International Association of Facilitators
1999 Annual Meeting
Williamsburg, Virginia, USA

January 14-17, 1999

#4: Problem-Solving & Decision- Making

Facilitating Collaborative Decision-Making in Six Steps

Sharon Weinberg
Senior Communications and Performance Specialist
CH2M HILL
1111 Broadway, Suite 1200
Oakland, CA 94607, U.S.A.
510/251-2888 ext. 2025
Fax 510/893-8205
sweinber@ch2m.com

Michael Brandon
Decision Analyst
CH2M HILL
100 Inverness Terrace East
Englewood, CO 80112-5304, U.S.A.
303/771-0952 ext. 5257
Fax 303/754-0199
Mbrandon@ch2m.com

Collaborative decision-making can be difficult for individuals who have little experience in facilitation and have to play the dual (and often competing) roles of project manager, technical expert, and facilitator. Using a simple six-step process, these individuals can structure their project planning and implementation processes in a way that promotes team and stakeholder collaboration, allows for effective facilitation and management of the decision-making process, and allows them to contribute to the technical aspects of the project.

The Six Steps

Most decisions fail because of organizational rather than analytical issues. Poor leadership, a faulty problem-solving process, poor teamwork, and lack of commitment are often the underpinnings of failed decision processes. Failed decision processes lead to conflict, loss of credibility, diminished competitive advantage, increased costs, inadequate inclusion of stakeholders, and poor implementation. The six-step process helps resolve conflict and build organizational processes and teams to improve decision-making. Based upon the concepts of interest-based negotiation, decision analysis, break-through thinking, and public involvement, the six step process addresses four primary areas: (1) procedural considerations; (2) organizational elements; (3) analytical aspects; and (4) contextual elements. Using decision tools, the six steps enable decision-makers to manage expectations, solve problems, avoid classic decision traps, and coach leaders and teams to successful decisions.

The six-steps of the process are:

  1. Ensure leadership and commitment
  2. Frame the problem
  3. Develop evaluation models and formulate alternatives
  4. Collect meaningful, reliable data
  5. Evaluate alternatives and make decision
  6. Develop an implementation plan
Success of the six-step process requires that each step be planned and executed sequentially, building on the previous step to provide order and logic to decision-making.
 


 
 

Step 1: Ensure Leadership and Commitment

For a decision process supporting management to succeed, a facilitator should own the process. Lack of leadership support and commitments are primary reasons these management decision processes often fail. Lack of leadership and commitment can occur within the organization or by the facilitator. On an organizational level, lack of commitment is manifested through characteristics such as insufficient allocation of resources to conduct the decision process, hampering open communication, not including the right people at the right time, and not providing true and symbolic support. Poor process leadership and commitment on behalf of the facilitator can also undermine support during the management decision process. With a facilitator, this can occur when a common vision is not created, roles in the decision process are not defined, the decision path is not mapped, or clear, and when measurable expectations are not set. There are other characteristics of ineffective or inefficient leadership and commitment, from both the organizational and facilitator level, but these examples are ones that many individuals have experienced.

The facilitator can ensure the necessary leadership and commitment that is needed for a management decision process to be successful by ensuring that management has:

  1. Clearly defined the need
  2. Committed sufficient resources for the decision process
  3. Set the boundaries for the decision
  4. Involved and empowered the right stakeholders
  5. Define the roles and responsibilities of the participants
The facilitator needs to provide process leadership and demonstrate commitment by:
    1. Helping the group establish a vision
    2. Layout the decision process that will be used
    3. Establish and sustain teamwork
    4. nsure credibility of the decision process
Two decision tools that are instrumental in ensuring leadership and commitment are part of the decision process are development a vision statement and creating a decision map. A vision statement can motivate and inspire a group and creates an image of the desired end product. It focuses the group on the target, where they are ultimately going. It also emphasizes that a solution is attainable and helps the group focus on what it wants to create rather than the problems or challenges that may be present. A decision map creates a road map outlining the path the group will take and breaks the overall decision into a series of smaller, more manageable steps. A decision map or path establishes leadership and alignment by demonstrating knowledge of how the decision process will go forward, thereby eliminating confusion and uncertainty about what will happen next. Credibility and trust in the process and the facilitator are increased because everyone knows what to expect.

