Outline – Collaborative Decision-Making Process

Last updated: May 13, 2024

Additional Information: Brown County Leader Network – Support Guide includes improvement methods and tools to include stakeholder identification and  analysis,

Collaborative Decision-Making Process for Major Issues

Context.  One of the responsibilities of citizenship is to serve as a Jurist. This requires the application of critical thinking skills that can also be applied to assessing the results of new positions, policies, or initiatives. For instance, in the context of the justice system, the process starts with a need for a decision. The prosecutor and defense represent opposing sides of an argument. They introduce facts, evidence, and witness testimonies, present arguments and counterarguments, and finally, closing arguments. Jurors/citizens consider all the information and make a decision. A similar process can be applied to assess the effectiveness of a policy, new or existing law, regulation, or any other type of initiative.

Too often in the county, only one-sided closing arguments are presented to support a major decision that is “fast-tracked” to minimize any opposing points of view. This results in a loss of trust and confidence in the quality of the local government among the citizenry.

Scope of Change.  Three types of improvement initiatives:  (1) Maintain/sustain the status quo, (2) incremental improvement, or (3) new/radical change.  The higher the degree of change, the higher the risk of failure.

Risk. Identify what can go right or wrong. A risk matrix can be used to identify the probability of occurrence (high, medium, low), the effect if it does happen (high, medium, low), and what could be done to mitigate the risk if it occurs.

Three levels of discussion:

1. Public Forum. Hold public meetings to collect information and provide updates on the status of the project.
   1. Social media is a public forum where issues, opinions, and concerns are also shared. In the case of the 2024 Referendum, various Facebook Groups identified unresolved questions, concerns, and problems that could be addressed by one or more working groups.
   2. Identify stakeholder groups, their needs, what will be provided, expectations, and feedback needed to assess how any changes will result in improvement.
2. Working Groups.
   1. Create working groups that document the information provided in public forums. Several individuals/groups may be needed based on the complexity of the issue.
   2. Perform additional analysis that may be needed, document references, and draft an assessment (white paper). Share drafts of the evaluation at public meetings, social media, Brown County Democrat. Incorporate feedback and make changes as needed.
   3. Develop a decision brief that summarizes the facts, options, pros and cons of each option and a recommendation (s)
3. Elected Officials. For decisions requiring county resources, provide updates throughout the process to the council and commissioners to update them on the status of the project, address questions and concerns, and ultimately obtain a decision.

Expected Outcome: Citizens have confidence that the process for arriving at a proposed decision was credible, fair, and objective – that their voice was heard and considered.

Process.

1. Problem Identification.
   1. Identify the issue, purpose, and intent.
   2. Gather questions, facts, and assumptions. Identify constraints and risks.
   3. Document the problem statement.
2. Solutions:
   1. Identify decision criteria.
   2. Identify at least three options
   3. Identify the pros and cons of each option to include the financial and cultural factors.
   4. Compare options and rank and rate the alternatives.
   5. Draft an implementation plan of action
   6. Conduct the decision brief.
   7. Make changes as needed.
3. Execute the plan
4. Follow-up. Periodically assess results. Did the change result in the expected improvement?