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 kaner@CommunityAtWork.com.

COLLABORATIVE ARCHITECTURE

PART ONE:

STRATEGY MAPS

A VERY SIMPLECOLLABORATIVE PROCESS

A “THINKING TEAM” MEETS FOUR TIMES

FIRSTMEETING

SECONDMEETING

THIRDMEETING

FOURTHMEETING

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

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

AN IDEA IS DEVELOPED

STAKEHOLDERCONSTITUENCIES PROVIDE INPUT

THE IDEA IS REFINED

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

THE VIRAL STRATEGYFOR MULTI-PARTY COLLABORATION

THE SOCIAL NETWORK STRATEGYFOR MULTI-PARTY COLLABORATION

FRONT-ENDCOMMITMENT

BUILD THE PLATFORM

TEST THE PLATFORM

ENGAGETHE BROADER COMMUNITY

STAGE 4.

THE BEST EFFORTSSTRENGTHEN

STAGE 1.FRONT-END

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

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

STAGE 3.

STAGE 2.

AGENDA DESIGN

STAGE 1.FRONT-END

STAGE 3.

STAGE 2.

SEVERALCOMMUNITY

MEETINGS

STAGE 1.FRONT-END

STAGE 3.

STAGE 2.

TASK FORCESIDENTIFY THEMES

STAGE 1.FRONT-END

STAGE 3.

STAGE 2.

THEMES ARE FINALIZED

STAGE 1.FRONT-END

STAGE 3.

STAGE 2.

REFINEMENTS

STAGE 1.FRONT-END

STAGE 3.

STAGE 2.

COMMUNITY-WIDE“ROLL-OUT”

STAGE 1.FRONT-END

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

STEERING GROUP

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

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:

FUNCTIONS OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITYBETWEEN STAGES

EXECUTIVE REVIEW

IDEA DEVELOPMENTSTAGE 1

ACTIONSTAGE 3

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

TOWN HALLSTAGE 2

EXECUTIVE REVIEW

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

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

THE DECISION-MAKER

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

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

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

CONVERGENT THINKING

GROANZONE

!DECISION

CONVERGENT THINKING

NEWTOPIC

DIVERGENT THINKING

THE DIAMOND OF PARTICIPATORY DECISION-MAKING

!GROANZONEDIVERGENT

ZONENEWTOPIC

CONVERGENTZONE

DECISIONPOINT

CLOSUREZONE

For reprint permission and training information, contact kaner@CommunityAtWork.com

Time for a conversation

BUILDING CONSENSUS

PART TWO:REACHING AGREEMENT

“Is everyone okay with this?

WHAT CONSENSUS IS NOT

For reprint permission and training information, contact kaner@CommunityAtWork.com

What’s wrong with that picture?

The question itself is a set-up!

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

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?

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

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

1 4 5 632

CONVINCED

I LIKE IT... GOOD

ENOUGH!

I LEARN MORE

MIXED FEELINGS

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

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

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 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 kaner@CommunityAtWork.com.

Participatory Decision-Making in Multi-Stakeholder...

Documents

Stakeholder Management: An instrument for decision making

10TH INTERNATIONAL SOFTWARE METRICS SYMPOSIUM, METRICS 2004 KANER

Teaching Software Testing - Kaner

Multi-Stakeholder Decision Making for Wicked Problems – A … · 2019. 7. 17. · Multi-Stakeholder Decision Making for Wicked Problems ... Common good outcomes: It is critical

Stakeholder pensions and decision trees · 2017-03-20 · stakeholder pension. You can even save into a pension scheme for your children or grandchildren. Stakeholder pensions can

Stakeholder Agency and Social Welfare: Pluralism and Decision Making … PREBUB.pdf · STAKEHOLDER AGENCY AND SOCIAL WELFARE: PLURALISM AND DECISION MAKING IN THE MULTI-OBJECTIVE

The Stakeholder Voice in Board Decision Making - … · The Stakeholder Voice in Board Decision Making Strengthening the business, promoting long-term success. Contents ... strong

Using Stakeholder Engagement, Translational Science and … · 2020. 8. 17. · Using Stakeholder Engagement, Translational Science and Decision Support Tools for Ecosystem-Based

Stakeholder Management in the Local Government Decision

Paradigms of Black Box Software Testing - Cem Kaner

Towards a decision-support procedure to foster stakeholder

Stakeholder Committee’s Role. The Stakeholder Committee’s role in Adaptive Management Decision process (AMP) and the HCP Program as follows: Per Funding

Multi stakeholder working groups roll-up report - planning decision-making - 2007-11

KANER.COM Cem Kaner, Ph.D., J.D.1 kaner@kanerCem Kaner, Bob Johnson, James Bach, Jack Falk, Hung Quoc Nguyen, and Brian Lawrence. This is near-final. The next draft will focus more

Gamestorming/Innovation Resource List 3-28 Gamestorming and... · Innovation Games by Luke Hohmann Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making by Sam Kaner Unfolding the

Stakeholder Theory and Managerial Decision-Making ... · PDF fileJournal of Business Ethics (2006) 64: 285-301 DOI 10.1007/s10551-005-5493-2 Stakeholder Theory and Managerial Decision-Making:

Novel approaches to decision support and stakeholder ... · Novel approaches to decision support and stakeholder engagement Dave Jasinski Chesapeake Environmental Communications Pat

Cem Kaner Testing Computer Software

Recruiting Software Testers - Cem Kaner, JD, Ph.D

Copyright (c) 1994-2000 Cem Kaner. All rights reserved. 1 Black Box Software Testing (Professional Seminar) Cem Kaner, J.D., Ph.D. Professor of Computer