Participative Planning - A Tool for Building Partnerships for Change Copyright 1993 CAUSE From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 16, Number 2, Summer 1993 Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, the CAUSE copyright and its date appear,and notice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for managing and using information resources in higher education. To disseminate otherwise, or to republish, requires written permission.For further information, contact CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301, 303-449-4430, e-mail info@CAUSE.colorado.edu PARTICIPATIVE PLANNING -- A TOOL FOR BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHANGE by Gary L. Donhardt ABSTRACT: This article examines some of the key elements of a participative planning process that has been used successfully in planning for change. This task-oriented approach to planning takes advantage of some classic decision-making techniques amenable to small- group dynamics in a campus setting. Step-by-step guidelines for applying this approach are offered: planning preparations are discussed, the planning session paradigm is outlined, the basic rules for group interaction are provided, some elemental group dynamics are sketched, and the roles of the planning moderator are considered. As those who manage information tech nology in higher education build partnerships with various users on campus, participative planning emerges as a viable tool to help develop and implement change. The continued reliance upon technology to meet informational needs in administrative decision-making, data access, and the enhancement of the classroom experience requires planning tools to help decision- makers formulate desired solutions to such challenges. Maier has discussed the categorization of decisions by their quality and acceptance dimensions.[1] The quality characteristic refers to the relative importance of the decision to be made. Acceptance is the component that deals with the degree of endorsement required on the part of those affected by or involved in the execution of the decision. Many decisions concerning information technology applications require high quality because of the impact of the functions they are expected to perform and the commitment of capital required to obtain and sustain them. Of equal importance is a high degree of acceptability by those individuals who will use the systems. For decisions requiring high quality and high acceptance, participation is an appropriate planning mode. Participative planning is a team effort whereby a group of individuals takes an active part in the decision- making process. Synergy is built by bringing together diversified experiences and divers knowledge that are usually not possessed by one individual alone. PLANNING PREPARATIONS A plan is developed as a result of a series of highly structured planning sessions. To help make the best use of time during these sessions, care must be taken in selecting team members and scheduling planning sessions. Choosing planning team members Each member of the planning team should be chosen because of his or her area of expertise and ability to interact constructively with other members of the group. Five to seven members with diversified backgrounds can make a competent planning team; larger planning teams often prove to be less effective. The planning team should comprise information technology personnel and appropriate users. This partnership is vital, for regardless of the technical sophistication of the application, it will be judged on its quality and acceptability by its users.[2] Team members with technical expertise will make obvious contributions in the planning sessions,[3] but other non-technological attributes are important as well. Members should have the abilities to generate fresh ideas, stimulate creative thinking in others, and critique proposals under consideration. Only those individuals who view planning as a legitimate enterprise should be invited to participate. Those who dislike intense interaction or conflict may not function well under this planning scheme. Scheduling planning activities Planning sessions should be of relatively short duration--long enough to allow the participants to focus on relevant issues, yet short enough to keep them from getting fatigued. It is best if an individual session is limited to a few contiguous hours within a few contiguous days. Group members get a sense of closure when they can accomplish a task in a perceived, short period of time. Planning sessions are best held at a site away from the day-to-day operations of the organization. It is too easy for members to be interrupted when they are in proximity to normal business activity. Arrangements should be made for supplies and materials in support of recording and disseminating the results of the sessions. As plans are formulated in a session, it is convenient to record them on flip charts to be displayed on the walls for easy referral.[4] After each planning meeting, the contents of these charts should be edited, typed, and distributed to team members so that each participant will have a record of the consensus of the group and what action items, if any, he or she has as a result of the session. PLANNING SESSION PARADIGM The basic planning session paradigm is a six-step process designed to guide planners as they strive to identify objectives and create solutions that lead to goal achievement.[5] This comprehensive approach results in a workable plan that links resources with tasks to be performed. 