Recently I have been talking to several clients that are seeking facilitation services for the planning of events that are a month or two away and are looking for assistance in convening geographically diverse teams in planning the events.  Having planned many regional and national conferences over my 17 plus year career,  it is clear to me that the facilitation process of planning an event is as important as the facilitation process at the event. While not quite as prophetic as the GIGO mantra of “garbage in garbage out, ” my experience has taught me that there is a direct relationship between the quality of the planning and the quality of the event.  I have also found that he stakes in event planning are increased when planning team is geographically distant and unable to convene face-to-face for the planning process. So in this post, I wanted to outline some of the principles of facilitating an event planning process for a “virtual” planning team.

.

Technology Choices:  The first principle is to be thoughtful and intentional about technology choices.  In an ideal world, everyone would have broadband access to the Internet, using state of the art computers with integrated Voice Over Internet capabilities and attached video cameras.  In that ideal world, users would have the technology competencies to understand not only email and basic web browsing but also how to use tools like Skype, WIKIS, Twitter, collaborative workspaces, content management systems.  Unfortunately, while the generation now coming up through the ranks is more technology savvy, a facilitator needs to be able to rapidly assess the competencies of a planning team to find the lowest common denominator of technology tools to manage the planning process.  At the most basic level technology tools need to ensure thee things:  a) communication, b) documentation, c) tracking progress.

.

Communication:  Planning teams need to communicate and  three of the most common formats are teleconferencing, webinar and email.   The trade off of teleconferencing or using a webinar platform is primarily one of cost and technology competency.  If a team can afford it and has the competencies, using a webinar format for planning meetings opens up visual as well as audio communications.  I find email is useful only as an adjunct communication tool because of the inherent limitations that asynchrony bring to the communication process, because of the competing noise of 40-50 other emails a day, and fragmentation inherent in multiple email messages.

.

Documentation:  The ability to document a planning process using a common technology platform is critical to the planning process.  For example, I have been working with a distributed team on an organizational development process where one of their primary challenges is tracking who on the team has the current version of any given document.  That is not the way to work and we are exploring technology options to solve that problem. However, planning teams need to get documentation correct up front as timelines for event planning don’t reward inefficiency of lost documents. Elsewhere I have written extensively about managing technology-based collaborative workspaces.

.

Tracking Progress: Tracking progress across a distributed team can also be managed using online collaborative workspaces or can be as simple as using a running task list that is reviewed at each planning call. Ideally tracking progress integrates a dates (calendar), tasks, milestones and responsibilities.

.

Agendas & Ground Rules: I have written elsewhere on agenda development and when working with a virtual planning team, the importance of using an effective agenda in facilitating a planning process needs to be underscored.  When a meeting is being conducted by a teleconference there is an absence of visual interaction and having a clear agenda is one tool to help participants track progress of the conversation.   The other tool that is important to facilitating teleconferences is a discussion of “ground rules.”  While many facilitators rigorously define ground rules at the beginning of a facilitation process, I am much more lax in this processes, often omitting consideration of ground rules, unless a client feels that the step is important. However, for conference calls, I do believe that it is important to establish some working ground rules.  Some rules are related to professional courtesy while others are intended to improve productivity. Specifically, I feel that it is important to create agreements around a) multi-tasking (answer emails and web surf in addition to participating in the call), b) muting phones except when talking, c) identifying oneself before speaking, d) restating agreements in the summary.

.

Facilitation Tasks:  When facilitating a virtual group I believe that the facilitator has five tasks including 1) preparation, 2) movement, 3) understanding, 4) inclusion, and 5) decisions.

.

Preparation:  There are two dimensions of preparation.  The first dimension is creating the clear understanding of meeting outcomes and make sure that the virtual team has in advance to the meeting, the agenda and background materials needed to make them successful in achieving the meeting outcomes. There is both art and science in using technology effectively and that surfaces the second dimension of preparation. A facilitator needs a deep understanding of the technology media being used.

.

Movement:  As with all facilitation, the role of the facilitator is to design and implement a process that moves participants from the beginning of the process to the end.  In a technology-mediated environment, without visual cues, such facilitation will rely more on more procedural skills to specifically engage participants and create action.  Polling, sequential talking, motion – discussion & vote, are examples or process tools that are needed to compensate for the lack of visual cues.

.

Understanding: As a third process, checking for understanding becomes important in a technology-mediated environment. The facilitator may need to check in on understanding using processes like, asking for paraphrasing or verbal affirmations of understanding.

.

Inclusion:  Ensuring inclusion is a facilitator task in any setting. In facilitating virtual groups the task of inclusion has the dimension of ensuring equity of voice and the occasional dimension of re-engaging those who wander off into multi-taking land.

.

Decisions: The final facilitator task is to ensure that decisions are made and documented.  I have also posted on decision-making previously and it goes without saying that decisions made are the markers of progress in the event planning process.

.

Documentation: The final principle to discuss is documentation and version control. The success of team-based event planning is the ability to manage the documentation process.  Again, as a subject worthy of more in-depth consideration, I had posted extended thoughts on documentation previously.   As I stated in that post, “developing a documentation plan as part of facilitation should be standard practice, although I have encountered few facilitators who are so intentional about this process.  To be successful in this area, a facilitator needs to be familiar with concepts of information ecology and knowledge management in addition to having strong technology competencies. The benefits of investing the time and energy in document planning are seen in greater productivity, efficiency of the process.”

