This document discusses how local governments can facilitate development projects by taking a consensus building approach. It outlines a process where the local government acts as a convener, bringing together stakeholders to identify challenges and decide on solutions. A facilitator would conduct interviews to understand stakeholders' interests and concerns. The stakeholders would then work collaboratively to define the problem and generate solutions that meet everyone's interests, with the goal of reaching consensus. The local government's role is to convene the process but not make unilateral decisions. This approach aims to produce results seen as fair by all stakeholders.

1. … Negotiate Better Results!
Local Government as Convenor:
Facilitating Development Projects
CONCEPT PAPER - ORASI Consulting Group
By Luis E. Oré, Consensus Building, Negotiation & Relationship Management Consultant
Association for Conflict Resolution’s International Section, Chair 2010-2011
Democracy is defined by the Black’s Law Dictionary as a “form of government in which the
sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or
indirectly through a system of representation (…)”, and it was understood by the Greeks as
the government of the people. Democracy is the most well-known form of government in
occident and in many parts of the world. At this point of time, democracy, as we know it, is
the best form of government that we can conceive, but as Straus (1993) asserts “Our
society is based on win-lose decision making. Democracy is based on majority rule where
51% can determine an outcome.” (p.29)
National and Local governments around the world are facing increased levels of distrust
and it is common to hear during political campaigns that elected official “are not in touch”
with the people. The model of leadership under which most elected officials operate is the
one that says that they must be solution givers, which means that the government decides
for the people. As Susskind (1993) affirms “the conventional system of public dispute
resolution does not produce the results that are good enough for us to be satisfied” (p.63).
The results and decisions of the government are many times perceived as unfair. In the U.S.
democracy, citizens can affect decisions of rule makers and legislative institutions through
voting and lobbying, in other countries such as Peru, citizens can affect decisions by voting
in regular elections and referendums or even by voting for the revocation of elected
officials of local governments. Either way, by voting citizens express their concerns but are
limited to yes or no, either-or, in favor or against, however, this way to cast ballots does not
allow citizens to fully express their concerns and grievances. Some people expect to have a
voice, want to be heard, have their concerns taken into consideration when elected officials
and local government make decisions and announce them, but others want to have the
local government making all the decisions for them, but then decisions are perceived as
unfair. Win-lose decision making approaches may lead to strikes, protests and riots which
are lose-lose results. As Susskind (1993) asserts, “in order for a result to be perceived as
fairer than what the conventional system produces, all the people affected by it must feel
that it is better than what the conventional system would have produced” (p.63).
Perhaps a more collaborative decision making approach and a facilitative leadership
approach can help elected officials, public servants, and local government have a better
sense of local communities’ and citizen’s needs and concerns in order to address them as
they should. The government is the government and it has the power to make the decisions
that consider pertinent to make, but a facilitative leadership approach can open a window
www.orasicg.com

2. of opportunity to have a more deliberative democracy and more satisfied citizens with the
decisions made.
In many developing and underdeveloped countries there exist a need to create
development programs or development projects to help local communities come out from
unprivileged situations or generate sustainable development opportunities to help them
grow. Sometimes local governments do not have the capabilities or the resources to
partner with local communities to assist them in moving forward. Other times local
governments misdiagnose the needs of the members of their local communities. This paper
attempts to bring together local government, facilitation capabilities, and a consensus
building approach to convene local communities and development projects.
Local Government Facilitating a Development Project
Government and political leaders need the support of their constituents not only to win
elections but also to effectively govern and serve their constituents. Facilitating consensus-
building processes can serve this purpose and meet the needs of the people. Burgess and
Spangler (2003) affirm that, “when government experts make decision on their own, one or
more of the stakeholder groups are usually unhappy, and in the U.S. system, they
commonly sue the government, slowing implementation of any decision substantially.
