Download Collaborative Planning and Management: Understanding Convening Issues and Approaches and more Study notes Communication and Presentation Skills in PDF only on Docsity!
Collaborative Planning and Management
#1:Convening
Objectives:
Consider factors affecting convening collaboration vs traditional approaches
Preparation
BLOG: What could be the pitfalls of certain types of convening approaches? Convening Scenarios (see class handout) o Four scenarios provide tricky settings for convening a group o Settings relate to negative factors for convening (see Margerum Table 3.1)
Lecture Overview Timing Topic Sub-topics 5 Introduction 10 Convening issues (^) Push versus Pull
Impetus: conflict or common goal Who is convening How it is convened 15 Scenario group work (^) Form into groups
Respond to scenarios Present to class 20 Group presentation and discussion
Supportive context Legitimate broker Selection and structuring Attractive forum 20 Mandates (^) Blog Themes
Discussion (^80)
2 Lecture Option 1 Convening issues Overview
Group scenario: select some or focus on problem context 2 Convening issues (^) Discuss blog
Review more group scenarios Discuss more from Table 3.
I. Introduction
A. Announcements
B. Where we are
1. So Far: Discussing principles
a) What is collaboration b) Why has it come about c) How does it work
2. Beginning to talk about how it works
a) Today: Convening b) Next several sessions: consensus building
C. Today
1. Review some scenarios
2. Discuss convening issues
II. Convening Issues
A. Long Tom and McKenzie Stories (pp. 49-51)
1. Summarize the differences in origin
2. How do you think this has affected these groups?
3. Discussion
a) McKenzie (1) Stronger agency orientation (2) Meetings appear more like government meetings (3) Example: A community member interested in the council said he “watched the council as an observer.” He literally sat in the back of the room and said “some day I hope to get to the table” b) Long Tom (1) Stronger community orientation (2) Meetings: everyone who showed up had the right to vote (3) Example: People who showed up to observe the group suddenly found they were empowered to vote as a member c) How would these different approaches affect your participation? (1) What are the advantages of each? Examples: (a) Long Tom: citizen empowerment (b) McKenzie: citizen access to joint agency decision making (2) What are the potential problems of each? Examples: (a) Long Tom: obstructionists—individual can block efforts (b) McKenzie: group may come across as “another agency”
B. Convening Characteristics
1. Overview (PP Slide and Table 3.1)
a) Set of appropriate context issues (1) Not all contexts are conducive to collaboration (2) Relative importance not well known by research b) Right approach to convening (1) Context may be right (2) Convening approach might derail collaboration effort
2. Power relations: time, alternative resources (Forums: pp 72-
3. Collaboration may need to be big picture
a) Visioning process b) Funding drive to seek new sources c) May not be able to collaborate on cuts
B. Rabbit Estates Subdivision
1. Lack of a third party or forum (Brokers: pp 64-67)
2. Lack of social capital (Community: pp 58-59)
3. Problems with traditional approaches: police, courts, local
government (Attractive forum: pp. 72-74)
4. Collaboration won’t emerge easily in this context
a) People may have to build social capital b) People may have to become leaders c) Third parties might help (university or government facilitators)
C. Changes in Rock City
1. Divergent social and political views (Community: pp 58-61)
2. Constraints and limitations of traditional forums (Problem:
a) win or lose b) Actions potentially in direct conflict
3. Collaboration faces underlying societal views
a) Issue is already set up: quarry vs. no quarry b) Hard to convert this to collaboration c) May need bigger picture: community vision or plan
D. Powerful State Agency
1. Agency has strong powers (Brokers: 64-67)
a) Willingness to share power may bring people to table b) Agency may have to be open to alternatives c) Could enforcement undermine implementation
2. Could forum be balanced (Forums pp. 72-74)
a) Would people agree to substantial actions b) Are there voices for those affected by lack of enforcement
3. Collaboration may lack legitimate convener (Conveners: 77-
a) Agency is a stakeholder that people may not trust b) Agency may have to seek another convener (1) Pay for a facilitator (2) Appoint one or more people to chair a group (3) Appoint a selection committee
V. Other potential discussion issues
A. How can stakeholder selection work (p. 67-72)
1. What might make people more likely to participate
2. What might make people unwilling to participate?
B. Where do you find a legitimate broker?
1. May seek out community leaders
a) Someone respected b) Someone trusted as not being overly biased c) Someone who will be collaborative
2. May require brokers to emerge
a) Applegate story (p. 65) b) DNR story (p. 65)
C. What makes a forum attractive (p. 73-76)
1. Opportunity for influence
2. Common vision
3. Costs and benefits of participating
D. Mandating Collaboration (Steens Mt. P. 62)
1. What are the potential advantages and disadvantages
2. In what kinds of settings might this be appropriate
E. Individual vs. Systematic Convening
1. Some groups are convened individually
2. Some groups are convened more systematically
a) Initiate funding: Oregon OWEB (p. 75) (1) Create access to funding and resources (2) Groups emerge in response to funding (3) Successful groups compete to fund themselves b) Fund a coordinator/facilitator: Australian Landcare (p. 75) (1) Fund staff to help initiate groups (2) Staff help bring people together (3) Groups operate on their own with periodic staff assistance
VI. OPTIONAL: Summary of Convening Factors
A. Context: Problem
1. Opportunities for win-win scenarios
2. Power symmetry
3. Less heterogeneity of problems
B. Context: Community
1. Strong social capital
2. Less belief differences
3. Economic interlinkage limitations
4. Problem attention
5. Institutional complexity
C. Legitimate Broker
1. Respect and neutrality
