Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 31, Number 2, 2009, pp43-55

A Challenge of Mutual Knowledge Development in Implementation of the Yonmenkaigi
System for Sand Mining Management in Local Community of Merapi Volcano

Jong-il NA *Norio OKADA **Ir. Bambang HARGONO
Dipl. HE, M. ENG.***
Djoko LEGONO****
Naoki UEHATA******Graduate School of Urban Management Engineering**Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan***Serayu-Opak River Basin Main OfÞce, Directorate General of Water Resources, Ministry of Public Works,****Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering,*****International Division, Yachiyo Engineering Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan(Received for 20 Apr., 2010 and in revised from 1 Jun., 2010)
ABSTRACTThis paper introduces a challenge of mutual knowledge development in theimplementation of the Yonmnekaigi system as a participatory workshop method to improve
sand mining management of local communities in Merapi Volcano of Indonesia. It wasapplied for the formulation of action plans on community-based sand mining managementin Pilot Project implemented by Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta, Indonesia under
Urgent Disaster Reduction Project for Mt. Merapi, Progo River Basin (JICA Loan No.:
IP-524) executed by Directorate General of Water Resources, Ministry of Public Works,
Indonesia. A participatory workshop method called the Yonmenkaigi system method,originally developed in a local community in Japan, has the following main steps:
carrying out SWOT analysis, completing a Yonmenkaigi Chart, debating between groups,
and presenting the group action plan. A case study carried out in the Kemiren village,
Yogyakarta, Indonesia in August 2009, demonstrates how residents who are interested indisaster mitigation and management in a local community can collaboratively develop
an implementable action plan for Sand Mining Management of local community. Basedon the above case study, this paper categorically itemizes and formalizes two types ofknowledge development needed for introducing the Yonmenkaigi system method to thecases in Indonesia. The first type of knowledge development is that type of knowledge
which is generated as an outcome through the process of implementing a whole set of
the Yonmenkaigi system. The second type is shown to be modeled as mutual knowledge
development between “seed knowledge providers” and “custom knowledge providers”.
Illustrations are made from the field work results and the two types of knowledge
development have been speciÞcally described and analyzed.

Keyword: a participatory workshop,Yonmenkaigi system method, sand mining
management, collaborative action plan, mutual knowledge development
43

JONG-IL NA, N. OKADA, IR. BAMBANG HARGONO, DIPL. HE, M. ENG., DJOKO LEGONO, N. UEHATA

categorically itemize and formalize types of implementation knowledge needed for introducing the Yonmenkaigi system method to the cases in Indonesia.
Development of such implementation knowledge isshown to be modeled as mutual knowledge development between “knowledge providers” and “knowledge
customers.”

I. Introduction
This paper introduces the development of theYonmnekaigi system for sand mining management as
a participatory workshop method to improve everyday disaster response capacity within communities.
A method called the Yonmenkaigi system method,originally developed in a local community in Japan [５],is presented as a case study conducted by Gadjah
Mada University (hereafter called UGM), Indonesia,
in collaboration with our research group of Kyoto
University (hereafter called KU), under Urgent Disaster Reduction Project for Mt. Merapi, Progo River
Basin (JICA Loan No.: IP-524) executed by Directorate General of Water Resources, Ministry of Public
Works, Indonesia. One component of the above
project called “Study on Community Development
at Mt. Merapi Area” consists of three project components, namely “Pilot Project”, “Evacuation Drill”, and“Events”. KU introduced the Yonmenkaigi system
method program as a part of Pilot Project which wasagreed to include the facilitator buildup program of
the Yonmenkaigi system method to improve Pilot
Project. This made us researchers from Japan to develop yet missing implementation knowledge such as
how to revise and adapt the whole process of introducing the Yonmenkaigi system method to a new issue in a different country with a different culture andhistory, that is, participatory management for sandmining-troubled communities in the Merapi Region,
Indonesia.
This paper intends to first describe specificallythe processes of introducing the Yonmenkaigi system method by making adaptation for the Merapi
mountainous communities in sand mining management (hereafter called SMM). It is also intended to

II. Yonmenkaigi System Method
1. Overview of the Yonmenkaigi System Method
The most current participatory workshop methods developed for disaster management mainly address disaster risk awareness or focus on personal
post-disaster actions, despite an increasing need tocreate an implementable action plan in advance bygoing beyond enhancing risk awareness. A new typeof workshop method for developing implementableaction plan is required in order to enable participantsfrom a local community to collaborate together [４].
The Yonmenkaigi system method is exactly this typeof method which has been developed and promotedby the authors.
The primary objective of the Yonmenkaigi system method is to develop a collaborative action plan
for a community in a workshop with a disaster risk
context. In order to achieve the objective, this method
focuses on four broad aspects of management, public
relations (PR) and information, soft logistics, andhard logistics. These four aspects (roles) are considered essential issues required for future action. The
time dimension is also considered with each of theserole sharing elements [３].
The Yonmenkaigi system method provides aplatform for face to face communication for participants to become aware of the concerns of others, todiscuss the current state of their community and tocollaboratively develop an implementable action plan.
Other workshop methods lack this type of system [４].
The emphasis of the Yonmenkaigi system method isplaced on disaster mitigation and preparedness rather
than on post-disaster situations. In a Yonmenkaigi
workshop, participants are expected to play the rolesof both planners and executors as subjects of the action plans.

