Business Navigators - 1-800-253-4085

The purpose of the project was to reinvigorate the economic development program of a Northwest Ohio municipality. The previous programs had been divided into separate areas of interest. The Economic Development Committee was formed to focus on development of a light industrial park in order to attract business that could employ local residents, and generate additional tax revenue for the municipality. The Downtown Revitalization Committee was formed to enhance the downtown area in order to attract retail merchants. These efforts were also intended to increase tax revenue by attracting visitors to the municipality for shopping and dining. The municipal Plan Commission was charged with developing an overall master plan for the community. The Plan Commission was viewed by many in the community as being anti-business and protective of the community image as an exclusive bedroom community with a rich historical background and unique geographic location. The purpose of the project was to create a commonality among these separate groups; establishing a common vocabulary regarding economic development, create a common understanding of certain economic development terms and concepts, and create a common vision for economic development that encompassed all aspects of the community (residential, retail, and light industrial).

Evaluation findings

The overall economic development of the community had largely come to a halt in recent months. The separate groups charged with economic development could not agree on a unified vision for the community as a whole. The entities involved continued to focus on their respective areas of interest without consideration for how their position affected the efforts of one or both of the other entities involved in economic development. Discussions sometimes were hampered by disagreement over the meaning of terminology. This parochialism and generalized lack of agreement allowed the process to become dormant.

Conversely, development within surrounding communities was proceeding at a brisk pace. Both residential and commercial development was occurring nearby and expanding ever closer to the boundaries of the community. Additionally, changes to the routing of a major highway that passed through the community were planned by the state. This change would have a major impact on future development within the community.

These outside influences created a sense of urgency within the municipal administration regarding economic development. The administration desired a more pro-active economic development effort. The administration also desired a unified and holistic approach to economic development that addressed the residential, retail, and commercial interests of the various groups involved.

Intervention design

The intervention was designed to create a forum where the various entities involved in economic development could meet. The members of the forum would include representatives from the municipal Administration, Council, Economic Development Committee, Downtown Revitalization Committee, and Plan Commission, as well as interested citizens and business people. The objectives of the intervention were to establish a common vocabulary regarding economic development, establish a common understanding of key concepts and terminology, and to establish a common vision of what economic development entails for the community as a whole.

The method chosen to accomplish the goals of the intervention was the “I.B.S.” facilitation technique developed by Business Navigators, Inc.. The “I.B.S.” facilitation technique structured to lead the group through the process of identifying, lobbying for, and prioritizing the issues to be addressed, any barriers to success that the group may perceive, and strategies for the successful implementation of the group objectives.

Implementation

The schedule brought the group together for two successive Saturday mornings. The meetings were conducted within the Council Chambers of the administration building. The meetings were scheduled for four hours per session, for a total of eight hours of facilitated meetings.

The first session began by asking the group to answer the question “Where are we now?” with respect to economic development. This discussion established the base line for the group, and highlighted the need to establish a common groundwork for the economic development of the community.

The group was then asked to answer the question “Where do we want to go?” with respect to economic development. The group was given time to write their responses, which were then grouped and posted in view of the group. The facilitator then led the group through the process of “lobbying” by calling on individual participants, and giving each an opportunity to briefly explain why they felt a given issue was more important to meeting the objectives than the other issues identified. Once the “lobbying” process had been completed, the group was led through the prioritization process by the facilitator. The facilitator asked each participant to give one vote for the issue they felt was the single most important issue facing the group. Through this process, the approximately sixty original issues identified by the group were distilled into a prioritized list of the six most important issues. More importantly, because the process involved all participants, the group was able to agree on the issues that were identified and the priorities assigned to each one.

The issues identified by the group, in order of priority assigned by the group were; 1) Identifying the unique image for the community that included downtown, residential, and commercial, 2) Ensuring that future growth was well planned, regulated, and controlled, 3) Marketing the community in a manner that attracted new residents, merchants, businesses, and visitors, 4) Planning for growth along the revised path of the state highway, 5) Redeveloping existing properties, and 6) Creating people friendly common areas and pedestrian walkways within the community.

The facilitation process was repeated to identify, discuss, and prioritize the barriers that the group felt would prevent them from making substantial progress on the #1 issue that had been agreed upon. The facilitation led the group through process of identifying, lobbying for, and prioritizing the nearly fifty barriers originally identified by the group. The process resulted in the group reaching agreement on the four most important barriers that needed to be overcome to achieve success.

The barriers that the group identified and prioritized were; 1) Arriving at a consensus on what the image of the community is, 2) Obtaining funding for future economic development initiatives, 3) Getting people to commit to taking ownership of an issue and taking action, and 4) Lack of architectural guidelines within the master plan for the community.

The facilitation process was repeated again during the second session, with an emphasis on developing strategies for overcoming the #1 barrier that had just been agreed upon by the group. The identification, lobbying, and prioritization process enabled the group to agree upon three strategies for arriving at a consensus on what the image of the community is, and ensuring that that image includes the downtown, residential, and commercial aspects of the community.

The strategies that the group agreed upon were; 1) Create volunteer groups committed to owning the task of identifying and gaining consensus on the image of the community, 2) Conducting surveys of area residents and businesses regarding the image of the community, and 3) Creating a Vision Statement regarding economic development within the community.

Results of the intervention

The facilitation process was successful in accomplishing the primary goals of the intervention. Through the lobbying process, each participant was heard, differences were resolved, and a common vocabulary was established. The process also enabled the group to reach a common understanding of key economic development concepts and terminology. Finally, the group was able to agree upon a common, holistic vision for economic development within the community.

The final step in the facilitation process involved getting participants to voluntarily commit to ownership of the issues that they had identified and prioritized. The group was advised by the facilitator that issues that went un-owned would be considered meaningless, and would be discarded. The group was further advised that a “count down” would be held for each issue, and an owner needed to volunteer before the “count down” ended to avoid having the issue discarded.

Owners quickly volunteered to accept ownership of all six of the issues identified by the group as the most important in making progress regarding economic development. The owners who volunteered represented Council members, Administrators, members of the Plan Commission, members of the Economic Development Committee, members of the Downtown Revitalization Committee, and local business people. After the official session had ended, participants began organizing into teams, setting meeting dates, and setting agendas for their subsequent meetings.

Summary

The challenge of leading a large group of local politicians and interested citizens to agree on an issue as volatile as economic development initially seemed like a daunting task. In the end, it proved to be very rewarding. The participants that assembled for the facilitation sessions were intelligent, passionate, and motivated to succeed. Their commitment, when combined with the structure of the facilitation process, resulted in accomplishing the original goals and gaining ownership of some very important initiatives. Amazingly, the process took less than nine hours of focused, structured facilitation to achieve these results. The remarks and feedback provided indicated that the group believed they benefited from being forced to function within the structured format of the facilitation, and probably would not have achieved the same results on their own.