27 stakeholder engagement a toolkit-2

8/6/2019 27 Stakeholder Engagement a Toolkit-2

1/38

WORKING TOWARDS MORE EFFECTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE

BROWNFIELD REVITALISATION POLICIES

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

- A TOOLKIT


2/38

Foreword

Stakeholder engagement and/or participatory practice is increasinglybecoming a part o mainstream business practice and central to public

policy decision-making and delivery.

It is being used as a means to improvecommunications, obtain wider community support orbuy-in or projects, gather useul data and ideas,enhance public sector or corporatereputation, and provide or moresustainable decision-making.

The potential spin-os rom a high-quality engagement process include:

strengthening o democracy byencouraging more active involvement bycommunities and other stakeholders

improvement in the quality and sustainabilityo public and private-sector services

building greater community cohesion

tackling complex problems in public sectorservice design and delivery

Stakeholder engagement should be at the hearto any sustainable development agenda.

Without engaging stakeholders, there can beno common enduring agreement, ownership orsupport or a particular project. A venture is morelikely to succeed, especially in the long-term, i ittakes into consideration the environment in whichit operates and endeavours to meet the needso the stakeholders aected by it. Stakeholderengagement could be viewed as a orm o riskmanagement. Many projects, but not necessarilyall, will need to engage with a wide range o stakeholder groups,

each with their own concerns, needs, conicts o interest and levelso inuence. In order or the pieces o the project plan to be eective,planners and project managers need to understand who are the


3/38

Background

The need orstakeholderengagement becomes increasinglyapparent the larger and more complex a project becomes. Brownfeldredevelopment projects by their nature tend to all within this category.

A toolkit which provides guidance on how best to plan or, manage,implement and evaluate stakeholder engagement, could thus be a

valuable management tool or brownfeld regeneration projects.

The development o this toolkit has been unded through REVIT atrans-national EU project which aims at improving the efciency andsustainability o brownfeld regeneration projects. This toolkit wasdrated by Toraen County Borough Council (TCBC) as part o the REVIT

project and was evaluated and reviewed by REVIT partners and othersduring a three day workshop held in March 2006.

Relevance or Brownfeld sites and beyond

A critical issue to consider by those who have responsibility or theredevelopment o brownfeld sites is the need to integrate the various

views and opinions o stakeholders at the earliest opportunity. Theattitude o the local community is important in determining the level

o priority attached to the redevelopment o such sites. Involvingthe community in the project rom the earliest planning phase canproduce many benefts, and indeed bring greater sustainability to thedevelopment, by engendering a sense o ownership and involvement.

Acknowledgements

This toolkit has been developed by Claire Gray, Head o UrbanRegeneration or Toraen County Borough Council, and peer reviewinput rom European partners rom the Interreg IIIB project REVIT.

Additional input has also been provided by Andrew Gray, Sarah Colvin,QUEST, Involve, and Gareth Kiddie Associates.


4/38

Introduction

Who are Stakeholders?

In the context opublic participation, a stakeholder can be denedas any person, orgroup, who has an interest in the project orcould be potentially aected by its delivery or outputs.

Stakeholders may be existing or potential customers or end-users othe product, employees, suppliers, shareholders, or those that denepolicies or have nancial leverage. Those responsible or undertakingpublic participation oten categorise stakeholders into groups based

on a number o actors including geographic boundaries or location,recognised bodies or institutions, income groups, land ownership oroccupation, legal requirements, and real or perceived views o theissue under dispute. The nature o this classication means that thesestakeholder groups are usually not homogenous entities. It is morelikely in act, that an identied stakeholder group will comprise adiverse mix o individuals, who may or may not identiy themselves

with the particular stakeholder group into which they have been

categorised. This is an important issue to take into consideration whenidentiying who your stakeholders are. Stakeholder identication is acritical component o the initial scoping phase and should occur beorethe engagement plan is ormulated and consultations begin.

Levels o Participation

Beore any expensive and lengthy engagement process is begun, it isimportant to have a good understanding, and indeed consider what

level o participation is actually being sought. Public participation canbe broadly categorised into the ollowing:

LEVELS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GOALS

InormTo provide the public with balanced and objectiveinormation to assist them in understanding theproblem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions.

Consult

To obtain public eedback or decision-makers on

analysis, alternatives and/or decisions.

I l

To work directly with the public throughout theprocess to ensure that public concerns and aspirations


5/38

Securing Institutional and Developer Buy-in

In most cases there is a need to secure both institutional anddeveloper buy-in to the process i.e. the need to demonstratethe positive spin-os o a careully managed engagement process, toencourage institutional and developer support/endorsement rom the

outset.

Why?

In the realm o browneld and other development projects, obtainingdeveloper buy-in to the stakeholder engagement process, is equallyas important as obtaining institutional backing. There are manycompelling arguments or why institutional and developer support orthe engagement process should be sought as early as possible. These

include:

added value and greater sustainability or related projects andagendas

better co-ordinated consultations

establishing a clear audit trail o engagement to support the project

there is a higher risk o project ailure i engagement is not done

In addition to the main grounds or undertaking stakeholderengagement (such as getting community buy-in or a project andmore sustainable decision-making), other potential spin-os ordevelopers include an improved corporate image, marketing leveragerom hosting or sponsoring community events, becoming a case-studyo good business practice, and helping to raise the corporate socialprole o the company.

How to obtain Institutional Support

Obtaining institutional buy-in can be sought through a number oavenues. These include:

getting stakeholders to raise the issue through institutional channelsand/or lobby the need or it

relationship building with key sympathetic individuals in theorganisational structure

obtaining toplevel support or it - i.e. becomes a mandate rom thelocal leader or chie executive

i b ki i i i i h


6/38

How to obtain Developer Support

Developers can be encouraged to support (and oten nance)the process through many o the same channels used to secureinstitutional buy-in. In addition, the ollowing incentives can be oered:

Selling the merits o stakeholder engagement such as the long-termcost-savings, reduced confict and sustainability benets

Oering institutional support and match unding or the process

Taking a more hard-line approach, by making it a requiremento the tender process i.e. the developer would not be consideredunlessthey agreed to carry out (or commission) a ull stakeholderengagement process.

