| Brief description of technique |
|
A brief scenario of the issue in question is developed
to allow maximum flexibility on the day. A panel, preferably
six to eight people, representing the viewpoints of
the various interests, is led through two or three issues
by the facilitator.
The panelists are encouraged to state what they would
do to address the issue from their viewpoints.
|
| To what kinds of consultation situations
is this approach best suited? |
|
This approach is useful early in conference and consultation
processes to "break open" issues and canvas
a broad range of views. It is not as useful when used
as a summary technique. It flushes the issues out, rather
than pulling them together into a neat solution, though
this can be added to the process if desired.
|
| How much time is generally needed? |
|
1 - 1.5 hours (this results in about 10 minutes speaking
time per participant which is ample).
|
| How are target populations identified and
approached? |
|
Panel members are chosen to represent the various interests
around an issue. Ideally, the set up should be that
people who may be involved in the issue are asked represent
a different interest, or at least act in a different
hierarchical position to their nominal position, for
example a recreation director may act as a CEO on the
panel. In this way, perceived restrictions on actual
positions are less likely to inhibit creativity.
The audience can have a role and it can be best to
identify the audience first and then draw the panel
from this group.
|
| What are the skills required? |
|
The main qualities required by the facilitator are:
- Capacity to think quickly on one's feet
- Knowledge of facilitation techniques and capacity
to "draw people out"
- Some knowledge of content, if possible
The facilitator should be involved in participant selection
and scenario development. Scenario development should
be minimal (ie: the issue should not be too "worked
through" prior to the session).
A good understanding of the "activity based"
approach is needed to facilitate interaction.
|
| What kind of information do participants
require prior to their involvement? |
|
Simple written description of the topic and a 20-minute
group briefing prior to participation.
|
| Brief outline of how the process usually
works ? |
|
A moderator directs the attention of participants to
hypothetical problems requiring action-based
solutions, flexibly and dynamically modifying the scenario
as participants grapple with solutions. One participant
is needed with strong media and summary skills.
|
| How is the process successfully concluded? |
| An effective summary of the complexity of issues
uncovered from the moderator or another member of the
panel. |
| What level of reporting back to participants
occurs? |
|
Reporting occurs dynamically during the process, with
participants as active observers of their own behaviour.
|
| How is this approach usually evaluated? |
|
As a sub-component of a broader consultation or conference
process.
|
| Strengths |
- High-profile, often entertaining event.
- Capacity to bring in a large number of observers.
- A forum to canvas a broad range of views around
an issue in a short time.
|
| Weaknesses |
- Is usually only the first or one component of a
broader consultation strategy.
- Is not as factually-based or reliable as other methods.
|
| Resources Required |
- Venue hire including elevated platform with six
to ten speakers seated with individual microphones.
Roving microphone for facilitator.
- External facilitation may be required.
- Promotional material distribution.
- Recording facilities such as video or audio-visual.
|
