CONFLICT CARTOGRAPHY
A Methodology Designed to Support the Efficient and Effective
Resolution of Complex, Multi-Stakeholder Conflicts
BY: Nick Papadopoulos
Managing Partner, ViewCraft LLC
www.viewcraft.com
MARCH 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
3
COMPLEXITY & CONFLICT
4
THE CORNERSTONES OF CONFLICT CARTOGRAPHY
Geographic Cartography
Systems Thinking
Graphic Facilitation
Dialog Mapping
Information Cartography
5
6
7
8
9
10
CONFLICT CARTOGRAPHY
The Essential Steps of Conflict Resolution and Consensus Building
Conflict Cartography Technologies
Core Applications and Key Challenges
12
13
14
15
CASE STUDY: CONSENSUS BUILDING AROUND DAY LABOR ISSUES
STEP ONE: Supporting the Project Team during the Convening Process
STEP TWO: Accelerating the Clarification of Responsibilities
STEP THREE: Supporting the Deliberation Process
STEP FOUR: Supporting Decision-Making and Developing
Recommendations
STEP FIVE: Supporting the Agreement Implementation Process
20
21
22
23
24
SUMMARY
26
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
26
REFERENCES
27
25
Copyright © 2004 ViewCraft LLC (www.viewcraft.com). All rights reserved. No part of this
document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, without written permission from ViewCraft LLC. If you wish to publish or
distribute copies of this document please contact Nick Papadopoulos at (707) 824-9620 or
email ViewCraft at [email protected].
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
2
INTRODUCTION
The goal of this paper is to introduce dispute resolution and consensus-building practitioners to a
method called Conflict Cartography. This method combines illustration, co-facilitation and data
management techniques to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of conflict resolution and
consensus-building processes. I have developed Conflict Cartography over the last two years as I
studied conflict resolution, mediation and negotiation and worked in my capacity as managing
partner of ViewCraft, a consulting firm located in Graton, California.
In 1999, ViewCraft's founding partners began developing and offering a method termed
Information Cartography, which utilizes advanced software tools to illustrate and explore
complex systems. Since this time we have applied Information Cartography in numerous arenas
such as business planning, organizational development, agricultural preservation and water policy.
In 2001, we experienced an increase in interest and demand by practitioners and organizations
that specialize in resolving disputes and building consensus on complex public policy issues.
This experience led me into a two-year study of conflict resolution theory and practice at Sonoma
State University. The goals of this period of study were two-fold: (1) to better understand why
our work was making a difference, and (2) to tailor Information Cartography to the specialized
needs and challenges of conflict resolution and consensus building processes. This document
offers readers an introductory glimpse into the results of this study.
In this document I will first discuss complexity in the context of multistakeholder conflict. Next,
I will summarize five specialized approaches from which Conflict Cartography draws its methods,
tools and inspiration. These are: (1) Geographic Cartography (2) Systems Thinking (3) Graphic
Illustration (4) Dialogue Mapping and (5) Information Cartography. Finally, I will explain the
basic methods, tools and applications of Conflict Cartography and utilize an actual case study to
explain how this method supported the consensus-building efforts of a community struggling to
resolve complex day-labor issues.
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
3
COMPLEXITY AND CONFLICT
At this point in history human beings must make decisions and work out their differences within
a complex and rapidly changing global context. In High Noon: Twenty Global Problems, Twenty
Years to Solve, author J. F. Rischard introduces readers to an emerging problem-solving crisis:
Like two geysers, the two forces of the population increase and the new world
economy spew unprecedented complexity…Human problems are becoming more
pressing, more global, and more difficult to solve -- technically and politically. A
crisis of complexity is brewing.
This crisis impacts people in many ways and in all walks of life. In relation to the field of conflict
resolution, complexity challenges our abilities to conduct conflict assessments; design and
implement effective procedures; integrate and manage information; and develop agreements.
It is helpful to clarify what exactly is meant when I describe a conflict as 'complex'. The
dictionary1 tells us that 'complex' describes a situation in which many parts or variables exist in a
complicated relationship with one another. As the number of parts or variables increase, the
more complex a situation becomes. But what does this word mean in relation to conflict? And
what are the barriers that complexity places in front of third party practitioners and stakeholders.
Described below are some of the variables that contribute to the complex nature of many
conflicts and conflict resolution processes.
•
Perspectives- Perspectives are stakeholder points of view about the nature of a
conflict. Conflict becomes more complex when multiple perspectives mix together to
create widely varying interpretations.
•
Social Relationships- Relationships are the dynamic flow of action, information, and
communication that connect individuals, organizations and stakeholder groups.
Complexity increases when many relationships weave together, forming a web of
connections between individuals, organizations and stakeholder groups.
•
Issues & Positions- Issues are the problems and concerns that stakeholders express.
Positions are the 'solutions' or stances that the stakeholders believe will address their
issues. As more issues and positions are brought to the table, a conflict becomes more
complex and difficult to unravel.
1
For definitions of 'complex' visit: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=complex
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
4
•
Interests- Interests are the underlying needs of stakeholders. Behind each issue are
numerous interests that, when not met in full or in part, create the underground roots
of conflict. When many interests collide, a conflict becomes more complex.
