2.1. Study Design and Methodological Objective

This study employed a longitudinal, participatory workflow analysis and SOP co-production design ⁵ to operationalize disability-inclusive DRR in Ecuador. The methodological objective was to transform the legal and organizational foundations established in Phase I—most notably municipal ordinances and the subsequent inter-ministerial agreement—into operationally actionable, collectively owned, and horizontally scalable procedures.

The core methodological challenge was not merely documentation. It was to identify “work” (tasks, decisions, and coordination actions) in a way that (a) makes tacit practice explicit, (b) aligns multi-sector actors (DRR, welfare, health, and community) around a shared operational grammar, and (c) generates artifacts usable for implementation, monitoring, and replication across municipalities. This emphasis on making tacit knowledge explicit and collectively reflectable aligns with organizational learning perspectives ^6,7. The SOP framework used for structuring this operational grammar followed a seven-step model derived from Japan’s individualized evacuation planning guidelines ⁸. Initial workflow analyses based on this seven-step framework were systematically developed by Tsujioka et al. ⁹, who identified and formalized municipal work processes through expert-led interviews and subsequent analytical modeling by researchers. In contrast, the present study reconceptualized workflow analysis as a participatory and iterative capacity-building process. Rather than extracting work structures through expert analysis, workflow identification and refinement were conducted collaboratively by municipal and national officers themselves through structured group work across multiple workshop nodes. This shift from expert-driven extraction to practitioner-led co-production represents a central methodological innovation of the study, positioning workflow analysis not only as an analytical tool but also as a means of strengthening institutional ownership and sustainable implementation capacity for inclusive DRR.

Importantly, the workflow diagram development was not completed within a single three-day workshop. Instead, it was conducted over approximately one year (February 2025–January 2026) through iterative cycles of face-to-face workshops (intensive sessions), inter-session tasks, and online/ongoing communication. The three-day workshops functioned as high-intensity “nodes” within a broader, cumulative co-production process.

2.2. Temporal Structure: One-Year Iterative Co-Production Cycle

Phase II workflow/SOP development followed a three-node longitudinal cycle, designed to balance concentrated collective sense-making with sufficient time for reflection, revision, and field-based feasibility checks.

Node 1 (Initiation/Elicitation) February 2025, Quito: Initial elicitation and externalization of municipality-specific workflows.

Node 2 (Comparative Refinement / Expert-Supported Review) September 2025, Japan: Iterative refinement through mutual learning with Japanese municipalities and targeted workflow-analysis support, including participation by a workflow-analysis expert.

Node 3 (Validation/Consolidation) January 2026, Quito and Manta: Confirmation of revisions, consolidation of cross-municipality common structure, and alignment with future scaling strategy.

Between nodes, participants engaged in continuous communication (online meetings, shared documents, and informal exchanges) and worked on explicitly assigned tasks intended to be completed before the next node. This temporal design was intentional. It allowed workflow diagrams to evolve from draft externalizations (Node 1), to analytically clarified and practice-tested models (Node 2 \(+\) inter-session work), and finally to validated and consolidated SOP artifacts (Node 3), as shown in Fig. 1.

2.3. Participants, Continuity, and Human Infrastructure

2.4. Workshop Method: Parallel Municipal Groups and Visual Workflow Externalization

The intensive workshops conducted during Phase II were designed as co-production environments that enabled participants to externalize tacit operational knowledge, negotiate roles and responsibilities across sectors, and jointly construct workflow diagrams that could later be standardized without eliminating local specificity. Rather than serving as one-off data collection events, these workshops functioned as high-intensity nodes within a longitudinal process of SOP development and refinement.

A defining feature of the workshop method was the deliberate use of parallel municipal group work combined with visual externalization techniques, which allowed both intra-municipal articulation and inter-municipal comparison of inclusive DRR operations.

2.5. Iterative Refinement Mechanism: Comparative Review, Expert Input, and Inter-Session Tasks

2.6. Theoretical Positioning: Link to Tsujioka et al.’s Work Analysis and Workflow Formalization

This method is theoretically grounded in the tradition of organizational work analysis that emphasizes the identification of actual work processes, externalization of tacit knowledge, and translation into formalized procedures (guidelines, manuals, and SOPs). The externalization of tacit knowledge and iterative refinement through dialogue resonate with organizational learning theory ^6,7.

At the same time, the approach is informed by institutional theory ^11,4, particularly the idea that institutional stability depends not merely on formal similarity but on the stabilization of patterned decision routines and shared operational grammars. Tsujioka et al. ⁹ provide a key reference point by demonstrating how municipal disaster-related work can be systematically identified and represented as workflows to support operationalization and institutional learning.

The present study extends this framework in three ways:

1. Collective externalization rather than expert extraction: Instead of relying on long-term expert-led interviews over months, this method externalizes work through structured group interaction, maintaining local authorship.

