Policy-Making Options

Last updated on April 8, 2002.

Composition of Working Groups

Same for all topics at a given time
Direct appointment / Strict task force Model
Indirect appointment / loose task force model
open working group model
-
High risk of excluding concerned groups
-
huge individual workload
-
not every group member can be an expert for every topic
-
if done at board level: no checks and balances

-
risk of excluding concerned groups
-
limited manpower

-
limited manpower

-
may result in too large groups, leading to bad signal/noise ratio, and in turn triving expert participants away.
-
working grouop may be dismissed as self-selected, captured by noisy fractions
-
few if any resopnsibilities assigned to specific individuals

+
continuity
+
limited, workable group size
+
assigns responsibility to well-defined set of representatives

+
group members chosen by expertise (in theory)
+
workload more evenly distributed
+
limited, workable group size
+
assigns responsibility to well-defined set of representatives

+
less risk of excluding concerned groups
+
group members chosen by expertise (in theory)
+
workload more evenly distributed
+
limited, workable group size
+
assigns responsibility to well-defined set of representatives

+
little risk of excluding concerned groups or individuals by design
+
workload may be distributed well





Communication with Public while Work is Going on

Listen-only plus behind-the-curtain discussions
Active Outreach

Implicit Outreach by Open Membership

(note: this option is only available with the Open WG model listed above. Pro's and Con's look similar.)

-
intransparent process
-
privileges powerful groups with close contacts to board, council, ...
-
decisions may face (surprising amounts of) public criticism

-
more work
-
quality of responses may vary considerably
-
powerful groups may not be satisfied by being treated in the same way as the general public
-
outreach may be designed in a way which favors specific groups

-
may favor those who are eloquent and permanently online
-
outreach may be designed in a way which favors specific groups
-
inappropriate for consensus-building among constituencies?

+
cheap when compared with other approaches, both in terms of time and money
+
may help to satisfy powerful groups which expect privileged treatment

+
more transparency by actively collecting input
+
depending on method (sharing insight gathered so far?), input may be more informed, and better match requirements

+
exchange of views between stakeholder groups possible
+
high level of transparency
+
good method for consensus-building among individuals?