•
Data & Information- Data are the 'facts' that create the building blocks for
information. Information is a collection of such facts that stakeholders use to develop
understanding and inform their perspectives. Conflicts become more complex when
increasing amounts of disparate data and untrusted information clog communication,
slow learning and impede decision-making.
In a conflict setting, the above-mentioned variables do not exist in isolation. They exist together
as a tangled and frustrating rat's nest. The job of the third party facilitator or mediator is to help
organizations, communities and stakeholder groups untangle this mess and reuse the material to
weave more productive and workable futures. But increasing complexity reduces our capacity to
do such work. Symptoms of this reduced capacity show up in many ways. Conflict is more
difficult to assess; underlying conflict dynamics become more challenging to illuminate; data and
information become overwhelming; communication breakdowns become more frequent; and the
paths to resolution and agreement become clouded. My interest is in developing an adaptable
method and toolbox that practitioners and stakeholders can leverage to boost their capacity for
resolving complex disputes.
THE CORNERSTONES OF CONFLICT CARTOGRAPHY
The tools and methods that make up Conflict Cartography have demonstrated effectiveness in
numerous conflict resolution and consensus-building processes. It is important to state up front
that this methodology is not a new invention that appeared out of nowhere, but rather a synthesis
of practices and technologies that are already in use in the field. However, in my experience, these
practices are rarely used together as an integrated system specifically tailored to the nature of
complex conflicts and conflict resolution practices. This section will provide an overview of five
methods that serve as the main cornerstones of Conflict Cartography. These are: (1) Geographic
Cartography (2) Systems Thinking (3) Graphic Illustration (4) Dialog Mapping and (5)
Information Cartography. At the end of this document, resources will be provided to aid readers
in their own research and studies.
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
5
Geographic Cartography
From the earliest days of recorded history, humans have drawn simple pictures to make sense of
their physical surroundings and have used these pictures to aid communication, tell stories and
create meaning. In The Story of Maps author Lloyd Brown writes:
Cartography is perhaps the oldest variety of primitive art…When all other
methods of communication fail, the universal language of the simple map and
chart comes to the rescue (32).
Susan Schulten, author of The Geographical Imagination in America, 1880-1950, writes that
"Maps are arguments that mediate our understanding of the world." In this book and others we
learn that the field of Cartography has made powerful contributions to our lives providing
increasingly advanced methods and tools for helping humans make sense of their surrounding
contexts with greater precision and accuracy.
Most recently, the field of geographic cartography has integrated advances in computer
technology to create Geographic Information Systems (GIS). A Geographic Information System
(GIS) is "an organised collection of computer hardware, software, geographic data, and personnel
designed to efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate, analyse, and display many forms of
geographically referenced information."2
GIS technologies and methods, pioneered by groups
FIGURE A- A web-based GIS map
of California's Russian River
Watershed
such as ESRI3, are used by public, non-profit and private
sectors to understand the geographical and spatial
surroundings. In the setting of a conflict prevention and
resolution, GIS is utilized.
For instance, to support
conflict resolution and decision-making about watershed
resources in California communities, the Information
Center for the Environment (ICE) hosts a web-based
system called the California Rivers Assessment (CARA).
The ICE website defines CARA (Figure A) as "…a
Source: California Rivers Assessment
http://endeavor.des.ucdavisdu/newcara
For an excellent review of GIS applications in the arena of environmental risk, sustainable resource use and conflict resolution, read Integration
of Geographic Information System (GIS) and Internet Technologies in support of Sustainable Resource Use, by N.J. O'Connor:
http://www.grid.unep.ch/activities/sustainable/soca/index.php
3 See: www.esri.com
2
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
6
computer-based data management system designed to give resource managers, policy-makers,
landowners, scientists and interested citizens rapid access to essential information and tools with
which to make sound decisions about the conservation and use of California's rivers." 4 This site
uses GIS to give "…each piece of data a unique address within the state river and watershed
system." 5
Systems Thinking
Geographic Cartography is primarily used to help build understanding of our physical
surroundings. It is less valuable for illuminating the structure and dynamics of social systems.
Systems thinking, a practice that emerged in the 1950's from the system dynamics work of MIT
professor Jay Forrester, focuses on aiding the understanding of complex social systems. In a
recently published book, The Science of Synthesis, author Deborah Hammond describes the
underlying aim of this field and mode of inquiry. "From critical analysis to nuclear fission, we
have learned well the lessons of taking things apart. Now we must begin to learn the principles
of synthesis, how to put the pieces back together and create wholeness (3)."
Systems thinking is applied in numerous fields
ranging from organizational development and
business
planning
management
and
to
FIGURE B: Dependence on Retaliation, a causal loop
diagram by Peter David Stroh
environmental
pollution
prevention.
