# data[].attributes.body
NetMap provides a simple way to analyse a large number and diverse group of stakeholders, which is difficult to do so from other existing tools. As the stakeholder analysis is one of the core actions for the successful implementation of CD intervention, this tool is extremely useful in practice. The cons of this tool is the time consuming and thorough understanding of the concept among the participants is required. (Shesh Kafle)

# data[].attributes.body
There really is no one tool that is right in every circumstance. I can see that NetMap would be well suited for diverse groups with varying opinions, especially where power is distributed and there are many connected influencers. In cases where there are few influential stakeholders, it may be more appropriate to use a tool that dives deeper into the nuances of goals, motivations, limitations, and power.

Pros: The tool is visual and interactive and can be "played" like a game. It can be inviting to people who don't like more tedious analysis methods. It's clear for people with all levels of education.

Cons: The process can take a long time. If individual NetMap interviews are used and then compiled using software, the analysis phase won't be owned by the stakeholders and can seem like a black box.

Good practices: Prepare in advance, especially with the legends and labels to guide and speed up the process. Be very thoughtful about how you select your participants, to get a wide range of knowledgeable sources.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the advantages of the NetMap methodology to assess, present and discuss in a very structured way potential stakeholders for a project were already mentioned in previous comments.

I have never used NetMap yet, but it seems to be a great way of interacting with all stakeholders and make them feel involved in the project design. If done properly, I imagine that the discussions during the exercise can help gathering other key information that might not go on the map, but needs to be captured also to get the complete picture.

As already mentioned, an important challenge is to be able to establish a trustful relationship with the stakeholders so that they really share all information and thoughts. A good practice might be to be very clear from the beginning on how the information will be used, who it will be shared with, if it will anonymous, etc.

Some of the reflex ions in this module (in particular on the best way to get everybody to participate – Group VS Individual interviews) reminded me of community vulnerability mapping activities. As for geographical maps, I think one challenge for stakeholder mapping might be to get the right level of detail and avoid saturating the map with too much information.

# data[].attributes.body
The net map instrument is a solid and very comprehensive method of mapping the stakeholders. However I have found it difficult for all participants to be truthful in their answers due to hierarchy and other forms of organizational structure. To be honest in your answers of your own or someones responsibilities and actual influence can be a sensitive matter when a higher official is present or in the same project. Here I have used my on mapping along side the groups mapping to try to identify these hidden or official influence.

In general however I agree with previous speakers that it is a brilliant way to involve everyone and to set a common ground for the continuing of project.

# data[].attributes.body
A useful tool in stakeholder mapping with the ability to help show graphically the various connections amongst various actors/stakeholders directly/indirectly influenced by the capacity building project.
It's drawback is the likelihood of subjectivity by the user(s) and especially in instances where there is no consensus on terminology,definitions and where information deemed sensitive by other parties is withheld.
Good practice in applying it is its all-inclusive and participatory approach.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Faisal that all mentioned. I just want to eco that the timing is really an issue. We used this group exercise for mapping services. It did consume more time than what w expected.

The good practice form what we sow by using it is the team work every one participate and it dose reflect every one opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
I think all the points have been mentioned in the previous comments. The pros is that it is a structured way to map the stakeholders. The methodology is very straightforward by gathering all relevant actors and the tools are simple so it can easily use by all level of stakeholders.

The cons: It is a time consuming exercise and the result seems to be very much depend on the honest and openness of the interviewee.

Good practices: Assure to work with people who fully understand the contexts and make the interviewee to be as comfort as possible so the is no information withheld.

# data[].attributes.body
Pros: It is a very visual tool that can work for all kind of people with varying education. Being visual it shows which connections marginalized groups have and thus what could be done to change it. It seems very good to get the overall picture and then you can see where work needs to be done to influence certain groups and where resistance to the program might be.

Cons would be that information gathered might not be correct, that sensitive information might be withheld by participants since it would be on display. It also seems quite time consuming especially if you want to do the follow ups, which seems to be a good idea.

Good practices would be to make the interviewees feel safe and comfortable enough to provide the accurate information and to take your time and not rush or influencing their answers through your own prejudice.

