participatory decision-making in multi-stakeholder...

Participatory Decision-Making in

Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration

Sam Kaner PhDCommunity At Work

Collaboration MattersCenter for Health Leadership, August 2011

PLAN FOR TODAY

2. BUILDING CONSENSUS

• GROUP DYNAMICS WITH DIVERSE STAKEHOLDERS

• REACHING AGREEMENT

1. COLLABORATIVE ARCHITECTURE

• STRATEGY MAPS

• EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY

2. PROCESS MANAGEMENT

For a PDF version of this presentation, give Sam or Lori your contact info,

or send an email to [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]


COLLABORATIVE ARCHITECTURE

PART ONE:

STRATEGY MAPS

A VERY SIMPLECOLLABORATIVE PROCESS

A “THINKING TEAM” MEETS FOUR TIMES

FIRSTMEETING

SECONDMEETING

THIRDMEETING

FOURTHMEETING

© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work

WORK

GROUP

MULTI-STAKEHOLDER REPRESENTATION


MULTI-STAKEHOLDER REPRESENTATION

STAKEHOLDER “TYPE A”

STAKEHOLDER “TYPE B” STAKEHOLDER “TYPE C”


MULTI-STAKEHOLDERCOLLABORATION:

– THE DIAGONAL GROUP * –

CROSS-FUNCTIONAL

MULTIPLE LEVELS OF AUTHORITY•

•or CROSS-SECTOR

* HERMAN GYR AND SAM KANER, 1981

A DIAGONAL THINKING TEAM IN ACTION

FIRSTMEETING

SECONDMEETING

THIRDMEETING

FOURTHMEETING


A THINKING TEAMWITH

“HOMEWORK” BETWEEN MEETINGS

FULL GROUP

MEETING

TASKGROUP FULL

GROUPMEETING

TASKGROUP

TASKGROUP


Input data / analyze data•Phone / meet with key players•Plan future meetings•Manage schedule / budget / logistics •Craft / disseminate communications•

Read / write / edit documents•

Contend with revolting developments•

HOMEWORK BETWEEN MEETINGS


MULTI-STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION– THE ACCORDION PROCESS –

•• A diagonal “core group” develops the thinking.

Added input is obtained from stakeholder constituencies. (Focus groups, 1-on-1 interviews, ongoing sub-groups, etc.)

e.g. How to Make Collaboration Work by David Straus, 2002

*

* MICHAEL DOYLE AND DAVID STRAUS

PROCESS DESIGN WITH AN ACCORDION



AN IDEA IS DEVELOPED



STAKEHOLDERCONSTITUENCIES PROVIDE INPUT



THE IDEA IS REFINED



ETC.



AN IDEA IS DEVELOPED

STAKEHOLDERCONSTITUENCIES PROVIDE INPUT

THE IDEA IS REFINED

ETC.


LARGE GROUP EVENT

A professional conference•An all-staff meeting•

A public hearing•

• A community “town hall”


PROCESS DESIGN WITH LARGE GROUP EVENT



DATA GATHERING



GOOD IDEAS



FURTHER INPUT



FINAL REVISIONS



LARGE GROUP“ROLL-OUT”


A DIFFERENT PROCESS WITH A LARGE GROUP



CLARIFY GOALS & SCOPE OF PROCESS



COMMUNITYEVENT



SUBSTANTIVEANALYSIS & PROBLEM-SOLVING



NEGOTIATIONS WITH KEY

STAKEHOLDERS



ETC.


THE VIRAL STRATEGYFOR MULTI-PARTY COLLABORATION

ETC.


ETC.

THE SOCIAL NETWORK STRATEGYFOR MULTI-PARTY COLLABORATION


FRONT-ENDCOMMITMENT

ETC.



BUILD THE PLATFORM

ETC.



TEST THE PLATFORM

ETC.



ETC.

ENGAGETHE BROADER COMMUNITY



ETC.



STAGE 4.

THE BEST EFFORTSSTRENGTHEN

STAGE 1.FRONT-END

WORK

STAGE 3.

FLOWERS BLOOM LET A THOUSAND

OF A HEALTHY FUTUREVISION

STAGE 2.

A REAL-LIFE “VISION & ACTION” COLLABORATION STRATEGY:

HEALTHY CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND


Note: this is a high-level, simplified “fly-over” of a complex multi-year process. It is provided as an instructive example of a Vision and Action collaboration strategy, not as a rigorously accurate replication of the actual Healthy Christchurch initiative.

STAGE 1.FRONT-END

WORK FLOWERS BLOOM LET A THOUSAND

OF A HEALTHY FUTUREVISION

STAGE 2.





STAGE 1.FRONT-END

WORK

STAGE 3.

