Nci workshop brazil1

AGENDA

I. Introductions.II. Overview of the NCI Charrette System.

a. What is the nature of the problem?b. What is a charrette?c. What is the NCI charrette system?d. How do charrettes work?

III. Tools & Techniques for Collaborative Solutions.a. How do we know if a project is ready for a successful charrette?b. Project assessment and team organization: “Project start-up

intensive.”c. Designing the process: making meetings work. d. Stakeholder analysis.e. Stakeholder outreach, education and communication

strategies.IV. Hands-on Exercise.V. Discussion.

The National Charrette Institute

• The National Charrette Institute (NCI) is an IRS 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational institution

• We teach professionals and community leaders the NCI Charrette System™, a design-based, accelerated, collaborative project management system that harnesses the talents and energies of all interested parties to create and support a feasible plan

• We advance the fields of community planning and public involvement through research, publications and facilitation

20 years of healthy community transformation

Design +

Codes +

Process =

Transformation

Downcity, Providence, RI

NCI Charrette System NCI Management & Facilitation

• Portland, DC, Harvard, Miami, Vancouver BC, UK • Also available on-site for your organization

NCI Training History

• 1st public training offered in 2002• NCI Training Certificates: 2,194

Data through 12/11

NCI Charrette System Course

Day One:• Three phases of the NCI

Charrette System• Practice public “hands-on”

meeting exercises Day Two:• Case studies presentations• Project assessment exercises

– Guiding principles– Objectives & measures– Stakeholder analysis– Charrette purpose and

products– Project complexity

Day Three:• Project Organization

– Charrette system road map

– Charrette ready plan– Team formation– Charrette schedule

• Plan Implementation• Lessons learned

NCI Charrette Management and Facilitation Course

Day One:• General charrette

management• Studio set-up & management• Public gallery management• Communications and the

press• Public meeting facilitation skill

building exercise

Day Two:• Charrette design decision

process• Charrette team design pin-up

simulation• Production and presentation

management

The Situation in a Nutshell

Forbes Magazine

The general situation.

• Fear of growth, in spite of economic dependence on its continuation.

• Fear reinforced by environmental rhetoric that emphasizes the damage.

• Bad democracy: emphasis on quantity and not quality or functioning of public participation.

The politics of planning...

• Citizen intervention focused on technical and procedural means to stop projects.

• Technical discussions become politically charged, political decisions become technically obscure.

• Political paralysis reinforces “business as usual” development patterns.

• Pervasive fear among developers of “meeting the neighbors.”

• Breakdown of faith in democratic process on all sides.

The ironic results of misunderstanding democracy.

• In the name of procedural fairness and democracy, we’ve created an unreliable process that undermines civic capacity and leads to reactionary politics (NIMBY).

• Public involvement has become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Change is hard for everyone

The community development system resists transformative change

• Outdated codes and standards

• Narrow financing conventions

• Public fear of new development

• Lack of a shared community vision

The work of specialists

• Solving each problem, one at a time, with technical skill and precision.

• Each “solution,” dictated by its own “necessity,” creates new problems.

The problem with a system of experts

• Diane Vaughn, The Challenger Launch Decision.

• The best technical knowledge often produces well-supported decisions that add up to disaster.

Complex projects and problems require collaborative solutions.

• Create an exemplary plan that leads to implementation

• Create positive ongoing working relationships• Save time and money: good government• Build community trust in government• Complex problems require

collaboration

Goals of a collaborative planning process

• Create an exemplary plan• Stakeholders own and support the plan• Avoid costly rework• Implement the plan

Why is collaboration so difficult?

• History of bad process, endless unproductive meetings

• The “trained incapacity” of specialists.• Diversity of viewpoints.• Pervasive suspicion of full collaboration.• Fear of unbridled democracy– the rule of “the

mob.”• Requires good leadership, process, facilitation

with the resources to make it happen

Strategies and tools for collaboration

Holistic Collaborative Process•Inclusive, cross-disciplinary, transparent, timely

– Tools: ex. NCI Charrette System, Integrated Design

Collaborative Project Start•Commitment to robust inclusive process

– Tool: Project start-up intensive– Tools: Guiding principles, objectives and measures,

stakeholder analysis, project roadmap

Well-run Public Meetings•Input with potential for impact

– Tools: Skilled facilitation of hands-on workshops

Each puzzle piece protects its domain.

zoning

open space

transportation

financing

density

utilities

retail

affordability

residential transit

environmental

marketing

architecture

politics

construction

sales

engineering

public involvement

parking

public space

When each piece sees it’s place in the whole…

zoning

open space

transportation

financing

density

utilities

retail

affordability

residential transit

environmental

marketing

architecture

politics

construction

sales

engineering

public involvement

parking

public space

zoning

open space

transportation

financing

density

utilities

retail

affordability

residential transit

environmental

marketing

architecture

politics

construction

sales

engineering

public involvement

parking

public space

A coherent vision is supported …

zoning

open space

transportation

financing

density

utilities

retail

affordability

residential transit

environmental

marketing

architecture

politics

construction

sales

engineering

public involvement

parking

public space

… and the community is transformed.