.

Successful event planning by virtual teams not only requires facilitation but a well-managed facilitation process.  Investing in the event planning design as well as the event design will often be the difference between an event and an outcome.  Events can be planned but events that achieve outcomes require distributed planning teams to the carefully design a process that use of technology, meeting process, and document management to ensure planning success.

.

As always, your thoughts are welcome.

.

Perhaps there are more sophisticated definitions for an advisory group but in general, as the name implies, an advisory group is a collective of participants who are invited because of expertise, representation of constituents, connections, and/or position for the purpose of helping to inform representative decisions.  In their highest use, advisory groups are convened because the increasing complexity of social problems demands broad critical thinking.  In their lowest use, advisory groups are convened to create the illusion of participation and provide political coverage for decisions that need to be made.  In between these two points on the continuum there are likely a number of different points of functioning for advisory groups.  One can readily see that, wherever an advisory group falls on the continuum, the success of the group will be dependent upon the clarity, expectations and social contract negotiated with the group.

Groups convene, partnerships are formed, and collaboration occurs largely because there is a compelling need that transcends the abilities of an individual or single organization.  Adapting from an excellent resource on evaluating collaboratives (see resources below), I would suggest that collaboration occurs in the social sector because: 1) social problems are complex, 2) there are intensive resource pressures, 3) the social net continues to fragment, 4) communities don’t respond well to endemic problems, and 5) change is pervasive, rapid and sweeping.  Implicit in these magnetic forces is the need to network and create shared solutions.

While I have written before that there is a compelling shift towards collaboration and networking, I believe that  there remain organizational challenges and barriers to collaboration.  The polar opposites that make collaboration difficult are such issues as 1) cultures of organizational superiority, 2) single-issue myopia, 3) differing mandates and procedures, and 4) competing/adversary relationships (especially around resources).

In this context, when an advisory group is convened, there is an unspoken orientation towards action and, at times, the internal undercurrent of the barriers that initially undermines trust in the process.  This mix of expectations and barriers is the driving reason to create a social contract for participation. So what does a social contract for an advisory group look like?

Explicit Definition of Advisory:  First and foremost, a facilitator needs to help the parties define the “advisory purpose” of the group.  If there is a “disconnect” between the perceived role of the participants and the intention of the convener, the group progress will be hindered because of the conflicting expectations.  The facilitator needs to ensure that everyone is in agreement to what “advisory” means for the group process. Inherent in this definition is the concept of authority.  In other words, the group needs to be clear what authority is connected with the advice.  For example, if a government agency brings together an advisory group to help prioritize pressing community issues for funding, the participants need to be clear if their advice (in terms of prioritizing) has a direct link to decisions made about funding or if the advisory authority is limited and other constraints could possibly trump their recommendations. Failure to make this expectation clear has the potential to undermine the entire advisory process.

Consideration of Transaction:  A second component of the social contract relates to the transactional or relational nature of the advisory group.  With limited resources, especially time, the convening of an advisory group needs to bring some benefit to the participants other than the potential of free coffee and pasties at the meeting.  This is especially true if the group authority is limited by external constraints.  Profile, status and relationships are often implicit (but not often explicit) transactions that can support an advisory function. However, following authority to influence direction, the transaction that is important to advisory group participation is bringing the “voice” of the community to the process.  Indeed, as the voice of the community is amplified by the collective participation of group members become a community organizing effort even if authority is lacking.  Advisory group participation builds relationships and can be the foundation for future action.

Process Support:  A third characteristic of a social contract for advisory groups is to ensure the process is supported and resourced.  The facilitation of the group must include the supporting structure that is the basis for any meeting facilitation (clear agendas, decision-making process, and minutes).  Additional support includes clear communication during and between meetings and a clear beginning and end point with movement markers in between.

Participant Expectations:  Finally the social contract must define participant expectations.  For an advisory group to be successful expectations that are important include: 1) being honest and open, 2) making contributions to the process, 3) focusing on issues and content, and 4) being a provocateur when needed. In addition, standard meeting ground rules such as respecting others, being on time and following through on agreements and action items need to be in place.

While not essential, the most successful advisory groups I have participated in, codify the social contract in a brief operating procedure.  In the resources below, I link to a handbook for community advisory groups that was developed to guide EPA advisory groups.  While very jargon laden, the document has some sample documents that can serve as models for advisory groups seeking to create a written social contract.

The point that I am trying to make is that unique group structures require unique facilitation approaches.  While coalitions derive power from collective action, advisory groups primarily inform and influence the actions of others.  This is not to judge the importance of one structure over the other but simply points to the unique facilitation needs of advisory groups. It is my belief that advisory groups are a critical component of the civic engagement process and their success is dependent upon the clarity of process and expectations.  Social sector organizations need collective wisdom and advisory groups are one pathway to that wisdom. Skilled facilitation that pays attention to the labels and social contract can help such groups succeed.

Resources

Taylor-Powell, E., Rossing, B., & Geran, J. (1998). Evaluating Collaboratives: Reaching the Potential. Madison: University of Wisconsin-System Board of Regents and University Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension (190 pages pdf).