YSM Program In Pilot Project

Instructor
Facilitator Candidates for YSM
Kepuharjo
Village

Kemiren Sindumartani
Village
Village

As Local Communicators for PP
Assistant+ Facilitators
Candidates

Figure 1. The Organization Chart of the Pilot Projectof Gadjah Mada University
44

A CHALLENGE OF MUTUAL KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE YONMENKAIGI SYSTEM FOR SAND MINING MANAGEMENT IN LOCAL COMMUNITY OF MERAPI VOLCANO

Once each group completes the articulation of its
action components, debating among groups is carriedout to enhance the collaborative action plan. The Yonmenkaigi system method has two types of debatesgeneral debate involving inter-group debate and inverse debate involving the exchange of the positions
and roles of two groups facing each other across theYonmenkaigi Chart.

2. The Standard Process of the Yonmenkaigi
System Method
The standard process of the Yonmenkaigi system
method that has so far been formalized in Japan byauthors and others, consists of four main steps: carrying out a SWOT analysis [１], completing the Yonmenkaigi Chart, debating, and presenting the action
plan chart, as shown in Fig. 2. The SWOT analysis
provides the participants with an opportunity to share
their ideas and views about the current situation of
the community, which leads to a holistic and detailed
view of risks faced by the community and future actions.

Group C (Soft Logistics)

SWOT Analysis:
Identify Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, and Threats

Plana
Planc

Theme

Pland

After 1 Year
Within 1 Year

Planb
Within 6 Months

Group D (Hard Logistics)

Group A (Management)

Within 3 Months

Group B (PR, Information)

Determine Theme/Goal
Assign Roles

Figure 3. Typical patten of the Yonmenkaigi chart [４].

Yonmenkaigi Chart:
Generate and Cluster Ideas

III. Project Description
Debate:Enhance and Re-cluster Ideas

Our research team from Kyoto University (KU)
was asked to collaborate with UGM particularly inmethodological application and workshop implementation. The seed knowledge provider in terms of introducing the Yonmenkaigi system method to the Merapi
Region is KU, with UGM as its first hand customer.
The end customer is considered to be a collection of
local residents (community people participating in the
project from Merapi Region). Implementation gap inknowledge is identified to exist on both ends, i) the
seed knowledge provider and the first hand customer,
and ii) the first hand customer and the end customer.
Since customers, either the first or the second, areexpected to contribute to adding on knowledge fromthe viewpoint of customers, let us call them “custom
knowledge providers”. In terms of implementing theYonmenkaigi system method, the seed knowledge
provider and custom knowledge providers should
learn each other and fill in a gap of knowledge between them.
Obviously there exists a large implementation gap in knowledge between the seed knowledge
provider and the end customer knowledge provider;knowing this, KU decided to gain access to local
communities indirectly via UGM. Therefore theAction Plan:
Present Action Plan Chart(Collective Commitment)

Figure 2. Standard Process of the Yonmenkaigi System Method [４].
Making a diagnosis of the current conditions of
the community identified during the SWOT analysis,
participants then determine the main topic/goal of theworkshop. Afterwards, the participants are divided
into four groups as roles, i.e., management, public
relations (PR) and information, soft logistics, andhard logistics. Participants start to express their action components and views in accordance with theirassigned role by utilizing also color cards corresponding to each group/role in a specially designed chartcalled Yonmenkaigi Chart, as shown in Fig. 3. The
action components for each of the roles are grouped
according to one of the time frames: within 3 months,
within 6 months, within 1 year, and beyond 1 year.
The implementable collaborative action plan is a coordinated combination of the actions developed by thefour roles/groups [３].
45

JONG-IL NA, N. OKADA, IR. BAMBANG HARGONO, DIPL. HE, M. ENG., DJOKO LEGONO, N. UEHATA

above two types of implementation gap in knowledgecame into scope.
The first challenge for the project team in implementing the Yonmenkaigi system method was an
issue of capacity build-up of facilitator expertise owners, i.e., how to mutually develop facilitators for the
Yonmenkaigi system method.
That is, in order to fill in the gap at both ends,
human development of facilitators as intermediateknowledge owners was intended to be challenged by
the instructor (mainly Na Jong-il, one of the authors)as an effective means. Here “intermediate” means
bridging a gap and bringing something from bothends. Based on this premise, the members of the Pilot
Project included the principal investigator, facilitator
candidates of the Yonmenkaigi system method and local communicators for each village as shown in Fig.1.
To make up for some of the yet remaining gap uncovered by the facilitators, local communicators wereselected from the UGM staff to collaborate with eachvillage in the project. As stated later in detail they
were asked to serve as both assistant facilitator and an
active participant.
Considering a workable time schedule for training (building up) facilitators for conducting the method of Yonmenkaigi workshop, KU has proposed andimplemented a training program for facilitators. They
were requested to take up buildup programs with two
steps, namely Step 1 (beginners version) and Step 2(semi-advanced version). The Step 1 conducted to
May from April in 2009, and then the Step 2 was conducted (facilitated and instructed about facilitation)
for the period from June 1st to 3rd in 2009 by the firstauthor of this paper.

