As professional facilitators and conveners for all forms of consensus building efforts, we are big believers in their potential. With experience managing efforts across the U.S. on nearly every policy topic, and with efforts at the city, county, state and regional levels, we have plenty to share about best practices in the facilitation, design, structure, and membership management of task forces and work groups.

As my colleague Berrick wrote in the first blog in this series, our team has had the good fortune to be involved in some truly remarkable processes that hit all of these elements just right (or were able to adjust course to do so). We’ve also seen and felt the frustration when an overlooked detail or poorly designed process undermined the potential and with it, the support of stakeholders.

Design, structure, membership, management and facilitation will be critical considerations for any collaborative decision making effort but there is one foundational question that must be answered first that will inform everything else:

Why a task force or work group vs. simply just empowering system leaders to develop the solutions?

In our experience, there are six primary reasons to utilize a Collaborative Decision Making Process or CDMP to tackle complex or contentious issues whether in policy, practice, regulation or system design:

1. Diversity of Perspectives. Utilizing any form of CDMP rather than tasking a single leader or internal group to examine options presents an opportunity to ensure the broadest possible range of ideas are brought to the discussion. Even the most well-intentioned leaders are subject to unconscious bias and the older the system, the more entrenched stakeholders are, and the more difficult it can be to break away from “group think.” The benefit of including a diversity of perspectives should also be leveraged to ensure those with the institutional knowledge are part of the process and are able to bring an understanding of why things have been a certain way or what has been tried in the past.
2. Incorporation of Expertise. CDMPs present a great opportunity for all involved to learn from those with in-depth knowledge, expertise or lived experience relating to the underlying issue. Whether through experts who serve as members of the group or as presenters and panelists or through the sharing of exemplars and research, these neutral forums provide an opportunity for fact and experience to be shared.
3. Breaking Impasses & Gridlock. When other deliberate efforts have failed to find consensus in legislative and governing bodies, forming a CDMP can provide a fresh start and an opportunity to leave talking points and rhetoric aside as the group embraces a shared commitment to finding where they can agree rather than on sound bites or reasons to disagree.
4. Stakeholder Driven. Among the strongest arguments for utilizing some form of CDMP is the opportunity to have systems, rules, regulations and policy designed by those most knowledgeable and most affected by the decisions. Convening those involved in managing or implementing the underlying system and those who will be the consumer, user or most affected by it together, allows for the candid sharing of perspectives that will be critical to its success. Just as valuable, it means the recommendations or solutions developed are much less likely to be viewed as a “top down” or a heavy-handed approach by decision makers.
5. Consensus Based Outcomes. It is difficult to overstate the power of ideas or solutions that come from people with very different perspectives, beliefs or experiences finding common ground. When leaders are able to design or implement new systems and policies advanced by these processes, they come with greater credibility and often have a head start in the buy-in of key stakeholders.

In considering whether or not to use a work group or task force, there may not be opportunity for all six of these conditions or even a need for all of them to be fully integrated. If the issue being addressed would benefit from most if not all of these, then a CDMP should be seriously considered.

An important note of caution: There is perhaps nothing as damaging to a decision making process or the credibility of its sponsor as one done with a thumb on the scale or a lack of authentic openness to the diversity of perspectives and the outcomes they may produce. If you are genuinely open to the recommendations of a consensus based collaborative process, a well designed CDMP can make breakthrough progress where other efforts have stalled.

In our next post in this series, we’ll explore some of the best practices I mentioned like how to design, structure, manage and effectively facilitate these groups. Later this fall, we’ll be releasing our white paper that draws on our team’s experience managing over 25 CDMPs, facilitating over 500 meetings in the process and engaging over 15,000 stakeholders in efforts that have informed over 100 policy, regulation and rule changes.