An assessment of interventions for improving communication and trust in cost benefit analysis processes

Figures & data

Figure 1 Conceptual model on communication and trust conditions for a learning use of CBA. Source: Beukers et al. (2014).

Table 1 Interventions and related mechanisms for improving communication and building trust between plan owners and evaluators in CBA processes (Beukers et al. 2014).

Theory-derived communication and trust-building interventions	Related communication and trust-building mechanisms
1. Organizing a dialogue space where plan owners and evaluators meet face-to-face (Argyris 1977; Innes 1998; Nonaka & Konno 1998; Forester 1999; Akgün et al. 2003; Lander et al. 2004; Healey 2007; Laurian 2009)	1. Sharpening assumptions based on the input of others
	2. Receiving critical questions
	3. Asking critical questions
	4. Giving attention to issues behind immediate agendas
	5. Listening carefully
	6. Sharing detailed and diverse information
	7. Being open in the discussion
	8. Feeling safe
	9. Estimating how others will respond in the discussion
	10. Strengthening relationships with others
	11. Getting to know others better
2. Sharing and discussing (the plan and CBA) together and simultaneously (Argyris 1977; Schön 1983; Argyris 1991; Healey 1999, 2007, 2009; Nonaka et al. 2000; Innes & Booher 2003; Nonaka et al. 2006; Laurian 2009)	12. Knowing more about the plan as well as the CBA
	13. Seeing opportunities for win–win solutions
	14. Recognizing shared interests
	15. Understanding the viewpoints of others and vice versa
3. Being prepared to share and discuss knowledge together (Argyris 1977; Forester 1987; Edelenbos & Klijn 2007)	16. Not seeing unknown information as a threat
	17. Being able to handle new information
	18. Articulating one's own ideas and reasoning
	19. Not feeling unpleasantly surprised when new arguments are raised
4. Having the interaction guided by a moderator (Innes & Booher 2003; Edelenbos & Klijn 2007; Laurian 2009)	20. The moderator focuses the discussion on finding issues behind immediate agendas
	21. The moderator focuses the discussion on finding win–win solutions
	22. The moderator focuses the discussion on finding shared interests
	23. The moderator stimulates the inclusion of different types of knowledge: expert and lay, implicit and explicit, etc.
	24. The moderator ensures that everybody feels safe
	25. The moderator ensures that everybody can speak freely
5. Using dialogue modes (e.g. sketches, simulations, storyboards, role play); presenting the work as ‘work in progress’ (Schön 1983; Forester 1999)	26. Feeling encouraged to react to others
	27. Feeling encouraged to make viewpoints explicit and context-specific
	28. Feeling encouraged to give viewpoints
	29. Feeling encouraged to illustrate viewpoints
	30. Seeing the discussed subject as ‘work in progress’

Figure 2 Setup, experiential case study.

Table 2 Overview of the operationalization of the interventions in Case 1, the lessons learned, and the refined operationalization in Case 2.

Theory-derived interventions	Operationalization Case 1	Lessons from Case 1	Refined operationalization Case 2
I. Meet face-to-face in an open, critical, non-defensive and sincere way	A dialogue was organized with six plan owners (representing the involved departments of the local government), four CBA evaluators and a moderator. The dialogue lasted about 1 h.	Devote more time to the discussion	A dialogue was organized with seven plan owners (representing the involved regional and local governments), two evaluators and a moderator. The dialogue lasted 2 h.
II. Interact and discuss the plan and CBA together and simultaneously	The plan (station area development of two Amsterdam train stations) and setup of a CBA were discussed together and simultaneously.	No fundamental changes	The plan (two routes of a tramway in the Utrecht region) and setup of a CBA were discussed together and simultaneously.
III. Be prepared and trained to interact	The participants were prepared for this interaction by reading a pamphlet of guidelines that discussed how to approach one another.	Also prepare the participants for the content of the discussion in advance	The participants were prepared for this interaction with a guide discussing how to approach one another, and information about the discussed plan was shared in advance.
IV. Have the interaction guided by a moderator	The interaction was guided by an experienced moderator who was prepared for the task by the research team.	Ask the moderator to encourage participants to be explicit and avoid jargon	The interaction was guided by an experienced moderator who was prepared for the task by the research team and was instructed to pay attention to be explicit and avoid jargon.
V. Use discussion modes presenting the plan and CBA as ‘work in progress’	Three questions were used to steer the discussion: What are the expected effects of the plan? How to measure them? And how to include these effects in the CBA?	Use a dialogue mode that relates to both planning and CBA rationale	The ‘Effects Arena’ was used to steer the discussion (Figure 6).