While consensus-building takes time, it at least develops solutions that are not held up in
courts”. When talking about local governments internationally, it needs to be considered
that it is not very rare to run into countries, cities, and local communities in which the legal
system and rule of law do not enjoy great reputation, perhaps citizens do not trust their
legal systems as much as they might wish. The fact is that many times people do not appeal
to their legal systems to address their needs, but appeal to protest, riots, and even violence
to voice their concerns. A facilitative leadership approach for local governments implies
that leaders may serve mainly as convenors of a facilitation process. Fairman (2008)
highlights the importance of political leaders as convenors saying that “no political actor,
even a president, can make a major decision unilaterally, political leaders need the support
of others to make public policy and then implement it effectively, it is in that context that
consensus building define broadly as bringing stakeholders together around a priority to
move it forward is critical for leadership”. As Burgess and Spangler (2003) affirm
“consensus building offers a way for individual citizens and organizations to collaborate on
solving complex problems in ways that are acceptable to all”. Considering the facilitation
stages offered by Bens (2005) the facilitation process of a development project convened
by a local government might look as follows:
Assessment and Design
When a local government identifies a problem or a wide range of problems, it may consider
deciding upon developing a project to tackle some of the problems, but it may be concerned
about potential negative consequences, impacts on the community, complaints from
interest groups, blocking coalitions, and so on. Therefore, the local government can
consider a consensus-building approach to turn adversarial community interaction into a
collaborative search for information and options that meet the stakeholders’ interests,
www.orasicg.com

3. needs, and concerns. If the local government wants to consider this approach, then the local
government will need to act as convenor and will need to identify stakeholders and gather
information to make informed decisions. Considering that the local government is a party
interested in the outcome of its own decision making processes, it cannot be regarded as
neutral for facilitating a process to select a development project to address local
community’s concerns. The local government will need to hire a facilitator and commission
a “stakeholders assessment” to understand what the issues and concerns (interests) are,
what the scope of the problem is, what kind of information the stakeholders wish they had
to address their challenges, and who else should be included in this process. In order to do
a “Stakeholder Assessment” the facilitator, acting as assessor, will conduct one-on-one
interviews with diverse stakeholders in a confidential and not-for-attribution manner. The
facilitator needs to identify who the stakeholders might be, in this particular case, an
stakeholder is any person who has a stake or interest in the outcome of the decision
making process regarding whether or not to invest on certain development project to deal
with the challenges that the local community faces. As Susskind and Cruikshank (1987)
express, “Productive negotiations cannot begin until two problems are resolved: figuring
out which groups should be represented, and choosing representatives empowered to
speak for the groups they claim they represent” (p.101). The fact is that not every single
stakeholder can be at the negotiating table; instead, stakeholders will be represented by
some stakeholder representatives. As Susskind and Cruikshank (1987) explain “ad hoc
representatives are rarely empowered to commit their members to anything. They should,
however, be in a good position to shuttle back and forth between the negotiating group and
the people they represent. Their task is not to speak for their constituents, but to speak
with them.” (p. 105). Even in situation when there are unorganized citizens or groups of
stakeholders the facilitators can play a role helping them clarify their interests and resolve
disputes within these groups.
To have the right people in place, the convenor and the facilitator need to identify a “first
circle” of stakeholders, they need to respond these questions: Who are the stakeholders
with formal power to make a decision? Who are the stakeholders with the power to block a
decision? Who are the stakeholders affected by a decision? Who are the stakeholders or
people with relevant information or expertise? (Strauss, 2002). During the interviews with
this “first circle” of stakeholders, information will be gathered regarding these questions:
“Who else should be involved in this process? And, who might be potential blockers or
strong advocates of particular solutions?” This exercise will lead to a “second circle” of
stakeholders which should be part of the stakeholders’ assessment. A “third circle” of
stakeholders might include people that are not directly affected by the facilitation of the
decision making process, but may be helpful to the successful resolution of particular
issues (Susskind and Cruikshank, 2006). In order to continue with the stakeholder
assessment the stakeholders’ interviews will follow a protocol, a set of questions that will
gather relevant information and identify the stakeholders’ perceptions of the current
situation and their interests, needs, and concerns which will be reflected in the written
report. Ultimately, the assessment will describe if the stakeholders are willing to work
together. During this assessment process, the facilitator (assessor) needs to make clear that
by participating in this facilitated consensus building process the stakeholders are not
www.orasicg.com

4. giving in, it needs to be clarified that no stakeholder will be forced to agree to anything. The
stakeholders need to be secured that they will stay in control of the decisions made.
