form of naturally occurring phenomena, wear and tear or aging and breakdown of plant, hard infrastructure, tools and equipment. In other sense a risk may be defined out of func-on, process or physical a[ribute, may be mechanical, human or communica-on technology. Risk severity is always based on “mission cri-cal” rather than purely the probability of the event arising. For example a risk iden-fied around an event that has a catastrophic effect on civil society may be considered more severe than a risk that is likely to occur from an every day event – if the probability of the catastrophic event is significant. In all contextual governance models the risk and poten-al from impact is greatly increased from stakeholder dependencies and organiza-on or en-ty links to carry out the governance aims and mission. Not all risks can be fixed or are cost effec-ve to fix – but a full risk model enables visibility and valida-on of accountability of those who carry responsibility in governance over the risk ma[er. When implemen-ng transforma-on strategies a solid risk model and its mi-ga-on is essen-al – mi-ga-on is a clearly defined approach or approaches to avoid the risk event happening or to reduce its impact or to provide a proac-ve and adap-ve response and remedy should the risk event not be able to be removed completely. Risk mi-ga-on involves development and management of con-ngencies – alterna-ve

h[p://www.mmc.com/knowledgecenter/viewpoint/images/nadlerSlywotzy1.gif

This is a model to demonstrate principles based governance – oriented to results performance.

Page 53 Principles based governance – is an integral component of devising transforma-on strategy – where major stakeholders are reviewed to iden-fy their high level mission, objec-ves and values. These are in turn integrated and priori-zed for a global picture of the na-onal governance context. © Vivienne Tobassa Eggers 2013

Page 57 Iden-ﬁca-on and mapping of inter-‐organiza-onal and stakeholder principles enables scoping of requirements for enablement and implementa-on of accountability and cultural adop-on valida-on matrices. The data and informa-on of assessment also forms basis for ongoing knowledge repository – a key to sharing managerial accountability and opera-on func-on; to designing learning and educa-on, knowledge awareness and capacity building through mee-ng the gap between “real world case” and government and organiza-on “principles and aims”. © Vivienne Tobassa Eggers 2013

“Real world case” is the state or condi-on assessed to comprise the cultural environment (in this case ci-zens of Indonesian society) in terms of their “capability” to meet the government designs or ini-a-ves of transforma-on – to deﬁne the competencies and knowledge possession, informa-on and awareness raising required to prepare and assert cultural readiness to receive and adopt the transforma-on. This cultural readiness is asserted through conduc-ng gap analysis and cultural capability assessment. Cultural Capability Assessment is another framework assessment to prepare deﬁned stakeholder groups and community culture for change adop-on and opera-on with reform transforma-on.

Read slide.

To develop the transforma-on implementa-on strategy – a diagnos-c assessment review is conducted throughout iden-ﬁed ver-cal layers of governance and drives horizontally across categories and sectors of func-on. In a whole of governance context the ver-cal pillars of authority and stakeholders are assessed and implemented horizontally – to integrate and coordinate a streamlined strategy of change and management func-on. Peripheral stakeholders of business domain and customer domain in context are next inverted to model the “outside in” as well as the “inside –out”. This outside in is a democra-c or ci-zen centred approach to governance needs to measure its alignment to government direc-ves (inside out). Gap analysis and risk, impact assessment will ascertain good governance strategies forward out of this model review. A whole of governance contextual model enables the implementa-on of frameworks that measure and validate the results or outcomes of governance. This is achieved through providing visibility of holis-c governance paradigm decomposi-on. The Zachman Model has for many years proved successful for large, whole of enterprise change. It forms a basis for all subsequent organiza-on restructure and governance reform as it provides a methodology and mechanism for conduc-ng review for transforma-on by decomposi-on.

-‐ The approach described in this presenta-on forms “a way forward” -‐ the op-mum for Good Governance to be achieved successfully with the high level requirements of government installed.

What is the way forward for Indonesia? To achieve the successful transforma-on strategy certain steps need to be taken. The strategies, methodologies and approaches described in this presenta-on are summary level points that assist describing the TYPE of ac-vity that is undertaken in producing change management and strategic transforma-on success in tac-cal and prac-cal applica-on. In reality the ac-vi-es in these approaches are more complex and comprehensive – include many more models of assessment and development. Yet high level descrip-on of managing a change process for whole of governance is necessary to demonstrate that transforma-on is not purely an academic theore-cal model or suite of industry, professional goals and ideals – but instead a context for valid real life approaches to implement the change. Yet without ac-on – the ma[er of transforma-on management remains a subject discussed by society and management con-nues to fail to meet its goals and aspira-ons – achieve results and performance possible from the desired coordina-on and integra-on.