Organizations and professionals trained in
systems thinking are beginning to explore how
this approach can aid the prevention and
resolution of conflict. For example, the work
of David Peter Stroh explores the application
of systems thinking to complex international
disputes
such
as
the
Israeli-Palestinian
Conflict (See Figure B). Through deep
4
5
See "About CARA" http://endeavor.des.ucdavis.edu/newcara/aboutcara.html
ibid
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
7
observation and discussion combined with the use of systems thinking methods and tools, Stroh's
work is helping practitioners and disputants explore and visualize the underlying dynamics of
conflict that are many times hidden underneath a conflict's surface events. 6
In the illustration on the previous page7, Stroh uses a causal loop diagram to describe how both
parties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have grown increasingly dependent on retaliation. In this
diagram, the cycle of retaliation is illustrated as a system, showing how overdependence on this
strategy may undermine the ability of each side to meet their long-term objectives. This diagram
also illustrates the impact that third parties make when they enter the system and become
participants, many times taking sides.
Graphic Illustration
Perhaps the most commonly used graphic method in facilitated settings is the art of graphic
facilitation and illustration. In the 1970's this field emerged as a formalized approach to
incorporating graphic techniques in the group meeting environment. This approach utilizes basic
materials, most commonly colored pens and large sheets of paper, to help groups of people work
together more effectively.
Graphic facilitators commonly use visual metaphors to record
discussions in real-time. For instance, in a meeting focused on creating a strategic vision, graphic
facilitators might utilize the metaphor of a
Figure C: Graphic illustration of the values
person holding a torch to illustrate the values
that people hold (See Figure C).
Disputants in a conflict frequently express
frustration by asking the question "Can't you
see what I mean?" underscoring the potential
contributions that visual aids can make in the
prevention and resolution of conflict. In the
arena of conflict resolution, the role of the
Graphic Illustrator: Karen Stratvert
6
For an excellent introduction to this work, including examples of Casual Loop Diagrams see: A Systemic View of The Isreali-Palestinian
Conflict by David Peter Stroh.. Download this article at: http://www.bridgewaypartners.com/publications.html
7 Chart drawn from the article "A Systemic View of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" by David Peter Stroh in "The Systems Thinker," Vol. 13, No.
5, © 2002 by David Peter Stroh. Republished by permission of Pegasus Communications.
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
8
graphic illustrator is to work with a third party mediator or facilitator to design graphic exercises
for surfacing key perspectives and information. This gives stakeholders and meeting participants
the benefit of actually seeing that their perspectives have been heard and documented. This
process can also contribute to building momentum by illustrating the progress that groups are
making in difficult situations.
Compendium
Geographic cartography, systems thinking and graphic illustration have been used for decades
and are widely used. Other methods are less widely used but nonetheless effective in the
facilitated or mediated setting. Compendium is a methodology developed by employees at
Verizon, beginning in 1993 with a focus on business process redesign. This methodology is
described in a paper titled Knowledge Art: Visual Sensemaking Using Combined Compendium
and Visual Explorer Methodologies8. Compendium "…facilitates the collaborative creation of
content in a knowledge repository, by combining hypermedia, group facilitation techniques, and
an analytical methodology rooted in knowledge modeling and structured analysis."
The Compendium Institute Website offers the following definition:
"Compendium has three key elements: 1) a shared visual space where ideas can be
generated and analyzed 2) a methodology that allows the exploration of different
points of view, and 3) a set of tools for quickly and easily sharing data both
within and beyond the boundaries of the group."9
Over the last 10 years, the Compendium development team has applied this set of methods and
tools in hundreds of dialog and problem solving situations within organizational and academic
settings. Currently a group of organizations led by The Compendium Institute10 are working
together to refine the Compendium methodology and develop open-source software technology
designed to enhance its application.
This work includes the development of open-source
software technology called Compendium.
To my knowledge, Compendium methods and tools have not been applied extensively in formal
conflict resolution and consensus building processes. However, in 2003 ViewCraft began to
incorporate basic aspects of the methods and technologies developed for Compendium into our
8
9
This paper was developed for presentation at a 2002 conference at King's College, London titled The Art of Management and Organization
www.compendiuminstitute.org
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
9
work in this area. Recently, I worked with the Nevada Tahoe Conservation District to conduct an
assessment of Nevada stakeholder perspectives and needs on Tahoe Basin issues. We used
Compendium software to gather feedback that helped the assessment team clarify preliminary
assessment findings and develop a final document that more accurately reflected stakeholder
viewpoints.
Figure D: Using Compendium software in real-time to stimulate discussion
and gather feedback on preliminary assessment findings.
Information Cartography™
In the late 1990's a San Francisco start-up called DataFusion developed a technology called
KnowledgeMaps™ (KMap). The focus of technology was to aid the visual representation of
complex systems. ViewCraft's co-founder John Garn was one of the early consultants tasked with
developing this technology. Early on he saw its potential for helping people explore complex
systems, share perspectives and develop a deeper awareness of the contextual surroundings that
impact our lives and decisions. He coined the term Information Cartography and began working
to develop procedures for the effective use of tools such as KMaps. In 1999 John and I began
collaborating as co-founders of ViewCraft. Our purpose was to refine Information Cartography
and offer this approach to clients in multiple sectors and fields.
10
This group includes The CogNexus Institute, Open University, Center for Creative Leadership and NASA Ames Research Center.