YSM of Local Community

YSM of UGM

Preparation forWorkshop A

Preparation forWorkshop A
using YSM

Workshop A:
Share of Awareness & Needfor SMMSWOT & Strategy
Workshop B:
Making Action PlanYSC & Debating
Processes of YSM

Collaborative Action
to Implementationfor SMM

Implementation of YSM

Preparation forWorkshop B
using YSM
Facilitator of YSM for
Workshop B
Implementation of
Facilitator of YSM
by UGM
Training of YSM

Figure 4. The progress of Workshop A and Workshop
B using the Yonmenkaigi System Method(YSM) in Pilot Projectprove the sand mining management activity under the
Pilot Project, firstly Workshop A and Workshop B using the Yonmenkaigi system method were planned asshown in Fig.4. The objectives of Workshop A are (1)to share the opinions of participants, as the representatives of each village, on their needs of sand mining
management through free style discussions, and (2)to determine the outline of topics for the collaborative
action to implementation of sand mining management
at local community level. The objective of Workshop
B is to follow up the Workshop A to make a collaborative action plan for each selected village using theYonmenkaigi system method.
It is noted here that in order to introduce theYonmenkaigi system method to the selected villages
in Merapi Region, we needed to consider their local
conditions (such as people’s unfamiliarity with thistype of workshop method, and cultural differences incommunication and deliberations). This is why we decided to make the above-mentioned modifications on
the standard procedures of the Yonmenkaigi system
method which have been commonly used in Japan by
the authors and others.
In the following analysis two more points are addressed. That is, someone has to serve as i) an instructor, and someone has to serve as ii) a facilitator andalso a local communicator of the workshop.
As mentioned above, the first author served as
the instructor of the Yonmenkaigi system method.
For this purpose “preparation workshops” were first

1. Illustrations: The Yonmenkaigi system
method in Pilot Project
To elaborate on the aforementioned major pointsof our fine-tuning works to implement the Yonmenkaigi method, illustrations of the specifics of bringing
in the Yonmenkaigi system method to a particularcommunity are made in the following:
A special Yonmenkaigi system programs wasdeveloped and proposed to the implementation of theYonmenkaigi system method in local communities,
and the same was used in the facilitators training for
UGM, respectively, as follows:
To produce a collaborative action plan to im46

A CHALLENGE OF MUTUAL KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE YONMENKAIGI SYSTEM FOR SAND MINING MANAGEMENT IN LOCAL COMMUNITY OF MERAPI VOLCANO

introduced before the implementation of Workshop
A and Workshop B by using the Yonmenkaigi system
method. The objectives of these preparation workshops were (1) to instruct and train the facilitators of
UGM for the Yonmenkaigi system method, and (2)to develop an instruction manual of Yonmenkaigi
workshops for the facilitators in UGM. This manual
includes the process and work descriptions for boththe facilitator and organizer of Workshops A and B.
The facilitators of UGM carried out Workshops A and
B on August 11 and 13, 2009 according to the process
and work descriptions.

Standard Type

Beginner
ProgramIntensive TypeRound 1YSM Guidanceby Instructor

Round 1YSM Guidanceby Instructor

Round 2YSM Demonstration
by Instructor

Experienced Instructor& Limited Time

Round 3YSM Demonstration
by Candidates

Round 2YSM Demonstration
by Candidates

YSM is performed by candidates, supported by Instructor

Semi-advanced
ProgramRound 4YSM Demonstration
by Candidates

Round 3YSM Demonstration
by Candidates

YSM is performed by candidates and Instructor advises after YSMRound NYSM Demonstration
by Candidates

Round NYSM Demonstration
by Candidates

Until the time found to appropriate continue

Figure 5. Facilitator Training Programs for UGM
facilitator candidates in the Yonmenkaigi
system method

2. Mutual Knowledge Development for
Facilitator Training Program of theYonmenkaigi system method
We here analyze the above-mentioned additional
human resource development from the viewpoint ofmutual knowledge development to fill in an implementation gap identified for introducing the Yonmenkaigi system method into the target communities in
Marapi.
To carry out effectively Yonmenkaigi workshops,
questions were raised; who can offer such a communication skill to guide and coordinate the consistency
and quality of collaborative actions among participants, who also shares essential knowledge and information on the respective local community, and also
who has sufficient understanding of the Yonmenkaigi
system method. The role model for such an integrated competence was decided to be called the facilitatorof a Yonmenkaigi workshop.
Since in UGM there was none found to serve as
facilitator, KU offered UGM a support to develop afacilitator buildup (training) program. This was theseed knowledge provided by KU, and UGM provided
local knowledge needed for facilitators and also
helped KU identify qualified candidates from theirstaff.
The purpose of Facilitator Training’s Program of
the Yonmenkaigi system method was to speed up andeffectuate more systematically intended activities under the Pilot Project. Also, there was a crucial need to
improve the competence of facilitator candidates. Another challenge was to how to train facilitators to own
virtually experience required for the facilitation of theYonmenkaigi Workshop with local community people
by going through the whole process of the Yonmen-

