The consensus reached by the dialogue participants on the need for policy reform is conveyed into a Roadmap for Reform reflecting the stakeholders’ shared vision around the policy at stake. As such, it represents a guide to action, capturing proposals, putting forth recommendations and exploring potential lines of work for all the main stakeholders involved in a given policy area to implement their mutually agreed objectives.
As a living document resulting from the consensus building exercise, the Roadmap may take different forms, depending on the scope of the dialogue and the stage of the policy cycle that the reform efforts are tackling. Nonetheless, for the sake of clarity and communicability it should preferably include the following elements:
• Preamble
The preamble should reflect the shared values of the dialogue’s participants and their shared vision about the issues at stake, while indicating how the policy in focus may help to bring the country in line with that vision.
Guiding questions include:
What are the main challenges in the specific policy area? What specific/sectorial policies, laws, regulations, directives etc. are relevant? Do any policy gaps exist? Is there a lack of laws and regulations or a lack of implementation?
• Signatories
As a declaration of commitment, the Roadmap should be signed and/or publicly endorsed either by the chief representatives of the organisations that were represented in the dialogue process, or by the dialogue participants themselves.
Guiding questions include:
Which organizations and institutions were involved in the dialogue process that has led to this roadmap? How did they participate? Why did they agree to take part in this process and to “sign-up” to the roadmap?
• Policy Priorities
A list of the policy priorities that were agreed to in the context of the policy dialogue (Consensus Building Phase), including concrete recommendations on how the key challenges identified should be tackled through policy reform.
Guiding questions include:
How can identified challenges be tackled from a policy perspective? What legislative or regulatory changes would be needed to improve the policy? How can resources be mobilised to address the agreed priorities?
• Proposals for Implementation
To be presented as results of the dialogue process that reflect a consensus among the participating organizations and institutions, including a clear time frame and responsibility (which organization or institution agrees to do what in order to put the roadmap into practice). It should also include proposals for setting up – or even commitments to setting up – a mechanism to follow up on the implementation of those recommendations containing specific lines of action.
Guiding questions include:
Are these policy proposals realistic? How many of these proposals can be undertaken by the signatories themselves? Are these policy proposals politically feasible?
One aspect that the hosting structure needs to take into consideration is the necessary balance between the breadth (number of stakeholders endorsing the Roadmap) vs depth (or level of detail of actions proposed) of the consensus.
Actually, these two variables tend to run in different directions, as when more diverse actors get involved the potential for disagreement becomes higher. On the other hand, a more reduced number of participants can make it easier for stakeholders to agree on more concrete actions, but this shouldn’t come at the cost of leaving others behind.
The roadmap should therefore strike a balance between these two variables with views to delivering a sound consensus that lays the ground for further action,
The content of the Roadmap also varies depending on the phase of the policy cycle that is being addressed and that the dialogue stakeholders are trying to influence. Without entering here into academic disputes on the exact number of phases –some scholars would include other phases or stages within one same phase– what seems worth keeping in mind is that every public policy has a life cycle, which can be conceptualized as a process comprised of the following stages:
Agenda setting phase |
Raising awareness about a public problem and giving it enough priority so that it enters the public agenda. |
↓
Policy formulation |
Different options are constructed, alternatives are studied and strategies to advance interests are defined and pursued. |
↓
Policy implementation and monitoring |
The different ways in which activities are arranged to produce the effects foreseen in the policy. |
↓
Policy evaluation |
Assessment of the effectiveness and impact of the policy and elaboration of recommendations for improvement or reversal. |
Due to political factors and depending on the stability of the political context in which the targeted policy is embedded, these phases often overlap or are not even completed before another initiative is launched. Nonetheless, this depiction provides civil and political society representatives with a more or less clear idea of when their chances for inserting and advancing their interests are best.
In this respect, shifts between different stages of the policy cycle can be seen as specific entry points for multi-stakeholder dialogue and each entry point implies a different logic of intervention, as outlined below:
• Deliberation.
If a public problem is recognised as such and has entered the political agenda, the dialogue should focus on determining the objectives of the related policy and analysing alternative options for policy design. • Policy adoption. Once there are several policy alternatives under discussion in the political arena, the final choice can be influenced through ‘outside track’ advocacy or by collaborating in coalitions of stakeholders – including policy makers - with a common interest in a given alternative.
• Monitoring
During the implementation phase, stakeholders can assess the efficiency (connection between inputs and outputs) and effectiveness (link between the outcomes and the final impact on the beneficiaries) of the policy.
• Advocacy
Based on the evaluation of the policy’s implementation, stakeholders can push for related problems to be included on the political agenda, which can lead to the launching of a whole new policy cycle or the introduction of corrective measures targeting the initial policy.

Entry points can pre-determine to a large extent the kind of effects that the whole dialogue process can produce and the sort of influence that the Roadmaps may play or, in other words, the level of detail and type of measures and recommendations included. Moreover, it should now be clear that a Roadmap can serve as an entry point to a phase of the policy cycle too.
To give an example, INSPIRED Tunisia aimed at setting the basic principles of social justice (agenda setting) and the consensus reached in the course of the dialogue took the form of a social pact between the main political and social actors in the country. On a different stage, INSPIRED Kyrgyzstan developed an Action Plan for the Transition to Digital Broadcasting, assigning duties, tasks and responsibilities to the stakeholders (formulation phase). Such a level of detail achieved in INSPIRED Kyrgyzstan corresponds to the specificities of a policy reform process which is more advanced and therefore focused more on concrete questions related to the digitalisation of radio and TV programmes.
Based on this experience, an indicative typology of Roadmaps can be drawn. Nevertheless, in reality most Roadmaps will look more like a mix of these prototypes.
It represents a basic consensus on principles vis- à-vis a policy area or broad policy objective.
Characteristics: non- binding; no clearly defined timeframe; no provisions for implementation; serves to set the agenda.
It spells out a commitment by the stakeholders to take action on clearly defined objectives.
Characteristics: binding; may include a timeframe; includes general provisions for implementation; serves to set the agenda.
It includes a timeframe and concrete tasks for a clearly defined target group.
Characteristics: binding; detailed provisions for implementation; serves to formulate policy options.
• Declaration of intent
It represents a basic consensus on principles vis- à-vis a policy area or broad policy objective.
Characteristics: non- binding; no clearly defined timeframe; no provisions for implementation; serves to set the agenda.
• Framework agreement
It spells out a commitment by the stakeholders to take action on clearly defined objectives.
Characteristics: binding; may include a timeframe; includes general provisions for implementation; serves to set the agenda.
• Action plan
It includes a timeframe and concrete tasks for a clearly defined target group.
Characteristics: binding; detailed provisions for implementation; serves to formulate policy options.
Last but not least, a rather important issue to keep in mind when issuing policy proposals is their political feasibility, which basically means putting oneself in the decision makers’ shoes in order to understand their reality and particular constraints that may prevent them from carrying on the desired reforms. However, hosting structures should avoid adopting broad brush assumptions about the willingness of political actors to undertake some reforms.
The purpose of the dialogue is precisely to unlock the black box of “political will”, which all-too-often serves an excuse to preserve the status quo, by pushing decision makers to engage into a rational debate where their arguments can be met with counterarguments and the alleged limitations and shortages can be compensated through collaboration and joint action.
↪ At the end of the day, this is what the Roadmap is all about: a working document that reflects the shared vision of the stakeholders and that outlines the different actions that they commit to undertake in order to implement it.