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
10
Together we have applied this method to a wide range of projects and issues including business
planning, environmental management and regulatory system redesign. In one case, we were
asked to create a visual systems map of water policy issues in Northern California (See Figure E
below). Local leaders and decision-makers had reached a contentious stalemate over regional
water policy, supply and conservation issues. Elected officials from the City of Petaluma decided
to hire ViewCraft to design a regional water policy summit to improve elected officials'
understanding of water issues and increase levels of communication and collaboration.
One of our tasks was to develop an educational presentation. Using information gathered
through interviews, we used KnowledgeMap software to develop an interactive map that
described how water rights regulations flowed through a vast network of agencies; how these
regulations were connected to important water policy documents; and how this complex system
was impacting the City of Petaluma. The feedback we received was that this map and guided
presentation helped people comprehend the 'big picture' of essential dynamics and relationships
that were contributing to the problems. One of Petaluma's council members offered us this
testimonial about the benefits of Information
FIGURE E: Screenshot of ViewCraft
systems map on Water Policy Issues
Cartography methods and tools:
"This method was very effective in helping
organize a very complex issue like water into a
framework that makes it easier to understand the
connections between stakeholders and their
interests. ViewCraft consultants and their approach
increased the knowledge and perspectives for
North Bay elected officials. We are now much
better equipped to handle regional water policy
development.”
Another ViewCraft project involved a county in
Southern California that was working to develop alternative approaches to conserve natural
resources. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) had formed to assist the County Planning
Department in developing a collaboration- and incentive-based natural resource protection
program. After numerous meetings characterized by high levels of collaboration, the TAC
became bogged down in conflict that threatened to derail the process. The facilitator who had
been working with the TAC brought ViewCraft in to create a big picture view of the issues,
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
11
showing why the group had originally chosen this track of collaboration and partnership as
opposed to more traditional options of litigation and increased regulation. This work helped the
TAC members step back to see why they were in the room working together in the first place.
As a result, levels of collaboration improved and the project was able to move forward. These
projects and others showed us that what we were offering made a contribution to the prevention
and resolution of conflict.
CONFLICT CARTOGRAPHY
Conflict Cartography, as mentioned earlier, seeks to integrate many of the methods and tools
described above into an approach that suits the specific nature of conflict resolution and
consensus building processes. This methodology was developed over the last two years as I
studied conflict resolution, mediation and negotiation at Sonoma State University. My studies
were also influenced by my professional consulting work with various organizations, such as the
North Bay Consensus Council, which dealt with conflict resolution and consensus building. This
section will provide readers with an introduction to the methods, skills and technologies we
utilize to aid the conflict resolution and consensus building process.
Conflict Cartography is defined as:
An illustration, facilitation, and information management approach designed to
support the efficient and effective resolution of complex, multi-stakeholder
conflicts.
It is important to state up front that this approach strikes a balance between the human
communication and conflict resolution skills and the mechanized, technical skills required to use
computer hardware and software. My colleague John Garn often states that "between every
computer interface is a human face". To reflect this, Conflict Cartography is by nature an
interdisciplinary practice and the person who uses these methods and tools needs to have an
interdisciplinary set of skills and competencies. This person must be equally comfortable as both
a facilitator and a technical specialist using computer hardware and software.
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
12
A person must have basic competency in the following areas in order to effectively support the
conflict resolution process:
•
Experience and Knowledge of the Essential Steps of Conflict Resolution and
Consensus Building
•
Proficiency in the use of Conflict Cartography Technologies
•
Understanding of the Core Applications of Conflict Cartography
The following three sections describe these areas of competency.
The Essential Steps of Conflict Resolution and Consensus Building
Over time, researchers and practitioners have reached consensus on the core practices and
procedures of conflict resolution and consensus building (See Figure F).11
The conflict
cartographer must develop a deep understanding of these steps and have experience applying
them in the field. This experience is instrumental, allowing the Conflict cartographer to develop
an understanding of the key points in the process where he or she can make a contribution and
where Conflict Cartography, when applied correctly, can have a positive impact.
Figure F: Consensus Building Essential Steps
From the Consensus Building Handbook (Sage, 1999). Thanks to the Consensus Building Institute and Merrick
Hoben for permission to use this graphic. For more conflict resolution and consensus building resources and
educational opportunities visit www.cbuilding.org.
11
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
13
Conflict Cartography Technologies
This section describes the tools used by the Conflict cartographer. It is important to mention that
many of these tools are already used by most practitioners and stakeholders. In addition, they are,
for the most part, available to people at a low or no direct cost. These two factors make it much
easier to incorporate the Conflict Cartography methods and tools into a conflict resolution
process.
Hardware
The following hardware is essential to the practice of effective Conflict Cartography:
•
•
•
•
Pencils, pens and poster paper
Lap-top computer
Digital projector
Whiteboard or light-colored projection surface
Software
The following software technologies are basic tools used by the Conflict cartographer12.
Microsoft Word™ - MS Word is one of the most common software packages used for writing.
