TYPOLOGY of
Group
Decision-Making
An Index of
Characteristics,
Dimensions, and
Components
(For Use By Community Decision-making Entities)
DRAFT: FPSI and CSSP -- May 2003
Collaborative Decision-Making
TYPOLOGY
An Index of Characteristics,
Dimensions, and Components
(For Use By Community Decision-making Entities)
How to Use the TYPOLOGY:
The typology is a comprehensive index of characteristics, dimensions and components of collaborative
decision-making processes. The typology was designed to collect information about the scope and depth
of structural and performance characteristics of collaborative entities that were developed to improve
results for children, families and communities.
The typology attempts to take a snap shot of a collaborative’s depth, capacities, performance and
sustainability as a apparatus for monitoring conditions, implementing locally defined strategies and
improving results, overtime. The index of characteristics examines, for example, an entities’ level of
power, influence, type of support, focus on results and use of data.
PART A:
Is a one-page tool, which lists the structural and performance characteristics in the left
column of the page with a corresponding continuum or span of dimensions and components
to the right. The user is to make a selection along the continuum on the right which best
depicts where that collaborative is in its structure or performance. If you need help
determining where the collaborative line-up on the continuum, refer to Part B.
PART B:
Provides descriptions of each of the structural and performance characteristics, provides a
continuum of scope and examples to guide the user with defining where a collaborative
massy fall along the continuum of choices.
Typology of Group Decision-Making
An Index of Characteristics, dimensions and Components
Structural
Characteristics
Continuum of Dimensions and components
Geography – Level of Focus
Community/Neigh
Purpose
Whole Population Results
Organization Age
< 1 year
Initiation
Formal
Assisted
Representative-ness
Balance
Seeking Balance
Selective
Power
Control Resources
Influence Resources
Advisory
Connections to Public Agencies
Active Participation
Moderate
Legitimacy
Strong
Performance
Characteristics
City
County
Ser Sys Area
Service System
1-5 years
Region
State
Agency/Program
-10 years
Moderate/Developing
>10 years
Self-Created
None
Ad Hoc/Short Term
Continuum of Dimensions and components
Credibility
Respected
Stability
Stable
Participation in Decision Making
Process
Inclusive/Diverse
Leadership Support
High/Well-Developed
Moderate
Low/Undeveloped
Leadership Participation
Active/Fully Engaged
Moderate
Not Active
Resources
Many Sources
Moderate
None
Results Driven
Results Driven
Part A
DRAFT: FPSI and CSSP – May 2003
Gaining Respect
Becoming More Stable
Actively Seeking
Developing Results Focus
Not Respected
Many New Starts
Exclusive
Process Oriented
Data Driven
Data Driven
Areas of Focus
Many
Scope of Strategies
Community-Wide/
Comprehensive/Integrated
Action-Oriented,
Continuous Improvement, Ambitious
Active/Learning Process
Track Record
Demonstrated Improvement in
Results or Service System
Part A
DRAFT: FPSI and CSSP – May 2003
Lacking Data Capacity
Anecdotes
One
Broad Targeted
Narrow
Developing Capacity
Stalled/Dormant
Building a Record
No Results Yet
Collaborative Decision-Making Typology
I.
Structural Characteristics
Geography:
Defines the geographic area of focus or jurisdiction; State; Region: County; City; Service system
catchment area (e.g. School District); Community/Neighborhood.
Purpose:
Groups have one or both purposes:
Whole Population: The purpose of the group is the well-being of a whole population or
subpopulation in a geographic area. Examples of whole populations include: all children in the
county, all children 0 to 5 in the state, all citizens of the region. The work of the group may involve
establishing a set of results and indicators, creating a report card on family and child well-being
and sponsoring action tables to improve results.
Service System or Agency/Program: The group focuses on the work of a particular program,
agency or service system. The work of the group may involve oversight of the performance of these
systems and services, coordination of service delivery and reform of service delivery structures to
make them more customer friendly and effective.
