On some of the most complex, contentious and critical issues facing government, communities and businesses, we’ve seen stakeholders with very different views come together to make meaningful progress where other efforts have stalled out or been unable to find common ground. We’ve written in previous posts in this series about the basics of Collaborative Decision Making Processes (CDMPs) and when or why to use such a process.

Having managed dozens of work groups and task forces across the country on issues ranging from fiscal policy, strategic planning and transportation funding to education, school safety, criminal justice and most issues in public policy, we’ve seen the incredible potential for breaking through gridlock when these processes are well designed and run. We’ve also seen the missed opportunities for progress when they are not properly designed or positioned for success.

The good news is that most of the issues that can derail or undermine the effectiveness and the trust in these processes can be avoided by following a simple, seven step roadmap when creating the process. As you’ll see below, most of these involve defining the work, role, scope and approach clearly up front. Whether created through legislation, executive action or other means, those creating any Collaborative Decision Making Process should be as specific as possible on each of these pieces while leaving an appropriate degree of leeway for new thinking or ideas to emerge without creating unnecessary windows for scope creep or distraction from the key purpose of the group.

7 Keys to Structuring a Successful Task Force or Work Group

1. Define Scope of Inquiry or Issue;
2. Define the Purpose & Outcomes;
3. Define the Approach;
4. Define the Structure & Membership;
5. Define the Authority or Agency;
6. Define the Decision Making Process;
7. Consider the Operational Needs.

The foundation of each group – its membership, structure, timelines for work and operations – should all be purpose-built in support of the intended scope of inquiry and the outcomes.

1. Define Scope of Inquiry or Issue. The scope of inquiry needs to leave minimal room for whether an issue or sub-issue is or is not intended to be addressed. The more narrow the scope of inquiry, the deeper the group can effectively explore it. For example, creating a Task Force on Housing that has a Scope of Inquiry of “Making recommendations to improve access to home ownership” could leave open the scope to everything from low-income or affordable housing and workforce housing to issues of land-use, lending requirements, zoning and construction litigation. These may all need to be addressed but that is likely a bigger charge than what can realistically be effectively addressed by a time-limited process. It would likely be better to narrow that focus to “Research and identify specific strategies to increase the inventory of and access to purchase housing for first-time buyers and entry to mid-level positions in the state’s top growth industries.” While this could still be a broad inquiry, it becomes more manageable. Alternatively, a Working Group or Task Force on Housing Access could be formed with intentionally defined subcommittees tasked with deep explorations of more narrow topics that all filter back up to the umbrella body.

2. Define the Purpose & Outcomes. Be very clear – and articulate in the forming documents – what the purpose is of any work group, task force or committee. In this step, it’s important to lay out for example, whether the group is simply researching an issue, examining options and gathering input or if they are being tasked with developing specific solutions, proposals for change or draft regulations, legislation or internal policies. In our housing example, you might say “The purpose is to identify specific strategies to drive expanded home ownership by middle-income families and first-time home buyers. A primary purpose of the group’s work is to support the economic development strategy of attracting new employers to the region whose employees will require access to housing. The group will publish a report with recommendations for actions that can be taken at each level of government, by employers and other third parties to advance the strategies identified including specific next steps to be taken.” Alternatively, there could be a group formed or a phase of a group’s work that is more general such as “In year one, the Workforce Housing Task Force will conduct an inventory of available housing by price point, engage with employers and economic development officers and others to prepare a gap analysis and comprehensive report on current and projected housing needs for people earning 100 – 130% of the median household income.”

3. Define the Approach. Building on the purpose and intended outcomes, it is important to define the approach to the work, particularly the amount of opinion vs. empirical research and of qualitative vs. quantitative input to be gathered. There are appropriate places for each approach and many processes will incorporate both but it is helpful to address this in creating any Collaborative Decision Making Process. One key component of this is whether the group being created is intended to be the sole source of input and decisions made through their examination of the facts, conditions, available research or information on the issue. Alternatively, it could be expressly stated that “the group shall engage a broad range of stakeholders with lived experience, expertise and professional knowledge to inform their discussions and recommendations” or, at a minimum, that the “group is authorized and encouraged to solicit presentations by subject matter experts to inform their deliberations.” The approach ultimately needs to be clear on whether the group is charged with serving as a consensus building and opinion sharing initiative, a data-collection and fact-finding enterprise or a combination of these.

4. Define the Structure & Membership. Along with a clearly defined Scope of Inquiry, the Structure and Membership are critical elements of a successful process. The Structure of the group should address issues like whether there is a chair, vice-chair or other official roles and what specifically the rights, roles and responsibilities are for any such positions. Group creation is a good time to initially address the use of subcommittees if that is known. You may identify each such subgroup as part of the establishment of the group or define the process and powers of the group for doing so.

Membership should be designed to serve the Purpose, the Outcomes and to provide the perspectives needed to support the Scope of Inquiry. Membership will look very different for every group but attention should be paid to ensuring representation by:
a. Those with direct personal, lived or professional experience with the issue;
b. Those with subject-matter expertise;
c. Those most directly affected by the issue or system;
d. Those historically underrepresented in discussions;
e. Those whose opinions may be in the minority;
4. Those who will have responsibility for implementing, acting on or advancing the changes.

