National Academies Press: OpenBook

Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity (2014)

Chapter: Appendix D - Supporting Material for the Collaboration Assessment Component of the Web Tool

« Previous: Appendix C - Project Methodology
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Supporting Material for the Collaboration Assessment Component of the Web Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Supporting Material for the Collaboration Assessment Component of the Web Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Supporting Material for the Collaboration Assessment Component of the Web Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Supporting Material for the Collaboration Assessment Component of the Web Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Supporting Material for the Collaboration Assessment Component of the Web Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 83

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

79 Criteria Statements For each category of assessment, several statements allow users to evaluate the existing process or team dynamics on a five-point scale: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, strongly agree, agree, not applicable. A full list of criteria statements is provided in Table D.1. Strategy example: Organizational Support Organizational support is the level of commitment received from individual agencies as represented by the availability of resources and required support. This relates to the degree of buy-in from the agency for a collaborative process. Potential Risks Several risks can arise when there is not an adequate level of organizational support from one or more agencies participat- ing on a project team. Foremost among these is the potential for agencies to not “buy in” to the results of the plan or project team’s work, potentially creating future delays and redo loops. Additionally, there is a risk that the team may not be aware of information or perspectives that would be brought to the pro- cess by an agency that is not providing adequate support. This could result in a decision being made that is not the most pref- erable outcome, having been made without all the relevant information and all the affected agencies involved. Questions to Consider • Are partner agencies demonstrating collaborative behaviors? • Is this a more recent development, or has this been ongoing since the inception of the project? • Does this agency perceive a reason to join a collaboration partnership? If not, why do you think it would be beneficial from the agency’s point of view to join a collaboration (what is in it for them)? • What level within the organization is demonstrating a lack of willingness to collaborate—executive, manage- ment, or staff? • Does this agency have significant time or financial resource constraints that limit its ability to participate in a collab- orative partnership? What strategies can you use as their partner to help overcome these restraints (e.g., supporting additional resources or stretching the timeline for the commitment of resources)? Things You Can Do Lack of organizational support often leads to an under- resourced project, indecision on the part of the organization’s decision makers, and the appearance of disengagement on the part of the organization’s representatives. Without true support, key decisions can be held up indefinitely, and the uncommitted agency can begin to have a negative effect on other partner agencies. There are many reasons why an organization fails to appro- priately support collaborative teams, which are listed below. Solutions to these common issues are provided in the follow- ing sections. • The organization’s leadership does not see the value of the team’s products or processes. • The organization has competing values and/or priorities. • The organization is experiencing significant resource constraints. • The organization is experiencing significant change. Organizational Leadership Many new teams are established with a great deal of fanfare. But over time, the purpose and value of a team’s work can a p p e n D I x D Supporting Material for the Collaboration Assessment Component of the Web Tool

80 Table D.1. Criteria Statements Category Criteria Statements Process steps • Team members rarely voice disagreement with the documented process. • The process steps are clearly stated/documented. • The process steps are logically arranged. • The process steps are necessary and important. • The process steps can be adapted to our needs without sacrificing quality and consistency. • The process steps are easy to understand. Data and information • Key decisions are heavily influenced by the data and information that is presented by team members. • Team members rarely voice dissatisfaction with the data and information they are provided. • The data and information are appropriate for the task and the available technology. • The data and information are current, reliable, and valid. • The data and information are logically organized. • The data and information are accessible. • The data and information are in a “ready-to-use” format. Tools and technology • Team members agree that they have been provided the right tools and technology. • Tools and technology that the teams receive are supportive of decision making. • Tools and technology that the teams receive are reliable, helpful, and/or effective. • Tools and technology that the teams receive are compatible with other systems and tools that the team members use. • Team members understand how to use the tools and technology that are provided. • Tools and technology are available to team members. Organizational support • The leadership of all the partner organizations see the value of the team’s products and processes. • Partner organizations see the team and its work as a high priority. • Partner organizations have the resources that are necessary to support the team. • Partner organizations have a relatively stable environment. Decision-making authority • The team members assigned to the team hold the appropriate authority level to make required decisions on behalf of their agency. • Individual team members have a clear understanding of their level of decision-making authority. • Team members’ agencies accept the decisions made on behalf of their organization. • Team members accept the decisions made by other team representatives. Participant stability • Appropriate team members have been assigned to the team. • Team members agree that the project goals are important or a priority. • Team members’ other obligations do not prevent them from remaining or participating on the team. • Organizational turnover among team members is low. • Internal conflict exists among team members. • Teams are productive and members want to be associated with project team outcomes. Role clarity • Team members’ roles and expectations are clearly defined. • Team members accept their roles and responsibilities. • Team members respect the roles and responsibilities of other team members. • Team members’ assigned roles align with their strengths, interests, or level of authority in their organization. • Team members believe that carrying out their role has an impact on team success. (continued on next page)