1. The goals of the project are established or confirmed. Implicit within each goal are the functionality to be achieved and a criterion of acceptance by which all prospective solutions will be judged. Obviously, all goals developed by the planning team must support the organization's mission.[6] 2. Obstacles to attaining each goal are determined. Each objective to be achieved will have one or more obstructions blocking it. The planning team seeks to identify those obstacles that stand in the way of goal attainment. It is important for planners to move beyond the examination of mere symptoms to the underlying causes of the obstructions, lest energy is expended trying to overcome phantom tokens of real problems. 3. Solutions to each obstacle are suggested. Numerous solutions are developed by team members to surmount each obstacle. A solution is judged in a dichotomous manner; either it is acceptable or unacceptable in overcoming the impediment.[7] 4. Tasks necessary for each solution are established. Most solutions will comprise a number of tasks that must be performed for the solution to be implemented. Each of these tasks must be identified and ordered in its sequence. 5. Steps for each task are detailed. The steps necessary to accomplish each task are developed along with their time frame for completion. 6. Resources required to facilitate the steps are determined and linked to each step. The required resources (capital, personnel, and materials) involved in enacting a solution are projected and linked to the steps. Thus evolves a comprehensive picture of what is needed to achieve the goal. To determine whether a plan is workable, one simply examines the six steps in reverse order by asking the following questions: (6) If the necessary resources are available to support the steps, can the steps be performed? (5) If each step is implemented within its time frame, can the task be completed? (4) If the various tasks are completed, will the solution be enacted? (3) If the solution, or solutions, are enacted, will the stated obstacles be conquered? (2) If the obstacles can be overcome, will the goal be achieved? (1) If the goal is achieved, will it support the mission of the organization? The plan is flawed if at any point these pertinent conditions are not met. At the end of the planning process, decision-makers choose from the best workable solutions for each goal. ************************************************************************ PLANNING WORKSHEET (FIGURE NOT AVAILABLE IN ASCII TEXT VERSION.) ************************************************************************ RULES FOR PLANNING PARTICIPANTS Some simple precepts that govern the planning sessions should be conveyed to the participants at their initial session. These rules deal with how communication, conflict, and consensus will be handled in the planning sessions. Rule 1: Communicate using common language The use of technical jargon can impede communication and cause confusion, especially with people on the planning team who are not technically oriented. Particular terms may carry different connotations, or individuals unfamiliar with a term may be afraid to expose their ignorance. It is best if jargon is absent from the language used in the planning sessions, with acronyms and specialized terms conveyed in an understandable vernacular. The issue of using the vernacular has importance beyond the interaction of the planning sessions. Resources stand the best chance of being allocated when the final plan has been developed in comprehensible and quantifiable terms. Therefore, it is best if the presentation of the decision is made in easy-to-understand language. If the plan is replete with jargon, acronyms, or obscure terms, its message may not be communicated properly. Rule 2: Deal with conflict Group members must be willing to address and resolve every critical issue that is pertinent to the objectives of their planning session. To push an issue onto someone else or to side-step a difficult problem by deferring it for later consideration will not always make it easier to handle or cause it to disappear. If the problem is within the planning team's jurisdiction, it should be confronted. At times it may be difficult for people to make decisions that affect their own vital interest or what they perceive to be as the best interest of their department or organization.[8] Conflict will be inevitable as the planning team strives to find alternatives and develop viable solutions. Contention can generate hard feelings or lead to constructive innovations, depending upon the environment and how the participants react to controversy. In the planning environment conflict must not be viewed as dysfunctional, but as a natural by-product of decision-making. When contention arises it is not to be avoided, but is to be addressed in a constructive manner; constructive conflict often gives birth to creative solutions. Viable options can evolve when divergent ideas surface and members feel free enough to challenge the views of others. Conflict that becomes personalized can be destructive to those involved and detrimental to the planning process. Two team members engaged in conflict over an issue can strive to find constructive solutions, but if one even insinuates a personal affront, communication breaks down and the potential for discovering constructive solutions diminishes. Group members are encouraged to depersonalize conflict by attacking an opposing viewpoint and not the individual who holds the point of view.