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].
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
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER REPRESENTATION
STAKEHOLDER “TYPE A”
STAKEHOLDER “TYPE B” STAKEHOLDER “TYPE C”
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
A THINKING TEAMWITH
“HOMEWORK” BETWEEN MEETINGS
FULL GROUP
MEETING
TASKGROUP FULL
GROUPMEETING
TASKGROUP
TASKGROUP
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
PROCESS DESIGN WITH AN ACCORDION
AN IDEA IS DEVELOPED
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
PROCESS DESIGN WITH AN ACCORDION
STAKEHOLDERCONSTITUENCIES PROVIDE INPUT
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
PROCESS DESIGN WITH AN ACCORDION
THE IDEA IS REFINED
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
PROCESS DESIGN WITH AN ACCORDION
ETC.
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
PROCESS DESIGN WITH AN ACCORDION
AN IDEA IS DEVELOPED
STAKEHOLDERCONSTITUENCIES PROVIDE INPUT
THE IDEA IS REFINED
ETC.
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
LARGE GROUP EVENT
A professional conference•An all-staff meeting•
A public hearing•
• A community “town hall”
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
PROCESS DESIGN WITH LARGE GROUP EVENT
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
PROCESS DESIGN WITH LARGE GROUP EVENT
DATA GATHERING
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
PROCESS DESIGN WITH LARGE GROUP EVENT
GOOD IDEAS
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
PROCESS DESIGN WITH LARGE GROUP EVENT
FURTHER INPUT
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
PROCESS DESIGN WITH LARGE GROUP EVENT
FINAL REVISIONS
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
PROCESS DESIGN WITH LARGE GROUP EVENT
LARGE GROUP“ROLL-OUT”
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
A DIFFERENT PROCESS WITH A LARGE GROUP
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
A DIFFERENT PROCESS WITH A LARGE GROUP
CLARIFY GOALS & SCOPE OF PROCESS
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
A DIFFERENT PROCESS WITH A LARGE GROUP
COMMUNITYEVENT
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
A DIFFERENT PROCESS WITH A LARGE GROUP
SUBSTANTIVEANALYSIS & PROBLEM-SOLVING
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
A DIFFERENT PROCESS WITH A LARGE GROUP
NEGOTIATIONS WITH KEY
STAKEHOLDERS
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
A DIFFERENT PROCESS WITH A LARGE GROUP
ETC.
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
THE VIRAL STRATEGYFOR MULTI-PARTY COLLABORATION
ETC.
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
ETC.
THE SOCIAL NETWORK STRATEGYFOR MULTI-PARTY COLLABORATION
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
FRONT-ENDCOMMITMENT
ETC.
THE SOCIAL NETWORK STRATEGYFOR MULTI-PARTY COLLABORATION
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
BUILD THE PLATFORM
ETC.
THE SOCIAL NETWORK STRATEGYFOR MULTI-PARTY COLLABORATION
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
TEST THE PLATFORM
ETC.
THE SOCIAL NETWORK STRATEGYFOR MULTI-PARTY COLLABORATION
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
ETC.
ENGAGETHE BROADER COMMUNITY
THE SOCIAL NETWORK STRATEGYFOR MULTI-PARTY COLLABORATION
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
ETC.
THE SOCIAL NETWORK STRATEGYFOR MULTI-PARTY COLLABORATION
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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.
A REAL-LIFE “VISION & ACTION” COLLABORATION STRATEGY:
HEALTHY CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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
STAGE 3.
FLOWERS BLOOM LET A THOUSAND OF A HEALTHY FUTUREVISION
STAGE 2.
A REAL-LIFE “VISION & ACTION” COLLABORATION STRATEGY:
HEALTHY CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND
THINKING TEAM IS CONVENED
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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 2 IS DESIGNED
IN DETAIL
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
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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.
AGENDA DESIGN
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
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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.
SEVERALCOMMUNITY
MEETINGS
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
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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.
TASK FORCESIDENTIFY THEMES
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
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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.
THEMES ARE FINALIZED
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
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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.
REFINEMENTS
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
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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.
COMMUNITY-WIDE“ROLL-OUT”
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
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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 4.
THE BEST EFFORTSSTRENGTHEN
STAGE 3LET A THOUSAND FLOWERS BLOOM
OF A HEALTHY FUTURE STAGE 2.
THIS STAGE CAN LAST 5-7 YEARS.
A REAL-LIFE “VISION & ACTION” COLLABORATION STRATEGY:
HEALTHY CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND
Projects
Programs
Associations
Activities
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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 4.
THE BEST EFFORTSSTRENGTHEN
OUTCOME ASSESSMENT•ANALYSIS
•RECOMMENDATIONS
STAGE 3LET A THOUSAND FLOWERS BLOOM STAGE 2.
