Roadmaps: From the Past and into the Future
In
Login if you are already registered
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
PhD in Political Science, Independent expert
The term 'roadmap' is widely used both in diplomacy and in management. Why? How long will it remain a buzzword? Is it actually relevant? Roadmaps could serve as criteria by which progress made in numerous disconnected meetings and initiatives could be judged, as well as reference points for the formulation of short-term goals, although they would hardly guarantee the actors’ unyielding willingness to deliver on their stated intentions in the world of politics and diplomacy.
The term roadmap has become commonplace in English and even in other languages, Russian included, as it suggests the possession of a plan and paths to guide one through complex, often confusing, surroundings. Due to its seeming simplicity and unobtrusive appearance, this phrase – originally the lone preserve of diplomats and diplomacy – has been rapidly conquering other realms of human activity, in part, because it works to balance out complicated content. And it was not long before this catchy word came into fashion, as today you only need to rename any program that involves clearly defined consecutive steps a roadmap, and it is sure to win everybody's attention. However, these excessively broad interpretation and use somewhat deprive the term of its meaning. To rectify this, it would make sense to return to the feature that formed such a rigid bond between the world of diplomacy and roadmaps, since these documents represent the outcomes of negotiations and agreements involving several actors, and reflect a common understanding of goals and stages for advancement, while the parties themselves retain a visible degree of freedom. In contrast to international treaties, roadmaps involve political rather than legal obligations. Just as with a geographic map, you can either study the roadmap and then put it to one side or you can use when traveling from point A to point B. The user is also free to dump the roadmap for good and turn to other navigation aids or pick it up again later, any time along the route.
Diplomatic Trickery
Even though roadmaps appear practicable, diplomats had, for a long time, been content without them. Negotiations could incorporate similar efforts that were to have a phased implementation, but this content had not been systematized within one document.
Even though roadmaps appear practicable, diplomats had, for a long time, been content without them. Negotiations could incorporate similar efforts that were to have a phased implementation, but this content had not been systematized within one document. The evolution of mass media appears to have done its bit to make roadmaps really popular. In the 1990s, the world overcame old Cold War divisions and plunged headlong into a whirlwind of the round-the-clock, increasingly open, accessible, streams of information, while closed-door negotiations with subsequent hollow reports fell into obsolescence. Today, governments work hard to advertize their achievements, in foreign and domestic affairs. This has become particularly difficult in areas that attract significant public attention but which only stand a slim chance of delivering fast results. Perhaps the best example of this is the Palestinian-Israeli settlement process, which has arguably acquired the best-known roadmap presented in early 2003 to the parties to the conflict by the process’ cosponsors, i.e. the UN, EU, United States and Russia. Notably, the roadmap was based on U.S. proposals.
Naturally, harmonizing several positions requires the availability of a draft paper that is later to be adapted, incorporating the parties’ concerns. Its authorship is important but the key is still in the political will of all actors, as without it any roadmap will remain just empty rhetoric. The Middle East peace process has vividly demonstrated that even united world powers can fail to triumph over the deep-seated differences at the root of a local conflict. However, the roadmap in question can hardly be considered a failure, as it has become a factor for relative stability in the region.
EU-Russia roadmap signing, 2013
During the same period, Russia and the EU were discussing prospects for the concept of common spaces – economy; freedom, security and justice; external security; science and education – which has shown that roadmaps can also prove useful for issues other than conflict resolution. It was the title assigned to the documents describing the path to these common spaces. Reaching agreement was an arduous process not only in the Russia-EU format but also between the various ministries involved. The job involved taking relations between Europe's two major actors to a qualitatively new level. Hence, on the one hand, roadmaps were needed to ensure that the parties could at least find their way through the maze of issues to be discussed, and on the other, the harmonized and publicly accessible roadmaps became a sort of a draft - every item on which required extensive detail. The roadmap is not a document that involves rigid deadlines, as the various different participants may travel across the same terrain at varying speeds. Nevertheless, including rough timelines can offer the parties an additional incentive. While the Middle East roadmap contained deadlines, they were conspicuously absent from the Russia-EU arrangements.