81 Shared goals • The initial requirements of the project are clearly stated. • The team members have changed over time. • The project requirements have changed over time. • The initial goals were mandated, rather than developed in a collaborative fashion. • Team members have different agendas and priorities. Sense of ownership • Team members understand and/or agree with the processes, goals, and outcomes of the project. • Team members feel like they are a part of the process, goals, and outcome. • Team members feel their work contributes to the achievement of the project goals and outcomes. • Team members are clear on their role in the project and what they need to do to contribute. Communication • Key messages are clearly articulated. • There is an appropriate amount of communication, so that key messages clearly stand out. • The means for communication are effective. • A sound communication strategy has been developed. Stakeholder communication • I am able to clearly articulate key messages with decision makers. • I am able to communicate the appropriate messages at the appropriate times and to the appropriate people. • I understand the process required to communicate my message. • I have ample opportunity to make my voice heard. • The input I provide has an influence on the decisions made by formal decision-making partners. Stakeholder understanding • I understand the decision-making process, the proposed plans, and the purpose of the plans. • I have access to the information I need to make informed choices. • I understand the process I can use to influence the decision-making process. • I understand my role in the decision-making process. • I understand the roles of others (other stakeholders, decision makers) in the decision-making process. • I receive feedback on the decision-making team’s status and decisions made. • I understand how the decisions made will affect my special interest. Stakeholder commitment • I have a high level of individual commitment to the process and the outcomes of the decision-making process. • I am able to consistently participate in the process and represent my interest throughout the decision-making process. • There is a formal group available to support my needs during the decision-making process. • I have been able to engage with others of similar interest throughout the process. • I am able to identify, recognize, and accept interests of others and work from common interests. Table D.1. Criteria Statements (continued) Category Criteria Statements easily get lost in the shuffle. This is particularly the case as organizational leaders change. Several steps can be taken to ensure continued visibility of the team and to highlight the team’s accomplishments. The first step is to ensure that a clear and relevant partnering agreement is in place. By having such an agreement, organiza- tional support for the team is less susceptible to changes in leadership. A partnership agreement is based on the understand- ing that comprehensive organizational support is fundamental to success. This support can take many forms, including finan- cial, personnel, and agency advocacy for the project. A partnering agreement must clearly state the roles, respon- sibilities, and actions that all parties will follow while they pur- sue a common goal. Partnering agreements are more of a social contract than a legal contract, and they allow all parties to cap- ture their commitments to each other. The “partners” may be from different levels within an agency or may be a combination of internal and external people. The partners often have diverse

82 what is and what is not working, and a specific set of corrective actions that need to be implemented by the team or its man- agement to rectify any problems. Progress reports provide feedback to all levels (executive, management, and staff) that need to support collaboration. In addition to official status reports, however, it is essential to use other formal and infor- mal opportunities to keep the broad range of internal and external participants engaged. Hallway, elevator, and cafeteria conversations are vital to keeping stakeholders involved. For- mal communication planning is essential. Competing Values and Priorities All projects that occur within and between organizations exist within a broader system. Each day new projects begin or current projects are reprioritized. In addition, organizations constantly wrestle with changing values based on the demands of their environment. Therefore, while support for a project may begin with a great deal of enthusiasm, it is essential that the value of the project be constantly evaluated and commu- nicated back to organizational leaders. This is particularly true when organizational leadership changes. There are sev- eral steps to ensuring consistent and clear communication about a project’s value. Development of a formal communication plan is helpful. In communication planning the first step is to assess the level of communication necessary to get the right messages to the right people. Start by constructing a two-column table with the names of stakeholders in the left column, and a list of specific messages that they will be looking for from the team. Next consider the best means for relaying these messages to the stakeholder. Will reports, e-mails, and memos suffice? Do more meetings need to be held so that people can discuss ideas? Is a system for efficiently cascading information down to team members from their superiors needed? Also consider that within every social network there are both formal and informal communication networks. In gen- eral, informal networks tend to have a lot more influence on organizational leaders and stakeholders than formal com- munication does. For example, a collaborative team may for- mally send out dozens of e-mails stating the team’s official position on a topic, without getting much reaction from the partner agencies. Conversely, the team may be able to iden- tify one influential person who has a personal relationship with the leader of an agency and convince that individual to represent the team’s point of view during a 30-minute lunch conversation. Improving collaboration means focusing on the alignment between the formal and informal communi- cation networks between agencies. Collaborative teams must build a robust communication system that allows them to get the resource needs out to the institutions that can fulfill these needs. skills and talent and different stakes in the outcome of the pro- cess. The partnering agreement must include the following elements: • Mutual goals and identification of results. Clear, measur- able, and relevant goals must be established to move the partnership forward. The establishment of mutual goals provides all partners a sense of direction and ensures that all of their efforts support each other. • Role clarification. Identifying who does what and according to what standard is a vital part of ensuring that work efforts do not conflict. Role clarification identifies roles, responsi- bilities, and authority of each partner agency (or organiza- tion) as they engage in the decision-making process. • Action plan and timeline. An action plan identifies the cost, schedule, and performance that the partners must adhere to in order to meet the project goals. It includes both a forecast of the resources that will be required and contingency plans should the resources not be available. • Information-sharing arrangement. Collaborative and effec- tive decision making requires frequent, accurate, and timely sharing of information. To ensure the effective flow of information, partners should specifically state the manner of sharing information (e.g., databases, e-mail, web por- tals), as well as the level of access each party will have to the information. • Skill resources. Each agency or organization identifies the types of skills its representatives will provide to the effort and how it will coordinate the talents of its representatives. • Resources. The partners share resources and actively seek any additional resources needed to enhance the outcome. This is essential to efficiently use resources and to ensure that agency partners are able to provide those resources and support. • Results evaluation. The partners should evaluate and moni- tor the effectiveness of their working relationship as well as the results of their efforts. It may be necessary to develop a comprehensive partnering agreement in phases. It may be necessary to sign an initial executive- or management-endorsed agreement related to common goals and clear results, roles, and overall resources before the details of action plans and evaluation can be worked out. However, a comprehensive partnering agreement includes all of the components. Once the partnering agreement is in place, good communi- cation is essential to maintaining organizational support for the partnership. This communication includes regularly reporting back to organizational leaders and stakeholders on the progress of the team, using the metrics and indicators laid out in the partnering agreement. To be effective, a progress report should present a well-rounded view of the partnership,