FLOWERS BLOOM LET A THOUSAND OF A HEALTHY FUTUREVISION

STAGE 2.



THINKING TEAM IS CONVENED



STAGE 2 IS DESIGNED

IN DETAIL

STAGE 1.FRONT-END

WORK

STAGE 3.


STAGE 2.





AGENDA DESIGN

STAGE 1.FRONT-END

WORK

STAGE 3.


STAGE 2.





SEVERALCOMMUNITY

MEETINGS

STAGE 1.FRONT-END

WORK

STAGE 3.


STAGE 2.





TASK FORCESIDENTIFY THEMES

STAGE 1.FRONT-END

WORK

STAGE 3.


STAGE 2.





THEMES ARE FINALIZED

STAGE 1.FRONT-END

WORK

STAGE 3.


STAGE 2.





REFINEMENTS

STAGE 1.FRONT-END

WORK

STAGE 3.


STAGE 2.





COMMUNITY-WIDE“ROLL-OUT”

STAGE 1.FRONT-END

WORK

STAGE 3.


STAGE 2.





STAGE 4.


STAGE 3LET A THOUSAND FLOWERS BLOOM

OF A HEALTHY FUTURE STAGE 2.

THIS STAGE CAN LAST 5-7 YEARS.



Projects

Programs

Associations

Activities



STAGE 4.


OUTCOME ASSESSMENT•ANALYSIS

•RECOMMENDATIONS

STAGE 3LET A THOUSAND FLOWERS BLOOM STAGE 2.



Programs

Associations

Activities



SPONSORSHIP DECISIONS•FUNDING

•ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN

STAGE 4.


STAGE 3LET A THOUSAND FLOWERS BLOOM STAGE 2.



Programs

Associations

Activities



Comments?

Questions?

COLLABORATIVE ARCHITECTURE

PART TWO:EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY

SOURCES OF AUTHORITYIN MULTI-STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE

EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY

PROCESS MANAGEMENT

THREE TYPES


EXECUTIVE AUTHORITYIN

MULTI-STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION

STEERING GROUP

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EXECUTIVE SPONSOR(S)•••

VARIETIES




STEERING GROUP

1 OR 2 PEOPLE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS





STEERING GROUP

BOARD OF DIRECTORS


BOARD OF DIRECTORS




STEERING GROUP

BOARD OF DIRECTORS


STEERING GROUP


STAGE 1ASSESSMENT TOWN HALL

STAGE 2TOWN HALL

STAGE 2ASSESSMENT

STAGE 1

FUNCTIONS OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITYAT THE START OF THE INITIATIVE

Defines major stages, with milestones or outputs for each stage.•

Defines the organization/ infrastructure needed to perform the work of each stage effectively.

•Identifies key players needed as participants in each stage.•Creates a stakeholder engagement map of the collaboration process.•

Sets overall spending levels and commit necessary resources.•

Sets the mission & overall goals of the initiative.•


WORK DONE BY EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY

AT THE START OF THE INITIATIVE




SET THE MISSION OF THE INITIATIVE




SET THE MISSION OF THE INITIATIVE

SETTHE OVERALL

GOAL(S) OF THE

INITIATIVE




MISSION: IMPROVE UTILIZATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS

OVERALL GOAL:• REDUCE BARRIERS & RESTRICTIONS• CREATE NEW INCENTIVES




SET STAGES & MILESTONES






STAGE 2. CREATE POLICY

STAGE 1. DEFINE PROBLEM

STAGE 3. BUILD SUPPORT









OUTPUTS:

• NEW POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

OUTPUT:• NEW POLICY

PROPOSALS ENDORSED BY PUBLIC

OUTPUTS:

• CURRENT POLICIES IDENTIFIED

• DIFFICULTIES EXPLORED






SET STAGES & MILESTONES



SET STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT MAP







OUTPUTS:




OUTPUTS:






FUNCTIONS OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITYBETWEEN STAGES

EXECUTIVE REVIEW

IDEA DEVELOPMENTSTAGE 1

ACTIONSTAGE 3

ETC.

TOWN HALLSTAGE 2

EXECUTIVE REVIEW


FUNCTIONS OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITYBETWEEN STAGES

Reviews the work of the stage just completed.•

Allocates money and other resources for the next stage.•Makes adjustments in the plan, as needed.•Endorses the goals of the next stage.•

EXECUTIVE REVIEW

IDEA DEVELOPMENTSTAGE 1

ACTIONSTAGE 3

ETC.

TOWN HALLSTAGE 2

EXECUTIVE REVIEW







OUTPUTS:




OUTPUTS:



WORK DONE BY EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY IN BETWEEN STAGES

Comments?

Questions?

