Collaborative Solution Discovery

From Despotism to Democracy

Through a process over many centuries, culminating two-hundred-plus years ago in the founding of our nation, a transformation occurred in governance.  That transformation was from despotism to republican democracy.  At the time it was either laughed to scorn or feared as the path to anarchy and chaos by the established world leaders, but in years to follow it spread to be the dominant form across the globe (with notable exceptions and backsliding of course).  As it evolved it has served well the nations that adopted it.

Now it’s time for another paradigm shift as profound as the shift two centuries ago from despotism to democracy.  The conditions are ready for it, and the consequences of not making that shift may be fatal for democracy, not only in the U. S., but globally.  The means, motive and opportunity exist.  The needed shift, simply enough, is from adversarial to collaborative discourse as our default approach to complex, contentious issues in a democratic system.  That may sound impossible, but consider the price of failing.

Democracy in our republic has been and currently is based on adversarial discourse, conducted (we’d prefer) with civility among our elected representatives with differing views on what constitute our goals and the means to achieve them.  In theory, by pitting the various positions against one another in the adversarial arena, the best solution will rise to the top.  For the last two centuries, that theory has worked out reasonably well, but now, faced with an over-abundance of issues of broad scope and deep complexity, democracy based on adversarial discourse has risen to its level of incompetence.

Next Step in the Journey: Competent Political Process

We need competent political process that can deliver good solutions to complex contentious issues.  A good solution has three qualities.

• It is effective in eliminating the problem.
• It has the flexibility to allow correction of its inevitable flaws and adaptation to unexpected changes.
• It enjoys consensus support of its stakeholders so dissatisfied stakeholders are not always attempting to undermine it.

Adversarial Process Can’t Work

Traditional politics by its very nature is virtually incapable of delivering any of these qualities.

Some of the defects of the adversarial method are…

• It locks opposing factions into rigid positions that ignore significant aspects of reality.
• It oversimplifies both the complexity of the problem and the corresponding complexity of the solution.
• It fragments both the problem and the solution into squabbles about disconnected details while the overall context is forgotten.
• It suppresses creativity that is necessary in searching “outside the box” for a truly effective solution.
• It freezes out the flexibility of the solution that is needed so the solution can correct its inherent flaws and adapt to changing conditions.

Would you fly in an airplane that was designed in the halls of Congress?  The issues we are trying to resolve through politics are equally as complex and life-critical as airplane design.

Collaborative Process Is the Logical Alternative

If the adversarial paradigm no longer works for democracy, would it not be logical to look for the remedy in the realm of collaborative process?  The motive for the shift to the collaborative paradigm is the realization that our world of burgeoning population, increasing global interdependence, and rapidly evolving powerful technology requires effective solutions, and quickly, for the many issues we face, among which climate disruption may be the supreme but not the sole issue that can do us in.

Obstacles To the Transformation

The primary obstacle to the transformation is the common belief that adversarial discourse is the only realistic way to go and that collaboration is dreaming.  That obstacle is overcome in part by demonstrating that both the means and the opportunity exist.  Further, collaboration in most cases achieves results superior to any alternative, whether fighting it out in the debating arena, resisting, or walking away.  Realistically, it may not be possible to get full collaboration in all instances.  In such cases, the recalcitrant parties are considered part of the problem to be addressed.

 But collaboration is a hard sell.  Conventional wisdom is that collaboration runs against human nature which drives us to defend our own narrow interest against rivals, and anyway, we’ve always settled our political issues through adversarial process, so how can we change?

The counter argument is that results are the only thing that counts, regardless of our preconceptions.  Adversarial process is flat-out failing and society will follow a downward path unless we change.  Policy see-sawing as one party and then the other is in power, gridlock when parties are evenly matched or unable to get their own act together, and half-baked compromises when it happens that issues are resolved, all produce a rate of political progress that lags far, far behind the pace of rapidly evolving reality in today’s global-digital world.  On the other hand, there are numerous examples where collaborative process gets results but they are generally below the notice of the conflict-addicted media and therefore not familiar to the general public.

Collaborative process does not eliminate parties.  Under the collaborative paradigm, parties remain as the conduit for the interests of their constituents, but operate as constructive participants in the process, realizing that the advances they seek are more effective, stable and permanent if achieved with broad support.

 Components of Collaborative Democracy

A paradigm for collaborative democracy, as found in many fields where complex issues are addressed, has some indispensable components which were already identified in other branches of this site:

• Stakeholder engagement
• A competent process roadmap
• Transformative leadership.

Stakeholders

Any system, in order to endure and thrive, must make winners of all its stakeholders.  That is a law of human affairs having almost the force of a physical law of nature.  Myriad examples of failure to resolve issues, stemming from stakeholder resistance and rebellion, confirm this. Therefore, inclusive stakeholder engagement must be present from the get-go in the solution-discovery effort.   A critical mass of stakeholders must accept the reality that collaboration is the only way to success.

Process Roadmap

A competent roadmap must be employed to navigate the thicket of complexity and contention in which any issue is embedded.  The roadmap starts with what we know about the problem and its prospective solutions, then moves forward in logical steps, acquiring knowledge as we go, until we know everything necessary for implementing a good solution tht will extinguish the problem.   This roadmap must be understood and supported by the stakeholders.  A necessary feature of this roadmap is incremental consensus-building, by which stakeholders of diverse interests are brought to share in the commitment to reach a solution acceptable to all.  Winging it, going on intuition, assembling a process out of random bits we’re familiar with from past experience, blindly repeating past examples, will not work when we’re faced with something dauntingly complex that we’ve never before encountered.  An intentional solution-discovery process, constructed according to sound principles, is a must. Templates for such a roadmap are available in many fields.