How can resistance turn into collaboration and positive community transformation?

The NCI Charrette System

Pleasant Hill Bart Station, 2000

• 25-year deadlock• Organized citizen

opposition controlling the press

• Challenging deal (developer, County, BART)

• Boycott of charrette threatened

Pleasant Hill Bart Station, 2005

• Unanimous adoption with no opposition

• Design maintained with new architect

• Head NIMBY chairs committee

• Survived 5-year lag• Construction begins

Urban Advantage

Lennertz Coyle & Assoc.

75% Completion, 2010

Observed problems with charrettes.

• Highly variable in form, content, and success. • Lack of clarity with respect to public expectations.• Difficulty with follow-through to implementation.• The need to cultivate local champions, not always

achieved by out-of-town consultants.• Disappointment and disillusionment, often

proportional to the excitement of the charrette itself.

• Weak preparation.

The NCI Charrette System™

• What is the NCI Charrette System?• What is a NCI Charrette?• Charrette System Tools and Techniques• Nine Charrette System Strategies

research, education, charrette preparation charrette

planimplementation

Project Status Communications

Product Refinement

Presentation and Product Finalization

Project Assessment and Organization

Stakeholder Research, Education, Involvement

Base Data Research and Analysis

Feasibility Studies and Research

Charrette Logistics

Organization, Education, Vision

Alternative Concepts Development

Preferred Plan Synthesis

Plan Development

Production and Presentation

1111 2222 3333

The Charrette System Phases

1-9 months 2-4 months

Strengths of the Charrette System

Support• Mobilizes the collective energy

of all interested partiesFeasibility• Addresses all aspects of

feasibility concurrentlyTime and Money• Reduces project timeline,

increases productivity, reduces costly rework

Sustainability and Design• Seeks the best sustainable

solution, not the lowest common denominator

LCA Town Planning and Architecture

Charrettes accelerate timelines

NCI Charrette System Core Values

Sustainable Community Planning• Holistic planning solutions support socially,

economically and environmentally sustainable communities.

Collaboration•Each individual’s unique contribution supports the best outcome. Transparency•Clarity in rules, process and roles is essential to collaboration.Shared Learning•Including all viewpoints assures reduced rework and facilitates implementation.Direct, Honest, Timely Communication•Respectful communication fosters an environment of trust and reduces rework.

Drawn for The Washington Post, 1988, by Roger K. Lewis, FAIA, Professor, U. Maryland School of Architecture

What is a NCI Charrette?

• The NCI charrette is a multi-day collaborative planning event that engages all affected parties to create and support a feasible plan that represents transformative community change

Origin of the term “charrette”

• At the École des Beaux Arts in Paris during the 19th century, proctors circulated a cart, or “charrette,” to collect final drawings while the students frantically put finishing touches on their work

La Charrette, by Alexis Lemaistre c.1889

Misconceptions about the term “charrette”

A NCI charrette is not:

• A one-day workshop

• A multi-day marathon meeting involving everyone all the time (stakeholders participate at key moments)

• A “visioning session” without an action plan and implementation strategy

When should you use a charrette?

Charrettes are best for:

• High stakes projects• Volatile, yet workable,

political environments• Complex design

problems• Projects that include

imminent development

What can a charrette do?

• Revitalization and infill• Sustainable

communities• Economic development• Regional visions and

plans• Comprehensive plans• Form-based codes• New neighborhoods• TOD plans

Kendall, FL

Kentlands, MDHillsborough Co., FL

Charrettes result in feasible plans for:

In-house Charrettes

• A charrette is not necessarily a public event if all stakeholders are “in-house”

• The public-at-large does not have to be involved in a project when the public is not an “affected party”

Examples:– LEED building design– Military construction– Hi-tech manufacturing

Charrette Trends

Government agencies requiring charrettes:• Baltimore County, MD• Davidson, NC• Belmont, NC• Sarasota County, FL

Recent RFPs requiring charrettes:• Renaissance Project, Baltimore, MD• Columbia Town Center, Columbia, MD• City Center Housing, Santa Monica, CA• Spokane Valley, WA• Providence, RI• Chico, CA• Montgomery County, MD• Surfside, FL• Takoma Park, MD

