barriers and lessons learned for collaboration in ......barriers and lessons learned for...

Barriers and Lessons Learned for Collaboration in Strategic Watershed Planning

Analysis of Multi-Stakeholders’ Experiences

Presented by: Sheikh Javed Ahmed MSc., P.EngWR-Development Engineer- City of Calgary, Alberta, Canada

PhD Student at Department of Civil Engineering, Water Resources Specialization, University of Calgary

Philadelphia, PASeptember 26, 2011

Agenda

Introduction

Why this Research?

Goals and Objectives

Research Question

Research Approach

Research Methods

Data Analysis

Results and Discussion

Recommendations and

Implications

Limitations

Future Research

1/1/2012 LID Symposium-Philadelphia, PA 2

Introduction

What is a watershed? Watersheds in Alberta

1/1/2012LID Symposium-Philadelphia, PA

3

Collaborative Strategic Watershed Planning

(Source: Barry Tonning- Tetra Tech)

Collaborative watershed

ManagementPlans

Environmentally Feasible Plans

Economically Feasible Plans

Financially Feasible

Plans

Legally Feasible Plans

Technically Feasible

Plans

Socially Feasible Plans

Politically Feasible

Plans

Institutionally Feasible Plans


Bow Basin/Watershed


5

The Three Case Studies

Multiple Level & Units of Planning

Largest Level of Planning Application

Bow Basin WSMP Largest Unit

Medium Level of Planning Application

Elbow River WMP Medium Unit

Lowest Level of Planning Application

Nose Creek WSMP Small Unit

Bow, Elbow & Nose Creek Basins Map


6

Multi-Stakeholders’ Involved


7

• Industries(Oil and Gas, Consultants, Hydro etc)

• Industries(Oil and Gas, Consultants, Hydro etc)

• Watershed and other Environmental Partnerships

• Watershed and other Environmental Partnerships

• Governments (Federal, Provincial & All Municipalities in Bow Basin)

• Governments (Federal, Provincial & All Municipalities in Bow Basin)

• Citizens/Tax Payers and Volunteer Groups

• Citizens/Tax Payers and Volunteer Groups

ENGOs& NGOs

Researchers, Academics

and Students

Planners, Engineers & Managers

Others

Breakdown of the Stakeholders Involved

Stakeholders InvolvedVariety and Level of Stake


8

Descriptions Case Study 1 Case Study 2 Case Study 3 External Total

Total 15 15 15 25 70

Why this Research?

1/1/2012 LID Symposium-Philadhelphia 9

Multi-Stakeholders’ collaboration is criticized for generating

more frustration then results

To built effective, practical and acceptable strategic

management plans…..

Avoid the technical and social complexities involved

Knowing the rules of the game is essential to ensure

continuity and facilitate implementation….

Understanding the existing practices involving multi-

stakeholders’ in strategic watershed planning

Research Goal and Objectives

The goal of this research study is to minimize frustrations and

produce simple, practical and acceptable outcomes

1. Improve the engagement process to build trust and better

utilization of resources

2. Develop a theoretical and academic understanding of the multi-

stakeholders’ engagement process for CDM in strategic planning

by understanding the:

existing practices

need for engagement

challenges faced and lessons learned


10

The Research Questions

What are the real life challenges and lessons learned for collaboration in strategic watershed planning in Bow Basin?

Understanding of the terms used in the research

Need for Engagement & CDM in SWP

Challengesin CDM

Lessons learned


11

Research Approach

Formulate Ground Work

Design the Research

Research Sample-Identify

Research Participants

Conduct Delphi Round I

Pre- Test the Research

Questionnaire

Release the Results of

Delphi Round 1

Conduct Delphi Round 2

Organize the data Analyze the Data

from Round 2

Delphi Round-3

Analyze the Data for Round

3

Delphi Round-IV Compare the

Results from II and III

Experts' Panels for Final Feed-

back

Develop Research and Discussions and

Conclusions


12

Mixed Method Approach

1/1/2012

LID Symposium-Philadelphia, PA

13

Researcher's experience

Literature Review

Case studies documents

Research QuestionResearch Design &

Sampling

Case study Grounded Theory

Results, discussion & conclusion

Data collection and analysis

Delphi Round 1

Delphi Round 2

Delphi Round 3

D. Round 4Comparison of

results of Round 2 & 3

Review by expert panel

Open Coding

CategoriesCore -

CategoriesSelective

CodesStory Lines

Theory

Data Analysis Model


Data Source

Data Management

Data Analysis

InterviewsWith internal stakeholders

•Documents•Observation•Expert Opinion

Data Entry

Manual Coding

ReadCode & memo

Sort and WriteMicro & Macro Analysis

Analyze &Interpret

ReadCollectCode

Input fromExternal

Stakeholders

Ethics, Validity and Reliability


15

CFREB Approval and letter of informed Consent

Voluntary participation and option to withdraw

Anonymity and secrecy of data

Reliability means that the results from a survey are consistent ,

obtained through panel of experts and externals

Reliability means that a study will produce the same results when

the established process is repeated.