This software allows a Conflict cartographer to project a single-text document and co-facilitate
the real-time development of important documentation.
www.microsoft.com/office/word/default.asp
Microsoft Visio™ - MS Visio is an excellent tool used for illustrating complex systems and
topics. www.microsoft.com/office/visio/default.asp
Microsoft PowerPoint™ - MS PowerPoint is widely used for the presentation and
communication of information. At ViewCraft we have found creative applications of
PowerPoint, such as using animated, metaphorical stories to explain complex systems and
communicate the results of conflict assessment.
http://office.microsoft.com/home/office.aspx?assetid=FX01085797
Snag-It™ and Camtasia™ - These inexpensive tools, developed by TechSmith, allow users to
capture static screenshots or create basic animated videos. These tools are very helpful aids in
creating high-quality project documentation and illustrations. http://www.techsmith.com
Compendium™ - A semantic hypertext concept-mapping tool that supports the real time
mapping of discussions in meetings, collaborative modeling, and the longer term management of
this information. www.compendiuminstitute.org/tools/compendium.htm
12
For a long list of visualization technologies and resources see:
http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/VisualizingArgumentation/resources.html
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
14
CORE APPLICATIONS & KEY CHALLENGES
With a foundation of training in conflict resolution and consensus building, many of the
methodologies described earlier, such as geographic cartography, systems thinking, and
graphic illustration can be incorporated for use in the conflict resolution process. Described
on the following pages are some of the core functions and key challenges of Conflict
Cartography at different stages of the process.
STEP ONE: THE CONVENING PROCESS
The focus of the conflict cartographer in the convening stage is to support the assessor and
project team in engaging efficiently and effectively with conflict participants, comprehensively
assessing the conflict, and creating solid recommendations on next steps. Our skills are used
to identify stakeholders and gather information through interviews.
We use hypertext-
mapping tools such as Compendium to create visual databases that organize and manage
information. With this database of information we help facilitate project team efforts to
make sense of the data, surface the key issues, and develop a meaningful picture of the
conflict. This helps the team determine the appropriate next steps and create clear
recommendations that accurately reflect the situation.
The Conflict cartographer uses his/her real-time skills in writing and illustration to assist in
the rapid development of high quality assessment documents, both draft and final. Finally, he
or she works with the project team to develop visual aids (such as PowerPoint presentations,
causal loop diagrams, system maps or geographic maps) that will aid in the communication of
assessment findings to convenors and stakeholders.
Key Challenges:
1) Accuracy and Completeness of Records - In the convening stage it is imperative that a
complete database of electronic resources be developed. This database of information
provides the foundation for all future work. Losing or wrongly identifying information
resources can cause major problems and derail the project.
2) Data Synthesis Procedures - To objectively make sense of the data, the project team must
reach consensus on the set of criteria and protocols for how the data will be reviewed and
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
15
synthesized. Failure to do so may result in an inaccurate assessment or inappropriate
written or verbal communication with the convenor and stakeholders.
3) Framing & Context - Throughout the project it is important that issues be framed
effectively and that the project team and stakeholder representatives maintain their
awareness of the big picture context in which the discussions reside. The Conflict
cartographer must have the ability to simultaneously illustrate the minute details and craft
big picture views of important contextual factors.
STEP TWO: CLARIFICATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
Once a conflict resolution process moves past the convening stage, the focus of the Conflict
cartographer is split between two groups- the project team and the representative stakeholder
team. Awareness of these different groups and how the process must be adjusted for each is
key to effective Conflict Cartography.
During stakeholder meetings the Conflict cartographer's skills are used to help the
stakeholders create and document consensus on such topics as roles, responsibilities,
groundrules and work plans. In this stage the two skills that are used most are co-facilitation
and real-time writing of single text documents. Tremendous efficiency gains in efficiency and
understanding can be made by working together to write electronic documents such as
ground rules and work plans.
Key Challenges
1) Confidentiality - In this stage it is essential that a clear boundary of confidentiality be
drawn between how the Conflict cartographer works with the project team and how he or
she works with the representative stakeholder team. Certain information may be
appropriate to communicate with the project team and at the same time but inappropriate
for stakeholder team meetings.
2) Typing - The conflict cartographer must be a fast typer (at least 40 wpm) to expedite
real-time development of single text documentation.
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
16
STEP THREE: THE DELIBERATION PROCESS
Once project team and stakeholder representative responsibilities are clarified, deliberation
begins.
The Conflict cartographer works with the project team to create an effective
environment for interest-based discussion, joint fact-finding and communication. His or her
graphic skills help stakeholders learn how to illustrate their viewpoints, discuss their issues
and articulate their interests. Much of the time this occurs with pens and poster paper. But
as the process moves forward, the Conflict cartographer can use electronic illustration tools
to help stakeholders draw potential solutions to problems in a collaborative fashion.
The Conflict cartographer's information management skills also play a key role at this stage.
As the number of meetings grows there is a growing database of project records and
electronic resources. These may be meeting records, GIS maps, documentation of agreedupon groundrules and procedures, or research papers on specific issues. At any point in the
process, valuable time and momentum can be saved by providing nearly instant access to any
information resource that someone requests.
During deliberation, joint fact-finding plays a key role in helping stakeholders work together
to gather information. To aid this process the conflict cartographer often works one-on-one
with subcommittees to gather information and effectively present their findings to the larger
group. Subcommittee reports and associated reference material is added to the database for
project team and stakeholder access at any time in the process.
Another key component of deliberation is the efficient and complete development of meeting
records and reports. Important gains in efficiency and momentum are provided when
accurate meeting documentation and information resources are rapidly constructed and
distribute in a few days or less.
