OFFICE OF SIRIDANTAMAHĀPĀLAKA / HSWAGATA BUDDHA TOOTH RELICS PRESERVATION MUSEUM – INTERNAL USE
ADMINISTRATIVE HEADER
Template No.: T97
Template Title: H96 Indicator Framework & Scorecard – Peace & Heritage Governance Metrics Dossier
Related Research Case IDs: H97 – Indicator Framework & Scorecard for Ethical Relic Governance
Linked Templates / Cases:
-
H96 (Normative Model)
-
Cluster A–G cases (1–95)
-
T70–T71 (donation / transfer)
-
T78 (15 Principles)
-
T81–T82 (documentation & audits)
-
T66–T75 (HGT conflict learning)
-
T86–T95 (MCU neglect & reform)
Cluster: H – Synthesis & Normative Models (Cases 96–100)
Date of form: ____ / ____ / ______
Indicator framework file code (office): ______________________________
Prepared by / Role: _________________________________________________
Office / Unit: _______________________________________________________
Country: _____________________________________________________________
Confidentiality Level:
[ ] Internal only
[ ] Restricted (leadership / ethics / audit committee)
[ ] Sacred-Restricted
Use of this form (tick):
[ ] Design new indicator set for relic custodianship
[ ] Apply H96 scorecard to one institution / site
[ ] Annual review & benchmarking
[ ] Pilot test with selected case(s): Case ID(s) ______________________
1. SCOPE, PURPOSE & UNIT OF ANALYSIS
1.1 Unit of analysis
What is being scored?
[ ] Single temple / monastery
[ ] Museum / NGO / trust
[ ] University / faculty / dormitory
[ ] National / regional relic network
[ ] Specific project / programme: ________________________________
[ ] Other: _______________________________________________________
Name / code of unit assessed: ______________________________________
Geographic location(s):
1.2 Scope of relic custodianship
Relic types covered (tick):
[ ] Buddha bodily relics (sarīra-dhātu / Tooth Relics, etc.)
[ ] Paribhoga-cetiya (objects used by Buddha / great teachers)
[ ] Uddesika-cetiya (images, stupas, symbolic objects)
[ ] Textual / documentary heritage
[ ] Mixed heritage (relics + art + archives)
Communities primarily served:
[ ] Local lay community
[ ] National pilgrims
[ ] International pilgrims / students
[ ] Monastic networks
[ ] Interfaith / secular visitors
[ ] Other: _____________________________
Short scope note (3–6 sentences):
1.3 Purpose of this indicator exercise
Tick all that apply:
[ ] Baseline assessment (first time).
[ ] Follow-up to earlier T97 assessment (year: ________).
[ ] Preparation for reform / new policy.
[ ] External reporting (donors, partners, SDG-related).
[ ] Training & internal learning.
Short purpose statement (5–8 sentences):
2. INDICATOR DOMAINS & STRUCTURE
2.1 Core domains (H96-based)
Tick domains included in this T97:
[ ] A. Buddhist Doctrine & Ethics (dhātu, dāna, Dhammadāyāda, sacca, appamāda, etc.)
[ ] B. Peace & Conflict Sensitivity (Galtung C–A–B, non-violence, mediation, complaint handling)
[ ] C. Heritage Protection & Technical Safeguards (storage, documentation, risk management)
[ ] D. Governance & SDGs (policies, roles, transparency, SDG 11.4 / 16 / 17 / 10)
[ ] E. Equity & Inclusion (international monastics, gender, class, lay/monastic)
[ ] F. Partnerships & Networks (MoUs, cooperation, joint custodianship)
[ ] G. Inner Qualities of Custodians (humility, honesty, courage, willingness to learn)
Short explanation of selected domains (3–8 sentences):
2.2 Indicator list (by domain)
(Add rows as needed.)
Domain A – Buddhist Doctrine & Ethics
| Code | Indicator (short name) | Description (what it measures) |
|---|---|---|
| A1 | ||
| A2 | ||
| A3 |
Domain B – Peace & Conflict Sensitivity
| Code | Indicator | Description |
|---|---|---|
| B1 | ||
| B2 | ||
| B3 |
Domain C – Heritage Protection & Technical Safeguards
| Code | Indicator | Description |
|---|---|---|
| C1 | ||
| C2 | ||
| C3 |
(Add similar tables for D, E, F, G if used.)
3. SCORING SCALE & DATA SOURCES
3.1 Scoring scale
Choose / define a scale (tick):
[ ] 0–4 scale (0 = absent, 4 = very strong)
[ ] 1–5 scale (1 = very weak, 5 = very strong)
[ ] Traffic light (Red / Amber / Green + notes)
[ ] Mixed method (qualitative narrative + simple score)
Definition of each score level (example; adapt as needed):
Score scale used: ________
-
Lowest level = _________________________________________________
-
Middle level = _________________________________________________
-
Highest level = ________________________________________________
3.2 Data sources & methods
Tick sources used:
[ ] Policy documents / constitutions / MoUs.
[ ] Meeting minutes / decisions.