kaigi system method. The training procedures consistof the two steps, namely Step 1 as Beginner Program,and Step 2 as Semi-advanced Program as shown in
Fig.5.
The focus of training in the Beginner Programis to develop basic understanding of the processesof the Yonmenkaigi system method. The purpose of
the Semi-advanced Program is to develop capacity tofacilitate the Yonmenkaigi workshop as a facilitator,
who is also trained to make a diagnosis by analyzing
the current situation of local community. The facilitator candidate is also expected to have enough experience and capacity to understand and communicatesmoothly with people in the local communities in Mt.
Merapi, The facilitator is required to develop enoughknowledge and recognition of the themes related
to the Pilot Project’s community issues. Beside thetraining practice of the Yonmenkaigi workshop, a
short interview combined with questionnaire survey
was conducted by the KU-UGM survey team regarding what the facilitator trainees found about both thesignificance and value of the Yonmenkaigi system
method as well as its difficulties and deficits to be
overcome. These data were collected to analyze how
to make Yonmenkaigi workshops better conducted byconsidering the local specifics of the Merapi community participatory cases.
Thereafter thus trained facilitators of Pilot Project of UGM carried out the implementation of a participatory workshop in the selected communities forsand mining management by using the Yonmenkaigi
system method. For this purpose, participants of local
communities related to Pilot Project created the action
47

JONG-IL NA, N. OKADA, IR. BAMBANG HARGONO, DIPL. HE, M. ENG., DJOKO LEGONO, N. UEHATA

plan to carry out Yonnenkaigi workshops for sharing
the need of sand mining management and to clustering ideas to implement sand mining managementof local community level by using the Yonmenkaigi
system method in August 2009. As shown in Fig.1,
the Yonmenkaigi system method was implemented
in three villages, namely Kemiren, Kepuharjo, andSindumartani in Mt. Merapi region. In the following
analysis this paper focuses the implementation of theYonmenkaigi workshop in Kemiren village case, conducted on August 2009.
IV. the Kemiren Village Case Study

Figure 6. Kemiren Village in Mt. Merapi, Indonesia(edited from http://maps.google.co.jp/)

1. Kemiren Village
Kemiren village is located at the south west partof Mt. Merapi slope. Administratively it is a part of
Srumbung District, Magelang Regency local government area of Central Java Province. Kemiren village
is officially bordered by Ngablak village on its northwestern side; Hargobinangun village and Kaliurang
village on its southeastern side; and Kamongan village
on its southwestern side. Kemiren village is divided
into three Dusun (Sub-village) namely; Dusun Jamburejo, Dusun Kemiren, and Dusun Kamongan Cilik.
Kemiren village has 1,141 people and 307 households
as of 2007 over area of 487.629 ha, as shown Fig.6.
The structure of village administration is thesame for the whole of Indonesia only the number ofcivil servants and the members of the village council
are dependent on the character and the size of thevillage. Located at the right side of Kali Batan’s upstream area, the villagers are depends mostly on Salakfarming which is irrigated by water from Kali Batan.
Almost 60 % of the inhabitant working as Salak
farmer, only 6 % work in rice field in where used tobe the sand quarries. The rest are working on informal
sector.
As the same as other parts of Mt. Merapi areas,
the land consists of sandy fertile soil. Even the landhas sand mined product potential, sand mining activities not became major occupation in this village since
the Salak farm was able to earn higher income for thevillagers. Yet small sporadic and localized sand mining activities in Kemiren village and its surrounding
areas have also been developing since 1990s.

Massive sand mining activities started in KaliBebeng, upland Kemiren village from year 2000
after the Mt. Merapi eruption. From that time, thesand mining activities began to use excavator equipments and to involve more than one thousand numberof trucks. Most of the sand mining company andits workers comes from Temanggung District andWonosobo District, out of Magelang District. Since
the sand mining activities forced them to work longeach day, the workers built a semi permanent barrack
around the sand quarry to stay during mining activities, As mining industries increased, several sand depots (sand storages) were developed within Kemiren
village by either land’s owners or land tenants [６].
The main problem of sand mining activities in
Merapi may be described as follows:(i) Active volcanic eruptions may cause disasters
but also provide a massive volume of sand resources for construction materials and others tobe mined from across valleys susceptible to volcanic risks, thus making sand mining industries
more economically activated. Therefore, the sandmining has become an important income source
for local people in the Merapi region.
(ii) Intensive and uncontrolled sand mining activities
tend to cause non-registered sand miners grow innumber, and results in increased improper excavation, and pollution and accidents due to heavy
traffic, etc., [７].
In fact villagers were troubled more and moreby the increasing of mining activities and traffic of
including trucks and sand miners mobility passing
through the village as well as expanding activities in48

A CHALLENGE OF MUTUAL KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE YONMENKAIGI SYSTEM FOR SAND MINING MANAGEMENT IN LOCAL COMMUNITY OF MERAPI VOLCANO

sand depots for loading and unloading of excavatedsands from local mines mined. Noise pollution andseveral crime incidents have been reported by thevillagers as the bothering impacts of both sand mining activities in Kali Bebeng and sand depots in theirneighborhood.
In order to minimize such sand mining impact
by themselves, the villagers resorted to a village’sorganization, Bumi Lestari meaning “Eternal Earth”
in Java language. Thus villagers intended to collaboratively work with the government and sand depots’owner as well as mining companies. It was intended
to localize the sand depots to some proper place.

