Laserfiche WebLink
front investment by the group in some conflict management and consensus-building skills made the <br />• longer term effort more difficult. Since the facilitators were called to assist immediately with <br />highly complex and contentious discussions, the skill-building had to occur on an ad hoc and <br />as-needed basis interspersed throughout the project. This "learn as we go" method, however, may <br />have actually helped contribute to a more open attitude toward finding creative solutions. <br />4.3. Factors That Assisted the Progress. <br />Some of the factors that enhanced GURU II's chances for success included the following: <br />4.3.1. The Prior RIP Process. While it is true that most of the participants had been <br />involved in some "adversarial" proceedings, most of the participants had also been involved in <br />developing and implementing the agreements reached in the Recovery Implementation Program. <br />The relationships formed during this process contributed to the ability and willingness of the group <br />to work together. <br />4.3.2. Commitme~at to tlce RIP. There was clear direction from the various policy <br />levels to GURU II to make the Recovery Implementation Program work. There was a clear <br />expectation that it succeed. At the same time, there was a general recognition going into the <br />discussions that some balancing of the needs of endangered fish and development of Colorado's <br />compact apportionment is needed. <br />4.3.3. Commitment to Avoid Adversarial Conflict Resolution. All of the <br />stakeholders agreed that the transaction cost of pursuing traditional adversarial methods of <br />addressing potential conflicts between the recovery of the endangered fishes and Colorado's ability <br />to develop its compact apportionment could be high both in temps of dollars, time, and other costs. <br />• 43 <br />