Post No.: 0967
Furrywisepuppy says:
Before anyone tries to come up with a solution to a complex problem – we must first identify every stakeholder involved or affected by that situation. Without doing so, we cannot really find an achievable and acceptable solution for all involved. We must most crucially identify those stakeholders who can actually make the decisions and/or make a change.
So instead of looking for the first thing that appears like a solution to us, grabbing it firmly between our teeth, then defending it from all attackers, thus risking a heated stalemate where nobody shifts from their initial views and ideas and it seems like a big waste of time for all involved (like in most debates!) – we are better off first understanding the problem and solution spaces better. Each stakeholders’ core or root problem and perceptions need to be made explicit, which may reveal some common interests, as well as conflicts of interests.
At the beginning, a stakeholder may possibly present an opening aim that’s way above what they really want because they’re trying to set a high anchor. Or a stakeholder may not honestly disclose their true aim because to them it’s just about their own personal gain, which will not win them any favours from the other stakeholders if this is made overt. So some steakholders may play games to try to influence the negotiations.
To define a problem clearly and fully, we need the right information. However, remember that information isn’t always objective (e.g. people rely on different sources, use different timescales, system boundaries, perspectives, models). Interests may also evolve over time as everybody learns and understands more about what’s realistic and achievable, and what each of them truly wants and personally prioritises.
All stakeholders involved need to express what their main problems are in the form of problem statements, which present the problem, as they see it, in its most fundamental or global form (e.g. they want ‘affordable transportation from A to B’, not necessarily a ‘train’).
Each statement must include a dilemma or conflict explaining why the gap between the current desired/undesired state and the desired future state or goal won’t close automatically (e.g. explain why fulfilling this goal could create an undesirable outcome elsewhere and/or down the line). And no one should presuppose a solution yet otherwise this will restrict the solution space too soon and create unnecessary initial debate as people contest over their positions before their interests. Each stakeholder may possess their own problem statements, thus an overall problem statement will need to be drafted to take all of their different perspectives into account.
These abstract root problems or goals then need to be made more and more concrete and specific by breaking them down step-by-step into sub-goals in a goal tree (one goal tree per stakeholder first), that eventually elucidates several potential measurable and practical criteria for success by asking each time ‘why do you want this?’ to reveal a more fundamental reason for seeking a particular goal, and by asking each time ‘what does this more practically mean?’ to reveal a more practical task that could fulfil a particular goal or higher goal. There may be many criteria resulting from all these goal trees hence the group may need to select just a handful of the most important in order to compile a well-balanced set of overall criteria for the entire group (other criteria can be appended later if required though).
Now work out all the factors in the system that may directly or indirectly affect or hinder the chosen criteria for success in a causal diagram, which should include whether each factor affects another factor or criteria in a positive or negative direction. Some factors may influence other factors, but if a factor isn’t influenced by anything then it is exogenous and cannot be changed by anyone within the analysis (they have output but no input in the causal diagram). These exogenous factors can provide a lot of uncertainty and this uncertainty is dealt with in a scenario analysis, where one looks at the high volatility/uncertainty and high impact exogenous factors and writes down different combinations of plausible future worst-case, best-case and most realistic-case scenarios relating to each of these factors so that one can consider the consequences and potential solutions regarding each of these potential future scenarios. The group will eventually need to a find a solution that’ll be robust for all plausible future scenarios.
After having defined the problem area, the group can now start to think about possible solutions and alternatives that’ll influence the criteria for success in the desired directions. This can be achieved by looking at the causal diagram and searching for furry factors that’ll directly or indirectly influence those criteria, and trying to change those factors somehow. One may discover a key factor that’ll lead causally to many desirable outcomes? Remember that one viable option is to do nothing – considering this option at least serves as a reference point to compare other potential solutions to.
Every stakeholder should be involved in these discussions to make sure no obvious potential alternatives are missed. But it’s crucial to not judge any ideas too soon. Note that if there’s only one possible course of action then there’s no decision to make and no point in conducting a complex problem analysis.
This entire problem analysis is also useful for communicating the problem space to every stakeholder involved so that everyone can see how everything is interconnected and how complex the problem really is.
A multi-criteria analysis can now be completed – use a scorecard/impact table to score the impact of each alternative solution on each criterion (complete one table per scenario (potential future) from the scenario analysis). You can research these values, or for those you cannot, create estimates. Try to at least be in the right order of magnitude – first break the calculation down into its constituent (better-known) variables then multiply them together in an equation. If a value seems contentious then try breaking that variable down even further. Try different approaches to cross-check the figures. Don’t state an estimate as if it’s accurate though i.e. round them to one or two significant numbers.