[9] Rule 3: Strive for consensus The planning team should strive for consensus in the group decision- making process. Consensus means that no one individual holds the decision to be unacceptable. It does not necessarily imply that all members prefer the decision agreed upon by the majority.[10] While wholehearted acceptance may be highly desirable, consensus is necessary and sufficient for group decision-making. To arrive at consensus, members must be willing to express any doubts they hold on an issue. No one should leave a planning session with unexpressed concerns. If a member believes that a line of thinking is flawed, she must express her opposition before the group. COMING TOGETHER AS A GROUP Whether they are total strangers or life-long acquaintances, planning team members are likely to exhibit some basic dynamics common in small groups. How well these individuals work together in planning sessions will affect their productivity. Charrier presents a five-stage growth phenomenon that usually takes place as small groups evolve.[11] 1. Polite Stage. The first stage in Charrier's hierarchy is an introductory phase where members strive to get acquainted or re- acquainted with one another. This phase, which establishes the basis for the group structure, is characterized by polite social interaction; hence it is dubbed the Polite Stage. Here ideas are simple, controversy is avoided, and self disclosure on the part of group members is limited. It is important that the group be allowed some time for such informal information sharing and social amities at the beginning of each planning session. Groups denied the Polite Stage are uncomfortable in later stages and productivity suffers. Usually, the shorter the time span between sessions, the shorter the introductory phase is likely to be. 2. What-Are-We-About Stage. After a suitable time in the Polite Stage, group members will want to know why they have been called together. The specific agenda for each planning session will be communicated by the moderator. In this phase, individual need for approval begins to diminish as members examine their group's purpose.[12] 3. Power Stage. Charrier's third milestone is marked by a bid for power with group members trying to convince each other that their particular position on an issue is correct. Cliques sometimes form to gain approval for a proposition. Often the field of candidates vying for leadership narrows as fewer members strive to establish power. Some of those who contributed freely to the group discussion in earlier stages now remain silent, wishing not to engage in a power struggle. Charrier notes that interactions arising out of this phase do not usually result in optimum solutions. Hence, there is a great need for structure and patience in this stage.[13] 4. Cooperation Stage. The first constructive phase the group encounters is marked by coalescence. In the Cooperation Stage, members not only begin to accept that others have an opinion worth expressing, but a team spirit replaces vested interests. If new individuals are introduced into the membership at this point they will be viewed as outsiders or intruders and the group will have to evolve again much as it did initially. Thus, it is wise not to add new members once the planning team has developed the sense of camaraderie exhibited in this milieu. 5. Esprit Stage. The Esprit Stage is one of mutual acceptance with high cohesiveness and a general feeling of esprit. Charrier believes the planning team can do its finest work and be most productive in this final stage in the model. These five steps are developmental. It is not axiomatic that all groups will evolve to the fifth phase, but those that do will pass through the first four stages. Participants who are cognizant of these dynamics can help their group strive for the maturity and productivity of Charrier's Esprit Stage. THE ROLES OF THE MODERATOR The planning team should be led by a moderator who directs the flow of the sessions and helps the group meet its objectives.[14] He or she encourages members to strive for viable solutions and summarizes consensus when it is reached. The moderator's duties are multifaceted. She regulates group anxiety, establishes open communication, encourages honest critique, and stresses the importance of remaining open to the ideas of others. The moderator builds an atmosphere conducive to planning through example by remaining as objective as humanly possible with no hidden agenda or vested interests. Exercising conference leadership A democratic style of leadership is preferred if the planning team is to honestly share in the decision-making process. A moderator exerting leadership in this modality assumes that each group member has the ability, desire, and opportunity to influence the group's decisions. If the moderator leans toward an autocratic style, he will have to rely greatly upon his own charisma to influence decisions. When he has difficulty getting his positions accepted, he may have to resort to a demonstration of power which will likely be seen by the participants as manipulation. The planning process degenerates into pseudo-participation when planning group members realize they are being coerced.