criminal justice special interest group meeting february 2012 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Criminal Justice Special Interest Group Meeting February 2012 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Criminal Justice Special Interest Group Meeting February 2012

Criminal Justice Special Interest Group Meeting February 2012

137 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Criminal Justice Special Interest Group Meeting February 2012

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Criminal Justice Special Interest Group Meeting February 2012 Introduction to discussion session: Good Practice in Involving Stakeholders in Problem-Solving or Projects Sue Merchant (Blue Link Consulting) Ian Newsome (Head of Organisational Development ,West Yorkshire Police)

  2. Why did we pick this topic? • Organised a variety of improvement/change projects and problem solving workshops over many years, using simple commonsense methods to select stakeholders for involvement • Reflected that there is plenty of guidance on how to run projects/workshops etc but very little on how to select participants in the first place • Thought it might be useful to CJ members to share good practice and think about the various options open to us and issues to consider.

  3. How we propose to run the session • Few ‘tasters’ on the theory first • Over lunch meet members of your group to discuss which aspects of the topic you wish to focus on and how to approach the discussion, and share others’ experiences • After pm presentations, divide into groups again to discuss the topic, maybe using a scenario from the agenda to assist you. • Each group to summarise thoughts on flipchart and feedback to plenary session

  4. A few snippets of theory Sources: • academics & consultants in the field; • books on soft OR; • Tavistock Institute

  5. Examples of things to consider If lots of different stakeholders how do you decide who to involve: • where to draw the boundaries; • whether to have homogenous groups or mixed groups; • how many stakeholders to involve; • should people volunteer or be hand-picked; • should we worry about how respected by their peers representatives are ; • do we need to look for champions and people with energy as well as real knowledge about the systems under review; • should we avoid potential saboteurs, people who don’t want to be there, difficult people, or does that lose some of the richness? • How do we persuade key people to get involved

  6. Tools which may help 1. Which stakeholders should we consult or involve? 1.1 The Influence/interest grid (Sue) 1.2 Boundary Critique (Ian)

  7. 1.1 Which Stakeholders?The Interest v Influence grid Interest (how much at stake; how much does this issue matter?) x=individual or organisation x x x x x x x Influence (how much power over the outcome)

  8. 1.2 Which Stakeholders? - Boundary Critique Beneficiary – sources of motivation • Who is the beneficiary? • What is the purpose? • What is/are the measures of success? Owner – sources of power • Who is the decision maker? • What resources & other conditions for success do they control? • What conditions of successful implementation are out of the owner’s control? Professional – sources of knowledge • Who is considered a professional or expert in the development of the ‘situation’? • What kind of expertise is utilised in the development of the ‘situation’? • What or who is the guarantor of success? Witness – sources of legitimation • Who represents those affected by but not directly involved in the ‘situation’? • To what extent are those affected given the opportunity to challenge the ‘service’? • What different visions of improvement are considered? Adapted from - Ulrich, W (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical Philosophy. Bern: Haupt. “IS” & “OUGHT”

  9. 2. How do we best engage relevant (& often busy) stakeholders? • 2.1 Soft OR workshop methods • 2.2 Regular Newsletters/ presentations • 2.3 Chat up staff officers/PAs to demonstrate importance of the issue to their leaders, mentioning who else important is taking part or damage that might be done if not involved • 2.4 Better still get the top boss to show how he/she values senior involvement • 2.5 Structured decision models – E.g. KT- Managing Involvement

  10. 2.5 KT Managing Involvement Example of a structured decision making model KepnerTregoe Managing Involvement model (Define the situation) Assess the variables Select the behaviour

  11. b) Assess the variables Is a superior solution needed? Is information needed? What level of commitment of others is required? Is there agreement about goals? Is there conflict about alternatives?

  12. c) Select behaviour Resolve alone Question individuals Consult individuals Consult group Resolve as a group

  13. Sources of information • ‘Planning Under Pressure’ by John Friend/Allen Hickling , Elsevier 2005 – levels of participation • Strategic Management of Stakeholders: Theory and Practice Fran Ackermann & Colin Eden, Long Range Planning vol 44 Issue 3 June 2011 • Making Strategy: Mapping out Strategic Success (2nd Edition) Fran Ackermann & Colin Eden, Published: Sage • Ulrich, W (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical Philosophy. Bern: Haupt. • KepnerTregoe - Managing Involvement • PRINCE methodology -govt. recommended project methodology • For handbook on how to involve public stakeholders: • For identifying stakeholders:

  14. Discussion groups’ feedback Topic: aspects of selection of participants See next two slides for feedback from the two groups.

  15. Aspects discussed by group • Problem stakeholders • Key points: (1)Problem stakeholders can have positive effects (eg make sure that some facts don’t get swept under • the carpet) as well as negative ones (eg disruption to discussion); • (2) Can limit the negative effects by taking action at the start of the day (eg green dots • used by participants to select from a range of reasons why they are there, ranging from • ‘don’t want to be here at all’ to ‘want to make a difference’). • Post workshop activity • Need to keep stakeholders in the loop afterwards possibly using modern media eglinkedin or facebook. • Monitoring of stakeholder groups • Need to keep in touch with stakeholders to check that they have not moved on as , for example,champions • may be lost. • Need to understand the ongoing dynamics of the wider stakeholder group.