Feedback and Refinement
Once the facilitator, assessor, has concluded with the interviews, a written report will be
produced and distributed among the interviewed stakeholders in order to get their consent
and confirm that their concerns were captured in this document. This written report needs
to include a description of the stakeholders, their representatives, their interests, a
proposed draft agenda, draft ground rules, a proposed process design, a timetable, and a
preliminary work plan. The convenor will receive this information and evaluate the
possibility to continue with this process. In order to decide whether or not to continue with
this facilitated consensus building process, the convenor needs to positively respond the
following questions: “can we get the right people to participate? (Are the stakeholders open
to consensus building? Are the stakeholders identified and well represented?) Do we have
adequate resources for this facilitated consensus building process? Is there sufficient time?
and; do we have agreement on preliminary ground rules?” (Susskind and Cruikshank,
2006, p.59)
Final Preparation
Once the funds for this process are secured with the convenor, having a draft agenda and a
proposed process design, the facilitator will work on the logistics for the workshop and
prepare the workshop materials.
Starting Facilitation
As Susskind and Cruikshank (2006) refers, “once the group gets together, it should not
start work until its members clarify what their mission is, decide what their agenda will
(and will not) include, and settle upon the ground rules that will guide their conversations”
(p.20). When stakeholders come together, the convenor needs to introduce the facilitator
and explain the purpose of hiring a facilitator and what they would like to accomplish. In
this particular case, the local government as convenor would need to explain that it is
interested in getting all stakeholders together to work together on identifying the
challenges the community faces and their interests, and deciding on what strategies or
development projects should be implement to deal with the local community’s challenges.
Then, the facilitator should introduce her/him self, her/his credentials and expertise,
explain how he or she got involved in this process, her/his role, the process up to date
including the stakeholders’ assessment written report, and explain what the process might
look like. The facilitator needs to explain that the goal of this effort is to reach consensus,
“Consensus doesn’t mean ‘I win; you lose.’ It means we all come out ahead. It doesn’t mean
that we trade horses and logroll our way to a bare majority, and ignore the angry, losing
minorities that are created. It means that we collectively find a solution that’s satisfactory
to everyone (or almost everyone).” (Susskind and Cruikshank, 2006, p.84). Then the
facilitator, making sure everyone is heard, would go around the room asking the
stakeholders to introduce themselves and based on the assessment they have read and the
one-on-one conversations, what is important to them, the facilitator might ask something
www.orasicg.com

5. like this: “I want you to speak for your self, and tell us what is important to you and what
your take on this proposed consensus building process is.” An alternative way to do
introductions would be to pair up stakeholders (participants) and have them
“interviewing” each other as a warm-up exercise for introductions and then introduce each
other to the large group. Then the facilitator would lead the conversation toward talking
about the process itself. Before talking about the challenges and strategies to deal with the
community challenges, the stakeholders need to agree on how they are going to talk about
it. How is the group of stakeholders going to work together? At this time, the facilitator can
use a visioning exercise of what good teamwork interaction look like, the facilitator can
post a question such as: “Take a moment to think of and vision the best team you have ever
work with, how does it look like? Describe some of the characteristics of the team working
together and how the team members interact”. The purpose of this exercise is to agree on
how participants should interact with each other. Beyond behavior ground rules or
protocols, there are other process questions that need to be considered before tackling the
community challenges, and before addressing the agenda. For instance, “How group
decisions will be made (i.e., how is consensus defined). The roles and responsibilities or
participants, the mediator(s), the convenor, and the public. (…) How media inquiries will be
handled. How working groups or subcommittees will be used and their work integrated
into the efforts of the plenary. How draft documents will be circulated and reviewed.
Confidentiality (if the process is not public)”. (Susskind and Thomas-Larmer, 1999, p.123)
“How are we going to approach the larger problem? What sequence of steps will we take?
Which spaces shall we move through, (process design space, problem space, vision space,
solution space, implementation space) and in what order? (Strauss, 2002, p.83) “Where
will the meetings be held? How often? How will the participants be seated? Will minutes be
kept? Who will keep them? How will individuals be recognized to speak? (…) What notice
of meetings will be sent? Will the press be invited? When will meetings end? How will new
rules be adopted? (Susskind and Cruikshank, 1987, p.108).
As Strauss (2002) affirms consensus is built step by step, with small agreements, one at a
time, beginning with agreements about the process; therefore, when the participants have
agreed on how they will work together and have design a process, they can move toward
the content of the challenges. As Strauss (2002) might say, if the stakeholders cannot agree
on the problem, they will not agree on the solution. In order to build a collaborative
problem solving mind-set and shape a collaborative work environment, the facilitator can
introduce a brief mini-training session on collaboration, joint problem solving, interest-
based, and mutual-gains negotiation skills. This could take about one or two hours, or a
longer period of time if the facilitator considers pertinent to practice with a complex
facilitation role play.
