How to Make Assessments

An assessment is a diagnosis of a situation or conflict to determine whether a consensus process is feasible or likely to waste time and energy. Some sponsors try to economize by skipping this stage, but experience shows that this initial diagnosis is the most essential part of the process. Because some issues lend themselves to consensus and others don't, it actually wastes resources to proceed without first determining whether the situation is ripe for reaching consensus.

There are two parts to an assessment:

The sponsors' assessment — determining whether sponsors are willing to use consensus, and if they are;
The stakeholders' assessment — discussing the prospects for consensus with the other stakeholders before proceeding.

Part 1 — Sponsors' Assessment

It is essential to take a hard look at whether decision making by consensus will fit your agency's objectives and responsibilities. (See the checklists below.) At this stage, an expert in consensus processes can be a useful advisor. States with dispute resolution programs have knowledgeable staff members who can answer questions and help evaluate prospects for negotiation.

If you decide to use a consensus process, it is important to determine exactly what the agency wants to accomplish. Examine the context, history, and present dynamics of the situation, then create a description of the issues from the agency's perspective. Next, you can begin to identify the other stakeholders and consider how those groups might respond to the notion of working together to resolve the issues. It is important to consider the potential obstacles to reaching agreement and evaluate what is likely to happen if a consensus agreement is not reached.

After taking these steps, present the idea to the agency leadership to lay out both the benefits and the costs of this approach. It is important that leadership endorse the concept so the idea can then be presented and discussed with other stakeholders. However, it is best to avoid overselling the notion of consensus to leadership at this point. If you do, you risk spending weeks on internal negotiations to persuade leadership to buy into the idea, often to find out later that other parties are not interested. If an assessment reveals that other parties are not interested, the sponsor may drop the proposal without having to back down from a publicly announced commitment. Either way, the key is to methodically and objectively analyze the situation so the appropriate approach is chosen to address and resolve the issues.

If leadership agrees to move forward, sponsors can then develop a statement outlining the purpose of the consensus process and its relationship to the agency's decision-making procedure. The person doing the assessment can use this statement in exploratory meetings with other stakeholders.

Part 2 — Stakeholders' Assessment

As soon as you decide a consensus process has merit, the next step is to discuss the idea with other parties. This involves learning about each stakeholder's perspective on the situation, answering questions about consensus processes, and gauging motivation. An assessment can also identify issues that are important to stakeholders, the kinds of resources participants will need, and the nature of relationships between parties and how they could affect the dynamics and design of the process. Through these individual meetings, the sponsor and other stakeholders learn whether negotiations are feasible. The checklists on pages 25 and 26 can help make that decision.

It is critical to determine whether parties are genuinely motivated to work together, and that can be difficult to discern. Parties comfortable with the status quo may see a consensus process as an opportunity to drag out an issue or delay approval of a project they oppose. Skeptics about consensus may see an opportunity to participate as good public relations, without ever thinking through what they would do if the process actually worked.

Some stakeholders may be familiar with consensus processes and can decide quickly whether they are willing to participate. On the other hand, they may have concerns because of flaws in previous processes. For others, the idea may be new and the most they can comfortably say is "maybe"—maybe they will , but they need to know more.

The best approach is to begin slowly, respecting each party's desire to protect its interests. In some cases such caution may not be necessary, but often people need a safe way to determine whether a consensus approach is feasible. In practice, the assessment by stakeholders may carry over into organization of the process, since some parties may not agree to move forward until all procedural questions have been clarified and written into a set of ground rules.

Sponsors' Assessment Checklist

Do the issues appear to be negotiable?
Are the interests clearly defined?
Is the issue a priority for stakeholders?
Is there enough time for parties to deliberate (or is it an emergency situation)?
Alternatively, is a deadline "pushing" a decision helping ensure a defined time frame for the process?
Who are the parties? Is there a relative balance of power or do some have better alternatives than negotiating that might be more attractive than reaching consensus?
If issues of race, class, culture, and ethnicity could make it difficult for parties to participate on equal footing, what can be done to overcome those differences?
Are any of the parties framing the issue as one of rights or asserting a fundamental principle they consider to be non-negotiable?
Are any of the parties seeking to clarify a legal question or establish a legal precedent?
Is it likely that political leaders will support a process?
What are the relationships among the parties? Is there a history of conflict or is this issue a onetime occurrence?
Do the parties have political influence that would help the agency implement the decision? For example is funding from the legislature necessary?
Will implementation require the ongoing effort of many parties? Should the sponsoring agency try to achieve an agreement that will lay the foundation for productive collaboration?

Assess the sponsor's objectives

What is the agency's mandate in this matter? What action is the agency required to take? What decisions does the agency need to make?
Does the agency's mandate permit a range of solutions?
What are the options for making the decisions? If the agency makes a decision without the support of affected parties, what is likely to happen? Might the decision be appealed or difficult to enforce?
Is the agency willing to share control of the process and formulation of the decision?
Does the agency have the time and resources to support a consensus process?
Might the decision be better if the affected parties help develop it?

Assessment Questions for Stakeholders

What are the issues from your perspective? What would be the purpose of engaging in a consensus process on these issues?
Are your issues negotiable, or could reaching agreement require you to compromise your interests or values?
Do you believe you would have something to gain by participating or something to lose by not participating? Or do you think another process or forum would be better for you? What do you think is likely to happen if you do not come to some agreement with the other parties?
Is your group organized in a way that will allow you to participate? Which spokespersons represent your group? Is there a mechanism for getting input and feedback from your group in a timely way?
Do you have enough time, money, and people to participate effectively? Or might you need assistance, either to cover expenses or to gather or understand information about the issues?
Who else do you think should be involved to make the effort successful?
What is the history of relationships among the parties?
Do you feel you have a general understanding of what a consensus process entails and how it works, or do you have questions about such processes? Do you have specific concerns you would like to address before you will agree to participate?
What kind of information is needed to resolve the issue? What kinds of information can you provide to the group?
How do you think the other stakeholders would answer all of the above questions?