Key Challenges:
1) Confidentiality - During deliberation, a third level of confidentiality comes into play with
the question of what information is to be made available to the public. The Conflict
cartographer must pay particular attention to what records are made public and what
records are kept within the group. Accidentally including certain confidential records in
publicly available meeting documentation can be disastrous.
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
17
2) Non-Biased Illustration - It is important that visual aids be used in a way that does not
create the perception of bias. In one public meeting focused on the creation of a grading
ordinance for sensitive environmental habitat, I created a map of stakeholder groups and
their relationships. On the screen, I inadvertently positioned the environmental
perspective above the perspective of farmers and ranchers. One farmer got out of his
chair and yelled "See, we're always the ones at the bottom. The environmentalists are
always the ones with the upper hand." To say the least, this was a big lesson for me.
3) Precision and Accuracy - The Conflict cartographer's responsibility is to ensure precise
and accurate documentation of meetings and the audience-appropriate synthesis of
meeting results.
STEP FOUR: CONSTRUCTING AGREEMENTS AND MAKING DECISIONS
One of the goals of deliberation is to help stakeholder representatives leverage interest-based
discussion and joint inquiry procedures to create agreements and decisions that will maximize
joint gains. As the project team brings the stakeholder representatives closer to agreements
that they can support, the Conflict cartographer uses a projected single text to help the
stakeholder representatives draft and finalize their agreements. These texts can reference
hyperlinked documentation so that areas of agreement can be justified with the results of
joint research and inquiry.
At this stage of the conflict resolution process, project teams and stakeholders commonly
experience meeting and process fatigue. After dozens of meetings, pressure to finish the
project on time and on budget set in. The conflict cartographer and project team must be
sensitive to this and utilize all of their skills to boost the efficiency and productivity of
meetings. The conflict cartographer can do this by providing stakeholders with instant access
to the records of previous meetings and to the knowledge created during joint inquiry. In
addition, it is extremely important that meeting reports and draft agreements be distributed as
soon as possible after a meeting, preferably the next day as opposed to the next week.
Key Challenges:
1) Finalization of Agreements - As project fatigue sets in, the project team and stakeholder
representatives may hurry to finish an agreement. The conflict cartographer must help
the group by keeping his or her eye on the details, making sure that important
information or agreements are not overlooked.
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
18
2) Maintaining Focus - The conflict cartographer is not immune to meeting and project
fatigue. Recognizing this can help one maintain their ability to function with efficiency
and effectiveness.
STEP 5: IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENTS
As stakeholder representatives draft agreements, a key question is whether or not their
constituents will support ratification. The project team and stakeholder representatives must
effectively communicate the results of the project to gain the support of constituents not
directly involved in the process. To communicate the results of a project that lasts a year or
more is tremendously difficult. Representatives often struggle to express the hard work and
emotion of their efforts.
At this stage, the Conflict cartographer helps the project team and stakeholder representatives
develop communication strategies and tools that help them relate the process used to develop
the agreement. By having the ability to create their own communication vehicle, such as an
animated PowerPoint presentation, the consensus building process becomes something the
stakeholder representatives can take ownership of. With this sense of ownership, and an
effective communication tool, the odds of transferring this sense of ownership to their
constituents are greatly increased.
If and when ratification takes place, an additional service provided by the Conflict
cartographer is the packaging of the entire set of project records. This information remains
very important when monitoring implementation of agreements.
If an agreement or
procedural event is in question, having rapid access to project records can help in refreshing
the memory of the stakeholders and supporting them in sticking with their agreements.
Key Challenge:
1) Avoiding Technocentrism - If one is not careful, the use of technology can divert attention
from the real focus of the meeting: communication and heart-to-heart discussion. During
large group meetings when stakeholder representatives attempt to present their work to their
constituents, the conflict cartographer must help make the presentation about the process
and the people. He or she must remember that the constituents are not as familiar with
Conflict Cartography as the project team and stakeholder representatives.
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
19
CASE STUDY: CONSENSUS BUILDING AROUND DAY LABOR ISSUES
This case study will provide a brief introduction to how this methodology supported the efforts
of the North Bay Consensus Council (NBCC). The NBCC was hired in November, 2002 to
work with the community of Graton, California to resolve conflict and build consensus. The
organization was tasked with helping multiple stakeholder groups build consensus around issues
related to the presence of Mexican day laborers that were using the community's downtown
streets as a daily base for locating work. Members of the community had become increasingly
concerned and frustrated about issues ranging from traffic to trash to personal safety to
contamination of the local creek. A lack of consistent work opportunities combined with other
factors, e.g. the high cost of housing, created many difficult challenges for the day laborers and
their families.
Previously, a non-profit organization, The Centro Laboral de Graton (CLG) was formed to
develop a "just and effective solution" that would lead to the establishment of a labor center in
Graton. The CLG proposed the development of a center near Graton's downtown that would
provide a wide range of services to day laborers. This proposal was met with both support and
resistance by the community, who desired increased community dialogue and the creation of a
forum that would allow the public to provide feedback about the plans of the CLG. Some
community members feared that the center would act as a magnet, attracting more day laborers to
the community. In addition, some members of the community requested that an anti-solicitation
ordinance be developed to prevent day laboring on the downtown streets of Graton. The
following pages provide introductory snap-shots of how Conflict Cartography supported the
conflict resolution and consensus building efforts of the NBCC and the community13.