BUILDING CONSENSUS

PART ONE:GROUP DYNAMICS

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE:ANOTHER SOURCE OF AUTHORITY

FIRSTMEETING

SECONDMEETING

THIRDMEETING

FOURTHMEETING

They determine when their work is “good enough” to submit it to Executive Authority for final approval.

Multi-stakeholder “thinking teams” are the nerve center of collaborative architecture.

•

They do the substantive thinking.

When they obtain input from other sources, they evaluate and incorporate that input.

••


A “HEALTHY” GROUP DISCUSSION

DECISIONPOINT

!NEWTOPIC

© 1996, 2007, 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]



WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS...

NEWTOPIC

?

??

?

?




DIVERGENT THINKINGGenerating a list of ideas

Free-flowing open discussionSharing personal experiences

Suspending judgment

CONVERGENT THINKINGSorting ideas into categoriesSummarizing key pointsIdentifying common themesExercising judgment

vs.vs.vs.vs.

NEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKING CONVERGENT THINKING

DECISIONPOINT

!




THIS MODEL IS VERY HELPFUL

FOR TYPICAL BUSINESS MEETINGS,

WHEN A LEADER OR MANAGER

IS

THE DECISION-MAKER

© 2006, Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]




MEETINGS WHEN

LEADER IS DECIDER

NEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKING

Leader has now obtained input.




MEETINGS WHEN

LEADER IS DECIDER

NEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKING

S/he can now focus the group and move toward a decision.

Leader has now obtained input.

!DECISION

POINT

CONVERGENT THINKING




Consultative Decision-Making

Leader’s objective: Obtain input before deciding.

Process: • Leader raises an issue and asks for reactions. • Members give info and opinions.• Leader decides.




THE DIVERGENT / CONVERGENT

MODEL WORKS GREAT

FOR TYPICAL LEADER-DRIVEN

MEETINGS . . .




. . . BUT . . . AS A FRAMEWORK FOR

PARTICIPATORY

DECISION-MAKING, SOMETHING’S MISSING




Participatory Decision-Making

Leader’s objective: Develop an agreementacceptable to all parties.

Process: • All parties engage in a give-and-take of discussion and debate. • The views of all stakeholders are included in the final decision.




? ??NEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKING

!DECISION

POINT

CONVERGENT THINKING

PARTICIPATORY DECISION-MAKING

WHAT’S MISSING?




STRUGGLENEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKING

!DECISIONPOINT

CONVERGENT THINKING

A BETTER MODEL FOR GROUP PROBLEM-SOLVING





STRUGGLEIN THE

SERVICEOF

INTEGRATION

NEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKING

!DECISION

POINT

CONVERGENT THINKING






GROANZONE

!DECISION

POINT

CONVERGENT THINKING

NEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKING





THE DIAMOND OF PARTICIPATORY DECISION-MAKING

!GROANZONEDIVERGENT

ZONENEWTOPIC

CONVERGENTZONE

DECISIONPOINT

CLOSUREZONE

© 1992, 2007 Reprinted from The Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision Making by Sam Kaner, Ph.D. with Lenny Lind, Catherine Toldi, Sarah Fisk & Duane Berger

For reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]



Time for a conversation

BUILDING CONSENSUS

PART TWO:REACHING AGREEMENT

“Is everyone okay with this?

WHAT CONSENSUS IS NOT

... all right, fine. Let’s move on.”© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At Work

For reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]



What’s wrong with that picture?

The question itself is a set-up!

NOYES

© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]



NOYES




NOYES

The language is a problem.




GRADIENTS OF AGREEMENT

1 4 5 6 7 832

I REALLYLIKE IT

NOT PERFECTBUT OK

AGREEMENTWITH

RESERVATIONS

NOOPINION

NO WAY!MOREDISCUSSION

NEEDED

DON’T LIKE ITBUT I DON’T

WANT TO HOLDUP THE GROUP

DON’T LIKE ITBUT I WILL

SUPPORT ITIF I HAVE TO




GRADIENTS OF AGREEMENT

1 4 5 632

I REALLY LIKE IT – I’M FULLY CONVINCED

I LIKE IT... GOOD

ENOUGH!

I WILL SUPPORT IT UNTIL

I LEARN MORE

MIXED FEELINGS

I PREFER SOMETHING DIFFERENT

I JUST DON’T LIKE IT

© 2007 with permission from Pierre Omidyar, reprinted from The Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision Making

by Sam Kaner, Ph.D. with Lenny Lind, Catherine Toldi, Sarah Fisk & Duane Berger

1 4 5 632


I LIKE IT... GOOD

ENOUGH!


I LEARN MORE

MIXED FEELINGS



ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT




1 4 5 632


I LIKE IT... GOOD

ENOUGH!