shop was organized in the name of Bumi Lestari inorder to lead the survey plan in Kemiren village on
August 19, 2009. As the initiator, Bumi Lestari wasinterested in developing an action plan for conducting a survey of the traffic of Armada (trucks) passing
Kemiren village. Bumi Lestari as the community
institution in Kemiren village determined the topic ofconducting a survey of sand trucks for those passing
Kemiren village. 13 participants plus 5 facilitators
were involved in the Yonmenkaigi workshop process.
Participants of the Kemiren Yonmenkaigi workshop
are from Kemiren village, comprising the member of
Bumi Lestari (5 people), Karang Taruna (Local Youth
Organization) (2 people), and village government
staff (6 people) as shown in Fig.7. Participants represented most of concerned parties in Kemiren village
except for the sand miners coming from outside.

2. Implementation of The Kemiren
Yonmenkaigi Workshop
Why the Yonmenkaigi system method was introduced in Kemiren village? The major reasons are:i) It was intended to work out some modest initiative that can be taken by each respective community, and involvement of the mining company toresolve conflicts between Kemiren communityand sand miners was not challenged.
ii) In stead, the main purpose of the workshop in
Kemiren community was agreed to develop a
collaborative action plan in a participatory manner so as to improve roles and activities of Bumi
Lestari, thus reducing the sand mining impact totheir maximum capacity.
iii) The fatal lack of capacity on the side of thecommunity people was their inability and inexperience to systematically and logically make asound diagnosis of the current state of their community and to work out a collaborative action
plan so as to achieve their own goal.
iv) Therefore, the Yonmenkaigi system method is
the suitable participatory workshop method toimprove the activity of sand mining management
in local community.
v) Importantly the Yonmenkaigi also provides acommunication basis for working together byhaving all seated together around a square tableand by brainstorming about each other’s views.
This strengthens effectively the sense of mutual
trust and knowledge ownership as they engage
themselves in a collective and collaborative action planning [４].
For the reasons above, the Yonmenkaigi work-

Bumi Lestari
(5)

UGM
(5)

Village
Government
Staffs(6)Local YouthHead of
Organization(2)

Figure 7. The Identification of Participants in
Kemiren Workshop

3. Preliminary groundwork before theYonmenkaigi workshop
One main facilitator and four sub-facilitators as
both participants and members of Pilot Project teamin UGM in each group were selected and engaged
to promote the process of the Yonmenkaigi system
method. The Kemiren communicator of UGM, who
served as the main facilitator, As described before,
he was then asked by the KU-UGM project team toserve as the main facilitator. He explained and introduced to the participants the rules and methods of theYonmenkaigi workshop, thus facilitating the wholeprocess. The KU-UGM project team advised that theYonmenkaigi workshop should be designed to last for
two and half hours, considering the time constraints
and limit of enduring process for local participantsfrom Kemiren village. For the purpose of documentation and following analysis, the process was recordedby one keeper of records and one cameraman.
49

JONG-IL NA, N. OKADA, IR. BAMBANG HARGONO, DIPL. HE, M. ENG., DJOKO LEGONO, N. UEHATA

To set a framework for collaborative action
planning, both the long term and short term scenariosof sand mining management for Kemiren village wereexplained to the participants on August 19 by UGM
based on the results of the discussions which had
been conducted beforehand within Bumi Lestari as
guided by UGM. The SWOT results of the Workshop
A organized on August 11, 2009 were used to assist
the participants in carrying out the SWOT analysis forthe case of Kemiren Village. The participants decided
that the main theme of collaborative action linked to
implementation in the Pilot Project was to survey traffic conditions of sand trucks in an area of Kemiren
village. They selected a two month period from
September to October, 2009 as a realistic time frame
for achieving the goal. This assessment was overall
made by considering the following. a) It is necessary
to collect sufficient information about the mobilization of sand trucks. b) This information will be used
to determine both the proper place of sand depots anddepot’s capacity needed. Based on the results of the
SWOT analysis, the following strategy was compiled
as shown in Table Ⅰ .

cedures of the Yonmenkaigi system method, that is (1)SWOT analysis; (2) defining the main theme based on
SWOT analysis; (3) working on Yonmenkaigi chart; (4)debating to improve the consistency and quality of collaborative activity; (5) final presentation of action plan.
Note that the whole processes of the Kemiren-tailored
Yonmenkaigi workshop was divided into two stages, onethat deals with SWOT analysis and the second that deals
with making the collaborative action plan.

Soft Logistics

Survey of Armada traffic (sand trucks)

Objective

To count the number of sand and gravel trucks
and To measure the sand height in trucks frommining sites in Bebeng river, and passing
through Kemiren village in a weekTime

2 months (from plan to its implementation)

TargetArmada (sand trucks passing through Kemiren)

Executor

LPSPD BUMI LESTARI

Within 8 Weeks
Within 7 Weeks
Within 4 Weeks
PR & Information

Figure 8. The Time Frames and the Roles of theKemiren
The goal of this collaborative action is to know
the number of sand and gravel trucks and the rate ofsand transportation per week to its destination (collection and distribution depot) from mining sites
in Bebeng River passing through Kemiren village.
The target of a survey is the trucks of Armada passing through Kemiren village. the funding source forsurvey implementation is decided to come from both
Kemiren village and Bumi Lestari. It also decided
that the survey including the preparation and data entry will be conducted during two months (September- October 2009). The time frames and the roles of actions considered in the Kemiren Yonmenkaigi workshop are shown in Fig. 8 as within 4 weeks (September 2009), within 7 weeks (October 2009), within 8
weeks (end of October 2009). In the end of the action
plan (end of October 2009), a workshop will be held
to announce the result of survey to related parties andto prepare the follow up plan.
After some revisions of action components
among each group during debating, the action plan of
the Yonmenkaigi chart as shown in Fig. 9 was completed .

