This document identifies a set of criteria which can be used to design and evaluate
consultation exercises, particularly in the federal public policy and program development
setting.
At the outset, an effective consultation requires a definition of what is meant by a
"consultation" exercise, and the distinction between this process and two
closely related (and often confused) activities -- developing "partnerships",
and the development of effective, "2-way communications" programming.
The following definitions are offered:
"Consultation" is a process undertaken by an empowered
institution (or agent) to inform itself on one or more as-yet unmade decisions, or to
review previous or existing decisions, policies, or programs. The purpose is always to
explore and identify potential impacts -- particularly unforeseen impacts -- of various
policy options on effected parties, and to allow potentially effected parties (i.e.
stakeholders) to express their views before decisions are made. Sometimes there is the
added goal of promoting consensus around resulting decisions.
"Partnership" is defined here as shared control and/or
management of a program between consenting parties, with risks and benefits being shared.
While partnerships may flow from effective consultation, they are defined here as
negotiated, shared, operational relationships, rather than as a component of the
public policy deliberation process.
"Communication" is defined here as disseminating information to
create awareness of issues, programs, policies, and/or to promote understanding and
acceptance of the communicator's viewpoint among audiences. While the most effective
communications is interactive, and two-way, the explicit goal is to inform and persuade an
audience, rather than to elicit views.
This document identifies five criteria which are relevant to assessing the appropriateness
of any particular consultation exercise, as follows:
i. The sponsor of the consultation exercise must be credible and authoritative.
ii. The "consultation agenda" must be appropriate.
iii. The goal of the consultation exercise itself must be clear and commonly understood by
the participants, and the sponsor.
iv. The participants in a consultation exercise should include interested and effected
parties.
v. The selected consultation tools and processes must reflect the purpose of the exercise,
and the character of the participants.
These are each discussed below.
i. The sponsor of the review must be appropriate
For a consultation to be effective, the institutional party sponsoring the exercise must
be seen to be legitimate, and relevant to the matters under review, by the audiences and
interests with whom consultation is intended.
The sponsor may be:
- an advocate informing itself about views on an area within the scope of its advocacy
interests;
- a public authority which is responsible for the public policy area under consideration;
or,
- a designated agent, such as commission of inquiry, which has been mandated to advise the
responsible authorities.
If an organization or institution chooses to consult on areas seen to be outside its
legitimate area of interest or authority, then there will be little motivation for
directly or indirectly effected audiences to invest in a consultation exercise.
ii. The "consultation agenda" must be appropriate.
Effective consultation requires that the scope and subject-matter of the review be
appropriate, and be clearly defined. In particular, in a consultation on a public policy
area, it is important that the discussion agenda reflects the actual parameters of
intended action by the sponsor of the exercise.
If the intent is to undertake a comprehensive review of a policy area, leaving open the
possibility of fundamental change in policy direction or approach, then the agenda must be
broad enough to accommodate comment on as a wide a range of goals and values..
If, conversely, the intent is to review policy with a view to making changes and
adjustments within the context of existing broad policy goals and values, then the agenda
ought to be appropriately focused on areas in which adjustments may or can be
contemplated.
It is the sponsor's responsibility to avoid pointlessly examining areas where no change
is intended, or options that are not really "on the table".
When an agenda is defined too broadly, and suggests a range of options broader than is
actually the case, time and effort will be expended by participants on issues which are
not on the table, and insufficient focus may be put on options that are on the table. Key
audiences may ultimately feel abused by the process, and alienated from the results.
iii. The goal of the consultation exercise itself must be clear.
As well as having an appropriate sponsor and agenda, an effective consultation process
must reflect the degree to which the sponsor intends to use the exercise principally to
inform itself in its decision-making processes, and the degree to which it wishes to use
the exercise to forge a consensus for the outcome among key audiences.
If the goal is principally or exclusively the informing of decision-makers, then the
consultation process can be viewed as a type of research, where key parties are asked for
their views on a series of broadly or narrowly-defined questions at a particular point in
time. While the opportunity to provide input may be appreciated by the participants, there
is no reason to expect that a consensus will emerge from a static, research-oriented
approach.
If the goal is consensus-building, then the consultation process needs to facilitate and
promote the making of choices, compromises and trade-offs within particular groups, and
among competing interests and parties.