Freedom o Inormation Act - Notes

In controversial cases, journalists,campaigning stakeholders andenthusiastic members o thepublic will soon start using theFreedom o Inormation Act torequest inormation about the

way consultations have been

undertaken. They are likely to askquestions such as:-

Q Who was involved in your pre-consultation discussions? Who formulatedthe questions?

Q Why did you survey the residentsof XX but not YY?

Q How did you select people to takepart in your Focus Groups?How representative were they?

Q Where exactly did you advertise thepublic meetings? How was it that ourmembers did not hear about it in time?

Q Can we see the raw data from the

Residents Panel survey on this subject?

Q Can we see the minutes of the meetingsyou held with the property developer?


7/38

Aim of the Toolkit

Whilst this toolkit is intended to provide a valuable planning tool orbrowneld projects, it is not browneld-specic and can be used or a

wide range o projects involving stakeholder engagement.

The overall aim o the toolkit is:

To provide a ramework or organisations to consider the keycomponents necessary to engage with stakeholders

As no two development projects are ever identical varying in site,constraints, unding partners and timescales one cannot expect

to replicate the participation process o one project (no matterhow successul) to produce the same results in another. Rather, it isnecessary to treat each process separately, learning rom the lessons osimilar projects but recognising where there is room or improvement.This toolkit is intended to provide a generic guideline or how to planand manage an eective engagement process.

What is not included in the Toolkit

This toolkit does not set out to provide a detailed how to guide;nor does it cover all the elements o stakeholder engagement at thelevel o detail which may be required. For example, it does not evenattempt to address the wide range o methodologies/techniques thatcould be employed in the actual engagement phase. However, it doesprovide a broad ramework (and strategic guidelines) or the planning,management and implementation o the participatory process.From providing guidance on how to identiy and dene the purpose,scope and context o the process to planning the nal review andevaluation, we hope that this toolkit will provide a straight-orwardand practical management tool that will remain within arms reach, asopposed to yet another how-to-do manual gathering dust on yourbookshel.


8/38

How the Toolkit Works

Stakeholder Engagement Planning - Flowchart Diagram(essentially a hyperlinked contents page or the toolkit) provides adiagrammatic overview o the stakeholder engagement process, whichis hyperlinked to respective Guidelines o Best Practice within thebody o the toolkit.

Stakeholder Engagement Plan Framework- comprises themain element o the toolkit and is a proorma that outlines the mainelements that should be worked through in planning a stakeholderengagement. Each element is hyperlinked to respective Guidelines oBest Practice within the body o the toolkit.

Guidelines o Best Practice are included in the body o the toolkitto provide denitions, rationale, key themes or questions, andbackground or additional inormation or each element o the process.These are hyperlinked to the relevant parts o both the StakeholderEngagement Planning Flowchart Diagram and the StakeholderEngagement Plan Framework.

Evaluation Matrix a tool to assist in the review process, both beore,

during and ater a stakeholder engagement activity.

Lessons Learned Log - a proorma to assist in logging lessonslearned through the review and nal evaluation processes.

List o useul publications


9/38

PRIORTO

ENGAGEM

ENT

DURINGENGAGEMENT

A: DESIREDOUTCOMES

B: SCOPING PROCESS

B4: StakeholerIdentifcation

B3: ContextB2: ScopeB1: Purpose

D: ENGAGEMENTPROCESS

C: ENGAGEMENTPLAN

E: FINALEVALUATION

INSTITUTIONALBUY-IN

REVIEWPROCESS

C1:

COMMISSIONINGA PLAN

C2:CONTENT OF

A PLAN

STAKEHOLDERENGAGEMENTPLANNINGFLOWCHART DIAGRAM


10/38

A:des

ired

out

comes

A:Desired Outcomes

Denition:

Desired outcomes are the overall aims o an engagement process.

Actual outcomes are the undamental dierence that a processmakes: its overall results and impacts.

Outcomes are more specic than purpose, and are the clearstatement o exactly what is sought rom the process.

The desired outcomes o a stakeholder engagement exercise shouldalways be at the oreront o planning an engagement process.They should be clearly stated, detailing exactly what is sought rom

the process and should transcend all other considerations, alwaysremaining the ocus o the engagement, rather than the outputs o theprocess itsel.

The desired outcomes orundertaking a stakeholderengagement process couldinclude:

Improved personal

and/or workingrelationships

Changed perceptions(or the better)

Improved communication channels

Promotion o a wider circle o responsibilityor decisions and actions - active citizenship

Agreement on purpose and direction(i.e. buy-in) o a project or programme

Early identication o potential issues, conficts and benets

Generation o new ideas

Formation o new ormal partnerships

Deusion o confict situations beore these impede progress

Enhancement o social capital and/or improved services or people Policy change

Cost savings in the medium to long-term


11/38

A:des

ired

out

comes

How do our desired outcomes infuence the methodology weadopt?

Dierent participatory methods are designed toproduce dierent types o outcomes, whichin turn, determine the nal outcomes o thestakeholder engagement exercise. Identiyingour desired outcomes during the scopingphase (i.e. beore the engagement plan isormulated and the engagement processbegun) helps to identiywhich methods(identied in the engagement plan) willbe the most likely to deliver upon theseoutcomes, and achieve the purpose identiedor the engagement process.

Identiying and agreeing to the desired outcomesis thus a crucial part o the planning process. Itnot only helps to select the most appropriatemethodology/techniques or engagementbut ensures that the overall aims o theengagement exercise are never lost sight oas the project progresses.