I LEARN MORE

MIXED FEELINGS



LUKEWARM SUPPORT




ENTHUSIASTICSUPPORT

LUKEWARMSUPPORT

EMPOWERMENT

IMPORTANCE

DURABILITY

DIFFICULTY

BUY-IN

HOW MUCH SUPPORT IS ENOUGH?

© 1996, 2007, 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At Work

ENTHUSIASTICSUPPORT

LUKEWARMSUPPORT

HIGHAUTONOMY

LOWAUTONOMY

EMPOWERMENT

HIGH INVESTMENT

LOWINVESTMENT

HOW MUCH SUPPORT IS ENOUGH?

HIGH STAKES

LOW STAKES

IMPORTANCE

LONGTERM

SHORTTERM

DURABILITY

TOUGHPROBLEM

EASYPROBLEM

DIFFICULTY

BUY-IN

MECHANICS OF REACHING CLOSURE

S/he will now make the decision.

The groupshould discuss the issues further.

1. End the discussion.

2. Write the proposal on a flipchart.

3. Poll the group.

4. The person-in-charge decides whether:




NEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKING




Leader has obtained input.

NEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKING




Leader has obtained input.

NEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKING

S/he now states a proposal and takes a poll.




1 4 5 632

I REALLY LIKE IT – I’M FULLY

CONVINCED

I LIKE IT... GOOD

ENOUGH!


I LEARN MORE

MIXED FEELINGS






Person-in-chargemakes the decision.

1 4 5 632


CONVINCED

I LIKE IT... GOOD

ENOUGH!


I LEARN MORE

MIXED FEELINGS



Group should discuss the issue further.






1 4 5 632


CONVINCED

I LIKE IT... GOOD

ENOUGH!


I LEARN MORE

MIXED FEELINGS






If the poll shows enough support, the leader can focus the discussion and bring the group to closure.

NEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKING


If the poll shows enough support, the leader can focus the discussion and bring the group to closure.

NEWTOPIC


!DECISION

POINT


CONSULTATIVE PROCESS LEADER’S DECISION

I M P L E M E N TAT I O NNEWTOPIC


DECISIONPOINT

!




. . . BUT . . .WHAT IF THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT

IS NOT ADEQUATE?




1 4 5 632


CONVINCED

I LIKE IT... GOOD

ENOUGH!


I LEARN MORE

MIXED FEELINGS






Group should discuss the issue further.


1 4 5 632


CONVINCED

I LIKE IT... GOOD

ENOUGH!


I LEARN MORE

MIXED FEELINGS






NEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKINGCONVERGENT THINKING

DECISIONPOINT

!

R E T U R N T O D I S C U S S I O N




GROANZONE

NEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKINGCONVERGENT THINKING

DECISIONPOINT

!

R E T U R N T O D I S C U S S I O N




and disagreements

NEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKING

Misunderstandings

GROANZONE




and disagreements

Help people try to resolve

NEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKING

their

GROANZONE

misunderstandings




NEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKING

GROANZONE

After some discussion, craft a proposal and poll

the group.




NEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKING

GROANZONE

If necessary, have more discussion.


the group.




. . .When support for a proposal

reaches a critical mass

Poll again.

NEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKING

GROANZONE


the group.




PARTICIPATORY PROCESS SHARED DECISION

,When support for a proposal

reaches a critical mass bring the group to closure.

Poll again.

NEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKING

GROANZONE


the group.

!DECISION

POINT

CONVERGENT THINKING




Comments?

Questions?

PROCESS MANAGEMENT

PROCESS DESIGN TEAM

MANAGES ALL ACTIVITY WITHIN EACH STAGE

•

DESIGNS THE PROCESS & STRUCTURE OF EACH STAGE•


A STRAIGHTFORWARD DESIGN

A process design team envisions a series of meetings.


Once the thinking team hasstarted to meet, its meetingsare planned and supportedby the process design team.

A STRAIGHTFORWARD DESIGN

A process design teamenvisions a series of meetings.


A MORE COMPLEX DESIGN

A process design team envisions a step-by-step sequence culminating in a large group event, followed by a debriefing of that event.

•


A MORE COMPLEX DESIGN

Once the action is underway, the process design team plans and supports all activities.

•

A process design team envisions a step-by-step sequence culminating in a large group event, followed by a debriefing of that event.

•


PROCESS DESIGN TEAM

MANAGES ALL ACTIVITY WITHIN EACH STAGE: Provides meeting design & facilitation, homework assignments, record-keeping, trouble-shooting, motivation & support, communication, etc.

•

DESIGNS THE PROCESS & STRUCTURE OF EACH STAGE: Defines group roles, individual roles, connections between groups, schedules, budgets, etc.

•


For a PDF version of this presentation, give Sam or Lori your contact info,

or send an email to [email protected].



participatory decision-making in multi-stakeholder...

Documents