Community Advisory Group (CAG) Handbook Department of Toxic Substances Control California Environmental Protection Agency

A traditional organizational development approach to facilitation takes the perspective of “government” thinking.  Government thinking has been used to describe the hierarchical business approach with all that it implies. Government thinking is dominated concepts like hierarchy, centralized decision making, sole authority, dependent relationship, uniform policy, outputs and vertical relationships.  Facilitation, in this context, employs a range of meeting process tools like brainstorming, decision-making, group dynamic, negotiation and mediation.  Often parochial in nature, the primary objective of government thinking is to solicit advice, convince those that work “down-stream,” and ensure negotiated progress toward centralized plans.

At the other end of the spectrum is “governance” thinking that has historically been the domain of community collaboration and community organization.  I started my professional career working in the community tasked with developing coalitions and partnerships. Over the years I have participated in the development of numerous working collaboratives.  In governance thinking the characteristics are almost antithetical to government thinking.  In governance there are multiple “authorities,” decentralized decision-making, negotiation and persuasion, participatory relationships, localized policies and community level outcomes.  The goal of governance is collective and democratic action.

Many facilitators coming through the ranks of corporate human resource, training or organizational development departments who “cut their teeth” on traditional meeting facilitation, planning and/or in labor-management negotiations are likely well versed in government thinking and are masters at operating in this environment.  However it is increasingly important for facilitators to possess the complimenting governance-oriented skills and experience.  Indeed, the sea change that is occurring across all economic sectors (both public and private) is that governance thinking is now no longer the sole domain of community organizers. Government agencies and private sector organizations are embracing governance thinking. More and more companies are interested in the whole, are creating networks, and are operating in a triple bottom line environment –all earmarks of governance thinking. It is my belief that the correlation between the rapid proliferation of networking technologies and the acceleration in governance thinking is no accident.  Technology tools have fundamentally redefined organizational hierarchy.  This shift has also redefined facilitation skills required to be effective in this new systems-environment.

Given the shift to governance thinking, facilitators need to go back to the roots of community-based organizing and immerse themselves in systems-thinking, empowerment education, collaborative technology and adult leaning theory.  In is only with a blended understanding drawing from the principles of governance that facilitators can make significant contributions to performance.  Recently I came across a list of skills in an academic journal related to social work (1) that I adapted as a list of governance-related facilitation skills.  In addition to meeting process skills, governance facilitation requires:

Activation/Enabling Skills: First and foremost strong facilitation understands how to convene (and hold together) stakeholders to address community issues.  In public involvement this might include bringing together government, nonprofit, advocacy groups, faith-based communities, and unaffiliated citizens.  In the private sector this might include bringing not only those up and down the supply chain but external influencers like regulators and consumers.

Framing Skills:  A facilitator must be able to create a focusing frame and values around the issue(s) and facilitate agreements related to roles and responsibilities of players that, when coordinated, move the group towards values-based solutions.   Core to the process of framing both focus and agreement is the ability to think and act from a systems perspective, fostering a whole that is more than the sum of the parts.

Orchestrating/Mobilizing Skills:  This is the skill set that demonstrates the facilitator’s ability to manage the movement towards the milestones, objectives and outcomes.  Facilitation as movement requires expertise in community engagement.

Social Networking Skills: I have written elsewhere of the facilitators need to be able to manage connections and relationships for the process of knowledge creation.  This point is underscored in a governance model where the network is core to success.  This truism is familiar to any facilitator who has come up through the community-side of facilitation.  Making and supporting connections between people and  managing the collective wisdom are often what makes the difference between success and failure.

Synthesizing & Editing  skills:  All facilitation requires the facilitator to have a deep toolbox of strategies that enables him/her to effectively synthesize, edit and transform the process as it unfolds. Such tools supporting this work include such things as mediation, interest-based problem solving, and possibly even strategies that create incentive for progress.

Some have suggested that the shift from government to governance is a revolution.  Others, like me, believe that governance thinking is simply the process of re-imagining and re-discovering our roots in community organizing.  Whether this shift is evolution, revolution or rediscovery matters less than how governance thinking impacts facilitation.  Governance thinking is about creating networks of democratic action.  It is about increasing leverage and effectiveness.  Fundamentally governance is about thinking and working in new ways and is about re-imagining social impact whether it is in the public or private sector and fostering this impact is the heart and soul of facilitation.

References

(1) Frahm, K. A. & Martin, L. L. (2009). From Government to Governance: Implications for Social Work Administration.Administration in Social Work, 33(4), 407-422. doi:10.1080/03643100903173016

(2) Working Wikily

.

Taxonomy and Organizing Knowledge:  One of the clearest benefits of creating a taxonomy is that it serves as an organizer.  A few years ago I worked with a team managing three large resource libraries and had the privilege of being mentored by some truly amazing librarians who taught me a tremendous amount about managing knowledge through taxonomies.  While there is a large science of taxonomies, the process of developing a taxonomy boils down to identifying the requirements, conducting a concept mapping exercise, building a draft taxonomy, getting a usability feedback, refining the taxonomy and applying/maintaining the system. The power of proactive knowledge taxonomy is that it gives order to process at the beginning and the dividends are accrued when content multiplies and expands. If a knowledge taxonomy is created up front, then as materials are created they can be labeled, organized and stored effectively.  In the absence of a defined taxonomy, one can spend hours on a shared drive looking for a reference article, only to find it in the “download archive” folder named something like “3089.doc”

Taxonomy and Building Community: Almost polar opposite to creating a structured taxonomy is  a community taxonomy that is iteratively and built from the bottom up by those contributing and using the knowledge.  Sometimes called a folksonomy to contrast it from an informatics approach, a folksonomy is a democratized approach to building a defined taxonomy.  It builds upon the social life of information and lends itself to community building. A common example of a folksonomy can be seen the use of keywords and tags associated with blogs.  If you have ever seen a tag cloud, you begin to get the sense of how folksonomies are developed.  Concepts attract concepts, patterns are recognized and a shared understanding grows out of the mutual use of terms.  Another example of a folksonomy can be found in personal lists Twitter users create to sort content.  Lists are developed, cross-posted, referenced and begin to “trend” as a shared concept.  The power of such folksonomies is found when user tags are combined and refined based on the principle of self-organization.