Charrette Request for Proposal Template

A complete framework for specifying a NCI charretteprocess in a RFP

Free for download at: charretteinstitute.org

NCI Charrette SystemTools and Techniques


planimplementation


Product Refinement






Charrette Logistics

Organization, Education, Vision


Preferred Plan Synthesis

Plan Development

Production and Presentation

1111 2222 3333

The Charrette System Phases

1-9 months 2-4 months

The NCI Charrette SystemPhase One: Charrette Preparation

Research, Education, Charrette Preparation Tools and Techniques


planimplementation





Charrette Logistics

1111 2 3

charrette logistics

project set-up and

organizationstakeholder involvement

base information

feasibility studies

Guiding Principles

Objectives, Measures, Strategies Draft

Stakeholder Analysis

Charrette Purpose and Products

Complexity Analysis

Charrette System Road Map

Charrette Ready Plan

1.11.11.11.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

1.1 Project Assessment and Organization Tools and Techniques

Charrette System Road Map

Charrette Ready Plan Schedule

Outreach and Engagement

Engagement and Information Exchange

Secondary Stakeholder Analysis

Educational Events

1.2 Stakeholder Research, Education, and Involvement Plan Tools and Techniques

charrette logistics

project set-up and


base information

feasibility studies

1.1 1.21.21.21.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Stakeholders’ unique contributions

Elected officials

Neighbors Urban designers

Environmentalists

Business owners

Developer

Fire Chief

Transportation engineers

1.2 Stakeholder Research, Education and Involvement Plan

Tool: Educational Events

Purpose: To establish a description of a future state based on shared community values that acts as a guide for the project decision making process surveys

Process: One or a number of efforts including educational lectures, workshops, neighborhood walks, and preference surveys

Base Data Research and Gathering

SWOT Analysis

1.3 Base Data Research and AnalysisTools and Techniques

charrette logistics

project set-up and


base information

feasibility studies

1.1 1.2 1.31.31.31.3 1.4 1.5

Conceptual Sketching and Testing

Pre-charrette Project Brief

1.4 Feasibility Studies Tools and Techniques

charrette logistics

project set-up and


base information

feasibility studies

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.41.41.41.4 1.5

Studio Logistics and Set-up

Charrette Team Formation

Charrette Scheduling

Meeting Planning

Pre-charrette Logistics Summary

1.5 Charrette Logistics Tools and Techniques

charrette logistics

project set-up and


base information

feasibility studies

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.51.51.51.5

1.5 Charrette Logistics

Tool: Studio Logistics and Set-up

Purpose: To provide a functional space for charrette team work and public participation

Process: The charrette manager works with local staff to organize all charrette logistics to support a sustained, focused effort

Charrette studio

Charrette gallery

1.5 Charrette Logistics

Tool: Charrette Team Formation

Purpose: The assembly of a cross-disciplinary charrette team is informed by the skills required to complete the desired products, and to assure holistic, diverse feedback

Process: Based on the project complexity analysis and the charrette products list, the charrette manager appoints a diverse team of specialists

The Charrette

Charrette Roles and Process

Charrette Team• The multidisciplinary charrette

team works uninterrupted to produce the plan at the charrette studio

Drop by the studio(Unscheduled)

Urban Design Associates

Stakeholder meeting(Scheduled)

Dover Kohl

Public meetings(Scheduled)

LCA Town Planners

Charrette Roles and Process

The Stakeholder’s Role• Stakeholders provide vision, input and review at key

moments during scheduled and impromptu, meetings• They are not there all the time!

Charrette Phases

The Five Phases of the Charrette

Charrette Phases

Charrette Work Cycles

alternative concepts

public meeting review

open house review

public meetingconfirmation

public meeting vision

plandevelopment

preferred plan

Charrette Stakeholder Meetings

2.12.1

organization, education,

vision


development

preferred plan

synthesisplan

development

production and

presentation

Start-up Team Meeting

Charrette Team Tour

Primary Stakeholder Meetings

Charrette Public Meeting #1

2.1 Organization, Education, Vision Tools and Techniques

2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

2.1 Organization, Education, Vision Tools and Techniques

Process: Base data debrief and review of schedule, roles, and responsibilities

2.1 Organization, Education, Vision

Tool: Start-up Team Meeting

Purpose: To orient and introduce team members


Tool: Charrette Team Tour

Purpose: To assess, document and measure the project site and context

Process: The team and stakeholders tour

the site, the surrounding area and local examples of smart development

2.1 Organization, Education, Vision Primary Stakeholder Meetings


Tool: Primary Stakeholder Meetings

Purpose: Check in with important people before the first public meeting to assure that they will attend and to gather last minute advice

Process: The charrette manager sets up meetings based on the stakeholder analysis typically with elected officials, landowners and community leaders

