A Consensus Feasibility Study for Montreal's Archipel Dam To assess the desirability of a feasibility study evaluating the costs and benefits of constructing a dam within the St. Lawrence river basin, Quebec initiated an interdepart- mental evaluation. The evaluation concluded that a feasibility study that considered the hydroelectric power generated, the flood control possible, and the shoreline restoration for recreation was justified. It was recommended that a central authority act as PM for the study. Thus, a new body called "Secretariat Archipel was cre- ated to directly supervise the feasibility study. However, they chose to use a democratic "consensus" approach between all 10 governmental departments rather than a central authority approach. It was believed that this consensus approach would lead to a solution acceptable to all, while protecting the juris- dictional responsibilities of all departments. Although this approach apparently avoided difficult conflicts, a poststudy evaluation of the process concluded that it was neither effective nor efficient. By discarding the recommendation for a central authority body, a leadership gap arose in the decision framework and veto rights were abused by many of the participants. In terms of effectiveness, the recommendations of the study are questionable: that the dam be postponed Considering efficiency, the study appeared to take 1-2 longer than necessary, with a correspondingly higher cost. In retrospect, the consensus approach appeared to have been selected to protect the fields of jurisdiction of each governmental department rather than for defining the best project for the community. Although consensus is a highly desirable goal for public studies, leadership cannot be aban- doned in the process. Attempting to avoid conflict through mandated consensus simply defeats the purpose of any study in the first place, except a study to determine what everyone commonly agrees upon. Questions 1. Given the results of the study, did the consen- sus approach indeed lead to a solution accept- able to all? Why wasn't everyone happy with this outcome? 2. Based on this case situation, does the consen- sus approach lead to what is best for the overall community? Why (not)? 3. What approach should have been adopted to deter- mine what was best for the overall community? Source: R. Desbiens, R. Houde, and P. Normandeau, "Archipel Feasibility Study: A Questionable Consensus Approach," Project Management Journal, Vol. 20.

A Consensus Feasibility Study for Montreal's Considering efficiency, the study appeared to take 1-2 longer Archipel Dam than necessary, with a correspondingly higher cost. In retrospect, the consensus approach appeared to have To assess the desirability of a feasibility study evaluating been selected to protect the fields of jurisdiction of each the costs and benefits of constructing a dam within the governmental department rather than for defining the best St. Lawrence river basin, Quebec initiated an interdepart- project for the community. Although consensus is a highly mental evaluation. The evaluation concluded that a feasibility desirable goal for public studies, leadership cannot be aban- study that considered the hydroelectric power generated, doned in the process. Attempting to avoid conflict through the flood control possible, and the shoreline restoration for mandated consensus simply defeats the purpose of any study recreation was justified. It was recommended that a central in the first place, except a study to determine what everyone authority act as PM for the study, commonly agrees upon Thus, a new body called "Secretariat Archipel" was cre- ated to directly supervise the feasibility study. However, they Questions chose to use a democratic "consensus" approach between all 1. Given the results of the study, did the consen- 10 governmental departments rather than a central authority sus approach indeed lead to a solution accept- approach. It was believed that this consensus approach would able to all? Why wasn't everyone happy with this lead to a solution acceptable to all, while protecting the juris- outcome? dictional responsibilities of all departments. 2. Based on this case situation, does the consen- Although this approach apparently avoided difficult sus approach lead to what is best for the overall conflicts, a poststudy evaluation of the process concluded community? Why (not)? that it was neither effective nor efficient. By discarding the recommendation for a central authority body, a leadership 3. What approach should have been adopted to deter- gap arose in the decision framework and veto rights were mine what was best for the overall community? abused by many of the participants. Source: R. Desbiens, R. Houde, and P. Normandeau, "Archipel In terms of effectiveness, the recommendations of Feasibility Study: A Questionable Consensus Approach." Project the study are questionable: that the dam be postponed. Management Journal, Vol. 20