If a facilitator understands the concept of taxonomies s/he can harness both the power of structure and community organization in creating framework for organization of knowledge.  This brings us to the application of taxonomies in facilitation.  How does understanding the use of taxonomies improve facilitation?

Managing Documents: The obvious, and previously stated, application is in the management of documents.  For those facilitation assignments that require the creation and management of multiple documents, the use of a taxonomy is critical.  Whether a top down informatics approach or a bottom up community approach, defining a taxonomy is essential to managing documents.

Making the Complex Simple: A second use of a taxonomy in facilitation is in taking a large and/or complex topics and breaking down so that it builds a common understanding of the group.  The most common taxonomy exercise is creating a concept map.  Concept mapping is a way off creating an inventory of ideas and vocabulary and creating relationships between the ideas and vocabulary.  While some may argue that creating a concept map differs from creating a taxonomy, in my opinion, the two are at least close cousins.

Depoliticizing Words: A final application of taxonomy thinking in facilitation is as a tool to depoliticize language.  For example, I have been in many discussions about affordable rental housing where group members used interchangeably words like: low-income housing, public housing, undercapitalized housing, substandard housing and predatory housing.  Each of these terms can be loaded with a political agenda.  A facilitator could easily remove the politics by starting with the higher order concept of housing and creating a taxonomy.  In that process, the politics are uncoupled from the concepts and common ground is more likely to be created as a platform for productive rather than polarized discussions.

As I suggested earlier, facilitating the development of a knowledge taxonomy is likely the result of a blended structure that is in part designed but also allows for the iterative co-creation and improvement of how processes are organized.  The point of this blog is not to teach informatics but is to describe the intentional clarity that a facilitator needs to bring to language, words and concepts. Facilitation has as a core foundation principle the ability to bring order to diversity. In the past, such facilitation might have been achieved by charisma, felt-tipped markers, and easel paper. However, the increasing complexity of process demands more than simple facilitation skills.  Markers and easel paper are still required but the facilitator needs to understand how to think and design in terms of systems, organization and knowledge management.  Such facilitation requires the theory and application of taxonomies as part of the facilitation toolbox.  With taxonomy skills facilitation meets the need of times, when there is more at stake than running a good meeting.

References

(1) Taxonomy Development for Knowledge Management

(2) Taxonomy and Folksonomy Cookbook

I once served on an advisory group process that spanned a number of months and consisted of a steering committee, a workgroup, three subcommittees and a couple of ad hoc committees.  I was not the facilitator but a participant and as the weeks unfolded, I found myself increasingly frustrated by the lack of process for facilitating the management of documents.  That lack, meant that meeting minutes arrived in various inconsistent formats.  Worse, minutes were consistently presented as sketchy and random notes rather than an effective process/decision summary.  There was no accessible centralized file archive of documents presented at meetings nor were there version controlled copies of the recommendation papers being developed by the subcommittees.  The bottom line is the lack of document organization negatively impacted the productivity of the group.

.

I compare a document management plan to the “operating system” of a computer.  The user of a computer doesn’t turn on his/her computer and think “hmmm is my OS X or Windows XP working today?” –okay maybe you question your Windows operating system- but in general one does not often think about the operating system even though it is what makes the computer work. While we word process or email, or work with databases and spreadsheets the operating system makes the experience seamless.  In the same way document management should be something operates in the background as a critical operating platform that supports the facilitation process. Effectively managing documents needs to be part of the facilitator’s “operating system” because it is essential to the facilitation process.

.

In this day of age, I cannot imagine a facilitation consultant working with a client without creating a shared electronic workspace for the effective management of documents.  In fact, I have presented a two-part overview (Part 1 & Part 2) of facilitating in a shared electronic workspace.  In this post I would like to focus on the facilitation skill of developing a document management plan for creating, storing, editing and distributing of written materials.  I believe that the facilitation skills associated with managing documents requires three distinct planning phases that include: 1) defining and mapping data, 2) creating people networks, and, 3) creating connections between people and data.

.

Defining & Mapping Data:  At the start of every project, the facilitator needs to be clear about the expectations relating to documents being developed and the associated documentation process.  In general, a larger facilitation process will include: a) progress documentation b) reference documentation; and c) production documents.  Process documentation includes such things as meeting agendas, minutes, process summaries, and workplans. Reference documentation, might be reports, articles, manuals, slide presentations that collectively comprise the project-based information library. Production documents are those documents that become part of the project deliverables.  For example, facilitating a proposal development process, the production documents would include the narrative, budget, forms and appendices.

.

