Assignment: Intervention#2
Yuanhan (Diane) He
NECR 6250: CAPSTONE RESOLUTION STRATEGIES
Professor: Dr. Deborah Sachare
November 28, 2021
Recap Main Needs as Identified in The Conflict Analysis
In this case, the Sioux tribe vigorously protested the implementation of the DAPL program. Their protest was based on the project’s destruction of a sacred burial ground near Oahe Lake and a culturally significant tribal site for the Sioux tribe. More importantly, the pipeline under a portion of Lake Oahe, a Missouri River reservoir, would jeopardize the safety of a major water source on the reservation and in its natural habitat, which is the root cause of the conflict. The Sioux tribe protested, asking that the construction route avoid the tribal cultural preserve and instead cross Bismarck, 45 miles north of the reservation. However, USACE rejected the proposal, citing concerns that it could compromise the municipal water supply. Consequently, this argument thoroughly sparked discontent and protests from members of the Sioux tribe and 200 Native American tribes. The DAPL dispute is a case of environmental safety and a deeper issue of environmental racism and inequality.
The Strategic Goal for The Entire Intervention Roadmap
The strategic purpose of the intervention is to strengthen the association between the US Army Corps and the Sioux tribes to develop an acceptable outcome that will preclude damage of the cultural reserve and, at a similar juncture, procure another path for the DAPL.
What Has Been Done to Address This Need So Far? —A
The ongoing dispute between Sioux tribes and the US Army Corps has resulted in numerous cases that have temporarily curtailed the construction of the DAPL. The community appealed the first lawsuit expressing their dissatisfaction with the former for failing to recognize the clan’s fears and violating their consenting national regulation. The society asserts that the creators did not consult appropriately before consenting approval for construction near their reservation. However, the petition to shelve the construction of the DAPL was refuted by a federal judge (Whyte, 2017). However, in an unexpected intervention, the Obama regime ratified the temporary cessation of Army Corps’ pipeline construction until it could evaluate the controversial fraction near the Native American disagreement an hour after the judge’s ruling (Whyte, 2017). Therefore, the undertaking is in a legal deadlock as the judiciary proceedings persist in settling the problem.
Recommended Intervention Strategy —B
Considering the facts of the case, the most efficient strategy for resolving the DAPL construction conflict would be the collaborative work systems design (CWD). Holman, Devane, and Cady (2007) define the CWD as a comprehensive design process that steers those supervising the transition endeavor through creating a frame for successfully diversifying the group to promote cooperation and enhance corporation outcomes. The technique incorporates input and collaboration from leaders in solving conflicts and promoting collaboration between the conflicting parties. The Sioux Tribe and the Army Corps can identify representatives who will be part of the leadership team developed to solve the DAPL construction crisis. These leaders will work as a faction of the change leadership team and will collaborate with both the government and the community to convey their viewpoints to the change plan. Two independent individuals will supervise the leadership team. These individuals will be responsible for recording the teams’ progress and activities. The team will also strive to identify a change plan that will be used to convince both the government and the community regarding the benefits of collaboration to solve the existing problem.
The rationale for CWD—C
The CWD program will be effective in aligning the area through beneficial collaboration alliances between the Army Corps and Sioux Tribe. Holman et al. (2007) argue that CWD is vital for developing a coalition as both groups attain an awareness of the widespread impact of the DAPL construction on the culturally preserved land. A shared awareness of the strengths and concerns in this conflict will encourage them to work together to develop concrete plans to implement change and solve the conflict. Moreover, this process can be implemented alongside other problem-solving methods to ensure maximum impact on all parties concerned.
What Needs to Be in Place to Ensure Your Intervention is Successful—D
For the CWD process to be successful, the central variables must include “food for participants; rental space to conduct the workshops, consulting fees for two lead consultants, and facilitation of documentation materials such as stationery. While all these requirements can be obtained easily, identifying a rental space to hold the workshops may be challenging, as Army Corps demonstrations require outdoor activities. Nevertheless, the process will incorporate a group of ten members from both parties as selected representatives to join the leadership team.