As Susskind and Cruikshank (2006) explain, “participants have to learn to distinguish
between their position and their interests. (Consensus Building Approach is about serving
people’s interest.) When somebody states a strongly held requirement (a position), they’re
actually presenting what they see as the only, or the best, solution to the problem. What the
group needs to hear are the reasons behind that belief (interests). They need to hear a clear
statement of the individual’s perception of the problem, and their reasoning regarding the
‘best’ solution.” (p.87).
www.orasicg.com

6. During Facilitation
The goal of facilitation is joint problem solving, and as Susskind and Cruikshank (2006)
share, “the goal of problem solving, in a consensus-building context, is to generate
packages, proposals, and ideas that can help all the parties do better than they would do in
the absence of agreement” (p.26). The facilitator has to provide the structure and manage
the process that keeps the discussion moving forward, while keeping the group on track,
making sure all stakeholders actively participate, and helping the stakeholders stick to the
agreed ground rules.
To begin tackling the issues at hand, the facilitator might want to start by a “problem
perception phase” with the purpose of understanding and acknowledging that there is a
problem that needs to be addressed. The facilitator may consider questions like: Is there a
problem? How do you feel about it? Is it legitimate to discuss the problem openly? (Strauss,
2002). This perception phase is an opportunity to have stakeholders presenting their views
of the challenges that the local community faces, and it can allow them to vent their
emotions. It might be helpful having the facilitator emphasizing that it is important to listen
with no interruptions and at the end of each participant explanation the other participants
can ask clarifying questions. The objective of this stage is to listen to understand, the
objective is not to listen to agree. We all are unique individuals with different interests,
needs and concerns; we all process information differently, have diverse partisan
perceptions, and hold different points of view. The purpose of this is “to acknowledge that
there is a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed (…) the facilitator might check to
see that everyone agrees that there is an issue that is important enough to try to resolve
together” (Strauss, 2002, 86-87 pp.). Once the stakeholders share their perceptions of the
problems the local community faces and explain their views of the situation, the facilitator
might want to try to reframe these views in terms of interests and concerns. As Susskind
and Cruikshank (1987) mention, “until all the disputants (stakeholders) have presented a
clear picture of their concerns, it is impossible to collaborate on integrative solutions that
will allow each group to do better than its BATNA” (p.118). The facilitator might say
something like: “so what do we want to accomplish here? Let’s move to a vision space, and
try to explore what an ideal local community might look like, what is important to you?”
The facilitator can list everyone’s interests and concerns, cluster potential agenda items
under broader headings, and put those headings into a priority list. As Susskind and
Cruikshank (1987) assert, “a good agenda takes a complex task and breaks it into
manageable pieces, which under ideal circumstances can be addresses sequentially”
(p.113). Once the stakeholders have agreed on a vision of an ideal local community, they
can work on defining the road blocks that prevent them to be the local community they
aspire to be. Stakeholders can work on defining the problem at hand and analyzing its root
causes, so participants will need to define what the problem is and why the problem exists.
What is the dilemma that the group of stakeholders is dealing with and trying to address?
In order to define the scope of the problem the facilitator needs to define the boundaries of
the problem, such as physical (geographic) boundaries or social boundaries such as sectors
of socio-economic or political activities. The nature of the problem needs to be identified
and it needs to be clear, tangible and measurable. In order to analyze the problem a tool
www.orasicg.com

7. called “Problem Tree Tool” can be used to brainstorm causes and effects of the problem.
The AusAID (2005) referring to the Problem Tree Tool explains that, “there are two main
approaches that can be used to help give focus to the problem analysis, namely: (i) the
‘focal problem’ method, whereby development problems (or constrains) are brainstormed
by the group, a core or focal problem is identified, and the cause and effect analysis then
pivots around the focal problem; or (ii) the ‘objectives oriented’ method, whereby a
broad/high level development objective is specified at the start of the analysis, and
constraints to achieving this objective are then brainstormed, analyzed and sorted in to a
cause and effect logic.” (p.7). An alternative of the Problem Tree Tool might be the Root-
Cause Analysis tool which can also be used to analyze the root of the problem. Once the
root causes of the problem have been identified, stakeholders can move on to brainstorm
and create as many options, strategies or project developments to deal with the challenges
of the local community. It is worthy to note that Strauss (2002) suggests, “(…) it’s not
always best to head to the problem space (definition and analysis) after doing process
design. Sometimes it’s helpful to jump into the future and work backwards, to explore a
vision of what your organization or community might look like after the problem is solved.