Once the documentation requirements are defined, they then need to be mapped in order to be accessible. Specifically mapping includes: a) using a defined hierarchy of folders, b) standardizing naming conventions for files, and c) for really complex projects defining the knowledge taxonomy or folksomony (the subject of another post to be written). Finally decisions need to be made as to how the documents will be accessible.  Ideally, electronic documents need to be centralized on shared drive or collaborative workspace.  If there is a print document file system then it is the facilitator’s role to provide access to the document files.  Going back to my opening advisory committee example, every advisory committee member was given a 3” binder with tabs. Possibly a good start but then again, not all materials were distributed in a print format; rarely were the agendas or handouts three-hole punched; and none of the documents had clear version control (i.e., creation date headers or footers).

.

Creating People Networks:  The second consideration in creating a document system is to determine the people need access to what information and how is the best way to keep them informed?  Going back to the advisory board example, we could be confident that randomly someone who should have received the communication would be left off the distribution list. The facilitator’s response would inevitably be, “I did not know s/he needed the information.”  In good document design practice, at the beginning of the process, information users need to be defined clearly and given appropriate access to materials. For example, are there decision makers or stakeholders external to the process that need to be informed as the process unfolds? Part of facilitation planning needs to include creating a clear picture of the people network involved with the process.

.

Creating Connections Between People & Data: The final consideration for creating a document management plan is to create the appropriate connections between the documents and people network.  How the participants will use the documents in a facilitation process requires some thought.  If data and documents are categorized into process, reference and production, it suggests connecting the team with documents in different ways.  Process documents, such as meeting minutes and workplans, may be filed in an online repository or distributed (three-hole punched) for filing into binders.  However, within minutes and workplans are often tasks that should be called out to make the information useful.  Many web-based shared workspaces have functionality for document storage as well as the creation and assignment of tasks (yet another argument for supporting facilitation with technology).  However, even if meeting minutes are distributed by email as an attachment, good facilitation will “call out” in the text of the email message the action steps and tasks, responsible person(s) and due dates.  For reference documents, it is useful to associate the name of contributor to the document itself (either as a tag, or as part of the file name). If this connection is made explicitly then team members with questions about a resource can go to the document owner  for clarification and/or expansion.  Finally, team members accessing production documents need to have permissions assigned, such as “read only,” “read and edit,” or  “approve or delete” and, of course, the facilitator must ensure version control.

.

Taken together, the process of thinking about documentation, documentation use, and how the two interface is key to the facilitation processes. Developing a documentation plan as part of facilitation should be standard practice, although I have encountered few facilitators who are so intentional about this process.  To be successful in this area, a facilitator needs to be familiar with concepts of information ecology and knowledge management in addition to having strong technology competencies. The benefits of investing the time and energy in document planning are seen in greater productivity, efficiency of the process.  For facilitators, understanding document management is essential when there is more at stake than running a good meeting.

.

Again, you comments are welcome.

.

There is a large body of literature supporting the “how and why” of the coalition development process, community engagement and community organizing (a few of which are listed below) so providing “coalition development 101″ is not my intent..  Instead, the focus in this post is  to provoke thought around the unique skills required to facilitate a community engagement process like a coalition or community advisory group.

I once had a conversation with a distant colleague and we were reminiscing about a mediocre community engagement processes that we both served on.  We were discussing the quality of the facilitators who led the process and we agreed that, while the facilitators ran productive meetings, that meeting facilitation skills were not enough to sustain what was a complex community collaboration process.  As we brainstormed together, we created a list of competencies that the paid facilitators lacked in managing the process.  Taken together the list suggests the requisite skills needed to meaningfully facilitate community engagement processes.

Meeting Facilitation:  Not wanting to throw the proverbial “baby out with the bathwater,” the obvious fact needs to be stated. Having strong meeting process skills comprises the first competency of managing community engagement.  Being able to develop a meaningful vision, mission, goals, objectives, group process, documentation and communication cycle are the foundational skills of any facilitated process.

Consensus Building and Dispute Resolution:  A second skill area required for community engagement involves understanding mediation and interest-based problem-solving.  Facilitation is not the same as mediation, despite the fact that many confluent the two concepts. The ability to separate interests, needs and impartially structure a process that mediates differences is very different than a facilitation skill of ensuring equal voice and participation. Consensus building and dispute resolution lay the foundation for building structures of trust.

Systems-thinking:  I consider systems thinking to be a core facilitation competency in general.  However, in the context of a community engagement processes systems-thinking takes on critical importance.  Specifically, when one is facilitating a community engagement process, it is imperative that the facilitator understands both the “bricks and mortar” infrastructure of the community (i.e., organizations, policy, and governance) but also understands the social infrastructure of the community.  Without an understanding of how systems work, a facilitator engages the community with a truncated depth perception especially when it comes to the critical processes of stakeholder analysis and power analysis.

Empowerment Theory: Community engagement also requires more than a cursory understanding of empowerment educational theories.  Based on the application of the theories of Paulo Freire facilitation becomes the act of empowering the community. True facilitation designs a respectful process that allows individuals to co-create solutions and in the process develop mutual trust, respect and a sense of community.

Participatory Evaluation and Outcome Mapping:  Finally community engagement requires an innate understanding of participatory evaluation theories.  The process of facilitating community engagement is just that — Engagement.  When community engagement is not going well, the root cause is often traced back to a reliance on meeting facilitation skills and focusing on the means and not the end. Understanding participatory evaluation theories give a facilitator a deep appreciation and understanding of the ends-planning rather than means-planning.  Ends-planning influences the process design and often necessitates a re-thinking of traditional facilitation tools.

