collaborative planning

“Collaborative Planning”

It is not the same as “conflict resolution” and is more than “cooperation.” Collaborative processes utilize a planning, rather than a conflict-resolution model, and can be characterized as agencies (and interests) working and planning together, with respectful consideration of different mind-sets and objectives. “Planning” involves by its nature the resolution of conflicts; however, in collaborating, participants come to the table with a different sense or set of principles underlying the relationship to others. “Conflict-resolution” processes bring up images of warring parties, each tending to view the outcome as winning or losing and with each party focused on “more” for itself from the outcome. “Collaborative Planning”, on the other hand, suggests a more amicable, respectful, empathetic relationship among those involved understanding that their differing views will merge through “dialogue” into a single outcome or plan, although with respect for their distinct principles. Finally, often an “Implementation Agreement” (or other arrangement) provides assurances that the plan will be honored moving forward.

One way of looking at the collaborative process is that the objective is a plan that to the extent feasible reconciles differing views.  “Dialogue” is based on principles of respectfulness (in this case, of the differences among the agencies, interests and individuals involved), truthfulness, good will, and civility - while respecting both one’s organizational mandates and working to understand and accommodate, with empathy, the mandates of the other agencies and interests involved.  This objective is achieved by the group working together to develop the best plan going forward.  Below is a diagram of the collaborative planning process for North Key Largo, Florida, established by Executive Order of then Governor Bob Graham.  It illustrates the collaborative planning process that is the basis of our work.

“Constituency of Affected Agencies and Interests”

Who participates in a Collaborative Planning Process? Each planning process has a constituency of selected agencies and interests. It is important to provide for their involvement (at the table or by soliciting and sharing their input).  Some use the term “stakeholders;” however, often this characterization is seen as excluding various public regulatory agencies. So how do we plan for and convene or involve groups in a way that promotes dialogue and gets away from the underlying sense of “winning” and “losing”? Both the California Bay-Delta Conservation Plan and the Desert Renewable Conservation Plan struggled with the appropriate inclusionary process, involving a significant number and diversity of agencies and interests, focusing on broad geographic areas.  These plans exemplify the challenges in crafting a large-scale collaborative planning process.   

“Dialogue”

A key concept underlying collaboration.  It calls for a respectfulness of diversity.  At base, there is an understood principle that people may have diverse views, beliefs, truths and objectives (for example, the importance of a particular use of land or resources), but join together through “dialogue” in planning and moving forward in the face of such diversity, often with a sense of empathy, respectfulness and “trust” (notwithstanding a difference of views).  

“Scoping”

The process of coming to understand and explore the range of alternative themes and variations with respect to possible alternative outcomes.

Click here to learn more about the Scoping Process as a part of Collaborative Planning.
 

“Leadership”

Increased collaboration horizontally across “silo-like” boundaries does not mean that vertical hierarchies are not important. They are. “Leadership” plays a very important, critical role in the effectiveness of collaborative processes. Without adequate leadership, processes can be characterized by hostility and fierce disagreements (and even litigation).  And, it is not sufficient for those in leadership to simply direct their different agencies and interests to “work together”. Often the result is a leaderless, listless, group of lower staff, dogmatically clinging to outdated or rigid mandates of their particular agencies and interests, with little empathy or respect for the concerns of other agencies and interests. In contrast, the leadership that is required is not the need for someone “up the line” to make the decision, but, rather ongoing oversight and support for bringing to bear the principles of collaboration and dialogue and the “scoping” of concerns, issues and alternatives.

This quality of “leadership” is often observed in the active involvement and support from upper management levels to assist their teams or staffs to understand agency interests and mandates.  Less apparent is leadership in bringing to bear empathy and “flexibility” in innovatively reconciling various concerns among a group of agencies and interests and moving forward.