TABLE I. MAIN THEME SET THROUGH SWOT ANALYSISIN KEMIREN VILLAGE
Main
Theme

Surveyof ArmadaHard Logistics

Management

From the 17 participants, each of four groups
was formed to play the roles of management, PR& information, soft logistics, and hard logistics, respectively. In other words the corresponding responsibilities of the four groups were top-management,
communication to other organizations related to thetheme, human resources, and physical resources; thus
each of them working collaboratively to achieve themain theme (topic)/goal of the workshop as determined in the earlier process.
With the above-mentioned preliminary groundwork, the Kemiren-tailored Yonmenkaigi workshop
was conducted by following basically the standard pro50

A CHALLENGE OF MUTUAL KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE YONMENKAIGI SYSTEM FOR SAND MINING MANAGEMENT IN LOCAL COMMUNITY OF MERAPI VOLCANO

together on the same action plan component.
Because each of the groups has its own limitations, some action plan components require
collaboration across the groups to manage theaction plan components more synergetically [４].
During the Kemiren Yonmenkaigi workshop,
the action component card of “developing
the contents required in survey of Armada”,
the card of “meeting with related government
agencies in preparation stage of field activity”,
and other 22 cards in the management groupwere moved to the border zones between the
management group and the other groups. It
was noted, for instance, by participants that
Kemiren village needs to work together withother stakeholders to implement these action
components because its own capacities are limited.
In the Kemiren Yonmenkaigi workshop, asshown in Table Ⅱ , the four groups, i.e., management,
PR & information, soft logistics, and hard logistics
first presented 40, 25, 22, and 29 action component
cards, respectively, or a total of 116 action cards
placed on the Yonmenkaigi Chart before debating. After debating, the numbers of action component cards
increased to 41, 33, 31, and 34, respectively, or a totalof 139. In Table Ⅱ , the cards of collaboration (shifts)
are counted in each of the collaborating groups.

Figure 9. Picture of Yonmen chart
after debating of Kemiren.
4. Anaylsis of Collaborative Action
Development during Debate
In the Yonmenkaigi workshop method, cards areused by participants to express and exchange views
and ideas during the debating phase. During thedebate stage, the multi-level knowledge development
process of the debating practice is reflected throughcard movements. For analytical purpose, several
basic rules for the movement of cards as can be retrieved from the recorded data (snapshots made in thedue processes) have been identified as follows [４]:Add a new card: a new action component has
been identified. During the Kemiren Yonmenkaigi workshop, for example, the groups playing the role of soft and hard added new action
component cards of “Making survey format”
and “Survey on trucks ”.
Move a card: the action component is moresuitable or preferable to the group the card
moved to rather than to the original group.
Delete a card: the action component is no longer needed or desirable.
Arrange cards: cards are arranged and groupedby considering the time frames of the action
components. For example, an action component
card related to survey of Armada in management group was shifted from within 4 weeks towithin 7 weeks in the same group.
Collaboration shifts of cards: some action components may require collaboration among morethan one group. This indicates that the groups
concerned or overlapping groups will work

TABLE Ⅱ. ACTION PLAN COMPONENTS BEFORE AND AFTER DEBATE
PR &
Soft
Hard
InforLogistics Logistics
mation(S)(H)(I)
Before debate
40
25
22
29
Changes to action plan components after debate
Arrange
1
2
1
1
Add
0
0
1
1
Move
0
0
0
0
Delete0100Collaborate
23
6
13
2
No change
17
24
16
30
Total
41
33
31
34
Management(M)

The above discussions show that movements ofcards and debating process by use of the Yonmenkaigi
Chart systematically lead to mutual knowledge development for collaborative actions. This type of mutual
knowledge development is generated from within theparticipants together with from the formulated proce51

JONG-IL NA, N. OKADA, IR. BAMBANG HARGONO, DIPL. HE, M. ENG., DJOKO LEGONO, N. UEHATA

dures for performing the Yonmenkaigi Chart-based
deliberations. Such knowledge generated and owned
by participants are outcomes of the implementation of
the Yonmenkaigi system method. It is therefore categorically different from the already mentioned typesof mutual knowledge development for filling in missing knowledge for implementation. The former is “theoutcome of implementation,” whereas the latter is “theknowledge development for setting a communication
platform.” This kind of knowledge development isneeded for actually practicing a Yonmengaigi system
method-based workshop.
For complementary discussions we will here
take up a little bit more the latter type of knowledge
development . Complementary Discussion: Development of Knowhow on Setting for Implementation
Throughout the process of implementation of theYonmenkaigi system method in local communities in
Mt. Merapi, there were two organizational developments findings which are considered development ofknowhow on setting for implementation: (1) mutual
knowledge development between KU-UGM and local
communities, and (2) a new style of facilitation in the
Yonmenkaigi system method.