As I reflect on the list of skills and competencies required to effectively facilitate a community engagement process I realize that the goals of this list are high and it is a rare moment when the task, resources and group allow all of these skills converge.  However, what it is clear that the overriding theme of facilitating community engagement is the paradoxical challenge of giving away control and power in order to accrue back trust, collaboration and process ownership.  Facilitating community empowerment requires not only an understanding of group process but, in the words of a mentor of mine, “group process squared.”  Community engagement takes basic facilitation skills and requires them to be lengthened, deepened and expanded by a social theory multiplier.

Part two of this post will discuss measuring progress in a community engagement process.

Coalition Development Resources

Web Resource (PDF):  Developing Effective Coalitions
Web Resource (PDF): EPA’s Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model
Book: The Spirit of the Coalition
Book: Coalitions and Partnerships in Community Health

Again, you comments are always welcome.

More than once, I been in a meeting where ideas are being fostered — convergent and divergent — and the facilitator is fielding comments, writing notes and after the conversation runs its course, three or four easel chart pages latter, everyone pauses and it becomes clear that the group is thinking, “now what?”   Then turning to the facilitator I hear the words, “So where do we go from here?” Instantly, as if someone has opened the drain plug, the energy begins to trickle out of the room.  So what goes wrong in meetings like the ones just described? It is my perspective that at the moment the facilitator deferred rather than took control of the process that s/he lost the group.

.

My experience has taught me that one of the critical skills that a facilitator needs to posses is the ability to assess, synthesize and hypothesize as a rapid framing tool. The skill of rapid framing is a combination of systems thinking and inquiry.  Much like a computer operating system works in the background to keep your computer ordered while you run your word processing program, assessing, synthesizing, hypothesizing and framing is the “operating system” of the facilitator.  Effectively holding the larger system in the background context allows the skilled facilitator to truncate the “pause of desperation” with a skilled intervention that breaks the log-jam of information overload and allows the group to productively move forward.

.

Let me give you and example.  I once was facilitating an advisory group that was tasked with creating an outline for a fairly complex grant that involved service delivery through multiple channels, required the use of subcontracted advisors, evaluation and marketing functions.  After creating brainstorm lists for each component of the grant, the team experienced a “pause of desperation.”  Staring at the pages of easel paper hung all over the walls it was clear that the group was feeling overwhelmed by the complexity and sheer quantity of information. At that moment rapid framing was needed. I stepped over to a dry-erase board and began to sketch a system’s view flow diagram of the overall project based on all that I heard and processed. This visual served as an organizer to reduce the complexity. Almost as if someone opened the window to let in a fresh breeze, the group energy increased, with folks offering feedback to my visual hypothesis and one person actually getting up, taking the pen from my hand and editing the diagram until there was a consensus on the model.  The pathway for developing the proposal outline based on the several hanging easel sheets became simpler and clearer. The group needed help conceptualizing the frame but was very capable completing the structure once the frame was developed. While this illustration underscores the importance of purposeful visuals it also demonstrates the power of a rapid framing.

.

This leads to the question of tactics.  What does a rapid framing look like in practice? At some level I believe that the ability to assess, synthesize and hypothesize is more innate and intuitive rather than cognitive and linear however, my training in mediation helped me see that basic rapid framing skills can be taught.  Skilled mediators and facilitators share the core skills of active listening, empathy, and impartiality and with this foundation there are four stages that need to happen in order create and use a rapid frame effectively.

.

Synthesize Constantly: As I stated above a strong facilitator is constantly holding the larger system in the back of his/her mind and as the process unfolds s/he constantly organizes, sorts and summarizes the story and narrative.

.

Create a Frame: As a facilitator is listening, organizing, comparing and synthesizing during the process, when a group gets stuck, s/he has enough narrative to make proposal in the form of a frame.  In my illustration above, I drew a diagram as a draft frame for the group based on the conversations, notes and directions that I was mentally assembling as the team brainstormed and jumped from one concept to the next.  The frame may be right or may need editing but the purpose is to move the group process forward.

.

Test the Frame: After creating the frame, the facilitator then needs to check it out with the group.  “Based on what I am hearing from you, I would suggest that you are here.  Does this resonate?”  At that point the group is invited not to focus on their “stuckness” but are invited into the solution space.  Continuing my example above, when the pen was removed from my hand the editing of the idea was well underway and the group was unstuck.

.

Give Back the Locus of Control:  At this point, the facilitator has broken the paralysis but such an intervention comes at the risk of the facilitator shifting into a leadership role.  The final stage of using rapid framing is to create an intentional pause and reflection on the intervention.  The purpose of this reflection is to shift the locus of control back to the group before moving on.  At this point it is finally okay to say, “So where do you go from here?”

.

Many facilitators I have met over the years have the ability to run good meetings.  However, when the stakes are high there is often a need for a skilled facilitator who brings a deeper understanding of systems thinking, the ability to process information, and the mental agility to create rapid and iterative frames.  Skilled facilitation can insert rapid framing as a way to manage the chaos of ideas and then to back out in order to keep the group in control of the process.  Such facilitation is useful when there is more at stake than running a good meeting.

.

As always, your comments are welcome.

.