2.1 Organization, Education, Vision Public Meeting #1


Tool: • Charrette Public Meeting #1Purpose: • Explain the project and process • Introduce the charrette team • Provide the technical background• Teach basic good planning principles • Solicit a project vision from the public• Inspire a sense of “a historic moment”Process: • Brief presentation by team • Small table public workshop • Report back

Charrette Public Meeting #1: Hands-on Exercise

• Groups work on visioning exercises at tables

Concepts Team Meeting


Initial Stakeholder Reviews

Alternative Concepts Refinement

Public Meeting #2 or Open House

2.2 Alternative Concepts Development Tools and Techniques

2.12.1


vision


development

preferred plan

synthesisplan

development

production and

presentation

2.22.22.22.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

2.2 Alternative Concepts Development Tools and Techniques

2.2 Alternative Concepts Development

Process: Review of hands-on drawings and flip charts from public meeting

Tool: Concepts Team Meeting

Purpose: Distill the prominent themes for development into concepts

Charrette Public Meeting #1: Hands-on Exercise Results


Tool: Alternative Concepts Development

Purpose: Create a large set of plan options that reflect all the input gathered to date

Process: The charrette team begins concept development based on team meeting direction

2.2 Alternative ConceptsInitial Stakeholder Reviews


Tool: Alternative Concepts Refinement

Purpose: Reduce the alternative concepts to a manageable number

Process: The charrette team identifies the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative with the aim of merging good ideas, eliminating bad ones, and developing new ideas

2.2 Alternative Concepts Public Meeting #2


Tool: Public Meeting #2 or Open House

Purpose: Present the design alternatives and solicit participant feedback for incorporation into the next round of revisions

Process: Evening public meeting wherein the team presents the work to date and receives feedback

Plan Synthesis Team Meeting

Concept Synthesis Into Preferred Plan

Intermediate Stakeholder Reviews

Public Open House

2.3 Preferred Plan Synthesis Tools and Techniques

2.1


vision


development

preferred plan

synthesisplan

development

production and

presentation

2.2 2.32.32.32.3 2.4 2.5

2.3 Preferred Plan Synthesis Tools and Techniques

2.3 Preferred Plan Synthesis

Tool: Concept Synthesis Into Preferred Plan

Purpose: Synthesize the alternative concepts into a preferred plan

Process: The charrette team arrives at a preferred plan by considering the project constraints as well as accumulated stakeholder input

2.3 Preferred Plan Synthesis

Sustainability

Transportation

Stakeholder Surveys

The Preferred Plan reflects multiple viewpoints

Objectives & Measures

2.3 Preferred PlanIntermediate Stakeholder Reviews

Plan Development Team Meeting

Plan Development and Refinement

Intermediate Stakeholder Reviews

2.4 Plan Development Tools and Techniques

2.1


vision


development

preferred plan

synthesisplan

development

production and

presentation

2.2 2.3 2.42.42.42.4 2.5

2.4 Plan Development Tools and Techniques

2.4 Plan Development

Tool: Plan Development and Refinement

Purpose: To perform design studies on the preferred plan that address issues essential to its advancement

Process: Each design team member performs detailed design studies of the preferred plan

Plan Development Studies

Existing condition Proposed infill plan

Urban design rendering



Existing condition Proposed infill plan

2.4 Plan Development Intermediate Stakeholder Reviews

Production Team Meeting

Final Stakeholder Reviews

Production

Final Charrette Public Meeting

2.5 Production and Presentation Tools and Techniques

2.1


vision


development

preferred plan

synthesisplan

development

production and

presentation

2.2 2.3 2.4 2.52.52.52.5

2.5 Production and PresentationTools and Techniques

2.5 Production and Presentation

Tool: Production

Purpose: To complete the assigned drawings and documents to a refined level capable of informing and inspiring the public

Process: The charrette manager carefully orchestrates the production to allow time for rehearsal and final review by the client

2.5 Production and Presentation Final Charrette Public Meeting

2.5 Production and Presentation

Process: • Charrette team presentation

– project summary, charrette log, evolution of plan, final plan

• Q&A and public input• Open house

Tool: Final Charrette Public Meeting

Purpose: Illustrate and explain the complete plan drawings and supportive data, inform and inspire all participants to support their plan

Example Charrette Products


Sustainability – Local Food


Sustainability – Rainwater Treatment


Proposed open spaces

Existing open spaces


Making it Happen:

• Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)

• Comprehensive Plan

• Land Development Code

• Tax Increment Financing

• Code Enforcement

• Enterprise Zone

• Brownfields

• Future Rail Transportation

Phase Three: Plan Implementation

3.0 Plan Implementation Tools and Techniques


planimplementation


Product Refinement


1 2 3333

3.0 Plan Implementation Tools and Techniques

4 - 6 weeks max.

