Section 6. Encouraging Involvement of Potential Opponents as Well as Allies

1. Common definition of the problem

•  Do the parties define the problem in overlapping terms?
• Is the definition of the problem sufficiently broad to incorporate the interests of the opponents?
• Outcomes are rooted in interdependence?

•  Is your definition included?
• Can you reach your goals with the others?

2. Parties are committed to collaborate

• Does the present situation fail to serve each party's interest?
• Will collaboration produce positive outcomes?
• Is it possible to reach a fair agreement?
• Is there parity among the opponents?
• Will all sides agree to collaborate?

• Does the present situation fail to serve my interests?
• Will collaboration produce positive outcomes for me?
• Is an agreement possible that is fair to me?
• Am I an equal player?
• Will the other side agree to collaborate?

3. Opponents are identified

• Have those who have a right or capacity to participate, have important expertise, or can disrupt the process been identified?
• Have disputes about legitimacy been settled? Is the process open?
• Have size and manageability of the group been determined?
• Has the internal legitimacy of groups been determined?
• Are the interests of those not at the table represented by those who are?

• I am affected by the problem, have the capacity to participate, have important expertise, or can disrupt the process.I view the others as legitimate stakeholders.
• The size of the group allows my active participation.
•  I will participate at an appropriate level.
• My group has consensus.

4. Convenor is appropriate

• Is there an already existing umbrella organization?
• Can the convenor bring opponents to the table?
• Does the convenor have a reputation of trust?
• Is the convenor an unbiased expert on the problem?
• Does the convenor have appropriate skills?
• Is (s)he perceived as having authority to organize collaboration?
• Does (s)he have a vision of purpose and appreciates collaboration?
• Can (s)he create and sustain a process of bringing opponents together?

• I will meet with the convenor.
• I trust the convenor.
• I believe the convenor has appropriate skills and no bias.
• I agree with the vision of purpose and collaborative process.
• I will work with the convenor.

5. Resources have been identified and are adequate.

• Are resources available?
• Can adequate resources to allow everyone to participate equally be secured?

• I have available resources.

1. Ground rules have been established.

• Are all parties are involved in outlining acceptable and unacceptable behavior?
• Do all parties agree on ground rules?

• I was involved in developing ground rules.
• I agree to abide by the ground rules.

2. Agenda is set.

• Does the agenda reflect the interests of all parties?
• Are there rules for adding or deleting items of special concern?

• The agenda reflects my interests.
• I am able to influence the agenda.

3. Subgroups are formed if necessary.

• Should subgroups be formed to address distinct issues (particularly if more than enough people are available)?
•  Is membership on subgroups diverse enough to get a wide range of input?

• I will work with a subgroup.

4. Information is sought jointly.

• Do parties agree on facts supporting problem definition?
• Do parties search for facts together?
• Do parties mutually examine data?
• Are technical experts and expert witnesses used for controversial issues?

• I agree with the facts supporting problem definition.
• I worked with others to find the facts.
• I examined the facts with others.

5. Multiple options are explored.

• Have multiple options been explored before choosing alternatives?
• Are subgroups used to examine options more closely?
• If appropriate, are outside experts used to generate options?

• I have examined multiple options.

6. Reaching final agreement.

• Are all parties committed to a single option or package of options?

•  I am committed to the final option(s).

1. Dealing with constituencies.

• Do opponents' constituencies understand the rationale for tradeoffs and ultimately support the agreement?

• Does my constituency understand the rationale for tradeoffs?
• Does my constituency support the agreement?

2. Do those needed to implement the agreement support it?

• Do all parties support the agreement?
• Will all parties work to implement the agreement?

•  I support the agreement and will implement it if necessary.

3. Extent of effort is determined.

• Is a structure in place to permit a gradual institutionalization of the agreement reached?
• Are there long-term structures to support collective effort?
• Is there an ongoing forum for future problem-solving?
• Is there a framework for regulating the group's efforts?

4. Compliance is monitored.

• Are the opponents following through with the agreements?
• Are there opportunities available to work through cultural differences, historical conflicts, and others barriers to implementation?
• Are monitoring responsibilities clearly spelled out?
• Are sanctions needed?