Different persons and organisations are responsible for planning, decision-making and implementation of countermeasures in various phases of an accident. At the accident site the operator or licensee is, in general, responsible for controlling the event, and, in many cases, also the first organisation to take initiative over immediate off-site protective actions based on plant status and emergency plans. In the longer term the decision-making is part of the country's administrative and legal system. Nowadays it is common that the decision-making takes place in groups of various size and composition.
International organisations have recommended for many years that key players, e.g., authorities, expert organisations, industry, producer and even the public should be involved in the national planning for protective actions in case of a nuclear accident. The key players could be engaged in this decision-making process in various ways, e.g., by hearings, advisory committees, planning cells, panels, citizen juries, initiatives, and often by increased cost and complexity of the process (Renn et. al. 1995). Facilitated workshop is a model, which attempts to reconcile the different problem representations of the participants by group decision support.
Facilitated workshop, also called decision conferencing, utilises decision theory and group process. It provides a methodology to aggregate all key players' concerns and issues openly and equally into the decision. The aims of the workshop are to achieve a shared understanding of the issues and a mutual commitment to action (Phillips and Phillips 1993). Facilitated workshops seem to fit well in planning of protective actions in advance or in the analytical part of a decision-making process. They provide a forum where key players that have expertise in various areas can analyse and evaluate alternative options that are subject to open debate before the formal decision-making.