Charrette begins with input session, then design begins

Review & Revise

Final Review

project status communications

Project Management Team Debriefing

Public Communications

product refinement

presentation and product finalization

3.1 Information and Relationship Strategy Tools and Techniques

3.13.13.13.1 3.2 3.3

3.1 Project Status Communications

Tool: Public Communications

Purpose: Continue to inform the key stakeholders and public on the outcome of the charrette, the next steps, and how they can be involved

Process: Disseminate information though e-mails, websites, and publications such as The Town Paper

Document Review and Feedback

Document Revision

3.2 Product Refinement Tools and Techniques


product refinement


3.1 3.23.23.23.2 3.3

3.2 Product Refinement

Goal• Ensure that the Charrette

Plan is feasible

Tools• Document Review and

Feedback• Document Revision

Final Project Public Meeting

Project Closeout

3.3 Presentation and Product Finalization Tools and Techniques


product refinement


3.1 3.2 3.33.33.33.3

3.3 Presentation and Product Finalization

Goals• Solicit a final round of public input• Complete the full set of charrette drawings and

documents

Tools• Final Project Public Meeting• Project Closeout

3.3 Presentation and Product Finalization

Tool: Project Closeout

Purpose: Complete the charrette report and code documents required for a feasible plan

Process: The charrette manager directs the completion and distribution of documents

Principles of the NCI Charrette System

Charrette System Strategies

1. Work collaboratively 2. Design cross-functionally 3. Compress work sessions 4. Communicate in short feedback loops 5. Study the details and the whole 6. Produce a feasible plan 7. Use design to achieve a shared vision and create

holistic solutions 8. Conduct a multiple day charrette9. Hold the charrette on or near the site


1. Work collaboratively

• Collaboration is based on valuing each individual’s unique contribution

• Anyone who might build, use, sell, approve, or attempt to block the project is involved before the start of design and throughout the project

Risks of not working collaboratively

• Conventional processes involve people after the planning has started, resulting in a loss of trust from which it is very hard to recover


2. Design cross-functionally

• A multi-disciplinary team method results in decisions that are realistic avoiding costly rework

• Teams typically include planning, architecture, environmental, transportation, economics

Risks of segregating work according to specialty

• When a key specialty is left out of the planning and design process, there is risk of major rework or project failure


3. Compress work sessions

• Time compression facilitates creative problem-solving by accelerating decision-making and reducing unconstructive negotiation tactics

• Compressed work sessions promote “out-of-the-box” thinking

Apollo 13


4. Communicate in short feedback loops

• Regular stakeholder reviews quickly build trust in the process and foster true understanding and support of the product

Dover Kohl

alternatives refinement plan

public review

concepts

public review public review

Charrette Feedback Cycles

Participants work in a series of short feedback loops


5. Study the details and the whole

• Designs at varying scales inform each other and reduce the likelihood that a fatal flaw will be overlooked that could result in costly rework

Risks of not studying the details

• Conventional planning limited to “bubble” scale study may not deliver the desired community vision


6. Produce a feasible plan

• To create a feasible plan, every decision point must be fully informed, especially by the legal, financial, and engineering disciplines

• The focus on feasibility brings a level of seriousness and rigor to the process for everyone involved

Financial feasibility analysis


7. Use design to achieve a shared vision and create holistic solutions

• Design illustrates the complexity of the problem and can be used to resolve conflict by proposing previously unexplored solutions that represent win/win outcomes

Urban Advantage

Existing Condition Proposal - Computer Simulation


8. Conduct a multiple day charrette

• Most charrettes require more than four days, allowing for three feedback loops

Urban Design Associates

Risks of charrettes that are too short

• When feedback loops are too far apart, there is a risk that misunderstandings and concerns cannot be addressed in a timely fashion

• People can become set in their negative opinions and become obstructive


9. Hold the charrette on or near the site

• Working on site fosters the charrette team's understanding of local values and traditions, and provides the necessary easy access to stakeholders and information

LCA Town Planning and Architecture

Risks of not working on site

• High stakes projects require frequent discussions with stakeholders which can be made difficult if the charrette is not on or near the site.


1. Work collaboratively 2. Design cross-functionally 3. Compress work sessions 4. Communicate in short feedback loops 5. Study the details and the whole 6. Produce a feasible plan 7. Use design to achieve a shared vision and create

holistic solutions 8. Conduct multiple day charrette9. Hold the charrette on or near the site

Available at NCI Website

Are you ready for a charrette?

Key Factors in Charrette Readiness

• Will the key stakeholders participate in a charrette fully and in good faith?

• Are there political and/or relationship issues that must be solved before a charrette can begin?