Return tofowchart

Go toramework
http://a-desired%20outcomes.doc/http://a-desired%20outcomes.doc/http://a-desired%20outcomes.doc/


12/38

b:scop

ingprocess

B:Scoping Process

The Stakeholder Engagement Process Flowchart illustrates that thePurpose, Scope and Context o any stakeholder engagement are closelyinterrelated actors. This is because they are dened to varying degrees byeach other. In combination with Stakeholder Identication they constitute

the Scoping Process rom which, contingent upon institutional support,an Engagement Plan might be ormulated, and stakeholder engagementprocess begun.

B1:Purpose

Rationale:

Dening the purpose or reason orwhya stakeholder engagement processshould take place, is perhaps the single most important stage o any

stakeholder engagement process.

A good purpose will be highly ocused with clear aims, (originating romthe Desired Outcomes) and objectives. A poorly dened purpose will bevague regarding the potential outcomes o a project and open to dierentinterpretations.

It is critical, that the persons or organisation(s) responsible orcommissioning the stakeholder engagement process share a commonpurpose. Too oten, dierent purposes exist within the same organisation,

sometimes unspoken or assumed, and only coming to light when theprocess is underway. This can be both damaging and embarrassing.

Purpose as a reerence point

Once established, the agreed purpose can provide a reerence pointthroughout the stakeholder engagement process, or the project manager,the commissioning body and the participants themselves. This might beespecially so i participants try to introduce new subjects or issues. Theirrelevance to the purpose can be used to determine

whether or not they should be included.

A clear purpose enables the commissioning bodyto ensure that the right mechanisms are in placeto transorm the process outputs into outcomes.Many processes ail because commissioninginstitutions do not live up to the expectations placedon them. Clariying the purpose ensures that anycommissioning body knows what it is getting intoand can then check whether participation isappropriate.

Finally, a clear purpose gives participants anunderstanding o what they are part o and


13/38

b:s

copingp

rocess

Dening the purpose

Dening a clear purpose is not as easy as it sounds. For an organisation toreach a shared understanding requires time, which is almost always in shortsupply, especially at the start o a process. External circumstances can alsoaect the purpose and this possibility should be anticipated. For example,the results o orthcoming research or a decision taken by others can

infuence both the context and the purpose o a participation process. Thisis a particular risk i the process is not recognised or valued by people moresenior than those involved in the detailed design and delivery.

Identiying the purpose will involve liaising:

Internallyto clariy what can be changed as a result o the process andwhat outcomes and outputs are sought

Externallywith those aected by the project and to identiy peoplesinterests and concerns.

It is important in dening the purpose, as opposed to the desired outcomes,that there is clarity in understanding the dierence between aims andobjectives. These in turn are respectively linked to outcomes and outputs.

Aimsdescribe the desired outcomesyou ultimately want to achieveoverall,or example, to decide, though reaching a consensus, whether or not tobuild incinerators in a given area; (see Section A above).

Objectivesdescribe how you will achieve the outputs, i.e. theproducts that will ultimately lead to achieving the overall outcomes(Objectives must be SMART: Specifc, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and to aTimescale)or example, by holding a ocus group workshop at a suitable venueand time with all stakeholders, including technical experts, to discuss theissues, provide inormation and try to reach a consensus beore the end oJune.

Making a clear distinction between aims and objectives will contribute to

dening a robust and useul purpose.

To help dene an accurate purpose, the ollowing questions should beasked:

What do you want to have achieved overall at the end of this process(i.e. anticipatedoutcomes)?

What tangible products do you want to have produced from thisstakeholder engagement process (i.e. your keyoutputs)?

To cross-reerence the validity o your purpose - and indeed thepotential success o the stakeholder engagement commission - one shouldask the ollowing question:


14/38

b:scop

ingprocess

Possible purposes (or reasons) or undertaking stakeholder engagement,include:

to harness other peoples energies and resources

to explore issues and come up with resh ideas

to network, share ideas and best practice

to assist decision-making

to inorm

to understand local needs and wants

to encourage local buy-in and ownership in projects

to achieve more sustainable results

to better understand and monitor community perceptions

to establish more open communication channels, gain trust or work onbreaking down historic barriers.

Return tofowchart

Go toramework
http://b-scoping%20process.doc/http://b-scoping%20process.doc/http://b-scoping%20process.doc/


15/38

b:s

copingp

rocess B2:scope

Rationale:

The reason or dening the scope o a participatory exercise is to clariyexactly what the boundaries to the exercise are i.e. what can really beachieved in practice.

Identiying the scope o a project helps to dene an appropriate andachievable purpose.

Dening the scope

In dening the scope o the engagement exercise, the ollowing questionsshould be asked:

How much can really change? Establishing what can actually change asa result o participation is critical. Dening this will require liaison with the

decision maker(s), and should result in a clear statement rom them as towhat the engagement exercise can change. The International Associationo Public Participation calls this the Promise to the Public.

Is participation appropriate at all? There is no point in going anyurther with participation i or example:

- Nothing can change, no matter what the results o the participation

- There is no demand or interest rom potential participants in gettinginvolved

- There are insucient resources to make the process work properly

What level is being sought? It is important to be clear as to the level oparticipation that is sought through stakeholder engagement (see Levelso Public Participation Goals in Background). This being identied willassist in selecting appropriate methods o engagement.

What are the risks? Every activity carries risks and working with thepublic is by its very nature unpredictable. This is partly why participationis being done - to reach something new, something not already known.Good risk management requires that the potential risks are consideredrom the start.

The main risks in participation are to:

Reputations. Everyone involved in participation is risking their reputation,whether in the design and delivery o the participatory exercise, thewillingness to participate at all, and the willingness to abide by the results(i that is appropriate to the technique used)

Resources. Participation costs money and takes time, including rom

skilled personnel Failure to deliver on promised outcomes. Even where the desired

outcomes seem clearly dened rom the start, decision-makers may reuseto accept the outcomes in the event or unrealistic expectations may be


16/38

b:scop

ingprocess

Undertaking stakeholder engagement as something which needsto be done - and treated as such is reason enough NOT toembark upon the process.

