Half-baked proposals - It is the job of public consultations to help detect when proposals are inadequate

Now that everyone watches the Great British Bake-off, there is probably less need to explain the English idiom ’half-baked’ to anyone. Experienced public engagement professionals will, however recognise two types of proposals that may attract the criticism of being ‘half-baked’.

One covers those ideas that stand little chance of appealing to anyone, where the idea just has not been thought-through. Perhaps someone has seen all the advantages of a particular course of action and totally ignored disadvantages that are instantly visible to everyone else. Maybe the proposal rests on assumptions, which most objective observers would dismiss as unrealistic. Either way these are scenarios where the proposals lack credibility, and ideally should never be included in a high-quality public consultation.

The other situation is more common, and warrants some consideration. We find that many attempts to change services, save money (or maybe both) arrive at a point where a reasonably plausible way ahead has been identified. No-one is going to dismiss the idea as being fanciful or impossible to implement. But somehow, it lacks the degree of definition and the thoroughness of analysis that carries conviction. When such proposals are called ‘half-baked’ it is not to claim (per our TV Bake-off analogy) that the cake could never be baked – just that it had not been in the oven long enough, with dire consequences for the outcome.

It is not difficult to see how this arises. Current best practice is to identify the problem and then invite a wide range of interested people to contribute their ideas to the options development process. We positively discourage the previous practice of relying on experts to dream up the ideal solution. We even advise highly-paid Consultants that it may be better not to develop a single perfect answer, but instead to identify a range of possible approaches so that the public can be consulted about their preferences.

All good advice, but only if the essential rigour of the process is maintained. A more consensual activity need not be less rigorous; it is still possible to understand all the risks, to examine mitigation possibilities, to figure out the necessary pre-conditions and to think through transitional or implementation issues. This is why options development teams often need the support and involvement of specialist facilitators or consultants so that each and every suggestion is examined as thoroughly as possible.

Time and again, the finalisation of consultation papers has been held up when senior managers ask tough questions about the options included in draft documents. The to-ing and fro-ing inherent in agreeing the wording of the narrative is a vital part of the checks and balances needed to produce a satisfactory overall consultation.

If this does not happen and ‘half-baked’ proposals slip through the net, prepare for trouble. Academics Anthony King and Ivor Crewe have chronicled so many examples of ill-considered schemes and policies in their book The Blunders of our Governments that we have built this year’s Institute conference around the theme of Avoiding Blunders, and invited Professor King to speak. This is because we see the consultation team as having a pivotal role in ensuring that proposals put to the public are sound and credible.

Of course it can be argued that the subject-matter of a consultation is an issue for the functional experts, and that public engagement staff should rightly focus on the process. But process and content are mutually dependent. The best consultation process in the world cannot save a hopelessly prepared narrative. And an excellent narrative can always be undone by mistakes in the process.

Public consultation is the best possible means for well-developed options to be fully considered; if there is a weakness in your proposal, an effective consultation will expose it. Indeed, some organisations may be tempted to rely upon the consultation to finalise their options. Let’s get it there or thereabouts and design our definitive plans in the light of what consultees have said. Nice idea – and one that occasionally works, but on balance this is not recommended. In such a scenario, we run the risk of devaluing the credibility of the consultor organisation by seeming to put to the public a proposal that has too much yet to be agreed. The Courts have regularly found for claimants who have sought a strict interpretation of the Gunning Two principle. It says that we must publish enough about our proposals so that consultees can give them intelligent consideration.

If our proposals are genuinely ‘half-baked’, satisfying this test becomes a real challenge. So it is in all our interests to follow the recipe to the letter and complete the task as intended.

TRIGGER POINTS

• How much of a role do you play in the options development or other pre-consultation processes?
• References to the second of the ‘Gunning Principles’ – involve the Law of Consultation, and are covered in depth at the Institute’s training course.
• The Blunders of our Governments by Anthony King and Ivor Crewe was published by Oneworld Publications in 2013; it forms the inspiration for the Institute’s Annual Conference 14th October at the Emirates Stadium, London.
• The issues covered in this Topic are considered in depth in the Institute’s new training course Preparing for a Consultation.

This is the 278th 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.