Initiation:
Formal: Established by legislation or executive order or by the formal action of an established
public or private sector entity. (e.g. Family Connections Councils in Georgia and Maryland’s Local
Management Boards were established pursuant to state legislation. Impact Councils have been
established by many United Ways.)
Assisted: Established by neighbors or citizens with the active involvement of service providers, or
established by service providers with the active involvement of citizens. May be seeking formal
authority.
Self-Created: Established by neighbors, citizens (and/or service providers) in an ad hoc,
spontaneous way to address a condition or result they want to change without formal sanction or
authorization. (e.g. Mothers Against Drunk Driving started this way.)
Part B
DRAFT: FPSI and CSSP – May 2003
1
Representativeness:
Balance: Provides adequate representation from many different parts of the community, including
balance between service providers, residents and private citizens, and balance by ethnicity, age,
gender and socio economics.
Seeking Balance: Prefer single-focus on one group or another or with token representation.
Selective: Comprehensive representation is not a part of its purpose. Dominated by one group or
another. Some participants may be token representatives.
Power:
Control Resources: Formal authority over the allocation and use of substantive core dollar
spending for services and supports.
Influence Resources: Respected and influential in budget, legislative and/or other formal decision
making processes. May not have the resources but can decide how they are spent.
Advisory: Lacks influence, sole role is to provide advice which may be ignored.
Legitimacy:
Legitimacy means the collaborative is formally recognized by key constituents, government and
the broader community as the entity accountable for assessing conditions, implementing
strategies, and monitoring results.
Strong: Formally recognized by key constituents, government, and the broader community as the
entity accountable for assessing conditions, implementing strategies and monitoring results.
Moderate/Developing: Not formally established, but may be generally recognized as the
responsible entity. Recognition may be improving, or legitimacy may be eroding.
Ad Hoc/Short Term without formal recognition or long-range activities.
Part B
DRAFT: FPSI and CSSP – May 2003
2
II. Performance Characteristics
Credibility:
Respected: Recognized by a broad citizenry or constituency as being an effective, useful and
productive organization that has achieved results or gained momentum.
Gaining Respect: Achieve results previously. Now losing/gaining respect. Convened for a
purpose that has never been (or is no-longer being) fulfilled.
Not respected yet. (See Rodney King)
Stability:
Stable: Long term regular membership and participation by key stakeholders. Consistent
involvement and growth in role and capacity.
Becoming More Stable: Increasing or decreasing stability, in the process of development.
Stability may be subject to occasional threats or periods of uncertainty.
Many New Starts: Frequent turnover of membership and staff with irregular attendance and
participation.
Participation in Decision Making Process:
Inclusive/Diverse: Participation truly reflects the area represented. Actively seeks out all
residents and frequently engages new stakeholders. Decisions are made in an open consensus
process.
Actively Seeking: Groups actively seek out and include diverse participation, and honestly uses
diversity to strengthen organization and decide on action. Decisions are made in an open
consensus process.
Exclusive: Decisions are made in a closed process, by a powerful small group made up of people
traditionally or regularly involved.
Part B
DRAFT: FPSI and CSSP – May 2003
3
Leadership Support:
High/Well-Developed: Key leaders visibly support the group’s work. Support is broad and
adequate to sustain the organization when individual leaders change. May include public officials,
public or private agency leaders, opinion-makers, or others with authority and influence.
Moderate: Support of key leaders is increasing or developing, however leadership support is
concentrated in a few individuals or groups. May be vulnerable if individual leaders change.
Low/Undeveloped: Key leaders ignore or even discount the groups work.
Leadership Participation:
Active/Fully Engaged: Key leaders directly and routinely participate regularly in the work of the
group. They are broadly representative of stakeholders and have authority to make decisions
within their stakeholder groups.
Moderate: Key leaders’ participation is inconsistent. They may rely on low or mid-level
representatives.