In addition to defining who the members are, the process for selecting and, if necessary, replacing any members should be included in the initial group design. It’s also important to be clear about how membership in the primary group intersects (or not) with subgroups or subcommittees. Will each subgroup be chaired by or have any members from the top-level group? How will membership be established?

Finally, who will design, manage and run the work of the work group or task force? Will staff be assigned? Will a third party be contracted? What is the role of the chairs? Do they serve in a primarily parliamentary role or have a larger role driving the direction of the work? Are they voting members? Will a third party be contracted to facilitate, manage logistics, provide research or other support? In most cases, a combination of these will be the most effective to draw on the wide range of skills and expertise necessary.*

* Future posts in this series will cover selecting a facilitator (internal or external) and the important elements of the planning and day-to-day management of any Collaborative Decision Making Process.

5. Define the Authority or Agency. As simple as it is, this is one of the most often overlooked pieces and a place where ambiguity can undermine the process or member support for the outcomes. Be very clear up front what authority the Collaborative Decision Making Process being created has and does not have. Name with clarity what agency they have for advancing change and what will be done with any findings or recommendations. As with other issues, there is no one size fits all and the specific issue, current dynamics and external factors all have to be considered. What is most important is the transparency with members and the public or interested stakeholders. The role or authority can range from simply publishing a report sharing the group’s findings or recommendations to formally empowering the group to produce draft regulations, policies or legislation to be introduced, considered, voted on or directly adopted by an oversight body. In between these are a wide range of roles that can include publishing reports to inform executive or legislative decision making and advising officials on next steps based on the group’s work.

6. Define the Decision Making Process. To foster trust in the process and its outcomes, it’s important to be transparent about how decisions will be made and what will happen when there is not unanimous agreement. The creation stage is also the time to be strategic not only about getting to consensus or a recommendation being voted forward but also about the sustainability of any changes or recommendations. Creating documents or, at the latest, initial discussions of the group, must define each decision making process and vote threshold. Details here are crucial. Which actions of the CDMP require a vote taken with at least a quorum present? What percentage of membership will constitute a quorum? What is the voting requirement for decisions by the group? Do some decisions – like formal recommendations – require a super majority greater than 51%? What happens if there are insufficient members in attendance?

This is not just theoretical! We saw one group decide at an early meeting that a quorum and a super-majority were required for formal recommendations. They had also decided that changing this standard required a vote of ¾ of the members with no proxies allowed. When it came time to vote, they could not get ¾ of the members to attend the voting meetings and by their own rules, could not change the use of proxies or the threshold to change the voting requirement.

As much as we strive to find consensus on every decision, reaching unanimous agreement on complex and contentious issues among stakeholders with strongly held, often opposing views is not always possible. To honor the different views, it’s important to be clear up front about how dissenting opinions will be managed and what the expectations are of members beyond the group voting. This means determining whether a minority or dissenting view will be included in the group’s report or presentations. There are also important considerations about the rights of members who disagree with the findings to be able to share their views if official action or votes may be held to advance the majority’s recommendations.

7. Consider the Operational Needs. Regardless of who creates the Collaborative Decision Making Process, it’s important for it to be housed somewhere appropriate, that the role of any agency, body or entity where it sits is clearly defined and that the members and the public have a clear understanding of what level of autonomy the group is granted to do its work. As with other elements, there are no universal right or wrong answers but consideration should be given both to the technical needs of the group and to optics of where it is housed. Minimizing any actual or perceived bias or undue influence is important though there will be times that the most appropriate place for a group to exist may lead to some stakeholders having concerns. In these cases, it is important to be very clear about what the role of any such agency or department is and is not in the work of the CDMP and to be explicit about the autonomy of the group.

Creators or executive sponsors of these groups should consult with staff who may be asked to support the process and with colleagues who have led or been involved with similar efforts to consider the budget and funding needs. An upcoming post will address the use of outside facilitators including when this may or may not be the best approach and considerations for selecting a facilitator. Even when an outside facilitator is engaged, there is a need for some staff to support and coordinate the work. Depending on the Scope of Inquiry and Structure, this could be as little as ¼ of an full-time employee (FTE) time up to 2, 3 or more FTEs for particularly robust processes with aggressive timelines.

The internal staff time, third party supports such as facilitators, direct costs like venues, catering, research, outside expert travel or fees and any reimbursements for travel or time to members should all be included when developing the budget or fiscal note for any Collaborative Decision Making Process.

The final crucial factor for the success of any CDMP is how the group is managed, facilitated and run. Each process will have its own unique factors but all will be largely dependent on the decisions made by those managing the process. From the arc of conversations and the strategic design of agendas to the facilitator’s ability to engage every member and working style and to be genuinely trusted by all involved, the management and facilitation are the glue that will hold the process together. In our next post in this series later this month, we’ll dive into best practices for staffing and facilitation of collaborative decision making and consensus building processes.