The consensus among collaboration partners as to what facts relating to the issue are most relevant
WHY IT MATTERS: Joint recognition of what data is relevant to the collaboration allows participants to determine how best to proceed.
The consensus among collaboration partners as to what facts relating to the issue are most relevant
WHY IT MATTERS: Joint recognition of what data is relevant to the collaboration allows participants to determine how best to proceed.
Differences in perspectives among collaboration partners on what facts are relevant to the issue.
Collaboration partners may have sector-specific biases that influence their determination of what facts are relevant to the issue to be addressed by the collaboration. For example, a non-profit-sector partner may contend that facts related to accessibility are most relevant to guiding the collaboration’s understanding of the issue, while a business-sector partner may argue that facts related to operational efficiency are most relevant. Because agreement on a common fact base is critical to refining the collaboration’s understanding of the issue and honing the collaboration’s strategy, the collaboration should facilitate a process through which partners arrive at consensus on what facts are relevant. Without a common fact base, partners may perceive that one partner’s perception of the issue is dominant. This can leave partners with the perception that the issue is framed and understood by the collaboration in a way that does not accommodate their role in addressing the issue at hand.
Assessing qualitative and quantitative data related to the problem to be addressed by the collaboration.
Partners may have differing levels of familiarity with, and preferences related to, quantitative and qualitative analyses and information. By addressing each partner’s experience level and partiality, the collaboration can build a common fact base that incorporates both qualitative and quantitative information, resulting in a more comprehensive understanding of an issue. Without such a process, partners may be reluctant to incorporate analyses with which they are not familiar, limiting the collaboration’s understanding of the issue and, ultimately, its approach to addressing the issue.