Elsewhere, I contend that using visuals appropriately is a core competency of a facilitator and in this post want to expand some on the purpose and functions of using visuals as a facilitation tool. Far from being the “facilitator thing to do” the effective use of visuals is critical to the facilitation process. Visual learning is a component of most experiential learning theories detailing that people learn by processing with all senses available to them. As a result, facilitators should not be in the business of “writing things down on easel pads” but should be employing learning theory in their use of visuals. In my understanding of experiential and adult learning theories, I would suggest that visuals have three primary functions in facilitation including:

Organizing, Naming and Representing: The effective use of visuals in facilitation has the purpose of getting the group into a place of shared understanding and the co-creating of ideas. To do this, a facilitator needs to use visuals to organize ideas, name common elements and represent complex issues. At the most basic level, an example might be a facilitator listing the results during brainstorming and then helping a group sort and narrow items. However the task of shared understanding and co-creation often requires access to more sophisticated visual processes.  Brainstorming and narrowing are wholly inadequate to capture complex concepts.  Other tools  such as concept mapping, story-boarding, logic models, event-planning, decision trees or other flow diagrams are necessary to meet complex needs. When a facilitator gets stuck on making and narrowing lists, s/he fails to access the wider dynamic of systems thinking that is required to move from ideas to a shared understanding and representation of those ideas.

Orienting and Navigating: The second use of visuals in facilitation is to provide a sense of orientation and navigation. Think about times that you shop online or complete an online survey or register for a new website. These days we take for granted that whenever we are completing a multi-stage online experience, there is often clear guidance somewhere on the computer screen telling us that we are “at step three of a five step process” or that we are “60% of the way through the survey”. If we get lost or stuck, help is a click away. In group facilitation it should be no different. While a printed agenda might be the most basic visual to orient a group to where they are in a process, good facilitation effectively uses visuals to mark progress through a given task. Visual learning tools that a facilitator might use to keep groups on track might include a printed organizer, visual metaphors or icons approach to mark transition points, or purposeful color coding. Orienting and navigating become even more critical when the facilitated process extends over time and multiple sessions. When a workgroup is together for 12 meetings over a period of six months, visual orienting and navigating are important facilitator functions.

Summarizing and Narrating: As I suggested in the opening paragraph, there is nothing more useless than a transcription of flipchart notes. Yet, often such transcription is appended to meeting minutes. Visual learning requires the facilitator to synthesize large amounts of information and represent it as summary and story narrative. Summarizing and narrating, discards early draft ideas (like initial brainstorm lists) and focuses instead on the shared understandings and the things that are permanent. Again, if the facilitator has been successful in visually creating shared understanding and keeping the group organized, the summary and narration might include a simple task grid to identify actions, assignments and accountabilities or as complex as creating a final storyboard.

While, anyone holding a box of markers and easel paper might be able to run an effective meeting, the use of visuals in facilitation is really about process. In an expanded view of the facilitation process, visual learning is very different than writing things down. Visual learning is based on learning theories such as Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligence theories mode or other experiential learning theories. In addition, the tools used to support visual learning in facilitation are also connected to theory. So, for example, Google search concept mapping or logic models and you will see that such tools are not simply drawing circles and arrows. The point is that the use of visuals in facilitation needs to be thoughtful, intentional and purposeful for groups and facilitators to be truly effective.

When facilitating for collaboration the first task is for the stakeholders involved to understand and agree to the model of collaboration. In this process, a key role of the facilitator is to clearly describe models of collaboration and have a toolbox big enough to implement the models based on the customized and tailored needs of the group. At this deeper level, collaboration models typically have distinct organizational and governance structures attached and, in some cases, have legal structure implications. My intention is clearly not to offer legal advice but to simply introduce five models of collaboration that can serve as the basis of collaborative groups and teams.

Coalitions: The most readily assessable model of collaboration is the community coalition model. In a community coalition the focus of the collaboration is to concentrate the collective power of the members and focus it on action. Typically coalitions have membership guidelines, operating procedures and often bylaws, governance structures and elected leadership positions. There is a fairly large literature base and many textbooks describing the process and functioning of effective coalitions. Collaboration is based on shared goals and vision related to the action agenda. At times, coalitions use structured memoranda of understanding to help operationalize the collaborative process. A Google search will turn up numerous references for developing coalitions. One succinct primer on coalitions was developed by the Prevention Institute.

Communities of Practice:  Collaboration based on the concept of “communities of practice” involve the creation of a “learning guilds” that support the development of shared expertise and competencies. Developing collaboration around this model primarily focuses on distributing knowledge, competency and building networks between people. While the concept of communities of practice has appeared in the knowledge management literature for at least two decades, Etienne Wenger is one theorist that clearly develops the theoretical framework for this model.

Cooperatives:  A third model for collaboration is found in the concept of developing a cooperative. The drivers for cooperatives are seven principles relating to membership, control, participation, autonomy, learning, networking and social responsibility. Through co-ownership and participatory governance, a cooperative model has potential to encompass both learning and action. The University of Wisconsin has a great resource center dedicated to cooperatives.