Excessive dimensions and the absence of a clear chronology could explain the slow progress seen under the Russia-EU roadmaps, since many positions remain only on paper a whole 10 years after being penned. However, a comparison with the Partnership for Modernization, i.e. a Russia-EU project announced in 2009, changes this picture. The Partnership for Modernization produced a coordinated Work Plan focusing on concrete areas, as well as a clear-cut timeline. But politics has overpowered this meticulous planning, as the project has lost momentum and will only return to the negotiating table for possible revival some time later this year.
Roadmaps with properly set goals can remain relevant longer than many other political documents. Roadmaps could serve as criteria by which progress made in numerous disconnected meetings and initiatives could be judged, as well as reference points for the formulation of short-term goals, although they would hardly guarantee the actors’ unyielding willingness to deliver on their stated intentions in the world of politics and diplomacy.
Roadmaps have been also developed by the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), by future pundits in the Archangelsk and Maly Karely summer schools with help of Russia’s leading political scientists. RIAC's experience proved the central role played by experts in this kind of activity. Many of the items that are included in a roadmap generate no political differences, but their proper presentation and implementation require the early engagement of focused specialists to cover the roadmap's different sections. Without this work, the Roadmap remains abstract, and the implementing agency is unlikely to view it as worth more than the paper it’s printed on.
Roadmaps with properly set goals can remain relevant longer than many other political documents. Naturally, building Russia-EU common spaces in reality will take decades. Roadmaps could serve as criteria by which progress made in numerous disconnected meetings and initiatives could be judged, as well as reference points for the formulation of short-term goals, although they would hardly guarantee the actors’ unyielding willingness to deliver on their stated intentions in the world of politics and diplomacy.
A Management Tool
While in domestic and foreign politics a roadmap appears to be a specific memorandum of intentions, efficiency-craving businesses, government bodies and international institutions cannot afford such a frivolous approach to a strategy that has been formulated and approved. In fact, any managerial process involves a clear-cut modus operandi that often emerges from harmonization efforts of corporate and agency departments, thus becoming a kind of a roadmap.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat,
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Israel's
Justice Minister Tzipi Livni at the end of talks at
the State Department in Washington,
July 30, 2013
A Roadmap may indicate the components required to attain specific goals and also describe how any project will be implemented within an organization. In the latter case, progress under the Roadmap ceases to be linear, as it aims to secure the successful realization and assessment of the project in a step-by-step manner, with the straightforward advance replaced by maintaining the quality of the operations set. The algorithms formulated may be accompanied with compromises, but after the advisory documents have been approved at an official level they become corporate laws for the relevant personnel.
A Roadmap may be intended to synchronize the efforts of various ministries and agencies, each of which operates and reports back according to government-approved criteria, giving rise to the danger of excessive bureaucracy and the risk that the Roadmap never makes the break from formal rhetoric to reality. If the Roadmap contains a tangible quantitative parameter controlled by a supervisory body, those carrying it out could focus on this aspect to the detriment of other elements within it that are not subject to this kind of control.
In management, project timing is an obligatory planning element, and within complex strategies the implementation of separate projects may require synchronization. This objective requirement has brought growing popularity to the Gantt chart, which seems to function as a visual incarnation of Roadmaps in project management.
Compulsory Elements
The roadmap’s future in management seems clear, since the approach reflects the very essence of the managerial process.
Roadmaps are inevitably diverse in both structure and content, be it long-term planning or implementation of a local project, with each situation replete with details that must be heeded, even if each organization uses its own approach to solution of general problems. However, there seem to be several questions that can be applied to any roadmap:
What is the goal and could it be worded in a more concrete form?
How do we determine the participants? Could the circle be expanded/reduced without harming the project goals?
Are there alternative paths and do they contradict each other?
Differences between the project participants: should they be removed from the Roadmap or be subject to compromise?
The Arctic. Proposals for the International
Cooperation Roadmap
Is the Roadmap elements' sequence important?
Are the Roadmap deadlines realistic?
What is the proper monitoring scheme for implementing the Roadmap elements?
What kind of access is appropriate for the Roadmap and monitoring results – public, restricted or confidential?
Future
The roadmap’s future in management seems clear, since the approach reflects the very essence of the managerial process. Politics is more complex, because of the risk that Roadmaps serve as an element for outlining decisions but rarely deliver as a blueprint for action. With time, our recurrent roadmap-related frustrations could devalue the term and make it less applicable. However, the key is not in the words used but in providing politics and politicians with at least some elements of rational project management with to push the political systems toward greater transparency and predictability.
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