[15] The degree of member participation may vary depending upon the types of decisions to be made and the purpose of the planning group. Team members are informedfrom the outset whether they are to serve in an advisory role, leaving the final decision to others, or be directly responsible for the ultimate decision. Problems may develop if group members, under the impression they will be making the final decision, discover the role has been reserved for someone else. When the group strays from its purpose, the moderator intervenes immediately to re-focus the effort. Such wanderings are likely to occur when discussions continue in vague generalities or when petty details lead to external pursuits. All extraneous items must be put aside and attention centered on the problem under discussion. Using spatial arrangements The way in which group members are seated during the planning session influences the way communication is conducted.[16] Two basic spatial patterns are useful for group planning sessions. The centralized arrangement (Figure 1) tends to direct the pattern of discussion through the moderator. The decentralized arrangement (Figure 2) facilitates a more open flow of conversation among all members. Both arrangements are useful as different tasks are set before the team. ********************************************************************** (FIGURES 1 & 2 NOT AVAILABLE IN ASCII TEXT VERSION.) ********************************************************************** When the planning moderator needs to exercise conference skills or otherwise direct the group on a matter, she uses the centralized structure. When complex problems call for a great deal of deliberation or when brainstorming techniques are appropriate, the moderator can slip into the less formal decentralized circle.[17] Regulating stress and anxiety Stress and anxiety often accompany the decision-making process. The relationship between stress, anxiety, and decisional conflict has been addressed by Janis and Mann who make the following observations:[18] * Goal expectation raises the level of stress when the individual group member realizes that significant goals stand to be gained or lost. * Potential losses from failing to fulfill a prior commitment may increase anxiety and discourage the move to a new course of action. * Stress is increased when decision-makers lose hope of finding better solutions. * When a group member senses there is too little time to make an adequate decision, his level of stress will be high and his pattern of response will take on a form of panic. A group member in a state of panic experiences disrupted thought processes and a shrinking memory span which can no longer deal with as many alternatives as before. A group in the grip of panic will search frantically for a solution, often failing to recognize all of the possibilities available, persevere with a very limited number of alternatives, and not make adequate use of what remaining time there is. Often group members settle on a hastily contrived solution that promises immediate relief but leads to post-decisional regret. On the other hand, group members who experience little or no stress at all may lack the motivation to give any decision much consideration or to search for any but the most obvious solutions. Stress and anxiety in decision-making are not necessarily detrimental. For optimum results, the moderator can help regulate the anxiety of the participants and control the amount of stress experienced by the group. The moderator searches for a healthy plateau of stress for her group, somewhere between a low level which results in insufficient concern and a highly intense level which results in a form of panic. Avoiding groupthink Groupthink often occurs when highly cohesive groups are insulated from the critique of outsiders or groups have leaders who strongly advocate their own preferred solutions. Groupthink is a communal thought process in which pressures to conform override the realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.[19] Groups in the throes of groupthink censure their members by exerting pressure on anyone who challenges prevailing assumptions. Self-appointed gate keepers help insulate the group from adverse information such as prognostications and warnings of possible problems. Unwarranted optimism, illusions of invulnerability, and collective rationalizations accompany selective inattention and forgetting. Some groups content in the artificial complacency of groupthink may even exude a sense of euphoria which enlists unnecessary risk. Groupthink is disastrous in the planning process. Planners caught in groupthink lack the proper search and appraisal processes. The plans generated are questionable at best and should probably be discounted. There are safeguards that a moderator can use to protect his planning group from groupthink:[20] * Remaining impartial. The moderator can help avoid groupthink by remaining impartial when charging the group with its decision-making responsibilities. By limiting briefings to unbiased statements which detail the scope of the problem and the availability of resources, the moderator refrains from presenting his or her proposals and personal opinions until other members have had the opportunity to express theirs. Because of a moderator's position and power, her suggestions are often given more weight than those of other members of the planning group. If she advocates her position too early, the creativity of the group may be severely limited. By withholding her evaluation and criticism until others have had the opportunity to express their ideas, the moderator will raise the quality of decision-making. * Building an atmosphere. Participative planning requires a climate where members feel free to disagree with others in their group. Power and perceptions of power may inhibit one's participation especially when sub- and superordinates are on the same planning team. For some subordinates, the fear of exposing themselves to possible failure or embarrassment is great. They may