# data[].attributes.headline
Assignment 4 NetMap – Soso Bagashvili

Pros: the tool can bring clarity to a multi-dimensional team
dealing with complex issues with common goal and objectives in terms of
identifying critical stakeholders and interfaces, strategies and tactics of
work, and division of duties. 

Cons: it may not necessarily capture the challenges
associated in engaging various stakeholders, and optimal levels of stakeholder
engagements, such as “inform”, “consult”, “engage” of those various
stakeholders at various stages of a process. Although may be found helpful in
making such decisions at a later stage leading towards the achievement of set
objectives of particular CD interventions. 

Potential good practices: the tool if used on on-going
bases, may help to identify any changes in power dynamics, or similar over
time, identify further investments or adjustments needs to maximize
effectiveness of an action. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Assignment 4 NetMap – Soso Bagashvili

Pros: the tool can bring clarity to a multi-dimensional team
dealing with complex issues with common goal and objectives in terms of
identifying critical stakeholders and interfaces, strategies and tactics of
work, and division of duties. 

Cons: it may not necessarily capture the challenges
associated in engaging various stakeholders, and optimal levels of stakeholder
engagements, such as “inform”, “consult”, “engage” of those various
stakeholders at various stages of a process. Although may be found helpful in
making such decisions at a later stage leading towards the achievement of set
objectives of particular CD interventions. 

Potential good practices: the tool if used on on-going
bases, may help to identify any changes in power dynamics, or similar over
time, identify further investments or adjustments needs to maximize
effectiveness of an action. 

# data[].attributes.body
NetMapping - Tom McKnigh
1 a. This is an interesting tool that graphically deliver insights that previously might be revealed or missed in designing the classic survey questionnaire used in previous years to capture a “snapshot” of who’s whom in the program environment; a precursor to strategy development and program/project cycle management by identifying at organization, institution and individual levels the formal and informal decision making entities and other stake holders and mechanisms governing Relief - Recovery - Development (R-R-D) including public and private sector dynamics.

It’s likely to reveal within R-R-D settings the best project or program window of opportunity entry point(s) at any of these environment levels hopefully promoting an enabling environment for CD change.   It has 3ws and 5ws utility to better understand whom, what, why, when, where and the how’ of the contextual setting; perhaps a better 3Ws-5Ws determinate instrument than what currently exists fostering however possible reservation of the tool’s application where trust and relationships building investment particularly in conflict and relief settings are a higher priority before introducing this tool.

b. As in many developing world circumstances where systems, accountability and reporting have their strengths and liabilities, net-mapping may help highlight traditional and non-traditional means of resourcing funds and the stages and circumstances they may be activated, and/or where corrective interventions may be necessary. Diaspora remittances and their funding mechanisms is an area that needs better stakeholder understanding. Correspondingly the exercise may reveal what some may not want to be publically known or consider should be selective knowledge among some of the stakeholders thus making accountability or its potential more problematic in implementing.

c. Complex emergencies representing an environment of shifting alliances, allegiances, multi-level social and ethnic divisions and sub-divisions, divergent political ideologies, religions etc. with inherent security management implications add to the tool’s utility and acceptance.

Given the relief – recovery – and development aspects of our work and their unique dynamics, the approach of how and when to administer this tool require thought especially given countries possessing two or more government administrations (Iraq: Baghdad and Erbil), (Somalia: Hargeisa (Somaliland) and Mogadishu (Somalia) with both settings having their own constitutions. In the effort to promote “a one UN” harmonization environment for greater cost effectiveness, i.e. Erbil (Kurdistan) maintaining a Joint Center for Coordination (JCC) and Baghdad’s own Joint Center for Monitoring and Coordination (JCMC) to monitor and respond to humanitarian need, the scope and span of stakeholder engagement rife with subjective elements that may either amplify or distort analysis  highlight review of the appropriateness of this tool, how and when to administer and at what level; especially where trust and relationship gaps are prevalent.

2. It’s a tool providing a who’s who snapshot of beneficiaries, decision makers, implementers and finance mechanisms (formal and informal) that can be positively or negatively influenced by numerous factors governing relief – recovery and development implementation. As it has taken time for the cluster system to evolve similarly it may take some time for this tool to equally evolve and be accepted universally.