2. Cross-municipality synthesis through affinity structuralization: While municipal work analysis often focuses on a single organization, this method explicitly designs for inter-municipal variability by clustering and synthesizing work elements across four municipalities.

3. Longitudinal iteration with expert-supported checkpoints: The method integrates intensive workshops with expert-supported refinement and inter-session practice testing over one year—producing workflows that are both locally grounded and analytically coherent.

Collectively, these extensions support an interpretation of SOP development not as a mere documentation activity, but as a hybrid of analysis, capacity building, and organizational learning.

2.7. Replicability and Boundary Conditions

The Ecuador case benefited from unusual strengths—particularly participant continuity and accumulated team cohesion across five years. Nonetheless, the core method is replicable as a template consisting of (1) parallel municipal group work, (2) Post-it based work-element elicitation, (3) large-paper workflow construction, (4) cross-municipality affinity diagramming, (5) collective integrated flow construction, (6) longitudinal iteration with inter-session tasks and communication, and (7) expert-supported analytical checkpoints. Future applications should explicitly assess boundary conditions such as level of participant continuity, institutional incentives for cross-sector collaboration, availability of facilitation capacity, and data governance and consent practices.

2.8. Ethical Considerations

All workshop activities were conducted with the informed consent of participants. No personally identifiable information was recorded in the workflow diagrams, and all materials were used solely for research and capacity-building purposes. Data handling followed standard ethical practices for collaborative and participatory research, including respect for confidentiality and voluntary participation. These considerations applied across all stages of the workflow co-production process, including workshops, inter-session communication, and digital workflow construction.

3.1. Overview of the Results and the Central Empirical Insight

This Results section reports how SOP workflow diagrams for disability-inclusive DRR were progressively developed, refined, and consolidated during Phase II (February 2025–January 2026). Rather than treating SOP development as a single deliverable, the findings demonstrate a longitudinal transformation in the resolution of operational representation. The most important early empirical finding was not simply that municipalities could enumerate tasks under a shared seven-step SOP framework. Instead, the initial workflow elicitation revealed that the stakeholders involved in executing Step 1 and subsequent steps differed substantially across municipalities, even when they operated under identical national policy frameworks and similar local ordinances. This heterogeneity necessitated a methodological shift: meaningful standardization required not identical task lists, but a representation that could make visible:

• who participates,

• who interacts with whom,

• who makes which judgments at each stage, and

• how responsibilities are distributed across institutional layers.

Accordingly, all workflow diagrams were constructed using a stakeholder-based swimlane format, where each lane represents a stakeholder and the horizontal axis represents the chain of work. As the diagrams were refined, decision points were explicitly embedded within stakeholder lanes, enabling visualization of responsibility and authority. The core empirical contribution of Phase II lies in the progressive increase in the resolution of this stakeholder-to-decision architecture across three workshops.

To complement the qualitative observation of increasing workflow resolution, we conducted a comparative count of key elements across the three workshop iterations. Specifically, we examined changes in the number of identified stakeholders (actors), work elements (tasks), and explicit decision points within the workflow diagrams.

Across the three iterations, the three dimensions did not increase uniformly. The number of actors ultimately increased as previously aggregated roles were disaggregated into functionally distinct positions. The number of tasks increased from WS1 to WS2 as implicit practices were externalized, and then decreased in WS3 as overlapping elements were consolidated into a more coherent structure. Explicit decision points increased progressively, reflecting a shift from implicit coordination to explicitly articulated judgment structures. These changes indicate that workflow refinement followed an expansion–consolidation pattern and evolved toward higher analytical resolution through the iterative co-production process.

3.2. Workshop 1 (February 2025): Formation of a Low-Resolution Shared Image

Before presenting the empirical findings, it is necessary to clarify the institutional reference framework that informed the analytical structure of this study. The seven-step procedural framework for Individual Evacuation Plan formulation was articulated in the official guidelines issued by the Cabinet Office of Japan ⁸. The guideline systematizes municipal responsibilities from the establishment of an internal and inter-organizational promotion system (Step 1), through identification of persons requiring assistance, drafting of individualized plans, coordination with relevant stakeholders, and monitoring and updating procedures. Step 1 specifically emphasizes the creation of a coordinated institutional mechanism within and beyond municipal administration, serving as the structural foundation upon which subsequent operational steps are built.

While the guideline contains seven interlinked procedural stages, the present study does not attempt to exhaustively report all components of the framework. Rather, in order to illustrate the methodological innovation of workflow analysis and progressive stakeholder-to-decision refinement, we focus on Step 1 as a representative case. By tracing how Step 1 was progressively refined across three workshop nodes, we demonstrate how institutional templates are translated into increasingly explicit, visible, and collaboratively validated workflow architectures within a different national context.