A REAL-LIFE “VISION & ACTION” COLLABORATION STRATEGY:
HEALTHY CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND
Programs
Associations
Activities
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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.
SPONSORSHIP DECISIONS•FUNDING
•ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN
STAGE 4.
THE BEST EFFORTSSTRENGTHEN
STAGE 3LET A THOUSAND FLOWERS BLOOM STAGE 2.
A REAL-LIFE “VISION & ACTION” COLLABORATION STRATEGY:
HEALTHY CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND
Programs
Associations
Activities
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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.
Comments?
Questions?
COLLABORATIVE ARCHITECTURE
PART TWO:EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
SOURCES OF AUTHORITYIN MULTI-STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
PROCESS MANAGEMENT
THREE TYPES
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITYIN
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION
STEERING GROUP
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
EXECUTIVE SPONSOR(S)•••
VARIETIES
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITYIN
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION
STEERING GROUP
1 OR 2 PEOPLE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
EXECUTIVE SPONSOR(S)•••
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITYIN
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION
STEERING GROUP
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
EXECUTIVE SPONSOR(S)•••
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITYIN
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION
STEERING GROUP
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
EXECUTIVE SPONSOR(S)•••
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITYIN
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION
STEERING GROUP
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
EXECUTIVE SPONSOR(S)•••
STEERING GROUP
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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.•
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
WORK DONE BY EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
AT THE START OF THE INITIATIVE
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
WORK DONE BY EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
AT THE START OF THE INITIATIVE
SET THE MISSION OF THE INITIATIVE
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
WORK DONE BY EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
AT THE START OF THE INITIATIVE
SET THE MISSION OF THE INITIATIVE
SETTHE OVERALL
GOAL(S) OF THE
INITIATIVE
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
WORK DONE BY EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
AT THE START OF THE INITIATIVE
MISSION: IMPROVE UTILIZATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
OVERALL GOAL:• REDUCE BARRIERS & RESTRICTIONS• CREATE NEW INCENTIVES
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
WORK DONE BY EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
AT THE START OF THE INITIATIVE
SET STAGES & MILESTONES
MISSION: IMPROVE UTILIZATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
OVERALL GOAL:• REDUCE BARRIERS & RESTRICTIONS• CREATE NEW INCENTIVES
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
WORK DONE BY EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
AT THE START OF THE INITIATIVE
STAGE 2. CREATE POLICY
STAGE 1. DEFINE PROBLEM
STAGE 3. BUILD SUPPORT
MISSION: IMPROVE UTILIZATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
OVERALL GOAL:• REDUCE BARRIERS & RESTRICTIONS• CREATE NEW INCENTIVES
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
WORK DONE BY EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
AT THE START OF THE INITIATIVE
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
MISSION: IMPROVE UTILIZATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
OVERALL GOAL:• REDUCE BARRIERS & RESTRICTIONS• CREATE NEW INCENTIVES
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
WORK DONE BY EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
AT THE START OF THE INITIATIVE
SET STAGES & MILESTONES
MISSION: IMPROVE UTILIZATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
OVERALL GOAL:• REDUCE BARRIERS & RESTRICTIONS• CREATE NEW INCENTIVES
SET STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT MAP
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
WORK DONE BY EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
AT THE START OF THE INITIATIVE
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
MISSION: IMPROVE UTILIZATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
OVERALL GOAL:• REDUCE BARRIERS & RESTRICTIONS• CREATE NEW INCENTIVES
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
FUNCTIONS OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITYBETWEEN STAGES
EXECUTIVE REVIEW
IDEA DEVELOPMENTSTAGE 1
ACTIONSTAGE 3
ETC.
TOWN HALLSTAGE 2
EXECUTIVE REVIEW
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
MISSION: IMPROVE UTILIZATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
STAGE 2. CREATE POLICY
STAGE 1. DEFINE PROBLEM
STAGE 3. BUILD SUPPORT
OVERALL GOAL:• REDUCE BARRIERS & RESTRICTIONS• CREATE NEW INCENTIVES
OUTPUTS:
• NEW POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
OUTPUT:• NEW POLICY
PROPOSALS ENDORSED BY PUBLIC
OUTPUTS:
• CURRENT POLICIES IDENTIFIED
• DIFFICULTIES EXPLORED
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.
••
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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
?
??
?
?
© 1996, 2007, 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
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
!
© 1996, 2007, 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
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]
© 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.
© 2006, Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
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
© 2006, Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
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.
© 2006, Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
THE DIVERGENT / CONVERGENT
MODEL WORKS GREAT
FOR TYPICAL LEADER-DRIVEN
MEETINGS . . .
© 2006, Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
. . . BUT . . . AS A FRAMEWORK FOR
PARTICIPATORY
DECISION-MAKING, SOMETHING’S MISSING
© 2006, Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
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.