• Where does a charrette fit into a broader process?– It is important to be clear about the goals and

purpose of the charrette in relation to the overall project.

CurrentSituation

Implementation

ImplementationCharretteCharrette

CharretteCharrette

Consensus

Building

Consensus

Building

Consensus

Building

Consensus

Building

CBI Assessment:

•Initiate•Gather•Analyze

•Design•Share

Top Reasons Projects Fail

1. Unclear project mission• The project sponsor does not have, and/or does

not communicate, a clear project mission, guiding principles and desired outcomes. – Project team dysfunction– Stakeholders/community members undermine

the project


2. Insufficient community organizing and outreach• Without the resources for conducting effective

outreach and relationship building, it is difficult to achieve a cross-section of stakeholder participation

3. Poor Data• Design is based on incomplete or incorrect data• Data arrives late resulting in design changes


4. Time• Project takes years to complete• New players lack project understanding often

requiring project restart• Project loses momentum• Meeting fatigue

Focus: Four elements in preparation for successful charrettes.

• Project assessment and team organization. – “Project start-up intensive.”

• Designing the process: making meetings work. • Stakeholder analysis.

– Assessment of current issues and conflicts for “charrette readiness.”

• Stakeholder education.– Outreach and communication strategies based on stakeholder

analysis.

Research, Education, Charrette Preparation


planimplementation




Project Feasibility Studies and Research

Charrette Logistics

1111 2 3

Preventing project failure.

Collaborative project start-up:• Project partners share values and understand and

own the project process • Project process map is informed by all relevant

viewpoints• It is best to do this before setting the schedule

and budget

Project start-up “intensive.”

Key factors for success• Leadership supports the start-up process• Decision makers attend along with key staff• No primary partner is left out

– All key partners– Includes decision makers– Multi-disciplinary

Project start-up “intensive.”

Process• Establish understanding of roles• Create project purpose elements• Co-author guiding principles, objectives and

measures• Agree on involvement plan

– Conduct stakeholder analysis• Agree on project process

– Co-author project roadmap

Guiding Principles

• Guiding principles keep the project team and charrette participants on task, are used to resolve conflicts of opinion and help avoid costly rework and unnecessary effort that stems from following tangents to the core purpose of the project

Objectives & Measures Draft

Objective Measure

Improve pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety, especially in relation to pedestrian/vehicle interactions

Traffic speeds Pedestrian crossing distances

Treat storm water on site Acreage of natural filtering area

Provide for affordable housing Housing prices as percent of median income

Economic feasibility Project proforma, ROI (return on investment)

Provide easy, safe access to the regional trail system

Number of connections to trailDistance to trail from housing and commercial

Holistic Planning Process Checklist

Education and Research

The stakeholder involvement effort is properly funded

Project partners commit to early and frequent

stakeholder involvement

Stakeholder involvement plan is aimed at broad

demographic representation

Advisory committee members commit to being informed

project champions

Base data research is cross-functional, collaborative and

strategic

Designing the process(making meetings work)

NCI Collaborative Design System

Charrette Stakeholder Meetings

Charrette Ready Plan Schedule

Top Reasons Public Meetings Fail

• Poor attendance• Imbalanced community representation• Decision makers are not in attendance • Participants lack knowledge to make informed

decisions • Poor meeting facilitation

Meeting Facilitation: Preventions

• Preventions = things to do to keep the meeting on track

• Examples:– Meeting planning– Meeting “start-ups”– Check agreement

throughout– Next steps– Meeting evaluation

(+/∆)

Meeting Purpose and Outcomes.

Why meet?• Be clear on the purpose of the meeting before

you start planning

• Communicate the meeting purpose in meeting invitations and up front at the beginning of every meeting

Facilitator Goals

• Protect the people and the process• Create an atmosphere of trust and respect• Establish a safe environment for everyone to

participate – no one person or group dominates

• Help people feel that it was worth their time to participate because– they had a chance to provide meaningful input– their input has potential to make an impact– the meeting was well-run– and, the FOOD was great

What type of meeting do you need?

Type of Decision Stakeholder Characteristics Phase of the Project

It depends!

Framework of Engagement

One-way speech

presentation

newsletter

marketing

Two-way conversation

open house

Q&A

survey

focus group

Multi-way collaborative

dialogue

deliberative dialogue

activity workshops

charrettes

Type of Decision

Routine Controversial

Technical Decision

Values-Based Decision

Known, accepted values

Values in conflict

Decision Phase / Implementation Issues

Decision already made

Decision needs to be made

Single entity can implement

Implementation requires multi-party collaboration

Implementation Stage

Goal Setting, Idea Generation, Selection of Alternatives

People agree sponsor has right

to act

Legitimacy of sponsor action is in question

Sponsor has legal authority to make

decision

Sponsor needs others to take legal action

Decision-making Method(s)

• Top down: Leader decides and announces.• Consultative: Leader solicits input and decides.• Consensus. “It may not be my top choice, but I am

willing to support and help implement the solution.”• Always have a “fall-back” option.