[ ] Incident reports (T66–T75, T86–T95, etc.).
[ ] Interviews with custodians / staff / monks / students.
[ ] Observation of relic rooms / ceremonies.
[ ] External audits / police / legal documents.
[ ] Feedback from donors / communities / pilgrims.
Short note on methodology (5–10 sentences):
4. SCORECARD – INDICATOR RATINGS
(Replicate this structure per domain.)
4.1 Domain A – Buddhist Doctrine & Ethics
Scale used: ________
| Code | Indicator name | Score | Evidence / notes (brief, with file codes) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | |||
| A2 | |||
| A3 |
Domain A – short interpretation (3–6 sentences):
4.2 Domain B – Peace & Conflict Sensitivity
| Code | Indicator name | Score | Evidence / notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | |||
| B2 | |||
| B3 |
Domain B – short interpretation:
4.3 Domain C – Heritage Protection & Technical Safeguards
| Code | Indicator name | Score | Evidence / notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | |||
| C2 | |||
| C3 |
Domain C – short interpretation:
4.4 Domains D–G (if used)
(Repeat the same pattern for each selected domain.)
5. OVERALL RESULTS & PROFILES
5.1 Summary table
| Domain | Short title | Average / composite score | Interpretation (strong / mixed / weak) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Buddhist Doctrine & Ethics | ||
| B | Peace & Conflict Sensitivity | ||
| C | Heritage Protection & Safeguards | ||
| D | Governance & SDGs | ||
| E | Equity & Inclusion | ||
| F | Partnerships & Networks | ||
| G | Inner Qualities of Custodians |
5.2 Narrative summary of strengths & weaknesses
Top strengths (3–6 points):
Key weaknesses / risk areas (3–6 points):
Short integrated narrative (8–15 sentences):
6. INTERPRETATION THROUGH THE H96 LENSES
6.1 Buddhist doctrinal–ethical interpretation
How do the indicator results reflect:
-
dhātu / cetiya respect;
-
Dhammadāyāda vs prestige;
-
dāna & donor care;
-
sacca, sammā-vācā, appamāda, hiri–ottappa?
Short doctrinal reflection (8–12 sentences):
6.2 Peace & conflict interpretation
Using Galtung’s triangle (C–A–B):
-
What contradictions are visible in the scorecard?
-
What attitudes (fear, trust, nationalism, humility) does the pattern suggest?
-
What behaviours (e.g. blocking complaints, transparent decisions) are reflected?
Short peace analysis (8–12 sentences):
6.3 Governance & SDG interpretation
For each SDG, briefly interpret the scores:
SDG 11.4 – Heritage protection
SDG 16 – Peace, justice & strong institutions
SDG 10 – Reduced inequalities
SDG 17 – Partnerships
7. IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES & ACTION PLAN
7.1 Priority domains & indicators
Tick:
[ ] Domain A needs urgent improvement.
[ ] Domain B needs urgent improvement.
[ ] Domain C needs urgent improvement.
[ ] Domain D needs urgent improvement.
[ ] Domain E / F / G needs urgent improvement.
Top 5 priority indicators to improve:
-
Code ______ – _________________________________________________
-
Code ______ – _________________________________________________
-
Code ______ – _________________________________________________
-
Code ______ – _________________________________________________
-
Code ______ – _________________________________________________
7.2 Action plan (next 12–24 months)
(Add rows as needed.)
| Priority indicator / issue | Action to be taken | Responsible role / office | Deadline | Resources / support needed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Short note on feasibility & risks:
8. RISK SNAPSHOT & SAFEGUARDS
8.1 Updated risk snapshot (after scoring)
A. Doctrinal / ethical risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
B. Peace / conflict risk (local / institutional / cross-border):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
C. Heritage / relic governance risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
D. Reputational risk (temple / university / Saṅgha / partners):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
8.2 Safeguards & monitoring
Tick and describe:
[ ] Integrate T97 indicators into annual audits (using T82).
[ ] Report key results to leadership / ethics / peace committee.
[ ] Share simplified scorecard (if appropriate) with community / donors.
[ ] Review indicators every ____ years to refine H96 model.
Safeguards note (5–8 sentences):
9. H96 REFLECTION
9.1 H96 central question revisited
Given these scores and actions:
“If a peace-oriented H96 custodian reviewed this indicator framework and our results, would they see humble, honest trusteeship of relics and people – or denial, fear, and attachment to prestige?”
Short reflection (8–15 sentences):
10. SIGN-OFF & ARCHIVE
10.1 Sign-off
Prepared by:
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Reviewed / Approved by (abbot / chief custodian / ethics / peace / audit committee):
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
10.2 Archive details
T97 / indicator file code: ________________________________________
Physical location (cabinet / box / folder): _________________________
Digital location (drive / folder path): _____________________________
Access level:
[ ] General internal [ ] Restricted [ ] Sacred-Restricted
Notes for future custodians:
(What should future leaders remember about this H96 indicator exercise and how we tried to measure and improve ethical, peaceful, SDG-aligned relic governance?)