Step 2: Frame the Problem

Another reason decision processes often fail is that the problem the decision process is intended to resolve is poorly or inaccurately defined. In our solution-oriented society, it is all too easy to jump to solutions and not take time to ensure that the problem is accurately and completely defined. By applying a decision hierarchy, the facilitator can help a group accurately define or frame the problem they are assembled to solve. A decision hierarchy or pyramid frames a problem in three ways:
    1. At the top, it specifies the known policies, givens, and constraints of the decision, the things that drive and impact the decision but are not changeable.
    2. In the middle of the pyramid, it identifies problem areas and uncertainties, the area of focus during the process.
    3. At the base of the pyramid, it defines the assumptions and details that are follow-on parts of the decision, areas that are beyond the specific scope of the project, and the details for later determination.
Framing the problem can easily be done using a fishbone diagram and an influence diagram. A fishbone diagram enables the team to focus on the content of the problem, by honing in on the causes of the problem rather than the symptoms of the problem. It also creates a good picture of the collective knowledge of the team about the problem. An influence diagram provides the basis for quantitative decision analysis that can be used to compare alternatives. An influence diagram helps teams identify all factors affecting the decision so that an important influence is not omitted inadvertently. It clarifies relationships between decisions to be made, uncertainties that may unfold after the decision is made, and desired outcomes.

Step 3: Develop Evaluation Models and Formulate Alternatives

An important step in any decision process is to develop models to measure success. Without clear evaluation criteria, it is difficult for a decision process to be applied objectively and for the results of such a decision process to be seen as credible.

Achieving consensus about how success will be measured enables a group to reduce the positional bargaining that typically takes place in collaborative settings and moves them into a deliberation style that is more objective, comprehensive, and defensible. At this stage, alternatives are developed based on the groups vision, framing of the problem and understanding of the issues requiring consideration.

Two evaluation models that help groups measure success objectively are developing an objectives hierarchy and creating a strategy table. An objectives hierarchy allows a group to graphically communicate values and illustrate tradeoffs. It also provides an opportunity to compare alternatives and assess a monetary value to the impacts of decisions. Identifying alternatives that overlap or are not independent is a main focus. Creating a strategy table enables the group to display options and consider strategy themes in an organized manner. This approach is excellent when considering multiple and complex alternatives and ensures that a comprehensive set of feasible options can be developed.

Step 4: Collect Meaningful, Reliable Data

All management decision processes require information or data. Often however, the information that is collected is not of real use to the decision making while other information that is critical for effective decision making is not in the process. The most telling impact of this is the real cost and resource impacts of collecting too much, not enough or the wrong information. The result is a decrease in the credibility of the alternatives developed and selected. Additionally, there is a need in any decision process to focus information collection so that only information that is critical to the decision making process is included. Data overload is a common sentiment of many groups and a typical reason many decision processes are compromised.

Decision analysis tools can be helpful for identifying what information is meaningful to the process and how it should be collected. Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and swing weighting can enable groups and the facilitator to effectively determine which information is most important to the decision making process. NGT allows a group to quickly come to consensus (or identify the lack of consensus) about the relative importance of issues or problems by identifying each team member’s personal view of the relative importance. This approach allows each team member to rank issues without pressure from dominant or more vocal team members. It also helps the facilitator shift some of the responsibility for the success of the process on the team members by requiring their active, individual participation. Knowing which issues and considerations are most important will enable a group to focus its data collection on those areas of importance.