Figure 3 (Colour online) Train stations in and around Amsterdam. The potential development of the station areas of Sloterdijk and Lelylaan, in red circles, was discussed in Case 1. Adapted from: Municipality of Amsterdam (2008).

Figure 4 Communication and trust mechanisms perceived by plan owners and evaluators (five-point Likert scale), questionnaire Case 1.

Figure 5 Discussed tramway routes in the Utrecht region (gray lines). Adapted from: Bestuursregio Utrecht (2012).

Figure 6 The Effects Arena. Adapted from: Stichting Experiment Volkshuisvesting (2010).

Figure 7 Communication and trust mechanisms perceived by plan owners and evaluators (five-point Likert scale), questionnaire Case 2.

Figure 8 Average scores of the five interventions in the questionnaires in the Cases 1 and 2 (five-point Likert scale).

BeukersE, BertoliniL, Te BrömmelstroetM. 2014. Using cost benefit analysis as a learning process: identifying interventions for improving communication and trust. Transport Pol. 31:61–72.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ArgyrisC. 1977. Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review. September–October:115–125.

 Google Scholar

InnesJE. 1998. Information in communicative planning. J Am Plan Assoc.64:52–63.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

NonakaI, KonnoN. 1998. The concept of ‘Ba’: building a foundation for knowledge creation. Calif Manage Rev. 40:40–54.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ForesterJ. 1999. The deliberative practitioner. Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.

 Google Scholar

AkgünAE, LynnGS, ByrneJC. 2003. Organizational learning: a socio-cognitive framework. Hum Relat. 56:839–868.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

LanderMC, PurvisRL, McCrayGE, LeighW. 2004. Trust-building mechanisms utilized in outsourced IS development projects: a case study. Inform Manage. 41:509–528.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

HealeyP. 2007. Urban complexity and spatial strategies. Towards a relational planning for our times. London: Routledge.

 Google Scholar

LaurianL. 2009. Trust in planning: Theoretical and practical considerations for participatory and deliberative planning. Plan Theory Pract. 10:369–391.

 Google Scholar

SchönDA. 1983. The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

 Google Scholar

ArgyrisC. 1991. Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review. May 4.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

HealeyP. 1999. Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places. J Plan Educ Res. 19(2):111–121.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

HealeyP. 2009. In search of the ‘strategic’ in spatial strategy making. Plan Theory Pract. 10:439–457.

 Google Scholar

NonakaI, ToyamaR, KonnoN. 2000. SECI, ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Plan. 33:5–34.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

InnesJE, BooherDE. 2003. Collaborative policymaking: governance through dialogue. In: HajerMA, WagenaarH, editors. Deliberative policy analysis. Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; p. 33–59.

 Google Scholar

NonakaI, Von KroghG, VoelpelS. 2006. Organizational knowledge creation theory: evolutionary paths and future advances. Organ Stud. 27:1179–1208.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ForesterJ. 1987. Planning in the face of conflict. J Am Plan Assoc.53(3):303–314.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

EdelenbosJ, KlijnEH. 2007. Trust in complex decision-making networks. A theoretical and empirical exploration. Admin Soc. 39:25–50.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Municipality of Amsterdam. 2008. Amsterdamse OV-visie 2008–2020. Een enkeltje Topstad[Amsterdam public transport vision 2008–2020. A one way ticket to top city]. Gemeente Amsterdam: Dienst Infrastructuur Verkeer en Vervoer.

 Google Scholar

Bestuursregio Utrecht. 2012. Snel, betrouwbaar en effectief. OV-visie voor de regio Utrecht [Quick, reliable, and effective. Public transport vision for the Utrecht region]. Utrecht: Bestuursregio Utrecht.

 Google Scholar

Stichting Experiment Volkshuisvesting. 2010. Effectenarena. Den Haag: Stichting Experiment Volkshuisvesting.

 Google Scholar