• How to assess your collaboration: A Self Evaluation Tool
• Twenty factors that can make or break any group effort
• An outline of the benefits, challenges and the important principles of successful collaboration
• The Wilder Foundation’s Collaboration Factors Inventory that was designed for assessing collaborative success
• Tips on how to develop effective collaborative agreements

6 Steps of Community Engagement

This presentation came as a result of work being done by James Samuel of New Zealand for the Waiheke Community Supported Agriculture project. As he attempted to find an effective way to communicate the “How” of that project, he stumbled upon a model that could be applied to any collaborative community project.

Ever since coming across the work of Transition Towns and seeing how the 12 steps in the transition process work to keep a local initiative on track, he noticed that the same 12 steps of transitioning could be applied to an individual project. The six steps suggested here have distilled and simplified this even further, and you can watch and listen to this 5 minute video and then read the transcript, with its embedded links.

1) You need mechanisms in place for effective collaboration. Certainly, people can post bad things onto a wiki, a message board, or a mailing list. The real question is, What systems are in place to deal with this? The mechanisms of a wiki have proven highly effective and have to do with the ability of the community to revise the content or revert to a prior state, and the ability to block communication by people who are causing trouble.

2) Online identity is important. While safeguard mechanisms can address bad behaviour, the real leverage over contributors is reputation. A real identity or a steady pseudonym can gain reputation capital in a way that establishes credibility just as a real name would offline. This is part of the moral contract of

3) A successful collaboration requires a shared vision. Wales popinted to the example of a successful wiki called wowwiki.com , a wiki about the online computer game 'World of Warcraft'. There, participants work together successfully because they have a shared vision of the kind of work they are trying to complete: a comprehensive guide to all things World of Warcraft. We see the same pattern over and over: A charitable goal like that of Wikipedia is not necessary. Neutrality is not necessary. But a shared vision is.

4) Organizations are becoming flatter. Flat hierarchies are increasingly commonplace. They are incredibly powerful due to technologies like wikis that allow peer-to-peer communication without a lot of barriers. This implies that cooperative relationships must not only be established at the highest levels of organizations but throughout all levels. The movement towards empowering employees and stewardship of organizations means that peer-to-peer relationships need encouraging as well.

From a seminar given by Dr Paul Krivinos in Christchurch New Zealand to the Christchurch chapter of the New Zealand Knowledge Management network. Here's the main points:

• If you want to create a negative climate for knowledge sharing, there's lots of things you can do. Eg, tell others that their ideas are stupid, disagree with them AND put them down at the same time. To illustrate this behaviour Paul creatively used the 2006 Superbowl commercial from Fedex as an example ...


• Really listening to others is a key to open exchange of information, and thus knowledge management. We need to get all of the information onto the table.
• Being proactive is another key to information sharing instead of just being reactive. Elements of this are supportiveness (giving credit to others), trust (others have no fear that you will shoot the messenger if they bring negative news), openness (willing to be candid with bad news), participative decision making (the "collaboration" piece), and an emphasis on high-performance goals.

• Involve a diverse group of stakeholders
• Allow for sufficient front-end time to build a strong foundation / prepare to face challenges
• Establish a shared vision
• Conduct a needs assessment
• Articulate a data-driven plan of action
• Develop a shared approach to meeting responsibilities
• Maintain consistent and effective channels of communication
• Monitor progress frequently: reassess, revise, and recommit
• Assess the collaborative’s efforts
• Share lessons learned

Consensus means making decisions by the united consent of all. It is noncoercive, as it avoids imposing anyone’s will on others.

In consensus, the group encourages the sharing of all viewpoints held by those with interest in a topic. These viewpoints are then discussed in a spirit of respect and mutual accommodation. New ideas arise and viewpoints are synthesized, until a formula emerges that wins general approval.

Consensus is “organic”—unlike mechanical voting. Often, the final decision is different from anyone’s original idea.

Consensus has advantages. Consideration of all viewpoints provides a more rounded view of the issue, leading to a better decision. And a decision supported by everyone will avoid resentment, division, and efforts to undermine it.

Consensus does not require that everyone be in complete agreement, but only that all be willing to accept—consent to—a decision. If the group fails to accommodate your viewpoint after fair effort, ask yourself if you feel strongly enough to uphold your position. If not, it may be best to “stand aside.” Refusing to do so might paralyze the group.

Consensus does not give everyone an equal voice. Some people know more and care more about an issue. Naturally, their views should carry greater weight.

Better decisions often take longer—in the short run. Try not to make it worse. Before you speak, ask yourself whether your statement is worth the group’s time. (To get an idea of this, you could multiply your speaking time by the number of listeners.) If someone else has said it, you may not need to. When you speak, be brief and to the point—and say it only once.

If time is short and the group is large, a matter may need to be turned over to a smaller group. Try to cultivate the mutual trust that allows this.

Be aware of how often you speak. Of course, some people will at times have more to offer. Still, you may have to stop yourself from speaking too often, to avoid dominating. Or if you’re shy, you may need to push yourself to speak. Consensus can fail if some group members dominate.

A moment of silence can work wonders in easing tensions.

A chosen facilitator can help consensus by keeping the discussion on track, encouraging good process, and posing alternatives that may resolve differences. But a facilitator is a servant, not a director, and assumes a neutral role. If a facilitator wishes to take a stand on an issue, the task of facilitating is handed to someone else.

Consensus makes special demands on everyone. You must respect and consider each other. You must have a sense of common searching, instead of wanting to “win.” You must be sensitive and open to each others’ ideas and feelings, and honestly try to accommodate them. Finally, you must be dedicated to uncovering and pursuing truth—even if it leads where you never expected.