Originally published 14 July 2013. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
A public body we know has spent two years – on and off – examining a wholesale reorganisation of its service. In many ways it has been a textbook exercise. Key stakeholders were identified early; there was open-minded, inclusive engagement, based on truthful data and honest analysis. As time wore on, several possible scenarios emerged, and these were consolidated into a well-considered set of options. Time to go to a wider public consultation...!
Except that, in this particular instance, word came from somewhere on high that one or two of these options were now “unaffordable”, and would need to be removed from the forthcoming consultation.
It is hard to imagine who is most upset – the public body, whose Managers presumably did not know what the financial parameters might be ... or the stakeholders granted pre-consultation involvement, and who presumably devoted time and talent to their formulation.
Given recent prominence in High Court cases to the challenging task of options development, it may be a good time to emphasise best practice in these matters. Here are a few practical suggestions:
1. Acknowledge the difference between “scenarios” and “options”:
There will always be a long(er) list of suggested actions which may have to be whittled down to a short-list. Let everyone be aware that this is a normal and inevitable part of the process.
2. Where there are cherished “scenarios”, provide every facility to explore and test them fully:
Key stakeholders may have good reasons to promote some suggestions, and it is very bad politics – and discourteous to dismiss them without adequate discussion or research
3. Try to anticipate key criteria:
Some will be obvious, but others may be contentious. Concepts such as affordability, quality, sustainability or public acceptability are especially difficult and may need a degree of guidance from the ultimate decision-makers.
4. Use the term “options” only when ideas/suggestions/proposals/ scenarios have passed an agreed test or process milestone:
There needs to be a well-defined threshold point. It might be formal approval by a specific body, possibly the decision-maker. Or maybe it needs to successfully negotiate a rigorous technical appraisal.
What is important is to avoid springing surprises. This was one of the issues in the HS2 judicial review earlier this year. The Department of Transport only lost on one of ten challenges, namely the consultation on the proposed compensation schemes. Here, when it came to the decision, the Department took affordability into account without having initially disclosed to consultees that it was one of the criteria upon which the public’s views were sought. This all matters because once we grace a particular scenario with the label “option”, we find that it “sticks”. Try to explain to interested stakeholders that a particular proposal was once an option, but is now “no longer an option”. The questions come thick and fast. “What’s changed?” “Who decided?” “Who was consulted?” “Why could we not rule it out earlier?”
And whilst there may sometimes be legitimate answers and reasonable explanations, more often than not, the discussion will polarise and reflect badly on an organisation that was otherwise doing its best to involve people early enough to influence the emerging choices.
There is a fine line to be drawn between ruling out certain approaches at the outset and allowing freedom to explore with few constraints; it needs a degree of skill and political nous to make the right call. We all remember a Government Minister who was instructed to think the unthinkable. When he did precisely that, his services suddenly became no longer required!
In most change management situations, there is a need for clarity in what exactly needs and what does not need to be change. Some consultees will argue that the status quo should always be an option. They face authoritative declarations from Managers that there is no possibility of any such thing. So if and when something close to an option is developed, the media and the informed public will assume that, by definition, it is a realistic possibility.
For this reason, beware makeweight options, and only put forward for the consultation narrative those that are viable, and will sustain an informed debate. Maybe it’s best to assume that Once an option ... it will always be an option, and that consultees will expect serious consideration of all such propositions.
Trigger Points
- How are options developed in your organisation?
- Is there a clear distinction between the long(er) list of scenarios and the shorter list of options?
- For details of the HS2 judicial review, please see: R (ex parte Bucks CC & others) v Secretary of State for Transport/High Speed Two Ltd [2013] EWHC 481(Admin), especially Paragraphs 700-704
- Issues covered in this Topic are also looked at in our Law of Consultation training course.
This is the 240th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement