In my consulting I have made it a practice to discuss with clients my philosophical approach and the foundational theories that I use to in facilitation.  I find this is often time well spent because it helps to create a shared space for our working relationship. One “shared space” discussion that is important to have with clients is whether the facilitation process is problem-based or solution-based.  In general, I approach performance consulting and facilitation from a solution perspective.    In practice, what that means is that the amount of time needed to define the current situation is way less important than the time spent thinking and acting in the direction of where a client wants to be.  So as a proportion of the overall consulting process, I believe that the time spent in problem identification should be no more than the time required to develop a clear and succinct assessment of the point from which the group or team is starting.  How the group or team got to the starting point rarely matters.  What does matter in the facilitation process is that a group or team is at point A and wants to move forward to point B and a focus on solutions moves the group forward and not backwards.  In this post, I wanted to outline five principles of a solution-focused facilitation process.

.

Start with the solution:  The first step in solution-focused process is, intuitively, to start by defining the solution or range of solutions that need to be considered.  In essence, the solution is the goal that goes far enough upstream to create the performance improvement or change that matters.  For an extensive exploration of a solutions, this step could require a sophisticated process like scenario planning or conversely, it could be as simple as structuring a sequence of inquiry questions. From an appreciative inquiry approach, solutions might be “three wishes” or aspirations of a team and from a performance improvement perspective, the solutions would answer the question of what is the “optimal performance.” Whatever process is used, the point is that when you start from the solution perspective, the group is less likely to get bogged down trying to reverse engineer why the problem exists (a backwards focus)  and instead the group moves forward –and remember that facilitation is first and foremost about forward movement.

.

Create objectives that move you towards the solution:  Once the solution is identified the next step is to identify interim objectives that tell you that you are moving towards the solution. Elsewhere I have written about goals and objectives and in this context it suffices to say that objectives become the  mile-markers that help you know that you are moving towards the solution.

.

Build upon existing practice and experience: The next step in the solution process is to create a shared understanding of how progress is already being made towards the solution. All groups have existing practices and skills that support solutions.  Occasionally, however, I have encountered groups that practice a “collective amnesia” about their practices and experiences.  In these cases, it is important to prompt the group and draw out their existing practices and experiences that support the achievement of the solution.  Simply asking the question, “what is happening within this team and organization that supports the solution?” can change a facilitation process by getting folks to think about their strengths.

.

Resource the Solution:  The fourth step in facilitating from a solution perspective is to spend time developing a resource plan to make sure that the solution can be achieved.  For example, if performance improvement is the solution, then the resources required to help create the performance improvement might include such things as job design, organizational development, staff development, or program support. As with any journey towards a new destination, a team needs both a plan and the resources to carry to plan forward.

.

Document and Monitor the Plan: The fifth step in a solution process is to document and monitor the plan.  While I have written elsewhere about creating workplans and monitoring the progress towards achieving the plan, it never hurts to reinforce the point that that teams and organizations need clear expectations and a roadmap for success.  Further, teams need to be able to network with each other, have access to coaching and mentoring along the way, and have mechanisms for accountability if new solutions are to be achieved.

.

As I reflect on this five-point outline, I think it reads a bit like a “Mechanix Illustrated” for facilitators.  But underneath this step-by-step approach is an underlying philosophy that needs to be attended to.  Often time, facilitators enter an agency as an outside “expert” with a toolbox (or worse –a magician’s hat) to solve the client’s “problems.”  This mechanic’s approach basically says “I can come into your agency and fix your problem in five steps.” Unfortunately, such a facilitation approach is all too common and in the hands of such a mechanic, a solution-focused approach is just a tool.  In reality, solution-focused facilitation is more than a tool and is really about pedagogy.  True solution-focused facilitation is born out of empowerment education and constructivism with both of these foundations asserting that the facilitator is a co-equal learner. Far from a mechanic’s “expert approach”, solution-focused facilitation is about co-creation. So, coming back to the opening line of this post, I want to underscore  that philosophy matters and the facilitator and client need to create a shared space around philosophy.