A SMART (simple multi-attribute rating technique) table builds upon each scorecard by weighting different criteria differently according to the priority for each stakeholder, via multipliers (e.g. 1.2x or 1.5x). Do explain why these weightings were chosen, and try not to tweak these weights afterwards for the desired outcome! Although doing so can show how sensitive the scores are to the chosen multipliers.
These scores should also be normalised within each cell of each table (typically between 0 and 1, where 0 is the lowest and 1 is the highest impact score). So for each row, determine the highest and lowest value, then subtract the lowest from the highest, which gives the range. Use the absolute difference between the to-be-normalised value and the lowest value then divide this by the range. Now calculate the weighted sum of scores for each alternative, which should result in a total numerical score for each alternative for each table.
Complete one SMART table for each stakeholder and for each scenario. But be advised that these may only be relevant for one particular moment in time because people’s feelings or priorities could change.
At this juncture, the alternatives can be numerically compared for each stakeholder. The highest ranked alternative isn’t always the best solution however (after all, the figures and scenarios are mostly estimates). A robust alternative is one that stands well in many scenarios.
These techniques are mainly about communication and they help us to approach a complex problem systematically and reach an agreement on what to do. It’s now down to everybody involved to collectively decide on the desired course of action(s).
There may not be just one best answer, and there almost certainly won’t be a perfect answer, for any complex problem that involves dilemmas and multiple interests, even with the benefit of hindsight – but by considering every stakeholder involved, by making the root problem(s) explicit, by working out the measurable criteria for success and the causal relationships of the influencing factors, by considering future scenarios, by trying to quantitatively score and weight each possible alternative, and by not trying to think too narrowly towards a solution too soon – one can start to make more rational decisions. Woof!
…We all need to talk and listen to facilitate the creation of more value together than individually. Trust is the glue of any negotiation. And the feeling of fairness will determine whether the parties will feel satisfied with the decision or outcome. And a key component that makes a decision feel fair is understanding the thinking process that arrived at that decision, and that this process was transparent and systematic rather than hidden or arbitrary.
Small and big negotiations happen frequently in our daily social lives – knowing this, it’s vital to build fluffy bridges to and preserve relationships with others at all times.
In many different contexts, from disagreements between friends to tackling global problems – thinking of only oneself will scupper us when communication and cooperation are what are needed.
Seeking agreement is about bringing to the table our interests, the things we’re trying to achieve, and the reasons for those interests and goals. A common mistake is assuming that all negotiations are about competition, but if we share information, we might find that the interests of the parties are aligned. So don’t focus on the differences but seek the common grounds first.
Arguing isn’t the worst thing in the world because if the parties are still at the table, it means they all ultimately want to find some kind of agreement together. Walking away is when someone doesn’t care for finding a solution together anymore (albeit this may nevertheless sometimes be the best solution for the departing party).
Everything that involves human beings involves emotions, even if people are trying to hide them. Your, and everybody else’s, negative emotions need to be managed in negotiations otherwise you can become tunnel-visioned and behave irrationally or unreasonably. This can negatively affect another party’s responses towards you, thus creating a vicious cycle. Let you and them calm down first before you say or do the next thing. Preventing a communication breakdown is critical.
First cycle out – take a temporary moment away from each other, physically or at least mentally. Then cycle through – recompose and get yourself under control, remind yourself that you’re in the negotiation because you’ve got some personal stake and interest in the outcome, and take the attitude that you’re going to take the lead in solving this problem when you return. Finally cycle back – when you’re fully ready, re-engage with the other party despite what has been done or said. Lower your tone, be the bigger person and don’t feed their anger or let it affect you anymore (this will isolate them as the only ones with the temper if they’re still angry, which they’ll soon realise and calm down too out of self-consciousness). Being the first to bring the negotiations back on track will also garner you a kind of reluctant respect from them for your leadership and composure, which could then be used as leverage later.
Offer an olive branch, like saying or doing something nice to or for them, which will encourage a sense of reciprocity from them. Remember that it’s all in your own interests to get the negotiation back on track.
Woof. If you’ve got any successful experiences of solving complex social problems that involve multiple stakeholders with potentially clashing interests then please share the key pointers on how everybody came together to do it, via the Twitter comment button just below.
Comment on this post by replying to this tweet:
