When is a Collaborative Process Appropriate (or not)?

Consensus may sound like a great idea: bring everyone together, learn what interests they have, then negotiate their differences. But the truth is, a consensus process is not always appropriate. Certain conditions make consensus more likely to happen. It is important to become familiar with the factors that lend themselves to reaching consensus and those that do not, so that time and energy are not wasted trying to negotiate issues that just won't budge.

When is a consensus process more likely to be appropriate?

Most issues are in some sense negotiable — at some time. Public issues are dynamic and usually have more potential for agreement than the parties may perceive. A consensus process is more likely to be appropriate when:

The issues are negotiable, of high priority, and do not focus primarily on constitutional rights or fundamental values.
The interests are known and organized well enough so that spokespersons can represent them.
There is a relative balance of power. No one party can get what it wants on its own. The parties recognize that because each could block a decision from being made, they need one another's support, or in some cases acquiescence, for action to be taken. This uncertainty, combined with the appeal of having a direct role in the decision making process, can make a consensus process look attractive.
A sponsor may have the authority, but not the power, to make an effective decision. It would rather try to reach an acceptable solution with contending parties than make a decision and have to defend it in another government forum, where other officials could change it.
There are enough resources to support a consensus process. The sponsor can afford the staff time and the cost of hiring a facilitator and technical experts.
Political leaders support both the process and the timing with regard to elections or other political events.
Relevant laws allow enough latitude for the parties to negotiate an agreement.

When is a consensus process less likely to be appropriate?

A consensus process is not likely to succeed or be appropriate when:

The interests are too diffuse to be identified and negotiations could substantially affect people who cannot be represented.
The range of potential solutions is too limited; some mandates may prescribe solutions that are too narrow for negotiation.
The situation is an emergency and there is not enough time for consensus building (bearing in mind, however, that a sense of urgency can sometimes bring about efficient negotiations).
One party may have sufficient power to get the solution it wants without having to negotiate; it has a better alternative to a negotiated agreement. However, parties can sometimes be overconfident about their chances before a judge or other government decision maker and incorrectly assume they will prevail.
One or more parties may frame the issue as a matter of rights to be decided by the courts, rather than through a process of give and take. Or they may believe a fundamental principle is at stake, one they believe would be compromised if they were to participate.
There may be a need for a court to clarify a legal question or set a precedent.
Some stakeholders may want to appear open but have no interest in cooperating. They may believe that reaching consensus is impossible but want to avoid being blamed for failing to try. They may also conclude that attending meetings is an acceptable price to pay for good public relations and for staying on good terms with public officials they work with on other matters.
A party may seek delay and hope that a consensus process will bog things down.
The level of concern about the issue is not great enough for people to be willing to commit their time and energy to participate.
Not all governments or agencies with decision-making authority will commit to implementing an agreement (if one is reached) that satisfies the mandates.