Return tofowchart

Go toramework
http://b-scoping%20process.doc/http://b-scoping%20process.doc/http://b-scoping%20process.doc/


17/38

b:s

copingp

rocess B3:context

Rationale:

A good participatory process must be well embedded within its context. Bycontext we are referring to thebackgroundto the issue being addressedby the engagement process. Relevant issues pertaining to context could

include discussions or outcomes from previous engagement on the issue,as well as the historical, political, physical and cultural context of the issue.

Understanding the wider context in which the stakeholder engagementprocess will take place is critical to ensuring:

Links with other relevant organisations and related activities arerecognised

That the engagement process is responsive to participant needs and/orsensitivities by appreciating their wider role

The engagement process is built upon previous experience and lessonslearnt rather than duplicating previous eorts

That the process will contribute to relevant and measurable progress.

Determining the context

The context o any stakeholder engagement is determined by a broadspectrum o actors. Some o the most likely to aect the success o aparticipatory process, and/or the choice o methods adopted, include:

Decision-making environment.

Beore embarking upon any stakeholder engagement process you willwant to know about:

- The interest, commitment and/or involvement o key decision-makersin the process

- Legal and policy parameters

- How this current participatory process ts into the relevant decision-making systems (e.g. timing, required documents, etc.)

History

You will need to nd out about:

- Past participatory exercises on the same project/programme,including how they went (e.g. confict, agreement), and what werethe nal outcomes

- Other relevant past activities which may aect planned discussions.

Other relevant activities.

You will want to know which other activities - past or planned - are goingon, so that inormation can be shared, duplication or oversight reduced,and potential outputs dovetailed (i that is appropriate). This could includeth ti iti th t


18/38

b:scop

ingprocess

Characteristics and capabilities o participants

As a processs purpose is dened by its scope and context (and vice-versa), so the identication o stakeholders is determined by thebackground(i.e. context) o the communities/stakeholder groups at whichthe engagement process is targeted. Beore any engagement process isbegun, it is wise to do background research on the ollowing

- Identiywhich sectors o society are unlikelyto participate (ore.g. rom disadvantaged neighbourhoods) but whom would addvalue to the process i they did participate, and how best to reach andsupport their involvement

- Assess existing relationships between key participants (e.g.antagonism or political alliances), including these groups relationshipwith the consulting authority and/or relevant decision-makers

- Consider the diversity o participation experience amongst the

identied stakeholder groups. Those with more experience mayhave skills and condence to dominate proceedings. The processmay need to be designed to deal with these dierences i they aresignicant (e.g. dierent sessions or dierent interests, with allbrought together at the end). Alternatively, the process could bedesigned to suit the most - or least experienced

- Consider the cultural diversity o participants which may aect,or example, peoples willingness to meet all together (e.g. menand women together), and/or aect the way dierent participants

are used to debating in public with others (e.g. those with ormalcommittee experience may expect a chair and ormal debatingprocedures)

- Language do you need to provide interpreters to ensure you getthe people you need there, and whether it needs to be made clear onany promotional literature that a translator will be used

- Anybarriers to people working together e.g. gender barriers andwhether men will be able to work with all women groups.

Communicate your understanding o the context early on

Although you (the commissioning agent) may think you have a goodunderstanding o the context in which the stakeholder engagementprocess is operating, it is important to recognise that most participantswill have their own interpretation o the context in which they seethe stakeholder engagement process operating, as well as theirrespective roles in it.

It is important to communicate your understanding o the context in the

early phases o the engagement, to provide the identied stakeholdergroups with a platorm to provide comment and input, that would helpto develop a shared understanding o the context or this specicparticipatory process Sucient time should be set aside to do this and as


19/38

b:s

copingp

rocess B4:stakeholder identification

Rationale:

Identiyingwho should be involved/consulted in the engagementprocess is perhaps one o the most dicult parts to doing stakeholderengagement.

Finding the right mix o participants, and ensuring that no group isinadvertently (or perhaps, intentionally) excluded, is essential to providinglegitimacy and credibility to the engagement process.

Identiying who should be Involved:

Whilst no engagement process is the same (being determined by theindividual context and scope o the project or issue), there are some generalprinciples or identiying appropriate participants. Below are some specic

questions which can help to ensure that no important sectors are orgotten: Who is directly responsible or the decisions on the issues?

Who is infuential in the area, community and/or organisation?

Who will be aected by any decisions on the issue (individuals andorganisations)?

Who runs organisations with relevant interests?

Who is infuential on this issue?

Who can obstruct a decision i not involved?

Who has been involved in this issue in the past?

Who has not been involved, but should have been?

It is also useul to consider categories o participants, which would include:

A sample representative rom the wider public (whether or not theydirectly aected by the issue)

Those particular sections o the public directly aected by the issue

Statutory Consultees

Relevant government organisations

Special interest groups, local or national NGOs, trade associations, &unions representatives

Individuals with particular expertise (technical or personal)

I the aim is to be inclusive and open to whoeverwants to be involved, the best approach is otento identiy an initial list o people and then ask

them who else theythink should be involved.


20/38

b:scop

ingprocess

Other Key Issues to consider when identiying potential StakeholderGroups

Who decides who is involved. As the selection o participants can besuch a politically charged responsibility, it is useul to make the selectionprocess as transparent as possible. Ideally, the planning/design group orthe whole process will make these decisions. It is wise to ensure that the

reasons or selection are noted so that any questions about selection canbe answered.

Resisting pressure on numbers. There is oten internal and externalpressure to expand or reduce the list o those involved. The numbero people involved should not be arbitrary but based on a coherentunderstanding o the purpose and the context o the process.