Additionally, both parties will be expected to demonstrate their current systems. The Sioux Tribe will explain how the DAPL construction impacts their culture, while the Army Corps will justify why they need the cultural land to complete the DAPL construction. This explanation will help create an awareness of shared issues and identify aspects that hinder effective collaboration between the two groups. The shared awareness will help design a real plan and convince the required stakeholders to agree and support the plan.
How To Address Cultural Sensitivity & Appropriateness? —E
The CWD model can effectively address the cultural sensitivity and appropriateness that surrounds the DAPL construction. The process will compel the conflicting parties to be present and to work together to settle the DAPL construction conflict. Moreover, the model will boost awareness of the different groups in the area by donating a platform where both parties can learn about each other, the conflict, and how the conflict is impacting the region and at the same time, collaborate to resolve the existing cultural dispute whereby the Sioux tribe is trying to protect its cultural reserve from being damaged during the DAPL construction. Moreover, the conference model will encourage both parties to redesign the solutions developed in the initial intervention to resolve the conflict successfully.
Monitoring the Intervention
The two neutral members will assess the progress and effectiveness of the model. These members will highlight the progress, challenges, and potential benefits of the conference to both teams. The members will also highlight agreements that can be considered when generating solutions to the DAPL construction conflict.
Methods for Evaluation?
The most effective measure for success is through participation. Since both parties will be forced to try to understand the other party’s current state and how the DAPL construction impacts them, their level of involvement through actions such as asking questions and offering midpoint will indicate success.
SWOT Analysis
SWOT Analysis Matrix
INTERVENTION #2: collaborative work systems design
Helpful to achieve the objective
Harmful to achieving the objective
Internal Factors
Strengths:
Low cost
Contributes forum for communication, community networking, and consensus
Identifies society issues and expectations
Weaknesses:
Heavily depends on local community participation
Both parties will drastically vary in the timeline
External Factors
Opportunities:
Align with and provide more factual data about the tribe’s intentions and expectations of the DAPL construction project
Adjoin with NGOs presently working within the area.
Threats:
Support projects will reduce enthusiasm to join in the conference
Concluding Remarks
The controversy between Army Corps and the Sioux tribes can be classified as a safety need conflict. The tribe feels the need to ensure the safety of its cultural preservation that faces demolition to pave the way for DAPL construction. Even though various claims have been cataloged as intervention undertakings, both parties need to consider implementing the collaborative work systems design model intervention as a procedural process to settle the conflict. While the description of both parties will drastically vary in the timeline, it will effectively identify community benefits and issues that will be useful to both factions. Furthermore, while dependence on community participation may come across as a weakness, it positively as both the Army Corps and the community will have a platform for communication and networking, which will help nurture consensus that will help in creating a conducive environment for project operations.
References
Holman, P., Devane, T., & Cady, S. (2007). The change handbook: The definitive resource on today’s best methods for engaging whole systems (2nd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Whyte, K. P. (2017). The Dakota Access Pipeline, environmental injustice, and the U.S. colonialism. Political Science, 13(3), 335–352. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312040136_The_Dakota_Access_Pipeline_Environmental_Injustice_and_US_Colonialism
Overall comments：
This intervention shows great promise. The idea is well thought out and explained, however the need that it fulfills was not defined. Points A-G need significantly more clarification. Specifically, clarification remains needed in points A, C, E, F, G. Points D and E need to be reworked and points F and G need more substance. Please see document comments to address these concerns. The organization of the document has a good flow, however revision for clarity is necessary. All information should be supported with an abundance of diverse citations from multiple sources. Please see notes made in the document for further explanation and guidance. I recommend you set up a time to meet with me to further discuss these comments and how to improve upon them for future assignment submissions.