Transformative leadership

Old-style leadership — the boss who dictates the answer, the advocate for one option out of the many offered, the hero-genius who single-handedly solves the problem to the amazement of lesser folk — is obsolete.  It must go the way of the dinosaur.

In the new transformed collaborative paradigm, the leader operates above the level of contending viewpoints, with neutrality toward all the solution options.  The motive of leadership is to ensure that a good solution emerges, whatever that may be.  The role of leadership…

• Manage the solution-discovery process as it moves along the process roadmap,
• Facilitate inclusive stakeholder engagement,
• Uphold the vision of success through collaboration.

The Process Roadmap: Collaborative Solution-Discovery

One of the necessary components, a competent process roadmap, is an epistemologically sound pathway from first problem awareness to a final state of solution-in-place-and-operating.  “Epistemologically sound” means acquiring all the knowledge necessary to craft a good solution and verifying that knowledge to be true.  Such a process roadmap exists and is in use in many fields.  Unfortunately, if politicians are even aware of it, they seem never to use it.

The Muddlebuster has become aware of this process roadmap through a career in aerospace engineering where it is the key to success with highly complex projects with many contributors.  The Muddlebuster’s most recent experience in aerospace was with the International Space Station.  Another example of collaborative process is found in highway planning, called Context Sensitive Solutions (see NCHRP Report 480), for which I-40 through Glenwood Canyon in Colorado is the poster project.  Recently, The Muddlebuster has been advising a group of educators in the LA area on the use of collaborative methods whereby a local school district is developing their own improved teaching/learning methodology leading to math mastery in the K–12 system.

The essence of this process is to set up a solution-discovery project to address a complex and contentious issue.  This process is established on answers to four basic questions.  This project is then executed by a core team with the necessary discipline and process expertise, fully engaging the stakeholders in their proper role of defining goals and values, and reviewing proposed solutions.  This project is under leadership that manages the process and facilitates stakeholder engagement, with neutrality toward the content and results of the project.  This process is called Collaborative Solution-Discovery (CSD).  The four basic questions of CSD, called the Solution Search Path, are:

1. Who are the stakeholders and what are their deep concerns, interests, values, priorities, fears and aspirations?
2. What is the Definition of Success, in terms that are independent of any choice of solution-form, that contains all the qualities of outcome that are important to any of the various stakeholders? Note that these qualities of outcome in aggregate will contain the gaps, inconsistencies and conflicts to be resolved in the course of the project.
3. What method is used to generate a Menu of Options with good likelihood of containing at least one good one?
4. What is the Method of Evaluation to be used in selecting the best solution from among the available options?

It is advisable that these four questions be addressed formally and the results documented, with stakeholder approval.  This is especially so for a large project, executed under a well-crafted project plan that enjoys full buy-in from the participants.  If a more informal project plan is appropriate, the four questions should still be addressed explicitly.

Are these four questions both necessary and sufficient to set up a competent solution-discovery project?  To test that, first ask: what would be the consequences of failing to adequately address any of these questions?  If such a failure jeopardizes the solution-discovery project, then each of the questions is necessary.  Next, ask: is there anything else that must be addressed to set up a good solution discovery project?  If not, then the four questions as a set are sufficient.

Fulfilling the Vison of Our founding Fathers

Solution-discovery projects of this sort would be an augmentation and extension of our current political institutions, and are fully in accordance with the vision of our Founding Fathers.  They might be initiated and executed within the halls of government by our elected and appointed officials.  Or they might be initiated and executed by extra-governmental organizations, led and performed by citizens, or they might be a combination of those two modes.

Collaborative Solution-Discovery at the Federal Level

A template for Collaborative Solution-Discovery at the federal level might consist of certain steps.

1. One or more Senators and/or House Members identify an issue needing solution and call together an initial project core team to address the issue.
2. All Senators and House Members, at the request of the project core team, conduct a stakeholder audit embracing ALL stakeholders within their jurisdiction, not just their supporters. This audit identifies the stakeholders by type and documents their interests,  concerns etc. regarding the issue in question.
3. With the stakeholder audits as input, the project core team prepares a provisional draft of the Definition of Success representing resolution of the issue in question.
4. The Definition of Success is publicized to the stakeholders and their comments are accepted.
5. The Definition of Success is revised until agreeable to the stakeholders
6. Neutral experts are recruited to conduct the solution search and solution evaluation steps. Stakeholder suggestions and approval are part of the recruiting process.
7. The experts conduct solution search and evaluation, with stakeholder review, until a preferred solution emerges.
8. Congress then enacts a bill establishing the selected solution as law.

Transcending Traditional Limitations

The picture presented here so far is pretty much within the image of governance conducted in the traditional manner.  People meet together to address an issue, and communication is through traditional media.  This can and does work on small scale where people can get together directly and the magnitude of the input from various quarters is manageable.  Until now its limitations prevent its use at a scale necessary to address our serious national issues.  However, the explosion of Information Technology demolishes that barrier.  Move on to the branch called 21^st Century Grassroots Governance to explore how that might work.