Marginalising Usual suspects. Organisations sometimes try to avoidinvolving the usual suspects, which has become a term o denigrationor people who habitually give time and eort to what they see as their

civic responsibilities. Describing someone as a usual suspect shouldnever be grounds to exclude them rom a process any more than it isgrounds or including them: people should be involved because they arethe rightpeople.

Opponents. It is equally wrong to exclude an individual or anorganisation or being a known opponent o a given purpose or process.Indeed, there are oten good reasons or keeping opponents inside thetent: these can be the people who most need to be involved so that theygain some ownership o the process and perhaps become more likely to

support the nal outcome (or at least, less inclined to undermine it as theymight have, had they been excluded).

Hard to Reach Groups. It is important to try to include allrelevantstakeholders, and those who oten get omitted are the hard to reachgroups. Extra eort and innovation will be needed to contact and engagewith these groups or individuals, who do not generally come orward bytheir own volition. Including these minority or hard to reach groups isimportant to obtaining a more balanced picture rom the engagementprocess.

Everyone does not have to be involved in everything. With goodplanning, and the agreement o participants, dierent people can beinvolved only in those parts o the process which are most relevant tothem.

Campaigning organisations. Many campaigning bodies, especiallynational NGOs, are constantly asked to be involved in participatoryexercises, and do not always see these as the most eective use o theirlimited resources. In addition, some see the compromise that can be

inherent in some participatory processes as conficting with their primarypurposes. It can be useul to consider (and discuss with them) at whichstage o the policy process NGOs are best suited to participate: agendasetting, policy development, policy implementation or policy review.


21/38

b:s

copingp

rocess

TOOLS THAT CAN BE USED IN IDENTIFYING STAKEHOLDERS&

THE ROLE EACH MAY PLAY IN AN ENGAGEMENT PROCESS*

LEASTINFLUENCE

MOST

INFLUENCE

LEASTAFFECTED

MOSTAFFECTED

CONSULTATION

More Passive, More Interactivee.g. general public

INFORMATION GATHERING

e.g. general public

DIALOGUE

e.g. unions, regulators,government departments etc.

INFORMATION GIVING

e.g. media, opinion ormers

Other axes that can be used in identiying stakeholders are as ollows:

Degree o interest in the issue Ease o engagement

Representativeness Positive pioneers/Negative well-poisoners

Resource capactiy High airtime/low airtime

* The above tool was provided courtesy o Involve (www.involve.org.uk) rom theirpublication People and Participation


22/38

b:scop

ingprocess

TOOL TO ASSIST IN THE EVALUATION OF STAKEHOLDERS NEEDS

Stakeholder

SkillLevel

CondenceLevel

Culturaldiversity

Languageneed

Otherneed

Likelyparticipant

Hard toReach

Importance


23/38

b:s

copingp

rocess


24/38

instit

utionalbuy

in/response

Institutional Buy-In/

Response

One o the core issues aecting the success o any Stakeholder Engagementprocess is the need to understand the wider system into which the participatoryprocess fts. Whether it is a local council, private sector corporation or developmentagency, it is essential that the link is made explicit between the participatoryprocess and the location o the decision that will aect uture action (especially ithe fnal decision is taken outside the participatory process). This entails planningor how the institutional response to the outputs and outcomes o the participatoryprocess will be managed.

Gaining institutional support or the process (be it corporate, developer or publicsector buy-in) is oten the single most important ingredient to ensuring that theoutcomes o the engagement process are realised.

The nature o the system and processes in which decisions aremade, are an important consideration in determining whichoutputs and outcomes should be sought (or the engagementprocess) and will also aect the choice o participatory methodsused.

Clariying the process in order to gain institutional support (andresponse) is vitally important because:

It establishes a commitment to change rom the outset byrecognising that some response will need to be made

It ensures that mechanisms are in place to deal with the outputsthat come rom the participatory process, and ensures thatthese outputs can be dealt with eectively and within a giventimescale

It allows those running the process to explain to participantsexactly what will be done with their eort, how the process willbe managed and how its outcomes will aect/change things

It helps clariy what is and is not discussed (no point discussing

things that really cannot be changed) It helps clariy the roles o the dierent participants, as it

clarifes what is expected o them all at dierent stages o theprocess.

Institutional support or the engagement process should be sought as early aspossible.

However, decision-makers will usually require background inormation uponwhich to base their decision to support the process or not. The scoping process

in which the purpose, scope, context, desired outcomes and stakeholderidentifcation o the engagement process are defned, would meet thisrequirement.

(Thi i h bt i i i tit ti l t i l d t th S i P


25/38

institutional

buy

in/re

sponse

Obtaining institutional support or the process might happen beore the scopingphase has even begun (helping to shape the desired outcomes rom the outset),mid-way through the process (with desired outputs needing to be realignedaccordingly), or perhaps even not at all (at the risk o not having decisions madeor taken orward). The engagement process (and the planning thereo) needs tosufciently adaptive to these possibilities.

An institutional response can be the most signicant change that occurs ollowinga participation process, be it a resultant policy change (such as we willchangethe routing o a road) or a reaction (i.e. we will not change the route o the roadbecause). Any such change requires agreement to change rom the institutionitsel, and preparation within the institution.

I or whatever reasons, it is likely that it will prove impossible or an institution torespond in the way participants o the engagement process anticipate or desire,this needs to be made clear as soon as possible. It is the job o those steering theengagement process to recognise this and decide how to deal with it. In act, theprocess should never get underway in the frst place, i its desired outcomes are

completely unrealistic.

Raising expectations, requesting the investment o timeand energy, and then ignoring the outcomes is a recipeor cynicism at best and civil disobedience at worst.