The executor of this mapping discipline must be well versed in institutional and group dynamics. An arsenal of synonyms must be readily be at hand to ensure a common understanding of terms and words that are culturally and politically acceptable to most, or all.

# data[].attributes.body
Pros: I concur with all the previous comments. It seems like a structured way/methodology to conduct basic stakeholder mapping exercise, with primary focus on engaging with several actors. Some other tools that I have used have not included the aspect of identifying the goal of a stakeholder, which I think is positive with this tool. The tool also seem fairly simple in the design which makes it fairly easy to use with several stakeholders that may not have similar understanding, capacity or knowledge in regards to the particular topic/project that they are engaged in through this exercise.

Cons: The tool seems to be primarily used for identifying large number of actors and the links between these actors, however, the focus seems to be on gathering fairly limited and shallow data on goals, influence etc. Some project may require a methodology that more closely supports in depth gathering and analysis of data. The tool seems to have a primary focus on mapping and only secondary focus on the actual analysis.

# data[].attributes.headline
NetMap an effective and more precise tool for stakeholder mapping

# data[].attributes.subject
NetMap an effective and more precise tool for stakeholder mapping

# data[].attributes.body
I find this tool an effective and more precise tool in mapping the key organizations, individuals who are directly and indirectly influenced by the capacity development project. In my experience and learning, the pros and cons of this approach are as follows:
- A systematic and well structured tool for mapping stakeholders - who they are, how they are interlinked, what are the interest in taking part and how they can be influenced in both positive and negative ways. This information and knowledge helps the CD process more informed and the project team will be able to mitigate the risks. This helps draw the clear picture about the key partners both the positive and negative scenarios.
- NetMap is complex in the case there are too many partners, interest groups, It is multi-dimensional and proper interactions and thorough understanding of their interest, goals and mapping of positive and negative effects on the CD process is necessary to mitigate risks. Proper approach to initial data collection, follow up, interactions, their linkages and influences in the process (both positive and negative influences). In case there are many groups or individuals, it might be difficult to capture their interests, goals, influences to each other. A thorough plan and strategy is required to address this issue.

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages: The primary advantage of the tools is the ease it offers in mapping and knowing relevant stakeholders, their relative importance, power and interests, etc. This further helps in better managing stakeholder relationships, identifying risks, make better strategies and decisions and generate mutual understanding and acceptance.  Most Importantly, “Net-Map is a flexible and open methodological framework that helps to determining linkages, levels of influence, and goals allows users to be more strategic about how they act”

Disadvantages: The slight disadvantage is that, the tool can make the users to bring in subjectivity may be Involuntarily, might lead to assumptions such as all stakeholders interests can be met at the same time and it utility is best when the analysis is done repeatedly and periodically.

Potential good practices: The ideal way to take advantage of the tool is to Identify the stakeholders likely to be affected by or influence the activities of the organisation and assess how those stakeholders could be impacted or impact upon the organisation. Further, it helps to anticipate the consequences of any change in the organisation’s activities and assure a successful outcome for the organisation by developing co-operation with stakeholders

# data[].attributes.body
Pros: the NetMap approach looks very adaptable to multiple purposes, can be used for project design, implementation and M & E, can help identify sources of support and those who might present obstacles to change, and can allow you to develop a strategic approach to change.
Cons: To be done properly and to be repeated it looks like quite a time consuming process that would require a lot of buy in from stakeholders to fully apply. There may be challenges around reaching shared definitions and understanding of concepts and terminology e.g. influence. It may be challenging to operationalize some of the understandings uncovered in the NetMap process. Stakeholders may lack confidence to be 100% honest about their views when working within an institution.
Good practices:
1. Work with someone who has a good understanding of context.
2. Be prepared and pre-test your approach.
3. Strike the right balance between registering adequate detail in your analysis, but not so much that the outputs are too complex to be usable.
4. revisit and update the stakeholder analysis periodically to check assumptions and update linkages / relationships / influence levels etc.
5. Communicate regularly with the different stakeholders about the process and how the results are being used, remembering to have an advocate for those individuals or groups who are affected by a project, but do not have any voice or influence.