Collaboration: Why Bother?

1. Collaboration:Why Bother? Lane County Moving Forward Together June 11, 2008 The Osprey Group

2. Continuum of Conflict Management Approaches Informal Negotiations Collaborative Facilitation/ Arbitration Legislative Judicial Discussion Problem Mediation Admin Decisions Decisions Solving Hearings ProactiveReactive Decisions made by the parties Decisions made by third party Greater interdependence Interdependence varies The Osprey Group

3. Public Engagement • Lots of approaches or techniques • Need to be clear about the goal for public engagement • Right size it • Collaboration can be highly effective, but it should be used in the right circumstances • Don’t assume that because you have the collaboration hammer, every problem is a nail The Osprey Group

4. Public meeting Working meeting Public hearing Community forum Open house Blue Ribbon panel Task force Advisory committees Facilitated dialogue Use of existing civic groups and others Exhibit with feedback device Brochures Meet with opinion leaders Press release Radio call-in show Petition Survey Focus group interviews Brainstorming sessions Charrette Share background studies or assessments Conflict mediation Internet tools Email Have an “800” number Public Involvement Approaches The Osprey Group

5. Satisfaction with Public Processes The Osprey Group

6. Collaboration: What is It? • People with differing views and interests working together in a systematic and organized way to find workable solutions to shared problems • Typical ingredients: • Multiple stakeholders with diverse interests • Neutral facilitation • Decisions by consensus • Process agreed to by the parties • Multiple viable options identified • Government entity is initiator • Independent technical resources The Osprey Group

7. Not a Panacea • Not a good idea when: • Not everyone agrees there is a problem or conflict • When one or more of the key parties have better ways to achieve their interests (BATNA) • Resolving the issue is not that important to key stakeholders • It is difficult to identify stakeholders who are willing to systematically address the issue • Decisions need to be made quickly or the decision that will be made is clear • Critical thinking is not allowed to generate solutions that are better for everyone • Resources are limited and other less expensive approaches can address the problem adequately The Osprey Group

8. Ingredients for Success • Consider when: • Issues are high priority to all parties • All affected stakeholders are willing and able to participate • No single party can resolve the situation on its own • There is the view that by working together, a better solution can be reached than by working alone • Outcomes or decisions are genuinely in question • Implementation is important and commitment to the solution is desired • There is reasonable time • There are resources available • Neutral facilitation is available The Osprey Group

9. Collaboration Success The Osprey Group

10. Examples • Boulder, Colorado • Challenge: Recognition of transportation limits and need for more creative solutions • Thornton, Colorado • Challenge: Following a divisive Walmart siting decision, need for comprehensive land use planning in area that will double size of the City • Columbia, Missouri • Challenge: Aging Interstate, growing college community, early set positions The Osprey Group

11. Collaboration Success IBoulder, Colorado The Osprey Group

12. Collaboration Success IIThornton, Colorado The Osprey Group

13. Collaboration Success IIIColumbia, Missouri The Osprey Group

14. Outcomes Boulder • Collaborative transportation planning paid huge dividends • Alternative infrastructure and programs are implemented and functioning • Alternative modes of transportation embraced by the community Thornton • Subarea plan unanimously adopted by City Council • Embraced creative campus concept to address identity issue • Emphasis on planned commercial development Columbia • MoDOT has consensus plan for expansion of interstate • Greatly improved understanding of challenges and tradeoffs The Osprey Group

15. West Eugene Collaborative • Purpose Statement • ”Develop an integrated land use and transportation solution supported by stakeholders that will facilitate movement of people and commerce from/through/to west Eugene and west of Eugene while enhancing community, business and the environment."

16. 100 Years in Eugene Same spot taken now. (Above train station looking down Willamette. Image courtesy of Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries.

17. Members Emily Proudfoot Chris Pryor Larry Reed Rusty Rexius Jack Roberts Tom Schwetz Paul Thompson Jim Welsh Gary Wildish Sue Wolling Jan Wostmann Rob Zako John Allcott Susan Ban Rick Duncan Faye Stewart Gerry Gaydos Rob Inerfeld Pat Johnston Don Kahle Kevin Matthews Ed Moore Deborah Noble Mary O'Brien Kitty Piercy

18. Approach The Osprey Group

20. Design Storming

21. WEC: The Challenge Ahead Meaningful engagement with the community Ability to synthesize and simplify numerous land use, transportation and environmental ideas Ability to develop politically-acceptable, technically-feasible and cost effective recommendations Convey WEC recommendations to agencies with implementation responsibilities

22. So Why Bother? Collaboration makes sense under the right circumstances: Genuine problem -- perceived to be important Creative solutions are needed Adequate stakeholder interest Creating advocates for a solution is helpful The situation exists where, by working together, a better and more acceptable solution can be reached than by working alone Collaboration can produce results that satisfy the substantive, procedural and psychological needs of a community

23. Questions? The Osprey Group