Questions to Ask During the Community Activation Inception Phase
Our Trust Architecture Knowledge Base is evolving, and instructions will be regularly updated. For questions, visit our Community Forums or Zulip Chat to collaborate with experts.
This article supports the Community Activation Program (CAP), a structured adoption framework within the UN Transparency Protocol (UNTP). CAP is designed to help communities organise around transparency, traceability and interoperability objectives by coordinating stakeholders, identifying shared priorities and supporting the implementation of trust infrastructure at a community level.
Background information on UNTP and the Community Activation Program is available from the UNTP project site.
For practical guidance, discussion and support from practitioners applying these concepts in real-world settings, visit the Pyx Trust Architecture community.
Understanding the Problem Before Designing the Solution​
Community Activation Programs are most successful when they are built around a practical problem that a community wants to solve.
The purpose of the Inception Phase is to understand the community and its challenges in order to identify that problem, identify the stakeholders involved, explore existing incentives and determine whether a coordinated approach may be appropriate.
These questions are intended as a practical guide for Trust Architects conducting Inception phase conversations with industry participants, associations, regulators, buyers, suppliers and other stakeholders.
Industry Pressure and Change​
Understanding what has changed can provide important clues about why a community may be motivated to act.
- What has changed in the last 12–24 months?
- What new requirements are emerging?
- What are customers, regulators or buyers asking for that they weren't asking for before?
- What industry trends are creating pressure on participants?
- What challenges are members talking about most often?
- What would happen if nothing changes in the next 12 months?
- Are there specific dates or deadlines (regulatory effective dates, buyer mandates, trade agreements) attached to this pressure?
- Have peer industries, regions, or competitors already moved on this — and what happened to those who didn't?
Operational Friction​
Communities often tolerate inefficient processes for years. Understanding where participants experience friction can help identify opportunities for improvement.
- What is creating the most frustration today?
- What processes consume significant time and effort?
- What information is repeatedly requested?
- What information is repeatedly recreated?
- What manual workarounds have emerged?
- Where are people doing duplicate work?
- What does this friction cost — in time, money, or lost deals — and who bears that cost?
- Is the cost concentrated on a few participants (e.g. smaller suppliers) or spread evenly across the community?
- What would "good" look like if this friction were removed — has anyone already sketched this?
Trust and Verification​
Trust Architecture initiatives can emerge when information needs to be trusted across organisational boundaries.
- What claims need to be trusted?
- What evidence is needed to support those claims?
- Who verifies information today? And how onerous is that task?
- Where is fraud occurring?
- What information is difficult to verify?
- Where are people relying on PDFs, emails or manual checks?
- What happens downstream when a false or unverifiable claim slips through today — who is exposed?
- Are there existing trust mechanisms (audits, certifications, registries) that could be made digitally verifiable rather than replaced outright?
- Whose trust is actually at stake — consumers, regulators, business partners, or all three — and does that differ by participant?
Interoperability and Ecosystem Coordination​
Understanding how information moves between participants and into / out of the community can reveal coordination challenges and interoperability opportunities.
- Who exchanges information with whom?
- What systems need to interact?
- Where are handoffs occurring?
- Which participants operate across multiple ecosystems?
- What information is requested in multiple formats?
- Are different initiatives solving the same problem differently?
- What identifier schemes, data standards, or platforms are already in use that any solution would need to interoperate with, not replace?
- Are there adjacent or competing initiatives this community should align with, or deliberately differentiate from, rather than duplicate?
- What is the geographic/jurisdictional scope of the exchange — domestic only, or cross-border?
Community Readiness​
Not every problem is ready for activation. These questions can help assess whether the conditions exist for a coordinated effort.
- Is there a pressing problem or requirement that could be a catalyst for change?
- Who cares most about solving the problem?
- Who would benefit if it was solved?
- Is there an organisation capable of convening stakeholders?
- Are there existing communities that could be mobilised?
- Is funding or sponsorship available or already designated?
What Happens Next?​
The answers to these questions help Trust Architects determine whether a Community Activation Program may be appropriate and where further Discovery may be required.
Not every community will be ready to act.
However, communities experiencing significant pressure, operational friction, trust challenges and coordination issues can be strong candidates for further exploration.
Looking for a practical way to apply these questions?
Download the Community Activation Inception Diagnostic and Proposal Template from our community forum.
The template was built with the help of AI. Help us improve it for humans by joining the conversation, sharing your experiences and contributing ideas.