Swing weighting is another technique that enables a group to evaluate the relative importance of specific information. Defining criteria weights enables a group to express quantitatively the relative value placed on each objective (previously defined during the Objectives Hierarchy) and its performance criteria. Knowing the relative importance of each objective and the issues related to it will enable the group to focus its data collection efforts on those objectives and issues that are most important. Furthermore, by using different sets of weights, a group can represent the views of multiple stakeholders and perform a sensitivity analysis on how alternative viewpoints effect strategy.

Step 5: Evaluate Alternatives and Make a Decision

Once all the alternatives have been created, they must be evaluated and a selection made. Facilitators and groups often have difficulty in this area, if the evaluation effort is not conducted in an organized and logical manner. The credibility of the selected alternative or solution rests on the defensibility of the evaluation process. Two tools that help groups evaluate alternatives and are easy to facilitate are decision matrices and prioritization through cost-benefit analyses.

A decision matrix allows the group to organize its thoughts about each alternative or solution according to criteria defined by the group. Developing and agreeing on the evaluation criteria before discussing how well (or poorly) each alternative meets the criteria is the first step in developing the decision matrix. The evaluation of the alternatives or strategies can now take place in an objective manner. This process allows the facilitator and the group to identify the strengths and weaknesses of proposed alternatives or solutions.

Not all alternatives will achieve project goals in the same way or to the same level. Prioritization through cost-benefit analysis allows the group to compare and contrast alternatives that have different outcomes or achieve different goals. The outcome of this process is a list of items detailing their specific benefits and estimated costs. This method is beneficial when maximization of goals is important.

Step 6: Develop an Implementation Plan

The credibility of any decision making process rests in part on how well the decisions that are made are actually implemented and how effectively the implementation is carried out. An implementation plan moves the team or group from a planning phase to an implementation phase, by linking an action to each goal. An implementation plan also allows the group to consider barriers, performance interventions, and project management issues that could not or were not addressed in the planning phase.

Successful decision process implementation can occur through the use of action plans and decision tree diagrams. An action plan identifies all the needed actions, target deadlines for critical activities, as well as who will complete the action and the estimated cost or resources needed. It provides the group with the ability to layout what should happen and then track what actually happens. Decision tree diagrams allows the group to see the level of complexity associated with implementing an alternative or solution. It moves the team from the planning phase, which often holds implementation considerations at bay, to the real world where implementation issues become the focus. Decision tree diagrams also enable a team to identify needed changes in procedures or at an organizational level.

Conclusion

The six-step process can help a facilitator plan and conduct a collaborative decision making process effectively by identifying decision traps and resolving unproductive group behavior. The process allows facilitators to foster teamwork, use facts to enhance credibility, and manage risk and conflict.

Biography

Sharon Weinberg is a Senior Communications and Performance Specialist with CH2M HILL, one of the largest environmental consulting firms in the U.S. She has 10 years of experience in developing strategic public participation programs, facilitating consensus-building and team-building, and designing performance improvement programs. Her strengths are in assessing communications and performance problems and developing strategies that achieve immediate business goals, while building and maintaining productive, long-term relationships. She has trained clients in communications skills, collaborative problem solving, conflict resolution, team building, diversity awareness, public involvement strategies, facilitation skills, and risk communication. Ms. Weinberg has been a guest lecturer at the University of California, Davis, the Society of Women Engineers, and the Women’s Transportation Seminar.

Michael Brandon is a Decisions Analyst with CH2M HILL. He has more than 25 years of experience as an innovative Industrial Engineer, Decision Analyst, Value Engineer and facilitator. His strengths lie in organizational development analysis, decision analysis, life cycle costing, and benefit/cost analysis. He has facilitated over 80 Value Engineering and Decision Analysis workshops in both private sector and public sector environments. He developed focused solutions utilizing leadership coaching, professional development, process re-engineering, and skills training. He is a certified Covey instructor, GroupSystems instructor/facilitator and Certified Value Specialist. He has presented papers at the international conferences for the Society of Automotive Engineers and SAVE International on the use of technology supported process facilitation.