Main results
| IOL premises | DE process management | DE process results | IOL outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|
| The emergence of latent issues to create interconnections within and across organizations | Preliminary action of dialogue to co-state evaluation goals and indicators | DE let mutual-divergent expectations emerge before the project start, creating the conditions to make them unambiguous and engaging partners in a common aim | Partnership’s aims common knowledge: shared representation and definition of the task to ensure behavior consistency from all partners |
| Intra- and inter-redefinition of boundaries, roles and functions promotes IOL | Monthly meetings for project monitoring required cross-participatory management; consequently, a delegation process was activated by all organizations | The establishment of the inter-organizational team enabled to sharing of knowledge and skills to improve professionals’ work | Open dialogue supported reflexivity, engagement, knowledge and skills sharing allows professionals to feel comfortable searching for new work approaches |
| Monthly monitoring meetings detected coaches’ disengagement risk because their training proposals were not appropriate. Discussion sessions were settled to elaborate on coaches’ frustrations | Dialogue with the inter-organizational team allowed coaches to reflect on their expectations, redefine their behavior and activities and rebuild commitment for improvement | ||
| Awareness of what was achieved through the partnership improves transferability | Final meetings for evaluation data discussion were held to reflect on the competencies and knowledge built during the project | Evaluation data highlighted the attainment of new competencies, a different perspective on youth, a decision-making process change | Providing the opportunity to recognize new acquisitions of the partnership facilitated the transferability chances |
| IOL premises | DE process management | DE process results | IOL outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|
| The emergence of latent issues to create interconnections within and across organizations | Preliminary action of dialogue to co-state evaluation goals and indicators | DE let mutual-divergent expectations emerge before the project start, creating the conditions to make them unambiguous and engaging partners in a common aim | Partnership’s aims common knowledge: shared representation and definition of the task to ensure behavior consistency from all partners |
| Intra- and inter-redefinition of boundaries, roles and functions promotes IOL | Monthly meetings for project monitoring required cross-participatory management; consequently, a delegation process was activated by all organizations | The establishment of the inter-organizational team enabled to sharing of knowledge and skills to improve professionals’ work | Open dialogue supported reflexivity, engagement, knowledge and skills sharing allows professionals to feel comfortable searching for new work approaches |
| Monthly monitoring meetings detected coaches’ disengagement risk because their training proposals were not appropriate. Discussion sessions were settled to elaborate on coaches’ frustrations | Dialogue with the inter-organizational team allowed coaches to reflect on their expectations, redefine their behavior and activities and rebuild commitment for improvement | ||
| Awareness of what was achieved through the partnership improves transferability | Final meetings for evaluation data discussion were held to reflect on the competencies and knowledge built during the project | Evaluation data highlighted the attainment of new competencies, a different perspective on youth, a decision-making process change | Providing the opportunity to recognize new acquisitions of the partnership facilitated the transferability chances |