.

I carry around in my head many truisms from the radical, innovator and philosopher Henry David Thoreau and one statement he penned is, “though I do not believe that a plant will spring up where no seed has been, I have great faith in a seed.  Convince me that you have a seed in there, and I am prepared to expect wonders.” To me, this is the heart and soul of solution-focused facilitation.

.

As always, your comments 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

Raise you hand if in the last three months you have sat in a meeting that was dominated by process model of information presentation ==> discussion ==> and decision; followed by information presentation ==> discussion ==> and decision, in a pattern that was repeated until the end of the meeting?  Unfortunately hierarchical meeting structures are still all too common in meetings today.  You can put your hand down.  In my last post I discussed the shift of group interaction away from hierarchical, government thinking towards governance as a dominant facilitation model.  In this new facilitation environment the old framework where the facilitator imparts and the group members receive, memorize, and repeat is wholly inadequate in meeting the challenges of facilitating for governance. My contention is that governance thinking requires the re-discovery of community organizing tools and methodologies and constructivist learning theories.  One place where the theories of community organizing and constructivism meet is in the framework of empowerment education.

.

The father of empowerment education is Paulo Freire and I encourage all facilitators to read deeply of his work.  There are a three  principles that I would like to briefly discuss as touchstones of Freire’s work. These three principles, in my view, are integral to informing the skill-set of any contemporary facilitator.

.

Conscientization: The first touchstone is that Freire’s believed that all learning is political. Conscientization, as he described the concept, was that education had the function of developing a critical awareness about the social, political, and economic contradictions and realities so that individuals would take action against the oppressive elements of reality.  Transferring this concept to facilitation, it forces the facilitator to see that facilitation is not simply the process of information presentation ==> discussion ==> and decision.  Facilitation becomes the process of making the connections between the internal context and external context to not only create change but also open the possibility for sea change.  In another post I wrote extensively about facilitating for community engagement, which serves as the basic process for a conscientization approach to facilitation.

.

Constructivism: The second touchstone of Freire’s pedagogy is that learning is not a process of transmitting of information and imposing decision-making from the top-down.  In the hierarchical model, the experts are on top and the majority of the group (below) are passive receptacles in the process. Constructivism purports that learning is an active process of construction on the part of all learners that involves making meaning out of a multiple perspectives and data.  Constructivism requires a facilitator to move beyond simple brainstorming, sorting and prioritizing exercises and engages groups in such authentic tasks as creating, designing, analyzing and deciding (a topic for further exploration in  a follow-up post).

.

Praxis: A third touchstone of Freire’s thinking is the concept of praxis. Freire believed that local transformation is the product of praxis at the collective level.  Together, groups need to move from theory to practice.  In application, praxis becomes an iterative process of theory, application, evaluation, reflection, and then back to theory.   Learner driven experimentation is the basis for true system’s change and performance improvement and the facilitator’s role is to create the dynamics of iteration.  One approach to engage learners in iterative learning is to use strategies of rapid cycle testing (such as the Plan, Do, Study, Act model). Additionally, the concept of praxis also implies learning over time and that creates for a facilitator the need to think in terms of the long view.

.

Empowerment education is a critical theory that serves well as one of the foundation stones of facilitation.  A facilitator needs to understand the experiences and worldviews of the group in order to successfully foster change and further the learning process. Moreover, strong facilitation uses empowerment and critical reflection to not only solve the pressing and immediate need but also seeks to equip groups to applying such thinking to future problems.

.

As always your thoughts are welcome.

.

References

Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Freire, P. (1995) Pedagogy of Hope. Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: Continuum.

.

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.

.

References:
.
(1) Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation
(2) Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge
(3) In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work

.

A community engagement process such as developing a community coalition or an advisory group  typically has the dual purposes of achieving a specific program outcome (such as advocating for funding or policy change) and attempts to build social networks between participants.  Coalitions or advisory groups are convened typically because each participant comes with very different perspectives, assets and power with the goal of achieving through collective effort what individuals cannot achieve on their own.  By fostering collaboration, it is the classic systems view of the “whole being more than the sum of the parts.”  So when a facilitator tracks the progress of the group, in addition to measuring process and outcome, s/he needs to measure the strength of the network. So what does measuring a network look like?  I would like to offer three frames that might serve as network measurement.

