Collaborative Problem Solving

What is Collaborative Problem-Solving (CPS)?

Many public policy disputes would benefit from a collaborative approach that addresses each party's needs and concerns, while strengthening relationships and understanding of the issues. Collaborative problem-solving (CPS) is a systematic approach for people with differing views and interests to find workable shared solutions to complex challenges. Every CPS process is different and may involve processes like facilitated dialogues, mediation, joint fact-finding, and other techniques that bring about resolution of a dispute.

What happens in a CPS process?

OCDR’s CPS process involves a series of steps aimed at helping parties work towards resolution and implement shared solutions

Preliminary consultation – Meet with key stakeholders to determine whether a collaborative problem solving process could be useful and who should be involved.
Issue assessment and process design – Use interviews and background research to gain insight into issues, needs, and interests. Work collaboratively to design a customized CPS process and strategy.
Preparation of participants – Provide training and develop charters, agreements, and operating procedures to ensure participants are prepared to engage in CPS.
Consensus building – Use a variety of techniques and approaches to: build shared understanding among problem-solving participants; engage in sharing information and joint fact finding; generate options for mutual gain; and develop integrative solutions. This stage may also involve broader public engagement.
Implementation – Connect agreements to external decision making, build capacity for implementation, and define responsibilities and deliverables.

Each CPS process is unique and is designed based on the specific interests and needs of the people and organizations involved. Often there are 10 or more individuals involved in a CPS process. The process may last from a few weeks up to a year or longer. The goal is long-term, sustainable resolution of issues.

Throughout the process, OCDR acts as an impartial third party to ensure:

balanced representation of interested and affected parties
multiple viewpoints are heard
a variety of options are considered
agreements are actionable

The CPS process model provides a helpful visual of the phases and deliverables of a CPS process.

Who is involved in a CPS and what are their roles?

A CPS process facilitated by OCDR often involves a variety of roles to make the CPS process a success. Here is a brief list of common roles:

Convener - A person of stature respected by all stakeholders; invites stakeholders into the process; adds legitimacy to the process.
Sponsor (if different from Convener) - Provides logistical support and follow through.
Participants - Problem solvers from all sectors and levels in the conflict who need to be involved to come to resolution. Participants may participate in various ways, for example in a process design committee, a task force, a subcommittee, etc.
Facilitator(s) - A person or team, often a third party, who works on process design, meeting facilitation, and helps move the group towards consensus.
Project management team (if different from facilitator or facilitation team) - Provides day-to-day operational support of the CPS process as it unfolds.
Core team or coordinating committee - Includes some, but not all, stakeholders invited to take part in the full CPS process.
Subject matter experts/ Content area specialists - May provide specialized technical or cultural knowledge beyond what participants provide.

When should parties not engage in CPS?

Parties should consider not engaging in CPS when:

there are few areas of potential agreement;
a key stakeholder group is not willing to participate;
there are very unrealistic deadlines for reaching consensus;
there are “better” options available to one or more parties (e.g., litigation);
the convener wants to control the process and the facilitator cannot be autonomous;
power imbalances prevent constructive dialogue;
there is no way to fund the consensus-building effort; and/or
there is no urgency to collaborate or reach consensus (no deadline, no mandate, lack of stakeholder interest, etc.)