2010 Global Agenda Council Interlinkage Survey

2010 Global Agenda Council Interlinkage Survey



World Economic Forum


Public Domain


The following is the exact question that was asked to the experts that comprise
The Global Agenda Network.

Question as asked in the survey:

“Please select a maximum of 5 Global Agenda Councils that your
Council would benefit from interacting with by order of priority.”


“Please select a maximum of 3 Industry/Regional Agenda Councils that
your Council would benefit from interacting with by order of

Rank 1-0, with 1 being the highest priority.


The calculation is based on the average weighting of the rankings. We
have assigned a score to each rank:

The total score for each link (sum of all the scores) is divided by
the number of valid responses received to each of the ranking

It is necessary to divide the total score by the number of responses
in order to put all the results into the same scale.


If 5 Energy security council members have responded to this question
and all put geopolitics under rank 1, the sum of all scores would be
1*5 = 5. This sum is then divided by the number of respondents (5).
This would therefore result in a weighted score of 5/5 = 1.

More complicated example:

If 3 out of 5 Energy Security members have answered that food
security is respectively Rank 1, 2 and 3. This would result in a
total score of 2.4 (1*1+1*0.8+1*0.6) for this link. If 5 Energy
Security member in total have responded to this part of the survey
this would result in a weighted score of 2.4/5 = 0.48.

General comments:

We have chosen this methodology as it best reflects the overall
opinion of the members. If the Council members tend to agree on the
priorities, you will mostly have higher scores. If however there is a
large variety of linked Councils, this will result in lower scores.
If a Council has not been chosen in the top 5 it is equivalent as
giving it a score 0.

Two file formats have been provided:

  1. An Excel spreadsheet with the three matrices on separate sheets
  2. The three matrices in separate csv files.

Add a Comment

Login or register to post comments


chuck's picture

These kind of survey are really seems helpful for education and educational purpose. Students can collect information about global conditions as well as detailed information about society.
Team work and supports from society plays important role for the task.

Marc Schwartz's picture

The Deadline will be 11:59PM EST.

janwillem.tulp's picture

what is the time and timezone of the deadline?

janwillem.tulp's picture

Ah…. I thought I understood the weighted matrix, but I guess I still don’t. The general comment says “If a Council has not been chosen in the top 5 it is equivalent as giving it a score 0”. So I thought I should see only 5 weighted rankings for each respondent council per agenda, but that’s not the case:

For example, if I look in the row for Ageing (omitting the Regional Agenda en Industrial Agenda) I already see 9 weighted rankings, and if I look in the column for Ageing, I see 11 weighted ranks (again omittin the Regional Agenda and Industrial Agenda).

So since I see more than the top 5 here, I don’t understand why I don’t see any weighted rank for the link from Europe & Central Asia -> Migration, since the Link Data sheet does show that there are links.

Also, I do follow your example, but looking at the data, I don’t think your example matches the data: correct me if I’m wrong, but I assume that if a council has 5 members and each member is asked to give a ranking from 1 to 5 (which is what the data shows), then wouldn’t it be better to divide by 5 ranks * 5 members = 25?

Again, maybe my expectations are wrong, but right now if I sum all the weighted links for Ageing for example, the result is not 1, but 2.17 for the column or 2.4 for the row for Global Agenda results only. And this sum also differs for each council.

I would expect a ratio that would indicate how strong each council links to another council. But now it seems like I cannot compare the weights with each other: a weight of 0.5 is different for each council, since they don’t all add up to 1…

Am I missing something here?

janwillem.tulp's picture

Perhaps this example may help elucidate a little more:

When I look at the linked list sheet in the Excel, and I look at what Europe & Central Asia as respondent council wants to link to, I see this:

rank 2: Ageing
rank 3: Climate Change
rank 3: Climate Change
rank 1: Energy Security
rank 5: Future of Government
rank 2: Human Rights
rank 4: Migration
rank 4: Migration
rank 5: Migration
rank 1: Women’s Empowerment

Now when I look at the weighted matrix sheet, and I assume that the rows are respondent councils, and the columns are the linked councils, then I see the following weighted numbers:

Europe & Central Asia -> Ageing: 0.4
Europe & Central Asia -> Climate Change: 0.6
Europe & Central Asia -> Energy Security: 0.5
Europe & Central Asia -> Future Government: 0
Europe & Central Asia -> Human Rights: 0.4
Europe & Central Asia -> Migration: 0
Europe & Central Asia -> Women’s Empowerment: 0.5

All the other values in this row (for Global Agenda) are 0.

Future Government and Migration do have links, but (see the comment in the challenge description) since there is already a top 5, these are ignored to prevent too fragmented results.

Especially this last comment helped me understand what was going on.

janwillem.tulp's picture

And I guess the rows are respondent councils, and columns are linked councils? Or is it the other way around?

janwillem.tulp's picture

Thank you very much for the information. Too bad it’s already just 1.5 day before the deadline, but hopefully I can incorporate this information…

Victor Caballero's picture

The The Global Agenda Network link ain’t working

krees's picture

They should have a contest to structure their data better. 🙂

janwillem.tulp's picture

I also would like some additional information on the weighted rank index. Thanks!

Nathan Yau's picture

Is there a more detailed description of the weighted rank index?

Saira Jesani's picture

Hey Nathan and Jan,
We’ll get some more info from WEF and pass it along to you/post it asap.