Return tofowchart

Go toramework
http://buy-in.doc/http://buy-in.doc/http://buy-in.doc/


26/38

c:engag

ement

plan

C:Engagement Plan

Rationale:

After the scoping phase has been undertaken and there is institutional support/orbuy-in to the Stakeholder Engagement Process, a detailed engagement plan needs tobe written to provide the planning framework for the participatory process. It is at this

stage that the decisions about timing, numbers, costs, techniques, use of results etc. willbe made.

C1. Commissioning an Engagement Plan

Perhaps the biggest barrier to carrying outeective stakeholder engagement, is the timeneeded to eectively design and deliver theprocess. Too oten, unrealistic timescales areset by commissioners, especially in the publicsector.

In commissioning the engagement plan,here are some key steps to consider:

The Engagement Plan (EP) shouldonly take place ater the ScopingProcess is complete as the resultso this rst phase should eeddirectly eed into/serve to inormthe Engagement Plan

Institutional support (or buy-in)

should have been sought beore (or at leastduring) the commissioning o the EngagementPlan. Institutional support may, or may not be,a prerequisite to proceeding with stakeholderengagement. Either way, it is oten the single mostimportant determinant to the potential success o anyproject.

Appoint dedicated sta to writing the Engagement Plan

The ollowing are critical elements o any engagement plan:

- time schedule,

- resource allocation,

- desired outcomes,

- communication strategy (including ollow-up),

- delivery logistics

- selection o methods/techniques to be used in the engagement.

Whilst there are many interrelated issues, not included in this list, no eectiveEngagement Plan (EP) would overlook any o the above components.

Finally, scheduling intermittent review periods, both during and ater the engagement

process is complete, is a key criterion o the Engagement Plan. The review process should also be used towards the end o the planning phase, to

evaluate the quality o the engagement plan, prior to any engagement taking place.


27/38

c:engageme

nt

plan Commissioning an Engagement Team

Even the simplest engagement process will benet rom a ormal engagement team toensure that the process planning is taken seriously and programmed into peoples workschedules. The team can also be used to get early buy-in rom those who need to takeaccount o the results o the process (sometimes a separate executive group may beneeded or major processes to ensure senior management involvement).

The engagement planning team can be the same people as those responsible ordelivering the process, or a separate delivery team may be established, in which casevery close working relationships need to be established. Both planning and delivery teamsmay involve external contractors as well as internal colleagues. I the skills do not existwithin your organisation to plan or or deliver the engagement process, then proessionalssuch as acilitators can provide valuable contribution, especially i the issue is likely to becontroversial or when the independence o the acilitation could be an issue.

Whoever is selected to deliver the process should be involved as early as possible. Findingthe rightacilitator however, can be the most dicult part. Consider using a recognisedacilitation network such as InterACT to identiy accredited acilitators in your area or usereerences, recommendations and/or personal experience to buy-in external expertise. But

take heed..

There is also a common misconception that acilitators are just the people hired to runmeetings Involving acilitators in the planning process (i.e. the engagement plan) can helpto better plan processes, and provide realistic guidance about what can be achieved and

how to do it. In act, many proessional acilitators will not run meetings unless they havebeen involved in the planning process.

Some factors to consider in choosing a facilitator are:

Subject knowledge while acilitators do not need to be experts in the subjectarea they need to know enough to acilitate the debate and take the processorward.

Reputation and experience especially in similar circumstances

Training and methods used

Appropriate style While many aciliators may be have to deal with a wide

range o contexts, some acilitators may be more experienced and comortable, orexample, dealing with a proessional high status orum rather than a small localcommunity meeting (and vice versa).

In some engagement processes, it may also be benecial to have support rom externalproessionals such as lawyers or planners, who understand the system being worked within.

The only thing worse than no facilitator, is a badfacilitator

Peter Woodward (Quest Facilitation StakeholderEngagement Workshop, 21-23 March 2006)

Consider local organisations who may be able toprovide these specialist services such as local acilitatorsnetworks, law centres or planning aid networks.
http://c-engagement%20plan.doc/


28/38

c:engag

ement

plan

C2. Content o an Engagement Plan

A good engagement plan should include or consider the following issues:

Budget. An adequate budget is essential, including setting aside time or sta whoneed to be involved

Timeline. Be realistic about how long things take and always allow more rather thanless time or planning and or people to get involved. Remember that time is needed

between events or work to be completed and to be taken to the next stage. Key dates and actions including when nal decisions need to be taken, and by

whom, are all part o the planning process and should be part o the engagementplan.

Methods. There are many dierent participatory/engagement techniques whichcan be adopted, and indeed a range o methods are useul at dierent stages othe consultation process. For urther inormation on the dierent methodologiesand techniques available a useul publication to reer to would be The CommunityPlanning Handbook by Nick Wates, published by Earthscan Publications Ltd (2000).Careul planning is required to ensure that the various methodologies adopted are

complementary and work together to make the overall process successul. Organisational Logistics. Participatory processes require a lot o practical

arrangements, especially in terms o user-riendly brieng materials and suitablevenues. In additional to logistical practicalities, consideration should be given to thechoice o venue with respect to the positive and negative potential eects that this mayhave on the process and its consequent outcomes.

Communication Strategy. Communication is important throughout the engagementprocess. It is needed at the outset to get people interested, during the process so theyare kept abreast o what is happening, at the end and by way o ollow-up, to ensurethat people are aware o what dierence the process has made.

Follow up. Initial planning needs to consider right rom the start:

- How the results will be used, how it will eed into decision-making systems, andhow the nal outcomes will be reported back to the participants and others

- How you will know whether the process has been a success success criteria canbe reormulated rom the original objectives o the process

Appropriate ollow up should be carried out as soon as reasonably possible ater theengagement event takes place.

Defning Outputs. Outputs are the tangibleproducts o any process. Outputs includesuch things as reports, meetings or workshops, exhibitions and leafets: useul in

themselves, but alone will not meet the purpose o the engagement process.