Moving to the vision space takes a group away from the pathology of the immediate
problem, builds alignment on a common vision, and generates energy and hopefulness
about the future.” (p.84). Now, the facilitator and stakeholders will move toward creating,
evaluating and deciding the strategies and development projects that will address the
major problems and challenges of the local community. They will engage in a
brainstorming session with the purpose of creating as many options as possible while
suspending any judgment over those options. The goal is to create as many “what if”
options that meet the needs and concerns of stakeholders while addressing the challenges
of the community. Once many options have been created stakeholders can rank them
according to their preferences and work together to evaluate them or create
subcommittees to evaluate the diverse options, if there are development projects that are
considered to be top preferences, it might be wise to request the expertise of an expert
advisor, independent consultant. It might be effective to formulate a joint-fact finding
agenda which should result in expert opinions and recommendations which will help
stakeholders evaluate diverse options. The parties together will need to answer the
following questions: “what do we know. And what don’t we know about the issues,
contexts. And experiences relevant to this disputes (issues)” (Susskind and Cruikshank,
1987, p.113). A joint fact-finding process that will bring about the information
stakeholders need to evaluate diverse development projects can be commissioned
requesting the use a Project Cycle Management Approach and a Logical Framework
Approach, which is the encouraged method to be used by the UN-System, USAID and most
of the Aid Agencies of developed countries around the world when planning, implementing,
and evaluating development projects and programs. Along this lines, considering funding
for development projects, as USAID (2007) reports, “implementers must also help
community members explore other resources they have available, including national level
programs through government line ministries, other private and public donors, and their
own local means of financing”. (p.15). In this sense, resources to finance development
projects need to be sought at the local, national and international level. The consultant in
charge of the joint-fact finding process should be encouraged to observe and use the
Equator Principles while evaluating development projects. As Cappon (2008) explains,
www.orasicg.com

8. “The Equator Principles (EPs) are a set of voluntary guidelines developed and adopted for
financial institutions for assessing and managing environmental and social issues in project
lending.” In general, the development projects need to comply with the environmental and
social standards of the International Financial Company (IFC), an institution of the World
Bank Group that is responsible for transactions with the private sector. Additionally, all
projects with potential significant adverse social or environmental impact (Category A) and
some projects with potential limited adverse social or environmental impacts (Category B)
need to include grievance mechanisms as part of its management system. Once the expert,
independent consultant commissioned with the join-fact finding process presents the final
report or recommendation, the stakeholders can use a Project Planning Matrix (PPM) as
criteria to decide what development project they can agree on to address their
community’s challenges. With a draft agreement the stakeholders need to go back to their
“second tables” and share the draft agreement to be ratified by the rest of constituents and
explain how they arrived to the presented draft agreement.
Ending Facilitation
When the stakeholders representative confirm that their constituents ratified the draft
agreement and that they can move forward to implementing the development project, the
stakeholders representatives will endorse it and work on designing monitoring
mechanisms to ensure the implementation of the development project goes as committed
and agreed, and link it to formal local government procedures so they can carry out the
development project. If some constituents cannot live with the draft agreement, the
stakeholder will engage in further dialogue to try to take into consideration these new
concerns, and encourage stakeholders to improve it with not jeopardizing any other
interest. Ultimately, the stakeholders representatives can decide to take the draft
agreement and recommend its implementation with the support of an overwhelming
majority, and the local government will decide how to proceed. Once there is an agreement
on what strategies and development projects should be implemented in the local
communities, and having the support of the local community members at large, the
facilitator will review what the process was like, confirm what it was accomplished,
evaluate the facilitation process, celebrate and thank everyone.
Following up on Facilitation
The facilitator can write follow up questionnaires or have a brief conference call with
participants to check on how the implementation phase is developing. The facilitator might
offer facilitating a next meeting to evaluate the progress of the development project, the
work of the monitoring subcommittee, and in general, evaluate how things are going.