NOTE: This section is meant to provide a basic introduction to the core applications of Conflict
Cartography. Many applications of this methodology (such as illustrating conflict dynamics with
system maps or causal loop diagrams) were either not applied during this project or could not be
included due to space limitations.
13
Many thanks to Annette Townley, Executive Director of the NBCC for contracting with ViewCraft to help on this project and for providing
many insights that have helped Conflict Cartography improve as a methodology. Visit: www.nbconsensus.org
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
20
STEP ONE: Supporting the Project Team During the Convening Process
During the convening process the conflict cartographer is focused on increasing the efficiency
and effectiveness of the project team and creating the information management infrastructure
that will support the team throughout the duration of the project. During the Graton project the
North Bay Consensus Council utilized five core applications of Conflict Cartography
(See Figure G).
A) A project team map and database was created using Compendium software. This
map aided in the design of the assessment questionnaire and protocol.
B) This map and database was used to organize important information resources such as
assessment interview data, project team minutes and external resources gathered
during the assessment process.
C) The conflict cartographer assisted the project team in the efficient and effective
synthesis of assessment data.
D) Single text procedures were used with the project team to collaboratively develop the
draft assessment report.
E) An interactive presentation was developed to provide the community with the draft
assessment findings and recommendations of next steps. Stakeholder feedback and
dialogue was mapped in real-time.
FIGURE G: Applications of Conflict Cartography that support the convening process
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
21
STEP TWO: Accelerating the Clarification of Responsibilities
Once the community decided to move forward with a formal consensus-building process, a
Representative Stakeholder Team (RST) was selected. During early meetings the RST focused on
clarifying responsibilities and creating the infrastructure for effective discussion and collaboration.
During this phase the North Bay Consensus Council utilized five core applications of Conflict
Cartography (See Figure H).
A) The conflict cartographer created a project map and database to support the RST.
B) The project team designed exercises that included the real-time mapping of dialogue around
RST hopes and fears.
C) Development of ground rules and a work plan was accelerated by helping stakeholders write
single text documents in real-time.
D) Together the project team and RST created a timeline based on the work plan.
E) The information and records created during the meeting were rapidly synthesized into a
meeting summary and distributed to the RST and members of the public.
FIGURE H: Application of Conflict Cartography that support the clarification of responsibilities
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
22
STEP THREE: Supporting the Deliberation Process
After the RST had reached consensus on the collaborative infrastructure they would use to
deliberate and reach agreements, a process of deliberation was initiated. In this case, deliberation
occurred over the course of multiple meetings, including one large community meeting in which
the project team and RST sought the feedback and perspectives of their neighbors. During this
phase the North Bay Consensus Council utilized many applications of Conflict Cartography. Five
of these applications are described below (See Figure I):
A) The project map and database were used to illustrate aspects of the dialogue and organize a
rapidly growing body of information resources.
B) The conflict cartographer worked with the project team and RST to develop a chart of joint
inquiry research tasks and define the subcommittees that would work together on each task.
As RST research was completed, subcommittees used a word document template to
communicate their findings. These documents were incorporated into the visual database.
C) To surface RST interests, a tool called a community interests map was developed by the
project team. This tool illustrated the context of interests for which potential solutions will
be designed.
D) Subgroups of the RST used poster paper and pens to jointly illustrate their visions of a day
labor center that they felt would meet community interests.
E) The project team and RST began to review information resources such as aerial photographs
and maps to explore parcels of land that may be suitable for a day labor center.
FIGURE I: Applications of Conflict Cartography that support stakeholder deliberation
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
23
STEP FOUR: Supporting Decision-Making and Developing Recommendations
After numerous meetings focused on sharing stories, mapping interests and conducting joint
research and inquiry, the RST had built the foundation of consensus needed to make decisions
about draft recommendations for resolving day labor issues. During this phase Conflict
Cartography was used for numerous purposes (See Figure J).
A) The project map and database now included a comprehensive array of meeting records and
information resources. These resources were often called upon to refresh the memory of
project team and RST members.
B) The project team and RST brought in a local elected official to describe the minute details of
Sonoma County's complex zoning regulations.
C) Working in real-time, single text documents relating to draft recommendations and
agreements were developed.
D) Potential locations for a day labor center were identified with the aid of aerial photographs
and maps stored in the project map and database.
E) The project team and RST worked with a single document to finalize the set of agreements
and recommendations for presentation to the community at large.
FIGURE J: Applications of Conflict Cartography that support decision-making and development of agreements
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
24
STEP FIVE: Supporting the Agreement Implementation Process
The RST, having reached agreement on draft recommendations, still needed to communicate the
final results of their efforts with the broader community. A community meeting was held for this
purpose. The Conflict Cartography methodology was used to help the project team and RST
translate their efforts into a meaningful story that would help them build support and
understanding with their constituents.
Four key services were provided during the
implementation stage (Figure K).
