Tool: Collaboration Self-Assessment This is a worksheet to help guide your collaboration efforts with your opponents, adapted from materials from the Work Group for Community Health and Development at the University of Kansas. Your group: Yes No Collaborator Yes No Problem Setting 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. Direction Setting 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). Implementation 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? Option A: How would you use this information to become an effective collaborator? Option B: How would you use this information to ensure more effective collaboration?