Not Active: Key leaders do not participate at all and/or rely on low or mid level representatives.
Maybe ignored or even discounted by leaders.
Resources:
Commitment of time, energy, and money devoted to carrying out the mission, purpose and goals.
Can be from none to many.
Results Driven:
Results Driven: The group is action oriented and uses a clear plain-language articulation of
(population or customer) end conditions of well-being as the starting point for identifying means
and creating an action plan.
Developing Results Focus: In the process of identifying (population or customer) end conditions
of well-being, refining indicators, and/or developing action plans for achievement of results.
Process Oriented: Focuses on process or indicators do not measure progress toward results.
Does not have clearly articulated results, measurable indicators, or results-focused action plan.
Endless talk and no action.
Part B
DRAFT: FPSI and CSSP – May 2003
4
Data Driven:
Data Driven: Uses population indicators and/or program, agency or service system performance
measures to assess progress and make decisions. Defines success as progress measured against
baseline and not point-to-point improvement. Uses descriptions of accomplishments and stories of
how peoples’ lives are better to complement the story told by the data.
Lacking Data Capacity: Use of data is not systematic or routine. May be developing capacity to
collect or use data. May not have established baselines for all indicators or may measure progress
point-to-point rather than comparing to the baseline.
Anecdotes: The group does not use data in any disciplined way and relies only on stories or
anecdotes to describe progress.
Scope of Strategies:
Community-Wide/Comprehensive/Integrated: Group strategies are crafted to create
significant change at the community, service system, or cross-sector level. Focuses on a range of
quality of life issues. Strategies reflect thinking across agencies, service systems, service sectors,
and levels of government; involve multiple actions, formal and informal resources, and a range of
programs.
Broad Targeted: Focused on a few strategies that may not reflect the quality of life concerns of
all stakeholders. Strategies are not comprehensive across all levels and utilize a limited range of
resources. Limited approach may be intended to and viewed as laying the foundation for more
comprehensive, integrated strategies.
Narrow: The group is focused exclusively on the implementation of one project, the delivery of one
service or the functioning of one program or agency.
Action-oriented, Continuous Improvement, Ambitious:
Active/Learning Process: The group continuously seeks to improve its understanding of the
population community, or customer conditions of well-being, and its knowledge of what works to
improve those conditions. And the group uses this new knowledge to regularly assess and improve
its action plan.
Developing Capacity: Headed in the right direction, but struggles to develop the capacity needed
to keep pace with stakeholders’ ambitions. May be facing significant challenges, but sees that as
part of the learning process.
Part B
DRAFT: FPSI and CSSP – May 2003
5
Stalled/Dormant: Often unable to move from talk to action. May be stalled, temporarily dormant
or permanently inactive – with few goals, unclear scope or little capacity. E.G., produces a
document that stakeholders never use.
Track Record:
Demonstrated Improvement in Results or Service System: The group has convincing evidence
of its contribution to improving the lives of children and families and/or improvements in the
performance of programs, agencies and service systems.
Building a Record: Developing capacity and evidence of improvement. May be too new to have
evidence, but is working on it. May have anecdotal evidence and confidence of stakeholders, but
lack ability to document progress. Working to develop the necessary capacity to track progress.
No Results Yet: No record of progress, improvement or better results. Efforts to collect or
document progress are not evident.
Part B
DRAFT: FPSI and CSSP – May 2003
6
USER NOTES
Geography - Levels of Focus
Purpose
Organization Age
Initiation
Representative-ness
Power
Connections to Public Agencies
Legitimacy
Credibility
Stability
Participation in Decision Making
Process
Leadership Support
Leadership Participation
Resources
Results Driven
What do you think about the Typology?
Send us your comments.
Contact: Phyllis R. Brunson at Phyllis.Brunson@cssp.org or Mark Friedman at XFPSI@aol.com
USER NOTES
Data Driven
Areas of Focus
Scope of Strategies
Action-oriented,
Seeking Continuous Improvement
Track Record