Dening the desired outputs o the engagement process is a crucial part o theengagement plan as it helps the process designer to select the most appropriatemethodology (dierent participatory techniques are designed to produce dierenttypes o outputs); orces people to think through how the outputs will achieve thedesired outcomes (how will this meeting help achieve our overall outcomes?) andensures that the right outputs are produced at the right time.

Outputs can be seen as the building blocks that help createthe desired outcomes. The success of an exercise shouldtherefore never be judged only on the outputs: the holding

of a meeting does not necessarily mean full achievement ofthe objectives of the overall process


29/38

c:engageme

nt

plan

Additional considerations . Every participatory process has to operate withinpractical and political constraints including money, time, skills shortages, accessibilityand characteristics o participants. It will help to identiy which constraints aregenuinely xed, and those that could be potentially overcome. Ground rules shouldalso be set to establish a clear ethical ramework in which the engagement process

will take place (e.g. non-attribution or condentiality; being aware o child protection,minority and disability issues).

The hyperlinked Stakeholder Engagement Plan Framework in this documents isintended to be used as a template or documenting your Engagement Plan.

Return toowchart

Go to

ramework
http://c-engagement%20plan.doc/http://c-engagement%20plan.doc/http://c-engagement%20plan.doc/


30/38

d:engagement

process

D:Engagement Process

It can be some time beore one actually starts the engagement process - i.e. where the actionsoutlined by the engagement plan are actually put into practice.

The outputs produced during this time, are the most obvious measurables or how theprocess is proceeding. However, some outputs have an intrinsic value regardless o whetherthey contribute to the overall outcomes. Exchanging inormation, or example, can help to

build trust among participants even i the inormation itsel is o no particular value. Similarly,simply having a meeting can sometimes be more important than what the meeting achievesbecause o the opportunity it provided to build or strengthen relationships. Good process design(specifcally applied to the engagement plan) would include planning or intangible as well astangible gains.

Establishing i the desired outcomes (i.e. the reasons or doing stakeholder engagement in thefrst place) are being achieved - either in part or in ull can only be known through a processo ongoing review. These reviews need to include the perspective o all those involved in theprocess - including whoever is leading the process, decision-makers and participants.

An iterative approach enables a process to adapt to new and unoreseencircumstances. No matter how much planning is put in, when working withparticipatory processes the unpredictable is inevitable (be it new political

agendas or participant responses).

The trick is to have an iterative and fexible approach to managing the process thatwould help you respond to the unpredictable.

Return to

fowchart

Go to

ramework
http://d-engagement%20process.doc/http://d-engagement%20process.doc/http://d-engagement%20process.doc/


31/38

d:engagement

process


32/38

stakeholder engagement

t o o l k i t

review

p

rocess

Review Process

Rationale:

The main purpose o a review is to provide those involved in the engagement process (and others)with the inormation to judge whether or not the process is likely to be, or has been, a success.

A review is usually understood to be an evaluation (in varying detail) o something that has takenplace. It should also be used, however, as an essential element o the engagement process bothto evaluate the quality o an engagement plan, prior to any engagement taking place and atappropriate times throughout the process.

This evaluation can be an independent process, working alongside the participatory process, or anintegral part o managing the process.

As some outcomes will be intangible (such as improved relationshipsor a sense o empowerment), it is useul to set benchmarks whichcan be measured against. Ideally, both quantitative and qualitativetechniques would have been employed in the engagement process.

A robust review process can also be an eective orm orisk

management. This is because it helps to map out the dierent viewsheld by dierent stakeholders at the start o a process,and provides recognition (and awareness) othe potential challenges that the engagementprocess may ace.

Inclusion o a review process can increasecosts - especially i it is commissioned andmanaged independently o the centralengagement process. This added cost maybe dicult to justiy when cost savings arebeing sought. Nonetheless, it is widely argued

that a good review process is more than just auseul tool; but rather an essential criterion orthe eective management o any stakeholderengagement process. This is especially true oinherently uncertain environments such as browneld sites.

The costs onotaccounting or the risk, and being aced with thingsgoing wrong, as oten happens when there is insucient time orproper reviews as the process unolds, are invariably ar higher thanthe cost o ongoing review.

Quantitative methods involve collecting numbers or measurement and judgement

Qualitative methods involve collecting data rom people to allow description and interpretation

1

2

1 2


33/38


t o o l k i t

oc

Interval/Mid-term Review

For on-going or long-term participative initiatives it is good practice to plan or regular reviewperiods where checks are repeatedly made as to whether the process is meeting the purpose agreedat the start. This can happen through the regular design/delivery o team meetings. This approachis especially useul i the team undertaking the analysis has a broad knowledge o other methodsavailable so that i the current approach is not working an alternative method can be used.

A structured review process is critical to ensuring that the learning is gathered rom the work as ithappens, and that the engagement plan is fexible enough to cope with unoreseen circumstances as

they arise.

Return tofowchart

Go toramework
http://review%20process.doc/http://review%20process.doc/http://review%20process.doc/


34/38


t o o l k i t

e:final

evaluation

The fnal evaluation may also aim to evaluate whether:

the level o participation (e.g. consultation or partnership) wasappropriate to the context and type o participants

the methods and techniques were appropriate and worked asexpected

the level and range o responses rom participants legitimised theexercise

the costs were reasonable and within budget

what was produced and organised (i.e. outputs) helped

towards achieving the desired outcomes

the ways in which the responses rom the process (suchas recommendations) were eectively dealt with.

E.Final Evaluation

A fnal evaluation will need to assess the ollowing key criterion:

a) Whether the (engagement) process met its own aims (i.e. desired outcomes) and originally agreedpurpose

b) Whether the process met the explicit and implicit demands o the participants

c) Whether the process met the standards o good practice in participatory working

Return to

fowchart

Go to

ramework
http://e-final%20evaluation.doc/http://e-final%20evaluation.doc/http://e-final%20evaluation.doc/


35/38


t o o l k i t

Stakeholder Engagement Process Evaluation Matrix

Elements to include1

(strong)2 3 4

(weak)

SCOPINGPROCESS

Clear evidence o purpose, scope, context, stakeholder identicationand desired outcomes.

