Mediated Modeling Partners, LLC

What's New? Why Use MM? About Us Services Clients Communities Businesses Schools Researchers Contact Us Models Publications In Progress Site Map Home Links

Communities Communities and governments use the mediated modeling process to invite the input of diverse stakeholders and to build local capacity for problem solving within a frame of adaptive management. Communities Communities increasingly are organizing themselves to define and map their futures. Communities have been first to recognize the value of a broad range of views. They have organized to challenge the status quo and often do this with an admirable vigor and energy. This momentum and motivation should be cherished and tools such as mediated modeling can be helpful in getting everyone "on the same page". Mediated modeling also develops a way to convey a complicated message to third parties. Governmental agencies To invite the input of a broad variety of stakeholders is a horrifying thought to many governmental agencies. The chaos due to the complexities of the diverse interests and loss of authority are often feared. Aristotle was intrigued by the question of whether decision-making should take place in groups or whether one individual was better suited to make decisions for a group. He concluded that while a single decision maker is the most efficient, it is too dangerous to exclude the broader group. Four aspects back up this conclusion (based on an interpretation of Aristotle by Harris, 1996): Aristotle valued collective wisdom in the sense that a group of individuals will display more virtue than an individual will in making choices. Participation in public affairs improves moral judgement because it is being exercised by the individuals. Participation stimulates compliance with decisions: "not including free citizens in the political process would promote instability" Aristotle's example: A builder is not the only one capable of judging a house. The occupant may well see good and bad in the structure that the builder, for all his expertise, may miss. So, too, those who are affected by the policies of their leaders may be better suited to judge those policies than the rulers themselves. Increasingly governments recognize the value of involving stakeholders at an early point in planning processes and look towards more inclusive approaches. Mediated modeling helps bring people from different walks of life together. We work with these groups to improve the understanding of the complexities involved and to generate consensus-based recommendations. Our experience shows that conflicts are more feared and anticipated (in preliminary interviews) than they occur in reality during the meetings. Following are the comments by the participants of the Upper Fox project "before" and "after" the workshops. In a "before" interview they were asked what would be (A) the worst and (B) the best that could happen. In an "after" interview the participants were asked what thing was (C) the worst and (D) the best that happened. Compare for yourself. Before: A. "What is the worst that can happen during the coming workshops?" Screaming, angry, uncooperative people. Failing to focus on the big picture and instead focusing on narrow agendas. Nothing gets accomplished, waste of time. Invest time that doesn't result in anything. Hurt feelings, putting up walls, people get alienated. Too fast, too large of an area and too diverse a group. Not keeping people engaged. Fundamental disagreements among partners; agenda focussing. Overly burdened by time commitment and disassociation. Apathy and bored, dropping out, views not addressed, dominant players. Frustration about not being able to make a difference; disintegration. No participation. Conflicts. Partners don't support DNR's goals and obstruct DNR's goals. No respect for views. Critical participants refuse to continue; no consensus. Personal nervous breakdown and a waste of time. Apathy. No agreement. Don't accomplish anything. Enemies are created and a waste of time. Lack of understanding of the role of the public and no follow through. Personally lost, losing members. B. "What is the best that can happen during the coming workshops?" Cooperation; knowing how to work together to accomplish something. Learn about and understand the basin, [make] well-informed decisions and feel good about it. Well-oiled machine; identifying a mutual problem and consensus on how to achieve the [goals]. A usable document. Get a broad-based group to understand the links and create an awareness. To establish bonds and relationships to produce support for creative ideas. Establish common goals. Focus on causes. A clear picture of the linkages between ecology and economics. Clear consensus that they see how to use information to create strategies for wise management and commitment to rescue the basin. Consensus about primary stressors in the system and how to attack them. Understanding by a large majority beyond the group; implementation. Define the problems and some solutions; find ways to implement some at least locally. Long range plan for quality of the Upper Fox. Empowerment of the Department. Open dialogue and the desire to learn. Public awareness and perception of the problem. Identifying solutions. Find common goals and objectives and a vision on implementation. Set goals and implement. A balanced picture of ecology and economics. An acceptable course of actions that is implemented the next 2 years. Overview direction for the Upper Fox. After: C. "What was the worst thing about the overall mediated modeling process / experience?" Never enough time for thorough discussion, lack of complete information/expertise; not enough time for social interaction. Too many meetings in a short timeframe that lasted too long each night, for me anyway; it was difficult to commit that kind of time at night. The number of meetings spread out over time. Lack of current information. Relying too much on student project. I need to reduce my workload in order to participate at a more meaningful level. I'd prefer it was spread out over more time. It's hard to get started without information. It is tough to work into DNR's schedules. Lack of good data made some conclusions difficult to make. It came at an ultra-busy workload time and I couldn't follow through, as I would have liked. D. "What was the best about the overall mediated modeling process/ experience?" Learning the complex interactions and common goals. Recognizing the values of agricultural lands. The group process + discussion was a great way to draw out individual opinions on ecological issues in the basin. We had thorough discussions about how resources and problems in the basin are connected. The discussion, the process, the dialogue helped establish new relationships and understanding. The knowledge gain from the discussions. Reaching a final product, which will hopefully produce positive benefits in the basin. The process was a tremendous learning experience for me. Systems approach. Networking. Accessing new information. Our facilitator. Having a structure for various & conflicting stakeholders to communicate about tough issues. Contacts with other agencies and ideas.