The method was specifically tailored to facilitate the ecoregional process outlined in the proceedings of the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) workshop held in The Hague in April 1998. An interactive, computer-assisted tutorial, which "walks" users through the "ecoregional process", has been designed to demonstrate how the key concepts addressed by the Project can work together harmoniously.

This output addresses shortcomings in ecoregional projects that are built from an initial problem-oriented analysis. A most obvious deficiency is that these ecoregional research and development projects will invariably overlook prevention of future risks to currently desirable, non-problematic conditions. Classic examples are the sudden collapse of the health of common-pool resources such as water for domestic, agricultural, and industrial needs. This methodology focuses on the future. It is specifically tailored to facilitate the ecoregional "process" outlined in the guidelines given by the Trust Fund for Methodological Support to Ecoregional Programs for submitting proposals (Figure 2). It asks stakeholders to think about how their world could be different, and it presupposes that "breakthrough" thinking greatly benefits from outside participation in the form of collective action.

This activity can trace its beginning to work carried out at CIAT starting in 1992. Six tasks were identified as crucial for the success of consortia in managing development projects that require collective action (Knapp et al., 1999). The Forum Tool (Figure 8), now called ITDEA (Intelligent Team Decision Assistant) includes the following nine steps:

1. Statement of the core issue.
2. Stakeholder identification. This phase involves a detailed identification of all stakeholders with interests in the issue, and examination of their actual/potential stake.
3. Goal formulation
4. Development and evaluation of indicators.
5. Goal-gap analysis. Identification of factors that are uncontrollable facilitates reaching goals or raise obstacles.
6. Generation of decision alternatives.
7. Evaluation of alternatives.
8. Agreement on the decision.
9. Implementation and monitoring.