Measuring Social Networks:  The concept of measuring social networks basically identifies the extent and intensity of social relationships among the individuals and organizations in the community engagement process.  Using qualitative tools to take “snap shots” of individual and organizational practices over time, this evaluation approach can be used to describe the size and structure of networks, positions, roles and communication and interaction patterns among members. Measuring social networks is a way to estimate the “effect” of the coalition with the assumption that when a network is growing in scope and depth then there is likely a positive network effect being created by the engagement process.  There are software tools that can help in measuring social networks and there is a large literature base describing social network measurement.  A case study that I have found very useful in illustrating this methodology is a report of the Reclaiming Futures National Program Office (disclaimer: I do development work for this organization but had nothing to do with this evaluation).

Measuring Social Capital:  There are many ways of looking at the concept of social capital some of which overlap social network measurement.  In this context, I would like to suggest that social capital measurement differs from social network measurement in that social capital is not only interested in the breadth and depth of networks but also considers the power distribution in that network.  Some of the best resources on measuring social capital come from the international community and, from all places, the World Bank.  Using works like trust, solidarity, collective action, and inclusion, a social capital approach suggests greater attention to the power dynamics of a coalition or advisory group.  It asks not only if groups are working together but also asks if there is equity and balance in the power and relationships.

Measuring Entrepreneurial Actions:  Back in 1978 I cam across a paper that discussed the concept of measuring entrepreneurial behavior in nonprofit agencies.  This paper influenced how I thought about capacity in nonprofit agencies by offering a way to think about measuring the creative force of an organization.  I have pondered if there are implications for coalition measurement.  In other words, could we use entrepreneurial intent as a marker for measuring coalition strength?  Zooming ahead a decade, there is increasing discussion of the concept of “industry clusters” as a regional economic engine (I introduced clusters as a collaboration model in another post).  Associated with this economic development theory are emerging models for measuring “regional entrepreneurship capital.” Such measures look at physical capital, cooperation, human capital, knowledge capital and social capital.  For coalitions, a measurement framework might identify a collection of indicators related to these “capital” domains, aggregate the indicators for all coalition members, and track those indicators over time.  Growth in these indicators would indicate that the coalition “market sector” is growing by leveraging joint actions of members or by expanding the network.

As I stated in the beginning of this post, measuring progress as one facilitates community engagement needs to include an assessment of process and outcomes.  Those twin measures are the basis of ethical facilitation practice.  However coalitions and advisory groups convened for interdependent long-term action also requires measuring the social network and capital effects of the convening.  Unfortunately, network measurements takes additional time, resources and are often beyond a project scope.  However, there is a deeper point than lecturing about the need to do an evaluation that often cannot be afforded.  The point underscores the premise of the first post, which is that facilitating community engagement requires more than group facilitation skills. In designing community engagement processes, facilitators need to consider the power of convening community partners. That power is inherent in the relationships that can be cultivated by the facilitation process and measured (formally or informally) over time.  If this power is ignored or underutilized it can result in a coalition that is weak and ineffective.  Conversely, if capitalized on, nurtured and measured, the collective power of the network can expand capacity in ways that no one agency could achieve alone.  If a formal network evaluation cannot be an “action,” due to budget or scope constraints, it still must remain a frame of reference for the facilitator. Having a network measurement focus going into a community engagement process distinguishes a community engagement process from mere meeting facilitation.

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.