83 like have on the project. Doing so allows the team to be less reactive to changes, and to spend time planning an appropriate response. To cope with the changing environment, teams must develop specific strategies. These strategies should consider how the project could be adapted to meet the changing envi- ronment, and the specific internal strengths and resources the team has to help it adapt. Challenges Support describes both tangible assets and intangible advo- cacy for a team and a project. Dealing with intangibles is always more difficult. While a team may see a stakeholder ver- bally championing a team, it is nearly impossible to determine how an individual truly feels about the team or the project. It is essential, therefore, that the team use multiple methods for gauging the true level of support. In general, deeds speak louder than words. Look for the tangible manifestations of support, which include funding, public statements of support (written or verbal), and personal involvement. If these do not exist, take the extra time to sit down regularly with organiza- tional leaders to assess their views and support for the team and its project. How the Decision Guide Can Help The Decision Guide provides detailed information on the inter- ests of each partner within the transportation decision-making process, as well as the roles of each partner at each decision point in the process. This information can help agencies and organizations understand exactly how they fit into the process, the relative level of effort required, and the big picture of how individual decisions made by the project team affect the entire process. It will also help each agency understand the interests and expected roles of all the agencies that will be part of a col- laborative partnership. This basic, “walking in each other’s shoes” approach can help establish the foundation for initial discussions on mutual goals and roles. Organizational Resource Constraints It is difficult to find an organization today that is not being asked to do more with less. Because of this, it is important to recognize that resource constraints may be beyond the control of an organization, even though in spirit the organization’s leaders may truly value the collaborative team’s efforts. In these situations, the best strategy is to make a compelling case for why the team’s project is of significant importance. As discussed above, organizational leaders must constantly reprioritize proj- ects and the resources needed to support them. It is important to note that when it comes to finding the right catalyst to gain organizational support, each organization is different. The case for additional resources is most compelling to leaders when it includes strong reasons why it is important to the success of their individual agency or mission. In addition, it should include a realistic assessment on the goals and implementation sched- ule included in the partnering agreement. The approach for requesting additional resources may be formal or informal, depending on the individual agency. It is important to identify the most effective and appropriate approach for each individual agency when additional resources are required. If addition resources are not available, but the partnership is supported by the agencies, the team will need to rescope the overall partnership agenda and/or the timeline for implement- ing the action plan. Organizational Change Just as funding shortfalls may be out of an organization’s con- trol, significant changes in the political, economic, social, or technological environment may also be beyond an organiza- tion’s control. While team members cannot typically change these realities, they can minimize the impact of these changes. To do so requires that team members anticipate and evalu- ate the changes that are likely to occur within their respective organizations. Teams should periodically meet to review these potential changes and discuss the impact that they would

Next: Appendix E - Bibliography »
Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) Report S2-C01-RR-1: Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity describes a framework—including for long-range planning, corridor planning, project programming, environmental review, and environmental permitting—that supports collaborative business practices for reaching decisions on adding highway capacity when necessary.

The framework delivers case studies and supportive materials in a searchable, web-based, format called Transportation for Communities—Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP). TCAPP is organized around decision points in the planning, programming, environmental review, and permitting processes. TCAPP is now know as PlanWorks.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!