Stakeholder Identification and Analysis

Stakeholders’ unique contributions

Elected officials

Neighbors Urban designers

Environmentalists

Business owners

Developer

Fire Chief

Transportation engineers

Stakeholder Analysis

• The Stakeholder Analysis lists the relevant viewpoints to be represented, the people, their affiliation, what a “win” is for each, and the level of engagement required for holistic, diverse feedback. This is the basis of the public involvement process.

Who are stakeholders?• Decision makers• People who may supply valuable information• People who will be affected by the outcome• People who have power to promote the project• People who have power to block the project

Stakeholder Levels of Involvement

Primary Stakeholders

SecondaryStakeholders

GeneralStakeholders

All are involved at key decision points

mor

e in

volved

less

invo

lved

Stakeholder Levels of Involvement

Stakeholder Level

Example Positions Suggested Involvement

Primary Elected and appointed officials (city council, planning commissioners, steering committee members), agency staff (departments of transportation, EPA, transit authorities), site property owners

Interviews before the charrette, meetings during the charrette, should attend all public events, may drop into the studio anytime

Secondary Non-governmental organizations (historic and art groups, churches, synagogues), individuals with businesses or residences directly affected

Interviews before the charrette, possible meetings during the charrette, should attend all public events, may

General Community members Should attend all public events, may drop into the studio anytime

Source: The Charrette Handbook p.38

Sample Stakeholder AnalysisViewpoint Person /

AffiliationIssues Win Level Outreac

h Strategy

Charrette Participation

Elected Official

Lucinda Wallis, Capital County

25 years of controversy, with nothing to show. Wallis is the project “champion.”

A plan and codes agreed upon by the developer, and the neighborhood. A bulletproof public process. A national exemplar project.

Primary Email, phone

Daily Team Meetings

Elected Official

Percival Moccasin, Capital County

Concerned about project costs. Interested in a non-controversial outcome.

A project that can be approved and supported by neighbors.


Public Meetings

Neighborhood Activists

Carrie Snodgras, Kris Tal, Terry Jensen, Medford District Improvement Association

Deep distrust of County Supervisors and staff. Traffic, visual impacts, property values, safety.

Minimal traffic impacts, maximum housing, low buildings across from neighborhood, pedestrian access, local retail only, no increase in transit parking. The County must keep its promise and build the regional trail.

Secondary

Emails, letters

Separate Meeting

Neighboring Commercial Owners

Katrina Moskawitz, Hollywood Boosters

Workers have limited local services.

Compatible uses with existing business, amenities for office workers, traffic management.

Secondary

Emails, letters

Separate Meeting

Developer Tom Bates, Dick Bernard, Big Sky Development

Last development proposal failed.

Economic and market feasible plan.


Daily Team Meetingsand Reviews

Stakeholder Characteristics

Known, easy to identify

Unknown, hard to identify

Small number Large number

Homogenous Diverse

Equal power and resources

Unbalanced power and resources

Important stakeholders have

power

Important stakeholders outside power structure

Outreach

Engagement and Information Exchange

Secondary Stakeholder Analysis

Educational Events

1.2 Stakeholder Research, Education, and Involvement Plan Tools and Techniques

charrette logistics

project set-up and


1.1 1.21.21.21.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

base data research

and analysis

feasibility studies and

research

Keys to Successful Public Participation

• Commit to collaboration and relationship building• Commit sufficient resources• Use people with local on-the-ground knowledge• Dig deep into the community• Engage the community before starting design• Work at three levels

– Person to person– Group meetings– Community-wide meetings

Advisory Committees as Champions

• Represent a cross-section of the community• All relevant viewpoints represented• Geographical and demographic representation• Advisory only• Fully educated on the project issues• Project champions committed to outreach and

education

Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Methods

Outreach:• Phone calls• Faxes, e-mails• Web notices• One-on-one meetings• Confidential Interviews• Mailings• Signs• Newsletter announcements

Engagement:• Neighborhood meetings• Meetings at churches and

local organizations• “Living room coffees”

1.2 Stakeholder Research, Education and Involvement Plan

Tool: Educational Events

Purpose: To establish shared vision or base of understanding among key stakeholders prior to the charrette

Process: One or a number of efforts including educational lectures, workshops, neighborhood walks, and preference surveys

Educational Events

Educational Events• Lectures, presentations and

workshops by experts covering key subjects, e.g. sustainable design, traffic calming, affordable housing