participatory workshop method.
It is remarked that in order to solve the knowledge gaps between them, each of the stakeholders
shared and combined their knowledge considering thestrengths and the weaknesses of KU, UGM and local
communities.
YSM
Research Group
DPRI, KU

Knowledge
Provision

Training Workshop
Knowledge
Provision

Local Workshop

Pilot Project
Local
Knowledge
Team,
Community
Provision
UGMin Mt.Merapi
Figure 10. Mutual knowledge development of eachstakholder in implementation of Yonmenkaigi workshops
Mutual knowledge development could beachieved through the implementation of collaborative action plan in sand mining management in local
communities by exchanging the knowledge owned byeach stakeholder (KU, UGM, and local communities),
as shown in Fig.10.
Other than the mutual knowledge developed
between those three stakeholders, we also found themutual knowledge developed internally among themembers of UGM. By conducting the Yonmenkaigi
system method to prepare Workshops A and B, themembers of UGM could create the task demarcation
document as a communication tool to understand internal information flow among them.

1) Mutual knowledge development
There were knowledge gaps between KU, UGM
and local communities to implement Yonmenkaigi
workshops for sand mining management in local
communities.
For example, KU has the knowledge of the Yonmenkaigi system method but did not have enoughknowledge of local communities as basic information
for development of collaborative action plan of sandmining management in the selected local communities; KU also does not own a human network or theknowledge of human networking to involve the respective local communities in Mt. Merapi. UGM has
already built good relationship and experienced withthe local communities in Mt. Merapi, therefore UGM
owns basic information about them. However, UGM
did not have the knowledge of participatory workshop
methods, such as the Yonmenkaigi system method,and did not have enough facilitation knowhow for
the development of collaborative action plan at local community level. Local community people haveknowledge of communities’ problems in sand mining
management, but they did not have the knowledge of2) A new style of facilitation in the
Yonmenkaigi workshop
A new style of the Yonmenkaigi workshop facilitation was proposed in order to implement the Yonmenkaigi system method in Mt. Merapi communities,
considering the local situation. The typical facilitationof the Yonmenkaigi workshop, which is facilitated by
one facilitator, was modified by adding the sub-facilitators into each group. Therefore, the new facilitation
system consists of one main facilitator and four subfacilitators as shown in Fig.11.
The following explains how we came to develop
this new facilitation system. This is the process ofmutual knowledge development to bypass a gap in52

A CHALLENGE OF MUTUAL KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE YONMENKAIGI SYSTEM FOR SAND MINING MANAGEMENT IN LOCAL COMMUNITY OF MERAPI VOLCANO

workshop helped to write down action components
when the participants expressed their ideas and opinions and to record action plan items of their group,also to explain to their community participants theroles of the group as well as the rules and proceduresof the Yonmenkaigi system method in detail. Thus
they are expected to make up for main facilitator’srole and also to softly guide their community participants by capitalizing on their knowledge of their local
conditions and specifics.

Sub Facilitator
for Group D

Sub Facilitator
for Group C

Sub Facilitator
for Group B

Main Facilitator

Sub Facilitator
for Group A
Figure 11. A new style of facilitation in the Yonmenkaigi workshop in Mt. Merapi community

V. Conclusions

implementation existing between the seed knowledge
provider and customer knowledge providers.
With a view to effectively introducing the process of facilitation, given yet relatively non-matured
level of facilitator’s experience and competence, we
decided to add a supplementary role to that of facilitator. The new role is named sub-facilitator, who is expected to accelerate the procedure in the Yonmenkaigi
workshop by supporting the main facilitator and guiding participants of each group. This role is importantsince there are gaps in social strata, education level
including literacy and oral communication capacity tocommunicate in the standard Indonesian language,and level of familiarity with formal discussions
among the participants in local communities. Thus therole of sub-facilitator is considered effective, particularly when main facilitator does not enough experience or competence to lead alone in the Yonmenkaigi
workshop.

The Yonmenkaigi system method has been utilized for developing a collaborative action plan forsand mining management for disaster risk mitigation in Mt. Merapi communities. The participants of
Kemiren village in Yogyakarta, Indonesia produced
what participants thought an implementable collaborative action plan for their village through the Yonmenkaigi system method.
Development of such implementation knowledge
has been shown to be modeled as mutual knowledge
development between “seed knowledge providers”
and “customer knowledge providers.” Two types ofknowledge development have been specified as instrumental for introducing the Yonmenkaigi system
method to the cases in Indonesia. The first type ofknowledge development is that type of knowledge
which is generated as an outcome through the processof implementing a whole set of the Yonmenkaigi System. The second type has been modeled as mutual
knowledge development between “seed knowledge
providers” and “custom knowledge providers”.
A few more notes are made to consolidate ourpoints.
a. The second type of knowledge development isconcerned primarily with knowledge needed forsetting up an appropriate communication platform to operate a Yonmenkaigi workshop. Suchknowledge development should be made before
a Yonmenkaigi workshop is actually practiced
in the target communities from the Merapi region. The knowledge developed may well be
more commonly transferred to other areas in the
Merapi region, or even beyond it, probably toother regions and other themes than for instance,
volcanic disaster reduction.

