When to Use Consensus-based Processes

A key factor in determining whether an agency should move forward with a consensus process is the outcome of an internal assessment and external assessment.

In general, a consensus process is more likely to be appropriate when...

• The issues are of a high priority and a decision is needed.
• The issues are identifiable and negotiable
• The issues do not focus primarily on constitutional rights or fundamental values.
• The interests are identifiable and it is possible to find representatives for them.
• The outcome is genuinely in doubt.
• There is enough time and resources. Time is needed for building consensus among conflicting interests, and resources are necessary to support the process.
• The political climate is favorable. In the political context, leadership support and timing, e.g. elections, are critical to determining whether to go forward.
• No single entity has complete control over the solution.
• There is a relative balance of power among stakeholders.
• The relationship between the parties will continue beyond the resolution of the controversy and a consensus process is likely to have a favorable effect on the relationship.
• A sponsor may have the authority, but not the power to make an effective decision. It would try to reach an acceptable decision and have to defend it in another government forum, where other officials could change it.
• Relevant laws allow enough latitude for the parties to negotiate an agreement.

A consensus process is less likely to be appropriate when...

• Legal clarification is needed;
• There is a need for a judicial precedent to clarify the law or guide future conduct;
• The level of concern about the issue is not great;
• An emergency: the situation does not allow time for negotiation;
• The community is so polarized that face-to-face discussions are not possible;
• Negotiations will substantively affect persons who cannot be effectively represented;
• Not all government agencies with decision-making authority will commit to implementing the agreement.
• The agency has limited time or other resources, and a collaborative process would use more agency resources, take longer, or be less efficient than another type of process.
• The interests are too diffuse to be identified and negotiations could substantially affect people who cannot be represented.
• The range of potential solutions is too limited; some mandates may prescribe solutions that are too narrow for negotiation.
• Some stakeholders may want to appear open but have no interest in cooperating.
• A party may seek delay and hope that a consensus process will bog things down.