Decisions - Participatory Biological Monitoring Guidelines

Systematic decision making—Collaboration involves many decisions. Sometimes decisions are complex and must be forged from disparate values and perspectives. Making systematic decisions involves using clear, understandable, and jointly agreed-upon processes so that choices are perceived to be fair and logical. Doing so improves the likelihood that all parties to the decision will be satisfied with the results.

Collaborative decision-making—Decision-making within groups can take a variety of forms such as majority rule (Robert’s Rules of Order), group consensus (in which all agree), or mediated discussions such as principled negotiation (based on interests rather than positions). The process of deriving decisions in a transparent (open, clear, and understandable), inclusive, systematic, and fair manner can be a powerful trust-building exercise, but outside help often is needed. Facilitation of the decision-making process by a neutral party, especially in large or diverse groups, can be crucial in reaching positive outcomes. Facilitation services abound, both locally and on the web. Getting recommendations for good facilitators can be worth the effort, because use of unskilled facilitators can be counter-productive.

Essentially, collaborative decision-making processes can be considered “micro-politics”, and many of the dynamics of interaction revolve around the relative power and persuasive abilities of the participants. Prior agreement about decision-making principles and procedures will improve acceptance of decisions even if some parties disagree with the results. This can be especially important in consensus-based processes where unanimous agreement on some aspects of a project might be an unattainable goal that would stall progress.

Education and Training—Understanding how to apply systematic and collaborative decision-making in monitoring projects is a valuable skill. Depending on the existing skills of the project coordinators and scope of the project, organizers might benefit from formal training. Such opportunities are widely available in the pubic and private sector, as well as in a large body of literature and on web sites. Our citations provide a small sampling of the literature that covers avoidance of common decision-making mistakes; organized step-by-step methods for identifying, evaluating and selecting alternatives; and ways to document the reasoning that leads to specific choices. In one instance, this process has been codified into a user-friendly software program (see References).

Making collaboration work—Listed here are several fundamental strategies for improving the effectiveness of collaborative decision-making.

Making collaboration work

· Start with small, non-controversial projects to build relationships, trust, and shared vision.

· Try to make every step of the process a collaborative venture, at least within sub-committees
or working groups.

· Remain open to new approaches and ideas.

· Make stakeholders feel welcome and create opportunities for their involvement.

· Allow adequate time.

· Provide prompt feedback to all participants at each stage of the process.

· Make sure participant expectations and needs are explicitly understood by all.

· Treat each other with respect.

· Illustrate with positive examples.

· Get help when needed.

Checklist—

¨ What training will be used so that participants become familiar with the principles, advantages, disadvantages, and applicability of various decision-making methods?

¨ What decision-making processes will be used in various circumstances and how did issues like group size, level of dissention, or importance of the decision affect the choice of process?

¨ Who will make decisions for each part of the project, and how will such individuals or groups be held accountable?