As USAID (2007) reports “building the capacity of local governments can help them to
better understand the needs of their constituency, bring new insights and skills to the work
of local authorities, and can help rebuild government-community relations” (p.11). The
facilitation of development projects by local government as convenor results in positive
effects engaging local communities and participating in this process can contribute building
collaborative problem solving capabilities empowering local community member toward
self-determination by fostering their own future. This facilitation process and its conflict
www.orasicg.com

9. resolution capability shape democratic skills and empower citizens through dialogue
making more tangible than ever the ending words of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Speech
a “government of the People, by the People, for the People”. This facilitation process for
development projects ultimately can contribute to the achievement of the “Millennium
Development Goals” articulated at the 2000 United Nations Millennium Summit and
reaffirmed in 2005. This facilitated consensus-building process is aligned with the
“Millennium Development Goals-based development strategies” which recommends that
civil society organizations actively contribute to designing policies, delivering services, and
monitoring progress, and that developing country governments craft and implement
strategies in transparent and inclusive processes, working closely with civil society
organizations, the domestic private sector, and international partners.
This paper has attempted to bring together the will of the local communities to believe in
their local government and its leaders, the power of decision makers within local
governments, and engage them in a facilitation process that aims to deal with their
challenges and turning them into opportunities to develop and growth. Local governments
have the power and the chance to improve relationships with local communities, gain the
trust they lost, and serve their communities as expected by the local community members
that place their political leaders where they are.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
* Luis E. Oré is founder of ORASI Consulting Group Inc., a training and development consulting firm specializing in
negotiation, consensus building, relationship management, and conflict prevention. Ore assists businesses with
cross-cultural and international negotiations, strategic alliances, organizational changes, dispute resolution system
design, and corporate stakeholder engagement especially with natural resources investment projects between the
United States of America and Latin-American countries. Oré has two Master of Arts degrees in conflict
management and in organizational and cross-cultural communication, a J.D. from the University of Lima (Peru),
and extensive training in negotiation and conflict management from CMI International Group, Western Kentucky
University, Lipscomb University, and the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. Oré is Chair 2010-2011 of
the Association for Conflict Resolution’s International Section, collaborates with the Consensus Building Institute,
and is former chair of the ACR’s International Development Committee, and an associate of the American Bar
Association. He can be contacted via email: luis.ore@orasicg.com.
© 2010 by ORASI Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved. www.orasicg.com
REFERENCES
AusAID (2005). AusGuideline. 3.3 The Logical Framework Approach. Australia Government.
Bens, I. (2005). Facilitating with ease. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Burgess H. and Spangler B. (2003). Consensus building. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from:
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/consensus_building/?nid=1311
Cappon, N. (2008). Equator principles: promoting greater responsibility in project
financing. Exportwise Spring 2008. Export Development Canada
www.orasicg.com

10. Fairman, D. (2008). Leaders as consensus builders. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from:
http://cbuilding.org/blog/2008/david-fairman-leaders-consensus-builders
ORASI Consulting Group (2010). One-page document: Mission and services
http://www.wiserearth.org/uploads/file/0539962adfd5e073ab5dbfbb1671c8e8/ORASI%
20Consulting%20Group%20SERVICES.pdf
Oré, L. (2009). Cross Cultural Negotiation & Consensus Building Strategies for Foreign
Investment Projects: Beyond Legal Systems. State Bar of Texas ADR Section’s Alternatives
Resolutions Newsletter Vol.18, No.2, 27-34 pp.
http://www.wiserearth.org/uploads/file/78ace89e643adbd327d11f1337f94a23/CROSS-
CULTURAL_NEGOTIATION_AND_CONSENSUS-
BUILDING_STRATEGIES_FOR_FOREIGN-
INVESTMENT_PROJECTS%20Luis%20Ore.pdf
Straus, D. (1993). Facilitated collaborative problem solving and process management. In L.
Hall (Ed.), Negotiation: Strategies for mutual gain (pp. 28-40).
Straus, D. (2002). How to make collaboration work: Powerful ways to build consensus, solve
problems, and make decisions. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publisher, Inc.
Susskind, L. (1993) Resolving Public Disputes. In L. Hall (Ed.), Negotiation: Strategies for
mutual gain (pp. 61-76).
Susskind, L. , & Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the Impasse: Consensual approaches to
resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Susskind, L. , & Cruikshank, J. (2006). Breaking Robert’s Rules: The new way to run your
meetings, build consensus, and get results.. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Susskind, L. , & Thomas-Larmer, J. (1999). Conducting a conflict assessment. In L. Susskind,
S. McKearnan, & J, Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The consensus building handbook: A
comprehensive guide to reaching agreement (pp. 99-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
USAID (2007). Community-based development in conflict-affected areas: An introductory
guide for programming. U.S Agency got International Development.
www.orasicg.com