purposely distort communication by vocalizing what they think their superordinates want to hear. For participation to work in an environment free of power entanglements, all members must agree to leave their titles at the door. The moderator must be a diplomat who is sensitive to all those involved in the planning process. Because damaged egos can cause persons to rationalize their biases and inhibit their contribution to the group process, face-saving efforts and needs for recognition must not be underestimated. * Playing the devil's advocate. At some juncture in the planning process the moderator should play the role of devil's advocate. By arguing convincingly for a position contrary to what is popularly held by the group, the moderator challenges group consensus and forces members to defend their positions or relinquish them. Valuable is the individual who can play the devil's advocate without being a devil himself. * Querying each member. By polling members during the session, the moderator can encourage divergent opinions and make sure that all have the opportunity to be heard. By purposely querying each individual to see if there are objections, the moderator thoroughly explores any opposition. Before a decision is concluded, each group member is given a final chance to express any doubts on the choice. The group will have its best chance of discussing issues if all sides of an argument can be understood and each individual has a chance to clarify her position. * Seeking outside advice. Sometimes the advice of trusted associates outside of the group can be of benefit. If appropriate, external experts are given an opportunity to examine and challenge the group's choices. Planning is preparation in the present for what is desired to take place in an uncertain future. Any new venture carries with it an element of risk, and when that venture involves the application or acquisition of technological systems, the risks can be very great. Participative planning which takes advantage of partnerships between users and information technology personnel helps alleviate those risks. Participative planning not only helps generate viable solutions, but the final decisions, built through consensus, will not have to be "sold" later to those who have to implement them. Because group members were actively involved in the creation of solutions, they will have developed an ownership of the problem and subsequent decisions. ************************************************************************ Example 1: Implementation Planning The university has a small branch campus 60 miles from its main campus. Because of the limited number of students at the remote location, it is difficult to present a wide variety of class offerings in an economical manner. Goal. To bring a variety of quality instruction to the branch campus even if the number of students is small. Quality implies that the students and teachers will have direct, real-time, audio, and visual interaction available. Obstacle. Providing traditional instruction, face-to-face, to a small number of students is financially prohibitive. Solutions. Install an interactive distance learning technology to link the main campus with the branch using (1) microwave transmittal, (2) compressed digital video, or (3) full-motion fiber optics. It is discovered that one-way microwave transmission is unacceptable because the teacher cannot see the students, and two-way microwave is financially unrealistic. Although full-motion fiber optics is most appealing, the common carrier does not have plans to install fiber in the near future. A compressed digital interactive video system with thirty refreshes per second over T1 lines is found to be acceptable. Tasks for Solution #2. (2.a) Arrange for faculty and students to have hands-on experience with the technology. Obtain their feedback. (2.b) Gather power specs and space requirements for installation. (2.c) Determine training requirements for those using the equipment. (2.d) Examine security issues. (2.e) Secure agreements with the common carrier for T1 lines. (2.f) Arrange for a pilot project to introduce the technology to faculty and students in a real classroom situation. Arrange for feedback. (2.g) Examine possible courses which could be taught using the technology. Resources. Money will be raised for the project through a financial campaign supported by the community in which the branch campus is located. ************************************************************************ Example 2: Feasibility Planning The institution has an opportunity to seek funding for a one-time sum of money that must be expended by the funding source within a relatively short period of time. Acceptable proposals must be tied to economic development in the local community. The potential monetary award is great. A local economic development agency approaches the institution with the offer to form a partnership in applying for the grant. The institution has been considering the expansion of its computer science department into a computer engineering department. A supercomputer would provide a substantial foundation for the expansion and would fit well with the economic development criteria of the grant. Goals. (1) To examine the feasibility of acquiring a supercomputer facility on campus. (2) To explore the possibility of using a supercomputer center in local economic development. (3) To be successful with the funding source. Obstacles to Goals. (1.a) There is little supercomputer expertise on campus. (1.b) The initial funding of the grant will not cover long-term maintenance