For this to occur, the consultation process needs to be dynamic, and allow participants to
priorize their concerns in the context of their overall interests, and to re-priorize
concerns in the context of the articulated priorities of others, and based on substantive
direction being given by the sponsor as the process unfolds.
A dynamic process which aims to produce consensus must therefore be "iterative"
in nature. The sponsor needs to articulate its conclusions on priority matters in a
logical iterative manner as the process unfolds, so that the options under discussion are
progressively narrowed, and those that are not on the table are discarded.
In this manner, participants are able to contribute to the consideration of detailed
policy options or operating principles, even if their views on broader issues (such as
goals and values) may not have completely won out. Consensus around the outcome is
therefore possible with this type of process.
Finally, since consensus depends on compromise, the sponsor of a consensus-building
exercise must make it clear to participants that it seriously intends to adhere to any
compromise solutions which are reached. Without such an indication, there is little
motivation for groups to back off their starting positions.
iv. The participants in a consultation exercise must include all appropriate
parties.
To be effective, a consultation process must include all those who have relevant points of
view, or who have a stake in the outcome, including:
- groups or individuals who represent the views of other people, sectors,
industries, firms, or institutions, with a direct or indirect stake in the outcome;
- groups or individuals who may not be representative of others, but who have expertise or
information relevant to the subject matter; and
- in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Federal Government's policies, the public
in general has a right to be informed about, and to express views on, any significant
decision being considered by the Government of Canada.
In the case of public policy review which is narrowly defined (see point
ii above), parties with a direct or indirect interest in a matter, and with expertise, are
generally not too difficult to identify, since they are usually participants in previous
similar exercises, or are otherwise known as members of the sector involved in a policy
area.
In the case of a broadly-defined policy review, where fundamental change in policy goals
is an acknowledged possible outcome, then some relevant representative and expert
viewpoints may not be aware of the potential impact of the outcome on them, and may not
have been involved in previous discussions in the area.
Identifying such parties, motivating them to participate, and providing them with
sufficient information to express informed viewpoints, is, in this case, the
responsibility of the sponsor.
As for the views of the broad public, or segments of it, on public policy matters under
review, it is important that the sponsor measure public opinion through various
quantitative and qualitative research methodologies to a satisfactory level of accuracy,
possibly several times throughout a consultation process.
However, it is not generally practical, cost effective or necessary to canvass the views
of the public through an iterative process of mass consultation. Mass consultations
involving a significant proportion of the population, with a view to creating consensus,
has rarely been attempted in Canada, or elsewhere. Probably the most ambitious attempt in
Canada was the Spicer Commission exercise on constitutional reform. While it reached
millions of Canadians through its communications programs, it generated input from an
estimated 250,000 -- which is a large number, but still less than one per cent of the
total population.
For the most part, the obligation of a sponsor is to ensure that the public is informed
about the process and is able to follow its progress, and to ensure that individuals are
able to make a representation, if they so wish.
v. The selected consultation tools and processes must reflect the purpose of
the exercise, and the character of the participants.
As discussed in point iii above, a consultation process which seeks principally to inform
decision-making is different from one that seeks to promote consensus through an iterative
process where issues are progressively narrowed, and compromise and trade-offs promoted
among key participants.
For example, the classic "Royal Commission" model does not generally build any
consensus. In this model, a set of issues are generally defined and presented to a number
of audiences, and each audience generally comments on all issues. The Commissioners then
prepare recommendations which may or may not flow from the representations made. There is
little or no attempt made to promote compromise.
Consensus-building approaches can, however, be built around this type of model, as
follows:
A. All groups could be invited to come together (in so-called plenary
format) to present views on the range of matters under review, so as to clarify starting
positions to the sponsors, and to other participants.
B. Individual groups could be brought together (outside the plenary) to rank concerns on
the whole set of issues, to indicate preferences when one goal or issue clashes with
another, to indicate where trade-offs might happen.
C. Groups can also be brought together (outside the plenary) to address individual issues
in some logical sequence to ascertain specific dispositions, concerns, and identify
possible areas of compromise.
An iterative process involving a series of type A, B, and C processes
could be undertaken, with the sponsor progressively narrowing the issues as the process
unfolds. The result should be a "compromise outcome", around which there may be
at least some minimal amount of consensus.
For further information: email
Peter O'Malley
Back to articles menu
Back to Homepage
|