Participantsof Local Community+ Sub Facilitatorof UGM

Figure 12. A structure of each group in Yonmenkaigi
workshops in Mt. Merapi community
The local communicator of UGM in charge of
Kemiren village who was selected from the UGM
staff acted as the main facilitator, and four other facilitator candidates acted as sub-facilitator assigned toeach group in the Yonmenkaigi workshop. The rolesof the sub-facilitator included both that of assistant facilitator and that of a participant assigned to the groupfrom Merapi communities as shown in Fig.12.
Sub-facilitators in the Kemiren Yonmenkaigi
53

JONG-IL NA, N. OKADA, IR. BAMBANG HARGONO, DIPL. HE, M. ENG., DJOKO LEGONO, N. UEHATAb.

Given the second type of knowledge development, the first type of knowledge development
is considered to occur during the process ofpracticing a Yonmenkaigi workshop. This typeof mutual knowledge development takes place
among participants of the workshop including
facilitators and sub-facilitators. Knowledge acquired include the process-dependent knowledge
generated and the outcomes of the collaborative
action plan. Challenge is taken to fill in a gap as
to how to collaborate to make a common diagnosis and to develop a collaborative action planthat is owned and committed by the participants.
The knowledge is largely dependent on specificsof the areas targeted, themes selected, and participants involved.
c. Irrespective of either type of knowledge development, it is achieved not merely throughsuccess events but also through “seemingly failure” events as lessons. For instance, it has beenlearned through communication failures causedby neglecting a considerable level of intellectual
gap and literacy between what the standard version of the Yonmenkaigi system method takes for
granted and what is actually the case with average community people in the Merapi region. This
problem may be further explored by introducing
the notion of “communicative rationality” [８]d. Seed knowledge providers and customer knowledge providers may be reinterpreted in otherwords as “prosumers” [９]. In this manner wecan probably study the process of filling up an
implementation gap as that of mutual knowledge
development among “prosumers”.
e. Systematic documentation and formalization of
the knowledge developed was a primary concernof our research but it is fair to mention that any
kind of knowledge development has to entail
much of implicit knowledge and wisdom thatmay defy analytical attempts. It is also subject toany further change and evolution as further trials
are continued to be made.
Therefore, there remains much room for further
research. As of now (May, 2010) some of the action
plan in the Merapi region are being put into practice, and the authors intend to monitor the upcoming
process of its implementation, in collaboration with
UGM. This remaining research challenge may needan enduring process of field works in the case study
area and for this purpose the authors plan to apply
adaptive management. It is hoped that we will be able
to follow up later in an another paper in the near future.
Acknowledgement
We acknowledge the Directorate General of
Water Resources, Ministry of Public Works, Government of Indonesia, all the members of the Pilot Project Team of Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta,
Indonesia and the staff of Yachiyo Engineering Co.,
Ltd. for their valuable collaboration and support in
introducing the Yonmenkaigi system method. Special
thanks also go to anonymous Yonmenkaigi workshop
participants from local communities of Mt. Merapi.
The continued support of the government of Indonesia should also be acknowledged.
References[１]

T. Hill and R. Westbrook, “SWOT analysis: it’s time
for a product recall,” Long Range Planning, Vol. 30,
No.1, pp. 46-52, 1997.

[２]

J. Na, N. Okada, and L. Fang, “A collaborative action
development approach to improving local community
disaster prevention planning,” Book of Extended Abstracts, 27th Annual Conference of the Japan Society
for Natural Disaster Science, Fukuoka, Japan, September 25-26, 2008, pp. 95-96 (in Japanese).

[３]

J. Na, N. Okada, and L. Fang, “Collaborative Action
Development for Community Disaster Reduction by
Utilizing the Yonmenkaigi System Method,” 2009
IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man& Cybernetics, 2009.

[４]

J. Na, N. Okada, and L. Fang, “A Collaborative Action Development Approach to Improving Community
Disaster Reduction Using the Yonmenkaigi System.”
Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Vol. 30, No. 2,
pp.57-69, 2009.

[５]

N. Okada, and A. Teratani, “The Yonmenkaigi system,”
RIIM Report No. 5, Research Institute of InfrastructureManagement, Japan Civil engineering Consultants Association (JCCA), 2005, pp. 35-38 (in Japanese).

[６]

Study Center for Engineering Science Gadjah Mada
University and DIs Prev Res Institute Kyoto University, “Study on community development at Mt.Merapi

54

A CHALLENGE OF MUTUAL KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE YONMENKAIGI SYSTEM FOR SAND MINING MANAGEMENT IN LOCAL COMMUNITY OF MERAPI VOLCANO[８]

area, 2010, Final Report,”, 2010.
[７]

Judith Eleanor Innes and David E. Booher,1999,

Yachiyo Engineering Co., Ltd., and Associates, “Study

Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems,

Report for Institution and Community Developmnet

A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning,
JAPA,65;4,pp. 412-423.

(Final)”, Consulting Services for Urgent Disaster Re[９]duction Project for Mt. Merapi, Progo River Basin (IP524), December 2009, pp. 3-1.

55

Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave, Bantam Books, 1984.