A) The project map and database was used to provide access to multiple records and
communication tools during the community meeting.
B) The RST team worked together to take community members on a metaphorical journey that
described the consensus process. In this situation, the RST chose the metaphor of
agriculture to explain the previous year's worth of work.
C) The project team and RST provided the community with a graphic illustration that explained
the criteria the RST would use to monitor the success of the proposed day labor center.
D) The conflict cartographer worked in real-time to capture important community perspectives
and feedback.
FIGURE K: Applications of Conflict Cartography that support implementation of agreements
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
25
SUMMARY
This paper has provided readers with an introductory glimpse of many methods and tools that
can aid their conflict resolution and consensus building efforts. After discussing the nature of
complex conflicts I described five such methods that can aid project teams and stakeholder
representatives as they struggle to make sense of complex issues and develop solutions to
complex problems. These five methods form the primary roots of Conflict Cartography, an
integrated methodology tailored to consensus building and conflict resolution procedures. At
each step of the consensus-building process there are core applications and key challenges that
one must be aware of in order to effectively apply this methodology. To more fully illustrate
these applications, a case study was included to describe how Conflict Cartography was recently
applied to support a group of people working to build consensus on complex day labor issues. It
is my hope that the reader will come away from reading this paper with increased knowledge
regarding methods and tools that he or she can use to improve the quality of their conflict
resolution and consensus building efforts. In the near future, ViewCraft will offer educational
workshops and courses to demonstrate and teach the methods introduced in this paper.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to extend my appreciation and gratitude to the following people, many of whom
provided in-depth review and feedback on previous drafts of this paper. These people are: John
Garn, Information Cartographer and Managing Partner of ViewCraft LLC; Annette Townley M.
Ed., Executive Director of the North Bay Consensus Council; Andy Rodgers, Founder of
ECON, Inc.; the late Stanley M. Greenfield Ph.D., Environmental Mediator; Merrick Hoben,
Senior Associate with the Consensus Building Institute; Maude Pervere, Director of Stanford
Law School's Negotiation and Mediation Program; Bill Leach Ph.D., Director of Research for the
Center for Collaborative Policy; Al Selvin, Director of the Compendium Institute; Cate and
Andrew Griffiths; Jon Townsend, M.A., owner of AgreementsWork; Skip Robinson Ph.D.,
mediator and professor at Sonoma State University; Bob Klein, Green Pen Ltd.; Nancy Hanawi
and Oscar Goodman, Co-Directors of the Center for Social Redesign; and all the faculty and staff
at Sonoma State University's BA Completion Program: Beth Warner, Deborah Hammond,
Ardath Lee, Leny Strobel and Erv Peterson. Finally, to my mother, Janis Cohen; sister, Kate
Papadopoulos; wife-to-be Jessica Flood, the Knott Family, and Thomas C. Bolton.
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
26
REFERENCES
Adler, Peter. et al., Managing Scientific and Technical Information in Environmental CasesPrinciples and Practices for Mediators and Facilitators, Sponsored by Resolve Inc., US Institute
for Environmental Conflict Resolution, & The Western Justice Foundation, 2002. Accessed at:
http://mediate.com/articles/wjc.cfm
Brown, Lloyd. The Story of Maps. Mineola, NY, Dover Publications, 1980.
Dörner, Dietrich. The Logic of Failure- Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations.
Trans. Rita and Robert Kimber. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Perseus Books, 1996.
Hammond, Deborah. The Science of Synthesis- Exploring the Social Implications of General
Systems Theory, Boulder, Colorado. The University Press of Colorado, 2003.
Horn, Robert E., Knowledge Mapping for Complex Social Messes, a presentation to the
"Foundations in the Knowledge Economy" at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, July 16,
2001.
O'Connor, N. J. Integration of Geographic Information System (GIS) and Internet Technologies
in Support of Sustainable Resource Use, MSc. University of Leicester (GRID-Geneva Intern),
UNEP, 2003.
Pojasek, Robert B.; Garn, John; & Papadopoulos, Nick. Knowledge Management and Visual
Context™. Environmental Quality Management, John Wiley & Sons, Autumn 2001.
Policy Consensus Initiative. A Practical Guide to Consensus, Policy Consensus Initiative, Sante
Fe, New Mexico, 1999.
Rischard, J. F.. High Noon: Twenty Global Problems, Twenty Years to Solve, New York, New
York. Basic Books, 2004.
Selvin, Albert M. et. al. Knowledge Art: Visual Sensemaking Using Combined Compendium and
Visual Explorer Methodologies, presented to The Art of Management and Organisation
Conference, The Essex Management Center, University of Essex, at King's College, London, 3-6,
September, 2002.
Selvin, Albert M. Fostering Collective Intelligence: Helping Groups Use Visualized
Argumentation, included in a recent book, Visual Argumentation , Edited by Simon J.
Buckingham Shum of the Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University (2003)
Schulten, Susan The Geographical Imagination in America, 1880-1950, Chicago, Illinois. The
University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Stroh, David Peter, A Systemic View of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, The Systems Thinker
newsletter, Vol. 13 No. 5, June/July 2002
© Nick Papadopoulos & ViewCraft LLC
MARCH 2004
27