3.3. Workshop 2 (September 2025): Analytical Differentiation and Explicit Decision Mapping

The second workshop marked a clear structural shift. Under direct guidance from Yuichi Honjo, a workflow analysis expert and a co-author of Tsujioka et al. ⁹, participants revisited Step 1 and reconstructed the workflow at significantly higher resolution.

3.3.1. Expansion and Differentiation of Stakeholder Lanes

The swimlane architecture expanded to include more distinct actors, such as

• municipal DRR units,

• municipal social services,

• local MIES offices (later MDH),

• local SNGR offices,

• community actors, and

• technical team components.

This differentiation revealed that Step 1 was structurally dependent on coordination among multiple institutional layers rather than solely on mayoral or committee-level authority.

3.4. Workshop 3 (January 2026): High-Resolution, Participant-Led Consolidation

The third workshop demonstrated qualitative maturation in both structure and ownership. Taken together, these three iterations reveal a progressive transformation of workflow structure across municipalities. Figs. 2–4 illustrate the progressive refinement of workflow diagrams for Step 1 across the three workshop iterations. To complement the visual comparison, Table 1 summarizes the evolution of workflow resolution by combining quantitative indicators (actors, tasks, and decision points) with qualitative characteristics.

As shown in Table 1, the refinement process did not follow a simple linear increase in elements, but rather involved a combination of expansion, differentiation, and structural consolidation. While the number of tasks increased from WS1 to WS2 as implicit practices were externalized, it decreased in WS3 as redundant or overlapping elements were reorganized into a more coherent structure. In contrast, stakeholder differentiation and decision articulation followed a clearer progression.

Notably, the initial workflow (WS1) did not explicitly represent decision points, indicating that coordination was largely embedded in implicit administrative routines. In subsequent iterations, decision structures were progressively externalized and redistributed across actors, resulting in a clearly articulated decision architecture in WS3. At the same time, actors became more finely differentiated, with the explicit inclusion of individual- and community-level stakeholders.

These patterns indicate that workflow refinement proceeded not as mere accumulation, but as a process of making implicit coordination visible, reorganizing it into explicit structures, and aligning stakeholder roles and decision responsibilities within an integrated institutional framework.

Building on the comparative patterns summarized in Table 1, the following subsections examine in greater detail how workflow refinement was manifested in the structure of the diagrams. Rather than treating refinement as a simple increase in elements, we analyze it as a process through which implicit coordination practices were progressively externalized, differentiated, and reorganized into explicit institutional structures. In particular, we focus on three interrelated dimensions: the articulation of stakeholder roles, the clarification and redistribution of decision points, and the emergence of an integrated coordination framework that supports cross-municipality alignment and scalability.

4.1. From Institutionalization to Operationalization: What Phase II Adds

Phase I established the legal and organizational foundations of disability-inclusive DRR through municipal ordinances and national-level inter-agency agreements. Phase II, as demonstrated in Section 3, addressed a qualitatively different challenge: translating these institutional structures into operationally actionable procedures. The findings indicate that the core achievement of Phase II was not simply the production of a CSOP, but the progressive construction of a stakeholder-to-decision architecture through longitudinal co-production. The SOP emerged not as a fixed template but as an analytically refined representation of “who decides what, when, and in coordination with whom” ⁴. In this sense, Phase II operationalization extends institutionalization by embedding legal intent into structured patterns of judgment and responsibility.

4.2. Increasing Resolution as Organizational Learning

A central empirical pattern across the three workshops was the progressive increase in analytical resolution. Stakeholder categories evolved from broad institutional labels to finely differentiated functional actors. Decision points, initially sparse and implicit, became dense, explicitly assigned, and structurally embedded. This increase in resolution can be interpreted as a process of organizational learning ^6,7. Early low-resolution diagrams functioned as shared images sufficient for alignment. Subsequent iterations deepened the representation by

• differentiating operational roles,

• clarifying decision authority,

• articulating coordination mechanisms, and

• specifying procedural legitimacy.

The movement from coarse shared imagery to high-resolution judgment mapping indicates not merely technical refinement, but a cognitive shift: participants began to see inclusive DRR not as an abstract policy commitment, but as a structured chain of accountable decisions.

4.3. Internalization of Analytical Logic and Human Infrastructure

The longitudinal design and participant continuity were critical enabling conditions. Over approximately five years, participants developed trust, shared vocabulary, and working routines. This “human infrastructure” allowed workshop time to be devoted to substantive operational clarification rather than relationship building. The shift observed between Workshops 2 and 3—where expert guidance gave way to participant-led consolidation—signals the internalization of workflow logic. The analytical principles introduced during expert-supported refinement were no longer external inputs; they became embedded within participant practice. This internalization is crucial for sustainability. SOP development that remains dependent on external expertise risks fragility. By contrast, Phase II produced a situation in which the analytical method itself became locally owned.