© 2006, Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
? ??NEWTOPIC
DIVERGENT THINKING
!DECISION
POINT
CONVERGENT THINKING
PARTICIPATORY DECISION-MAKING
WHAT’S MISSING?
© 2006, Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
STRUGGLENEWTOPIC
DIVERGENT THINKING
!DECISIONPOINT
CONVERGENT THINKING
A BETTER MODEL FOR GROUP PROBLEM-SOLVING
PARTICIPATORY DECISION-MAKING
© 2006, Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
STRUGGLEIN THE
SERVICEOF
INTEGRATION
NEWTOPIC
DIVERGENT THINKING
!DECISION
POINT
CONVERGENT THINKING
A BETTER MODEL FOR GROUP PROBLEM-SOLVING
PARTICIPATORY DECISION-MAKING
© 2006, Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
GROANZONE
!DECISION
POINT
CONVERGENT THINKING
NEWTOPIC
DIVERGENT THINKING
A BETTER MODEL FOR GROUP PROBLEM-SOLVING
PARTICIPATORY DECISION-MAKING
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
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
NOYES
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
NOYES
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
NOYES
The language is a problem.
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
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
© 1996, 2007, 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
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 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
ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT
© 1996, 2007, 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
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
LUKEWARM SUPPORT
© 1996, 2007, 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
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:
© 1996, 2007, 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
NEWTOPIC
DIVERGENT THINKING
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
Leader has obtained input.
NEWTOPIC
DIVERGENT THINKING
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
Leader has obtained input.
NEWTOPIC
DIVERGENT THINKING
S/he now states a proposal and takes a poll.
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
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
© 1996, 2007, 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
Person-in-chargemakes the decision.
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
Group should discuss the issue further.
© 1996, 2007, 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
Person-in-chargemakes the decision.
Person-in-chargemakes the decision.
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
© 1996, 2007, 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
If the poll shows enough support, the leader can focus the discussion and bring the group to closure.
NEWTOPIC
DIVERGENT THINKING
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
If the poll shows enough support, the leader can focus the discussion and bring the group to closure.
NEWTOPIC
DIVERGENT THINKING CONVERGENT THINKING
!DECISION
POINT
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
CONSULTATIVE PROCESS LEADER’S DECISION
I M P L E M E N TAT I O NNEWTOPIC
DIVERGENT THINKING CONVERGENT THINKING
DECISIONPOINT
!
© 1996, 2007, 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
. . . BUT . . .WHAT IF THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT
IS NOT ADEQUATE?
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
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
© 1996, 2007, 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
Group should discuss the issue further.
Person-in-chargemakes the decision.
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
© 1996, 2007, 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
Group should discuss the issue further.
Person-in-chargemakes the decision.
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
© 1996, 2007, 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
NEWTOPIC
DIVERGENT THINKINGCONVERGENT THINKING
DECISIONPOINT
!
R E T U R N T O D I S C U S S I O N
© 1996, 2007, 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
GROANZONE
NEWTOPIC
DIVERGENT THINKINGCONVERGENT THINKING
DECISIONPOINT
!
R E T U R N T O D I S C U S S I O N
© 1996, 2007, 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
and disagreements
NEWTOPIC
DIVERGENT THINKING
Misunderstandings
GROANZONE
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
and disagreements
Help people try to resolve
NEWTOPIC
DIVERGENT THINKING
their
GROANZONE
misunderstandings
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
NEWTOPIC
DIVERGENT THINKING
GROANZONE
After some discussion, craft a proposal and poll
the group.
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
NEWTOPIC
DIVERGENT THINKING
GROANZONE
If necessary, have more discussion.
After some discussion, craft a proposal and poll
the group.
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
. . .When support for a proposal
reaches a critical mass
Poll again.
NEWTOPIC
DIVERGENT THINKING
GROANZONE
After some discussion, craft a proposal and poll
the group.
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
PARTICIPATORY PROCESS SHARED DECISION
,When support for a proposal
reaches a critical mass bring the group to closure.
Poll again.
NEWTOPIC
DIVERGENT THINKING
GROANZONE
After some discussion, craft a proposal and poll
the group.
!DECISION
POINT
CONVERGENT THINKING
© 2010 Sam Kaner, Community At WorkFor reprint permission and training information, contact [email protected]
Comments?
Questions?
PROCESS MANAGEMENT
PROCESS DESIGN TEAM
MANAGES ALL ACTIVITY WITHIN EACH STAGE
•
DESIGNS THE PROCESS & STRUCTURE OF EACH STAGE•
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
A STRAIGHTFORWARD DESIGN
A process design team envisions a series of meetings.
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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.
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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.
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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.
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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.
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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.
•
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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.
•
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
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.
•
© 2006 Sam Kaner, Community At Work
For a PDF version of this presentation, give Sam or Lori your contact info,
or send an email to [email protected].