PurposeClearly dened aims and objectives, agreed by all parties involved incommissioning it. Clear how the outputs will be used to ensure thedesired outcomes are achieved.

ScopeClear specic boundaries to the exercise. Level o engagement clearlydened. Elements identied that can or cannot be changed. Potentialrisks thoroughly identied & evaluated.

Context

Wider issues detailed and communicated to participants early on, i.ehistorical, political, physical and cultural context o the issue. Linkswith past or present related activities, organisations or consultations,policy legal or decision-making parameters, timescale constraints,participants characteristics and capabilities.

StakeholderIdentifcation

Transparent and documented stakeholder identication processusing a contacts database and based on a coherent understandingo the purpose and the context o the process. Tries to include allappropriate stakeholders in relevant parts o the process, includinghard-to-reach groups. Statutory consultees identied.

DesiredOutcomes

Clarity on exactly what is sought as a result o the engagement

process, and consideration given to the most appropriate methods toachieve this.

INSTITUTIONALBUY-IN

Key decision-makers in the organisation are ully inormed andsupportive o the engagement plan.

ENGAGEMENTPLAN

Based on the result o the scoping process & has the backing oinstitutional support.Clear details documented on all the main components o theStakeholder Engagement process, including clear outline oorganisational logistics & review schedule & evaluation o plan beoreengagement.

Methods

Dierent methodologies researched & selected to be appropriate tothe issues and respective stakeholders. Careul planning or methodsto be complementary and work together to make the overall processsuccessul.

Resources

Budget allocation sucient to undertake an engagement processthat will achieve desired outcomes. Clear roles and responsibilitiesdetailed and time-lined or all involved in running the process. Thosewith appropriate skills allocated & i necessary trained to undertakespecic tasks.

TimeSchedule

Realistic time allocations, including that needed between events orwork to be completed and to be taken to the next stage. Key dates,actions & decision deadlines detailed.

Outputs

Clear & tangible outputs agreed prior to engagement activity andaligned with specic methodologies to lead to the desired outcomeo the engagement process. Intrinsic outputs secondary to achievingoverall outcomes included.

ENGAGEMENT

PROCESS

There is an iterative and fexible approach to managing the processthat would help in responding to the unpredictable. This is inormed

through an ongoing review process.

REVIEWPROCESS

The review process is iterative and structured to inorm those involvedin the engagement process (and others) with the inormation to judgewhether or not the process is likely to be, or has been, a success, tomanage risk and to make responsive amendments to the process.Contains qualitative and quantitative evaluation criteria.

FINALEVALUATION

Evaluates i the process achieved its desired outcomes throughappropriate level and methods o engagement, involving appropriateoutputs, stakeholders, and use o budget & sta resources, eectiveresponse to eedback.Includes log o lessons learnt or uture engagements.


36/38


t o o l k i t

e:final

evaluation

lessons learned log

PROJECT:

ITEM ISSUE CORRECTIVE ACTION


37/38


t o o l k i t

Useul Publications

Alan Barr & Stuart Hashagen; ABCD Handbook, a ramework or evaluating community development; CommunityDevelopment Foundation Publications (2000)

Alan Barr & Stuart Hashagen; ABCD Trainers Resource Pack; community Development Foundation Publications(2000)

Christine Sylvest Larsen; Facilitating community involvement: practical guidance or practitioners and policymakers; The Research, Development and Statistics directorate (2004)

David Wilcox; The Guide to Eective Participation; Delta Press (1994)

Friends o the Earth; Brieng; Environmental Law Foundation (2003)

G.Chanan, A.West, C.Garratt, J.Humm; Regeneration and Sustainable Communities; Community DevelopmentFoundation Publications (1999)

Gabriel Chanan; Local Community Involvement, A Handbook or Good Practice; European Foundation or theImprovement o Living and Working Conditions (1999)

Guidance on enhancing public participation in local government

Involve Working Paper 1; Exploring Public Participation Approaches (2005)

Julie Lewis & Perry Walker; Participation; New Economics Foundation (1998)

Listen Up; (1999)

Liverpool County Council; Strategic Framework For Community Development; SCCD (2001)

M. Taylor, A. Barr & A.West; Signposts to Community Development (second edition); Community DevelopmentFoundation Publications (1992)

Nick Wates; The Community Planning Handbook; Earthscan Publications Ltd. (2000)

Oce o the Deputy Prime Minister; Planning, Creating Local Development Frameworks A Companion Guide toPPS12

Oce o the Deputy Prime Minister; Statements o Community Involvement and Planning Applications (2004)

P. Shiner, D. Woole & P.Stookes; Environmental Action, a guide or individuals and communities; EnvironmentalLaw Foundation Publications (2002)

Paul Henderson & David N.Thomas; Skills in Neighbourhood Work; Routledge (2003)

Planning, Consultation Paper on planning policy statement 1: creating sustainable communities; Oce o theDeputy Prime Minister.

Rupa Sarkar & Alison West; The LSP Guide; Community Development Foundation Publications (2003)

The Audit Commission; Connecting with users and citizens User Focus; The Audit Commission (2003)

The Audit Commission; User ocus and Citizen engagement, learning rom comprehensive perormanceassessment; brieng 4.

The Audit Commission; User Focus and Citizen Engagement; The Audit Commission (2003)

The Home Oce; Community Cohesion Advice or those designing, developing and delivering Area BasedInitiatives (ABIs); Oce o the Deputy Prime Minister (2003)


38/38

27 stakeholder engagement a toolkit-2

Documents