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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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 69–91
Bohman J (1996) Public deliberation: pluralism, complexity and democracy. MIT Press, Cambridge
De Bruijn JA (2000) Processen van verandering. Lemma, Utrecht
De Jong WM (1999) Institutional transplantation: how to adopt good transport infrastructure decision-making ideas from other countries. Eburon, Delft
Dixit A, Nalebuff BJ (1991) Thinking strategically. The competitive edge in business politics and every day lifes. Norton, New York
Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy (2008) Onzekere Veiligheid, verantwoordelijkheden rond fysieke veiligheid. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam
Farrell A, VanDeveer SD, Jäger J (2001) Environmental assessments: four under-appreciated elements of design. Glob Environ Chang 11(4):311–333
Fischer F (2000) Citizens, experts and the environment. Duke University Press, Durham
Fischhendler I (2004) Legal and institutional adaptation to climate uncertainty: a study of international rivers. Water Policy 6(4):281–302
Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. In Futures 25(7):735–755
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, London
Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Sage, Newbury Park
Innes JE (1996) Planning through consensus building: a new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. J Am Plan Assoc 62(4):460–472
Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch: science advices as policy managers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Kheel TW, Lurie WL (1999) The keys to conflict resolution: proven methods of settling disputes voluntarily. Four Walls Eight Windows, New York
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 174–222
Mayer IS (1997) Debating technologies. A methodological contribution to the design and evaluation of participatory policy analysis. Tilburg University Press, Tilburg
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, Princeton
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, Cambridge
Moore CW (1996) The mediation in process: practical strategies for resolving conflict. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Rethinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge
Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Belknap Press, Cambridge
Science and Public Policy (1999) Special issue on scientific expertise and political accountability, vol 26, no. 3
Sebenius JK (1991) Designing negotiations toward a new regime. The case of global warming. Int Security 15(4):110–148
Siebenhüner B (2003) The changing role of nation states in international environmental assessments-the case of the IPCC. Glob Environ Chang 13(2):113–123
Sparks A (1995) Tomorrow is another country: the inside story of South Africa’s negotiated revolution. Struik, Sandton
Stern PC, Fineberg HV (eds) (1996) Understanding risk informing decisions in the democratic society. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Ten Heuvelhof EF, Nauta C (1997) Environmental impact; the effects of environmental impact assessment. Project Appraisal 12(1):25–30
Watkins MD (2007) Teaching students to shape the game: negotiation architecture and the design of manageably dynamic simulations. Negotiation J 23(3):333–342
Zhongqi P (2001) The dilemma of deterrence: US strategic ambiguity policy and its implications for the taiwan strait. The Henry L. Stimson Center
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Bruijn, H., ten Heuvelhof, E.F., in ‘t Veld, R. (2010). Designing a Process. In: Process Management. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13941-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13941-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-13940-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-13941-3
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)