Cohousing: At first glance the model of co-housing communities might seem a bit abstract to apply to the business or nonprofit sector. Cohousing is a property ownership and management concept where groups of individuals co-own homes that have elements of both social contact and individual space. Typically, cohousing communities have common facilities such as open space, courtyards, play space, and, in some cases, even shared living space like a communal kitchen. The governance structures for co-housing communities are egalitarian or even Socratic and emphasize problem solving and unanimity. Leaping to inter-agency collaboration, governance around shared values and interest in commons can be powerful. In a day when agency mergers increasingly being seem as a way to keep similar mission driven organizations viable, a co-housing model may be an instructive alternative that allows agencies to retain independence by designing and operating collaborations out of a shared space. A resource on Cohousing is the Cohousing Association of the United States.

Industry Clusters: A final model for collaboration to consider is found in the concept of industry clusters. Industry clusters are basically the associations of companies that share the same maket-space in a particular geographic location. The concept is to create a critical mass of related technologies, workforce and suppliers linked by buyer-seller or peer-to-peer relationships. The intended outcome is that “firms and workers in an industry cluster draw competitive advantage from their proximity to competitors, to a skilled workforce, to specialized suppliers and a shared base of sophisticated knowledge about their industry” (Reference: Oregon Clusters Website). Collaboration in an industry cluster approach balances the needs of individual companies and organizations against the larger need of the entire market with the goal of creating a network effect where the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

There is a myth perpetuated that “collaboration is an unnatural act” but thinking about the models and process of collaboration is, at its core, systems thinking. If we are intentional about imagining what collaboration could look like, it can serve as a frame for a strategic conversation about the role collaboration plays in strengthening the capacity of stakeholders as they seek to expand, grow and achieve a common mission.

As always your comments are welcome

(1)One critical texts that needs to be on your shelf is Michael Scharge’s book No More Teams!: Mastering the Dynamics of Creative Collaboration.

Step 1 Assess the Value Proposition.  As I have shared in another post, assessing the value of a task is at the core of any facilitation process (and consulting relationship).  There needs to be a clear relationship between the value of any performance improvement process and the effort that goes into designing the process.  In the case I briefly outlined above, the operative concept was that the workplan was the basis of a major quality initiative that would ultimately impacting future budgeting processes, performance measures and work-practices.  With the expectation of “implementing a major quality improvement initiative,” developing a workplan in a single meeting would be a stretch for all but the most experienced teams.  So the first step is to assess the task and allocate the resources appropriate to the expected return on the up-front “investments” of time, money and staffing.

Step 2 Establish Clarity around Goals and Objectives. Elsewhere I conceptually discuss goals and objectives in more detail. It suffices to say that workplan development begins with being clear about the world-changing goal and the tactical objectives required to make the change a reality.  In the case described above, the goal was nothing short of a “seismic change in the organizational culture where quality improvement was to become the institutional norm.”  The objectives would be the activities and tactics that the team needed to achieve the goal and the workplan would be roadmap to get them to the goal.  Typically the clarification process to distinguish the goals from objectives is a two-step facilitation process. In the first step the team needs to come to a consensus around the goal statement.  In the second step the team needs to brainstorm and sort the list of tasks required to achieve the goal.  At this stage you write the goal that is clear and complete and identify conceptual objectives that you will further detail in step four.

Step 3 Establish Owners, Team Members. Resources and Approval Process.  The success of workplan implementation is dependent upon someone owning the plan and having the authority to ensure that the plan is implemented.  At this point in the process it is critical that for each conceptual objective is assigned an owner who is accountable for the objective and supporting workplan.  There are occasions where a task may require co-owners (for example, if there are separate implementation and fiscal functions) but co-ownership is only successful when the co-owner roles and authorities are clearly spelled out.  Once an owner is designated, the implementation team, resources and constraints of a task need to be assigned.  Finally, teams need to be clear about the decision-making or approval process associated with the objective.  The purpose of this entire step is to establish the implementation expectations for each conceptual objective.

Step 4 Develop SMART Objectives. At this point, the team takes each conceptual objective and creates a clear tactical objective statement.  One of the most common formatting acronyms for Objectives is “SMART,” where the letters stand for

Specific: Answering “who, what, and how much,”
Measurable: Defining what it looks like when you get there,
Achievable:  Ensuing the activity is within the capacity of your organization and the authority of the team,
Realistic: The cousin of achievable is ensuing that the resources available to support the objective, and,
Time-bound: defining the objective’s ending point.

Step 5 Create Action Steps.  Teams are now prepared for the hard work of developing actions steps that guide the progress towards the objective.  The essential framework is to identify the action steps, due date, team lead, and accountability measures or milestones.  Accountability measures and milestones often get left off of workplans but are critically important because these become the monitoring tools for the workplan owner.  In the process of creating action steps teams need to develop a common understanding on how detailed and deep does the team go in the action steps? Does the team list primary tasks only?  Subtasks? Sub-Subtasks? The balance point will differ from team to team and may take some experimenting by team members.  The balance you are looking for is to be able to monitor the forward motion of the process, ensure communication and accountability without creating unrealistic expectations of documentation and reporting.

Step 6 Create the Workplan.  The final step of the process is to create a formal workplan.  In another post I elaborated on the concept of workplan documentation and point you to that entry for ideas and workplan templates.

As the opening step suggests, implementing this six-step process to create a workplan will scale from a 1-2 hour exercise for low value projects to perhaps several hours for high value initiatives.  While the six steps outlined here may seem like a lot of work, much of the process can actually be summarized on a single worksheet (such as this template).  Whatever the scale of the workplan development process, those teams that invest the attention, focus and resources in working through these six steps will reap the benefits of improved performance.