At the foundation level, all strategic planning models share the same basic program planning process flow.  Models start with gathering data, making sense of the data, considering alternatives, developing goals and objectives, creating an implementation, and finally monitoring progress.  I have studied models with anywhere from 4-10 step variations of the “flow diagram” but essentially strategic planning processes are basically all the same.  Some planning models are linear while others turn straight lines into steps and others turn steps into a circular and iterative process. However, it is represented, the given of strategic planning is that it is a process that moves from “data to direction” in a sequence.  These steps comprise the “how” of strategic planning. A strategic planning framework (built upon the foundation of how) answers the deeper questions of “who,” “why,” “so what,” and “what’s next?” Frameworks need to be intentionally considered at the formative stage of strategic planning as they have the potential of significantly shaping the process.  So what are the strategic planning frameworks?  I would like to offer the following framework archetypes.

Centralized or Directed Planning Frameworks:  Employed by many companies and even some governments, a central or directed planning framework is organization and structure focused.  Often it is a top down planning process that is hierarchical in nature.  The resulting plan is often in the voice of the organization’s leadership and can even look like the anthropomorphism of the organizational structure.  Such strategic plans focus on what has been decided and the strategic planning process is the process of announcing decisions to the staff and other stakeholders of the organization.

Self-Organizing Frameworks:  At the other end of the spectrum from centralized planning is a self-organizing framework for strategic planning.  Contemporarily represented by the Open Space Technology group process the framework is an egalitarian planning process that empowers all stakeholders to co-create strategic plans.  Grounded in the theories of empowerment education as espoused by Brazilian educator Paulo Freire, the self-organized plans are bottom-up in orientation rather than top down.  People powered plans may also disrupt or challenge the current norms of operation.

Future-Referenced Frameworks:  While many strategic planning models peer into the future as part of considering alternatives and/or prioritizing options, future-referenced processes like scenario planning and outcome mapping reflect a framework that focus on envisioning and creating a future.  Such plans that are future focused shift the process of data collection and sorting from using “historical known data to present data” to using “present data and future-referenced data.” Plans emerging from a future referenced frame often contain evolutionary “DNA” that offer degrees of freedom in responding to a changing environment.

Organizational Learning Frameworks: While the fields of organizational learning and knowledge management are not typically associated with strategic planning, there is increasing interest in how strategy development and implementation is embedded in the learning and knowledge management functions of organizations.  Strategic plans emerging from this framework are likely to resemble a constructivist learning platform or curriculum.

Appreciative Inquiry Frameworks:  The final framework that I would propose is one that is based on an appreciative inquiry approach.  As another participatory framework, appreciative inquiry is an approach to planning that is grounded in organizational self-efficacy and the strategies that build on strengths and aspirations of the organization rather than trying to dismantle or improve areas of deficit.

As I suggested in the opening of this blog the purpose of this article is not to detail how you would implement these frameworks. Indeed, each of these frameworks outlined have a distinct body of literature connected to them and require some study before being implemented well.   Rather, I would like to suggest what I think these diverse approaches mean to the consideration of strategic planning.  I believe that there are two primary points.

First, each of these frameworks implies an organizational culture.  Centralized planning suggests a different culture than a self-organizing or organizational learning culture. In selecting a strategic planning framework it needs to be aligned with the existing or emerging organizational culture.  I have seen hierarchical organizations try to experiment with people-centric frameworks like “organizational learning” or “open space technology” but unless there is a full commitment to shifting the organizational culture the outcomes of such experiments are marginal at best.  So matching organizational culture with your strategic planning framework matters.

Second, I believe that each framework offers a distinct answer to the ultimate question of “what’s next?”  Going back to the Executive Director my opening story.  In her opinion there was little need for yet one more round of strategic planning but the guidance she sought was around implementation of the existing plan.  The guidance she needed was to “reverse engineer” from the strategic plan backwards to a framework and culture.  In other words, the impetus and energy for moving her agency’s strategic plan off of the shelf and into action would be found in the culture and framework that she is creating within the organization.

In summary, for those considering a strategic planning process, being explicit about the framework is the task of connecting the “how” of strategic planning with the dominate culture that will give energy and life to the strategic plan.  “Anyone can create a strategic plan,” one mentor of mine once joked, “I have four of them on my shelf to prove it.“ However, creating a plan that moves your agency forward requires linking the process with a cultural framework.