and staffing. (2) There is no supercomputer marketing strategy. Potential customers of the supercomputer have not been identified. (3) The window of funding opportunity will be narrow. Solution. Conduct a feasibility study to decide whether or not to pursue the grant. Tasks Pertaining to Specific Goals. (1) Communicate with the leading supercomputer vendors. Examine selected supercomputer sites at institutions of higher education, looking at their functionality, operating budgets, and staffing. (2) Explore the marketing potential for developing economic development. (3) Gather details on the grant opportunity and speak with the personnel from the funding source. It is decided that the institution lacks the readily available expertise and the resources to maintain the system on a long-term basis. The marketing potential does not appear to be as great as first anticipated. In essence, the resources are not available to overcome the obstacles and the project is abandoned for the present. ************************************************************************ Example 3: Implementation Planning Interest is expressed in exploring some new information technologies for inclusion in the curriculum. Goal. To facilitate the production and dissemination of technological applications in support of instruction. Obstacles. (1) Few faculty members have knowledge of the newest information technologies available. There is no faculty development program for those interested in exploring new technologies. (2) There is no budget allocation for the purchase of any new hardware or software. (3) There is no centralized location where faculty can experiment with new technology. Solution. Develop a training center and an ongoing training program to help faculty develop and improve their technological skills. Tasks Pertaining to Specific Goals. (1) Merge the existing Academic Computing Services with the Instructional Technology Center to better serve the instructional needs of the institution. (2) Request special funding to support the development of instructional applications. (3) Convert an old gym into classrooms/labs and collocate Academic Computing Services and the Instructional Technology Center. (4) Train the staff and arrange for attendance at technological conferences. Resources for Tasks. (1)(2)(4) An operating budget will be created by extracting a fraction of a percentage from the total campus budget for the acquisition of selected state-of-the-art technologies. (3) Capital funds will be encumbered to renovate the old gym. ====================================================================== Footnotes: 1 Norman R. F. Maier, Psychology in Industrial Organizations (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973), p. 130. 2 John E. Bingham and Garth W.P. Davies, Planning for Data Communications (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1977), p. 43. 3 Louis Fried and Richard Johnson, "Planning for the Competitive Use of Information Technology," Information Strategy 8 (4) (Summer, 1992): 5- 14; and Peter A. Hugunin, Susan Thomas, and David Wilemon, "Science and Technology Information and Corporate Planning Processes: A Synthesis," Technology in Society 14 (1992): 245-270. 4 Some planners, taking advantage of current technology, use microcomputers and display units to replace flip charts. 5 P. Brisson, who credits R. David Bursiek of IBM for much of his material, cites elements 1, 3, 4, and 5, in P. Brisson, "EDP Long Range Planning: A Technique," an unpublished paper. 6 A. Rebecca Reuber, "Planning for Information Resource Management," CMA, April 1991, p. 17; and Iain Bates, "Strategic Planning for Information Technology," Canadian Library Journal 47 (5) (October, 1990): 317. 7 For example, if one of the goals is to create a data communication system that has a response time of no more than one second, then a solution which has a response time of two seconds is unacceptable. 8 Irving L. Janis and Leon Mann, Decision Making (New York: Free Press, 1977), p. 45. 9 Alan C. Filley, Interpersonal Conflict Resolution (Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Fores-man and Company, 1975), p. 105. 10 Filley, p. 11, 25. 11 George O. Charrier, "COG's Ladder: A Model of Group Growth," an unpublished paper, p. 1. 12 Ibid., p. 3. 13 Ibid., p. 5. 14 Sometimes there are advantages in having an outside consultant serve as a moderator. Such an individual is not inhibited by the tradition of the organization and can convey an unpopular view without risk of reprisals that might threaten a member of the organization. 15 Fred Luthans, Organizational Behavior (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977), p. 195. 16 Gerald M. Phillips, Douglas J. Pedersen, and Julia T. Wood, Group Discussion: A Practical Guide to Participation and Leadership (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979), p. 43. 17 Ibid., p. 44. 18 Janis and Mann, p. 50f. 19 Ivan D. Steiner, "Heuristic Models of Groupthink," Group Decision Making (London: Academic Press, 1982), p. 503. 20 Janis and Mann, p. 130. ************************************************************************ Gary L. Donhardt is Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, University Planning, and Assessment at Frostburg State University in Frostburg, Maryland. He is responsible for the library, intercollegiate athletics, the office of assessment, the office of contracts and grants, instructional technology support, academic computing, and the off-campus center in Hagerstown. ************************************************************************