Validity is truthfulness, accuracy, authenticity and soundness

Validity is a continuous process of disciplined inquiry

Accuracy of the interpretations

Research Results

Stakeholders understanding of the process and terms: Multi-Stakeholders’ Engagement Collaborative Decision Making Strategic Planning

Need for Engagement Challenges Lessons Learned

1/1/2012 MSc Research Thesis U of C 16

Multi-Stakeholders’ Engagement

Similar to partnering

sessions

Practical and politically

correct approach

Right people in the right

time

Free and open (friendly)

environment

It is not positional, but

rather it is interest based


17

Partnering

Team Approach

Challenging

Free and

Open

NegotiationOpinion

Comfortable

Informed/Made Aware

Collaborative Decision-Making

Based on common understanding

and shared learning

Seeking first to understand and

then to be understood

Not positional

Balanced inclusive & co-operative

Sharing in the decision-making

process and relinquishes some

autonomy in order to manage

conflict and achieve agreement

Work in progress until a

consensus decision is reached


18

Voluntary & Involved

Expectations

Balanced &

Inclusive

Involved

Autonomy

Manage Conflict

Shared Outcomes

Strategic Planning

Considers current and anticipating

emerging issues

Provides specific direction to final

plans

Creates the big picture based on a

mosaic of smaller pictures

Looks at longer time-lines

fundamental relationships and

patterns

Provides framework, with timelines, to

achieve the stated outcomes

Brings a variety of experiences and

perspectives to the table


Long term Vision

Framework

Perspective

Big Picture

Broader Scale

Direction

Need for Engagement

Perspectives, opinions, mandates,

interests and the understanding of

issues

Helps guide, educate & clear any

roadblocks to the process

Helps in creating a balanced and

acceptable planning direction

Ensures support and conflict

management in the planning process

Increases support and buy-in for the

final plan

Helps to achieve long term goals of

collective action


Roadblocks

Guide

Educate & Inform

Perspectives

Buy-in

Top 10 Challenges


21

Identifying Appropriate

Stakeholders

Educating the Stakeholders'

EnsuringAffective

Communication

Responding toIndividuals

Needs

Avoiding Duplications

Developing a Defined

Framework

Dealing with Dominating

Stakeholders

AffectiveFacilitation

ProducingSimple, Practical and Acceptable

Outcomes

CreatingRecognition

Top 10 Lessons Learned


22

Duplication of efforts

It took long to build

relationships and capacity

It was hard to identify appropriate stakeholders’, clarify roles and

obtain consents

Proper framework was

required

Some stakeholders

weren’t engaged early

Communication protocol was

missing

Identifying the conflicts early

Better practices approach was

required

Keep the process simple, practical

and balanced

Sign off and follow up

Top 10 Recommendations


Start the Engagment

Process Early

Identify Appropriate Stakeholders and Better Management Prcatices

Develop a Process

Framework

BalanceConflicting Needs from

the Start

Reach Influential Stakeholders to gain

their Support

Develop Clear Communication

Protocol

Define Schedule Don't Strech out the Engagement Process

Park Topics that can not be Rectified

Make Precess Outcomes Available

in Simple Way

Make Plans Consitant Celebrate

Sucess

Recommended Framework for Engagement

Step 1 Identify and Educate

Stakeholders' and Asses the Problem

Step 2 Validate the Purpose &

Concerns

Step 3 Confirm Stakeholders’

Roles and Collect Information

Step 4Develop Communication

& Engagement Framework

Step 5 Develop the Plan,

Confirm, and Seek Support and Feedback

Step 6 Verify and Accept the

Plan as Decision Support Tool

Step 7Develop Implementation

Plan

Step 8 Demonstrate, Monitor, Evaluate and Improve


Implications of the Research


1. Enhance the theoretical and academic understanding

2. Provide opportunities to educate the relevant stakeholders

3. Help in managing the conflicts through shared knowledge,

seeking timely political, economical, social and technical

support

4. Achieve the long-term goal of collective action

5. Improve ownership, buy-in and acceptance of the planning

decisions

6. Have a direct positive impact on future strategic planning

initiatives and their implementation

7. Findings of this research could be used as guidelines (decision-

support tools)

Limitations


26

1. Finding stakeholders willing to participate in strategic

planning

2. Level of understanding of the issue by the stakeholders

3. Participants have a variety of interests

4. The three case studies vary in size, level of application, the

nature and variety of stakeholders involved in the research

5. Identifying the right stakeholders to be involved at the

right time

6. Limited number of case studies and the participants

Recommendations' for Future Research

1. Enhance the process framework by its practical application

2. Developing better practices approach

3. Explore the barriers in implementation of watershed

planning recommendations

4. Assess the organizational structure of the three case

studies in question, their mechanics, cost (volunteer hours,

consulting costs, etc), their strengths and weaknesses



28

Thank You