Educational Events

Stakeholder Tours• Project site tour • Examples of sustainable development tools in

practice

City of Portland, Oregon Bureau of Planning

Educational Events

Neighborhood Walks• Groups of no more than eight • Mapped route• Group leader• Note taker• Renderer

Low-tech Outreach and Engagement Methods

High-tech Tools for Outreach and Engagement

Thin vs. Thick Communication

Social Media and Outreach

Opportunities

• Allows organizations to broadcast real-time updates on events, programs, meetings

• Supports rapid dissemination of information; good for outreach

• Enables two-way dialogue between organizers & stakeholders, and between community members

• Can be cost-effective and widely accessible

Challenges

• Better for dissemination of information, not brainstorming or discussion

• Potential problems with digital divide

• Not a replacement for face-to-face communication

• Must be carefully managed as part of a holistic communications strategy

PdxPlan.com

• 384,527 hits in the last 12 months

• Prominent links to various social media networks

Facebook.com/pdxplan

Currently 1,912 “likes”

Portland Plan Phase One Campaign Results

• 8,000+ completed surveys• 1,000 workshop attendees • Dozens of community group meetings • New participants: 31 percent of workshop

attendees reported they were not “public participation regulars”

• Social Media: 1,363 FB fans and 690 of Twitter followers

• PdxPlan.com: 134,000 hits over past 12 months with spikes in November (28,000) and December (40,000)

City of Ashland: Open City Hall

• Open City Hall has generated a number of useful ideas from the public, and has shifted the overall tone of the discussion

Open Town Hall by Peak Democracy

www.peakdemocracy.com/

City of El Paso: MindMixer

• The planning team talked to more than 1,200 participants

• More than 35,000 people followed the project on its website

City of El Paso: MindMixer

• Participants viewed and critiqued the charrette team’s plans, contributed ideas, and voted on ideas they liked

• Real names and addresses held participants accountable

• Local input led to greater context-sensitivity on the part of the planners

MindMixer

www.mindmixer.com

OMI Neighborhood, City and County of San Francisco: Crowdbrite Case Study

Crowdbrite

www.crowdbrite.com

Distance Participation

Challenges• Potential problems

with digital divide• Not a good standalone

solution• Requires some degree

of education about local issues for valuable contribution

Opportunities• Broader opportunities for

citizen engagement• Provides forum for

disenfranchised stakeholders

• May reach audiences who don’t typically participate- single parents, the elderly, etc.

• Lack of anonymity can discourage negative, heated, and one-sided discussion

Key characteristics of the charrette process..

• Collaborative and dynamic work process, integrating multiple points of view in a defined and compressed time frame.

• Short-feedback loops (short in time and space).

• Cross-disciplinary design (from the big picture to the details).

• Feasible, action-oriented outcome.

Making it work for you.

• The collaborators need to understand (and trust) the framework of collaboration.

• This is the work of long-term education, building social relationships and an enduring culture of responsible participation.

• Key starting points: participants prepared to own the process, experts prepared to support it, leaders prepared to help lead it.

• There are tools and techniques to support this work.

Hands-on Workshop

Exercise

Meeting Start-ups

• Welcome by Official

(the following should be posted hard copy in the front of the room)

• Meeting Purpose and Desired Outcomes• Agenda• Roles• Ground Rules• Parking Lot

Ground Rules

Ground Rules:

• Present a set of ground rules as a means to keep the meeting on track and to assure that everyone has a chance to participate.

• Ask if anyone has additional ground rules.

• Ask for permission to be the “traffic cop/ground rule enforcer.”

Ground Rules

Example Ground Rules:• Listen actively and respectfully• Be respectful and constructive• No one dominates• Be concise and stay on topic• Avoid cross-talking• No personal attacks• Silence your cell phones • Talk with your pen (for workshops)

The Parking Lot / Commons / Bike Rack

• Use a flip chart

• “Park” off-topic ideas

• Resolve or decide how to defer before end of meeting

Charrette Public Meeting #1: “Food for thought” lecture

• Walkable streets• Local food• Stormwater treatment• Mix of uses• Choices of housing• Transportation options• Safe and convenient

neighborhood parks and open space

• History of sustainable performance in the region

Sustainable Smart Growth Principles:


• Groups work on visioning exercises at tables


• Participants, not staff, from each table report back to the group

Charrette Public Meeting #1: Report Backs

Dover Kohl

• Visit www.charretteinstitute.org for more information

David Brain, Ph.d.National Charrette InstituteNew College of FloridaCollaborative Community Design, LLC

Email: [email protected]@ncf.edu

mailto:[email protected]

Nci workshop brazil1

Business

Transcript of Nci workshop brazil1