I am getting ready to help faciliate a situation analysis for the first time.  I would really benefit from hearing about how to get the group to reveal the most useful information to inform strategy development.  We are conducting a 2 day workshop and have day one set for situation analysis in a multiple partner/stakeholder environment.  Several concurrent situation analyses will be occuring, one on each target.  Day 2 will be used to develop strategies.

What are the most important questions to ask?  What are the most important answers to get?  What are some indications that the group is getting off track and needs to be lead back to those important questions and answers?  What is the best way to process/package this information for use the next day during strategy development?

Thanks,
Rebecca Esselman

Previously Rebecca Esselman wrote:

I am getting ready to help faciliate a situation analysis for the first time.  I would really benefit from hearing about how to get the group to reveal the most useful information to inform strategy development.  We are conducting a 2 day workshop and have day one set for situation analysis in a multiple partner/stakeholder environment.  Several concurrent situation analyses will be occuring, one on each target.  Day 2 will be used to develop strategies.

What are the most important questions to ask?  What are the most important answers to get?  What are some indications that the group is getting off track and needs to be lead back to those important questions and answers?  What is the best way to process/package this information for use the next day during strategy development?

Thanks,
Rebecca Esselman

I like Jora's comments.  After facilitating this workshop several times, I have found our groups end up in different places - not necessarily places I'd like them to be.  What has helped me predict the outcomes and really hone in with folks is to start the situation diagrams all the same way.  Target, stress (with rank) and then sources (with ranks).  Now I ask them to answer the questions asked in the canned presentation and really get at the who what where stuff for causal factors.  Using the rankings helps us spend valuable workshop time on the most important issues while the groups learn the basics of boxes and arrows.  Most groups really explore the relationship of threats to indicators making the next steps in the CAP process more tidy.  Try it next time and let me know what you think. Andy D.

Rebecca,

I saw this question but to be honest I couldn't imagine how to answer it succinctly.  Having said that I feel guilty not saying anything at all!

 

1. Important questions to ask....start with a big threat and then say:

"What is driving this?  Why is this happening?  Who is benefitting?  What are they really getting?  Are there other ways to derive this benefit without causing this negative effect?  Are there others who are actually going to be hurt as a result of this situation - if the threat continues to worsen?  Do they understand this connection?"   Also I like to ask - are there other places the parties know about where this threat is not such a factor?  what is different here?

2.  These are the important things to get answers to as well - because you want to start seeing what is really behind the observed problem and who stands to win and lose and also whether the different parties have alternatives to this behavior and if they can imagine a different future.   You do this situtation analysis step not just to list all that you know about the universe but to find a way forward towards good focused strategic actions

3.  the signs that the Group is getting off track?  They start defining every little minute thing and they start "awfullizing"  that is thinking everything is a problem.  They start describing the color of the shoelaces of the county commissioner who consistently votes wrong on waste water treatment proposals for the area.  When you see the diagram getting really convoluted or one person dominates the discussion and that person keeps drilling down deeper and deeper into the problem statement... shift them out of this negative spiral.  You could go through and summarize what they have said so far - hitting the high points that represent a clear threat and then say something like this:  "Ok - that is the situation as we see it right now.  Lets stop a minute.  Lets face our chairs away from this diagram.  And lets think about one thing that is looking really promising that is happening (however small) right now in this region that has some potential to make a difference."  Let them start thinking about solutions at that point and then ask them to develop a statement that describes what "success" would look like if  you were able to abate the threat. 

Usually when they are going on and on - they have the necessary background somewhere in that flow diagram or in the dialogue that they just had about the situation - they just aren't putting on their creative problem solving, strategic thinking caps.  Or there might not be anyone in the group with strategic agility who is starting to see some meaningful connections. 

4.  If you can get them to close this exercise with describing, even in general terms, what "success looks like"  i.e. what the objective might be that would address this treat, you will have them set up perfectly to start the next day.  It doesn't need to be polished (in fact it shouldn't be at this point) but at least if they could leave this discussion thinking about where they want to go....then the "how" which is what you will deal with on day 2... will be easier to see.

 

One think that I realized when working with situation analysis is that when participants have already the expectation of having a results chain  they keep thinking about the results chain and dont really understand that the situation is a step to get there.

Jora really summarized a lot of great points.  I might also add that it is best if you can have some break-out sessions so that you get maximal participation.  Situation diagramming is an excellent way to engage your partners and team members, so you want 100% participation that usually is only possible in small groups.  You need a facilitator with each break out group.  It might be helpful to also have the big questions you will need to ask over and over again like "What are the direct threats that alter your key ecological attributes?" and "What are the proximate underlying causes of those threats?  Be specific!" on big flip chart paper so everyone can continue to refer to them as it is so easy to stray.  Getting a good grasp on those direct threats is very important as it is easy for the group to start getting into the big picture (i.e. population growth) and catastrophizing.  I would continue to come back to those threats and do frequent gut checks to make sure everyone still agrees that they are the most direct threats and the right threats.  In order to do a round up for the next day, I would have a sticky dot vote and discussion around what the very high and high threats are so that your strategy discussion can be focused on abating/mitigating those threats.  Ideally, if the facilitator has time, you would clean up and enter the work of the group into Miradi or Visio that night, focusing on the high and very high threat branches of the diagram, to ensure you can get to the heart of the strategies discussion the next day.