4.4. SOP as Boundary Object and Social Technology

The integrated common SOP functioned as a boundary object ¹⁰, aligning diverse actors (municipal DRR, welfare departments, national field offices, and community actors) around a shared operational grammar while preserving contextual flexibility. However, the findings suggest that SOPs should be conceptualized not only as boundary objects but also as social technologies ⁴. A social technology, in this context, is a structured representation of coordinated action that

• externalizes tacit practice,

• stabilizes responsibility allocation,

• supports iterative refinement, and

• enables replication without direct replication of organizational form.

The swimlane-based workflow diagrams exemplify this. They do not prescribe identical institutions; rather, they prescribe visibility of stakeholder roles and decision points. Standardization is achieved at the level of functional architecture, not organizational uniformity.

4.5. Functional Equivalence and Controlled Flexibility

Cross-municipality synthesis revealed that stakeholders differed in name and institutional embedding but could be decomposed into common functional roles and municipality-specific adaptations. This distinction supports a model of controlled flexibility. Instead of enforcing identical actor configurations, the CSOP stabilizes

• common stakeholder functions,

• common decision nodes, and

• common legitimacy-producing sequences,

while allowing additional lanes or modifications to reflect local realities. Such a model is particularly relevant in decentralized governance contexts where rigid uniformity is neither feasible nor desirable.

4.6. Horizontal Expansion as Evidence of Transferability

A critical issue for transferability concerns the role of participant continuity and the time required for effective implementation. While the Ecuador case benefited from participant continuity across Phases I and II, it is important to distinguish between the time needed for institutionalization and that required for operationalization. Phase I, which focused on establishing municipal ordinances and inter-agency agreements, unfolded over approximately three years. In contrast, the identification of implementation gaps and the co-production of SOPs were achieved within a concentrated one-year period from February 2025 to January 2026 through iterative workshops and inter-session activities.

This distinction suggests that, although long-term continuity facilitated trust and shared understanding, the core methodological process—namely, the externalization, refinement, and consolidation of workflow structures—can be executed within a relatively short and intensive time frame. In this sense, participant continuity should be understood not only as a precondition but as a factor that can be partially compensated by structured iterative processes. The observed horizontal expansion further indicates that the co-produced workflow logic was sufficiently internalized to support independent application, reinforcing its potential for transferability beyond the original implementation context.

Horizontal expansion beyond the four model municipalities thus provides empirical support for the transferability of the workflow method and common SOP architecture. Importantly, transferability did not rely on replicating the original team structure or institutional history. Rather, new municipalities were able to

• identify relevant stakeholders,

• map decision points, and

• reconstruct workflow logic.

This indicates that what traveled was not merely a document, but an analytical method—a transferable framework for structuring and coordinating institutional work.

4.7. Contribution to Workflow Analysis and Organizational Practice

The study extends organizational work analysis traditions (e.g., Tsujioka et al. ⁹) in three ways:

1. Collective externalization over expert extraction

   Rather than relying on prolonged individual interviews, work elements were externalized through structured group interaction.

2. Cross-municipality synthesis by design

   Variability was treated as analytical input rather than noise, enabling identification of functional equivalence.

3. Longitudinal iteration with expert-supported checkpoints

   Intensive workshops were embedded within a year-long cycle of refinement and practice testing.

These extensions demonstrate that workflow formalization can simultaneously function as analytical inquiry, capacity building, and institutional strengthening.

4.8. Boundary Conditions for Replication and Scalability

The Ecuador case benefited from exceptional continuity and long-term engagement. Replication elsewhere would require attention to

• participant stability,

• incentives for cross-sector collaboration,

• facilitation capacity, and

• data governance norms.

Without sufficient human infrastructure, the co-production process may not achieve the same degree of internalization.

4.9. Implications for Inclusive DRR Practice

The findings suggest that disability mainstreaming in DRR is less a matter of issuing guidelines than of constructing visible chains of responsibility. By making stakeholder participation and judgment allocation explicit, the workflow method reduces ambiguity, clarifies accountability, and embeds inclusion within operational practice. Inclusive DRR, therefore, becomes institutionalized not only through legal frameworks (Phase I) but through structured decision architectures (Phase II).

4.10. Conclusion of the Discussion

Phase II demonstrates that SOP co-production, when conducted as a longitudinal, participatory, and analytically structured process, can transform institutional intent into operationally resilient social technology. The progression from low-resolution shared imagery to high-resolution stakeholder-to-decision architecture—and from expert-supported refinement to participant-led consolidation—marks the maturation of inclusive DRR from policy aspiration to actionable practice.