Advertisement

Designing a Process

  • Hans de Bruijn
  • Ernst F. ten Heuvelhof
  • Roel in ‘t Veld
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter addresses the requirements of a good process. Some of these requirements can be met through the right process design. This is where we enter the domain of negotiation architecture [22, 29]. The structure of the chapter is as follows. Section 3.2 will introduce the four main requirements of a process, or process agreements (we will refer to these as the core elements of a process design). A good process is:
  • an open process,

  • in which parties are offered security through protection of their core values,

  • which offers sufficient incentives for progress and momentum, and

  • which offers sufficient guarantees for the substantive quality of the results.

Keywords

Design Principle Core Element Good Process Exit Option Small Party 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Arnstein SR (1971) Eight rungs on the ladder of citizen participation. In: Edgar en SC, Passet BA (eds) Citizen participation: effecting community change. Praeger, New York, pp 69–91Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bohman J (1996) Public deliberation: pluralism, complexity and democracy. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Bruijn JA (2000) Processen van verandering. Lemma, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Jong WM (1999) Institutional transplantation: how to adopt good transport infrastructure decision-making ideas from other countries. Eburon, DelftGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dixit A, Nalebuff BJ (1991) Thinking strategically. The competitive edge in business politics and every day lifes. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy (2008) Onzekere Veiligheid, verantwoordelijkheden rond fysieke veiligheid. Amsterdam University Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farrell A, VanDeveer SD, Jäger J (2001) Environmental assessments: four under-appreciated elements of design. Glob Environ Chang 11(4):311–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischer F (2000) Citizens, experts and the environment. Duke University Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fischhendler I (2004) Legal and institutional adaptation to climate uncertainty: a study of international rivers. Water Policy 6(4):281–302Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. In Futures 25(7):735–755Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Innes JE (1996) Planning through consensus building: a new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. J Am Plan Assoc 62(4):460–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch: science advices as policy managers. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kheel TW, Lurie WL (1999) The keys to conflict resolution: proven methods of settling disputes voluntarily. Four Walls Eight Windows, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kiser L, Ostrom E (1982) The three worlds of action: a meta-theoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In: Ostrom E (ed) Strategies of political inquiry. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, pp 174–222Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mayer IS (1997) Debating technologies. A methodological contribution to the design and evaluation of participatory policy analysis. Tilburg University Press, TilburgGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miranda ML, Miller JN, Jacobs TL (1996) Informing policymakers and the public in landfill siting processes. In: Technical expertise and public decisions. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mitchell R, Clark W, Cash DW, Alcock F (2002) ‘Information as Influence: How Institutions Mediate the Impact of Scientific Assessments on Global Environmental Affairs’, Faculty Research Working Paper 02–044. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moore CW (1996) The mediation in process: practical strategies for resolving conflict. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Rethinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Belknap Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Science and Public Policy (1999) Special issue on scientific expertise and political accountability, vol 26, no. 3Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sebenius JK (1991) Designing negotiations toward a new regime. The case of global warming. Int Security 15(4):110–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Siebenhüner B (2003) The changing role of nation states in international environmental assessments-the case of the IPCC. Glob Environ Chang 13(2):113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sparks A (1995) Tomorrow is another country: the inside story of South Africa’s negotiated revolution. Struik, SandtonGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stern PC, Fineberg HV (eds) (1996) Understanding risk informing decisions in the democratic society. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ten Heuvelhof EF, Nauta C (1997) Environmental impact; the effects of environmental impact assessment. Project Appraisal 12(1):25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Watkins MD (2007) Teaching students to shape the game: negotiation architecture and the design of manageably dynamic simulations. Negotiation J 23(3):333–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhongqi P (2001) The dilemma of deterrence: US strategic ambiguity policy and its implications for the taiwan strait. The Henry L. Stimson CenterGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans de Bruijn
    • 1
  • Ernst F. ten Heuvelhof
    • 1
  • Roel in ‘t Veld
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyBX DelftNetherlands
  2. 2.JH LeiderdorpNetherlands

Personalised recommendations