Structured Dialogic Design --- Engineering for Social Networks Thomas Flanagan, PhD, MBA Partner, Dialogic Design International llc www. DialogicDesign.net

Fundamentals of Dialogue Seek understanding first _ forge agreement second The contract is not the goal, it is the result of the goal Boundary spanning work requires collaborative input Begin at the beginning _ jointly unpack complexity Experts often leap into solving problems before they have fully explored the scope of the problem Complex ideas need to be reduced to elemental bits so that they can be processed, digested, and enhanced Use focused, structured dialogue _ construct new meaning Sequence the flow of knowledge in the dialogue Build new knowledge based on rules of logic Common Rules of Dialogue ___ Simple But Not Universally Followed

Seek understanding first _ forge agreement second

The contract is not the goal, it is the result of the goal

Boundary spanning work requires collaborative input

Begin at the beginning _ jointly unpack complexity

Experts often leap into solving problems before they have fully explored the scope of the problem

Complex ideas need to be reduced to elemental bits so that they can be processed, digested, and enhanced

Use focused, structured dialogue _ construct new meaning

Sequence the flow of knowledge in the dialogue

Build new knowledge based on rules of logic

The Special Need for Structured Dialogic Design In situations characterized by “wicked complexity” the familiar rules for the practice of dialogue break down Based upon theoretical and empirical research conducted in the Science of Generic Design , we understand why this situation presents special challenge for our cognitive machinery Structured Dialogic Design provides an operational framework for collaborative planning under situations complicated by complexity, uncertainty, risk, rapid change, and limited planning opportunities Wicked Complexity Requires Thoroughly Validated Methods

In situations characterized by “wicked complexity” the familiar rules for the practice of dialogue break down

Based upon theoretical and empirical research conducted in the Science of Generic Design , we understand why this situation presents special challenge for our cognitive machinery

Structured Dialogic Design provides an operational framework for collaborative planning under situations complicated by complexity, uncertainty, risk, rapid change, and limited planning opportunities

Wicked Complexity leads to Underconceptualization Wicked complexity is characterized by large numbers of issues, large numbers of interconnections among issues, and limited transparency of both the issues and the connections When stakeholders seek to assign priorities to lists of issues without sufficient conceptualization of interdependencies among those issues, stakeholders select erroneous priorities which then lead to ineffective actions Systematic exploration of issues and relationships among issues assures evolutionary learning ; however, without the right tools and approaches, this disciplined process can be onerous Wicked Complexity

Wicked complexity is characterized by large numbers of issues, large numbers of interconnections among issues, and limited transparency of both the issues and the connections

When stakeholders seek to assign priorities to lists of issues without sufficient conceptualization of interdependencies among those issues, stakeholders select erroneous priorities which then lead to ineffective actions

Systematic exploration of issues and relationships among issues assures evolutionary learning ; however, without the right tools and approaches, this disciplined process can be onerous

How Complex is Complex? The Situational Complexity Index is defined as DK (N-7) / R (R-1) where D = (V-5) / (N-5) N = Number of total observations by all observers R = Number of distinct (unique) observations V = Number of observations with “importance” votes K = Number of links among observations D = Divergence or “spread think” of importance votes _________________________________ 7 is the “Miller number” (7 ± 2) and 5 is the “Warfield spread think number” Situational Complexity Index

The Situational Complexity Index is defined as

DK (N-7) / R (R-1) where D = (V-5) / (N-5)

N = Number of total observations by all observers

R = Number of distinct (unique) observations

V = Number of observations with “importance” votes

K = Number of links among observations

D = Divergence or “spread think” of importance votes

_________________________________

7 is the “Miller number” (7 ± 2) and

5 is the “Warfield spread think number”

Trends in Complexity Average Complexity of Issues Addressed with the Technology of Unassisted Democracy in the Athenian Agora (conjectured) = 3 Average Complexity in Situations that Collaboration Sponsors Identify as Wicked Problems = 30 Greatest Level of Complexity Calculated in a Modern Collaborative Planning Situation = 55 Orders of Magnitude Change

Average Complexity of Issues Addressed with the Technology of Unassisted Democracy in the Athenian Agora (conjectured) = 3

Average Complexity in Situations that Collaboration Sponsors Identify as Wicked Problems = 30

Greatest Level of Complexity Calculated in a Modern Collaborative Planning Situation = 55

Recognizing the Upfront Costs Benchmark estimates are that participatory planning will raise direct program costs by about 15% to 20% -- and will more than repay the investment through reduced error, attrition, delay & transaction costs during implementation The cost of creating a “ robust requirements definition ” -- often the most costly aspect of building a shared understanding of a complex problem -- can be reduced by 70% through the use software tools The buy-in to an action plan is deeper and more durable with a plan is collaboratively constructed and based on fully shared understandings Desired Impacts -- An ounce of Planning …

Benchmark estimates are that participatory planning will raise direct program costs by about 15% to 20% -- and will more than repay the investment through reduced error, attrition, delay & transaction costs during implementation

The cost of creating a “ robust requirements definition ” -- often the most costly aspect of building a shared understanding of a complex problem -- can be reduced by 70% through the use software tools

The buy-in to an action plan is deeper and more durable with a plan is collaboratively constructed and based on fully shared understandings

Validated Tools for Group Decision Making Consensus Methods Brainstorming Nominal Group Technique Simulation Participatory Action Research Alternative Futures & Scenarios Focus Groups Interpretive Structural Modeling Structured Dialogic Design

Structured Dialogic Design Assure a “level playing field” -- Guide participants to contribute with equal power to avoid “group think” Cultivate an environment for listening -- Allow participants who are desperate to speak opportunities to park ideas for discussion so that they are free to listen Apply a consistent, transparent process -- Use dialogue tools that promote iterative exploration , evolution of learning & emergence of consensus Essentials of the Practice

Assure a “level playing field” -- Guide participants to contribute with equal power to avoid “group think”

Cultivate an environment for listening -- Allow participants who are desperate to speak opportunities to park ideas for discussion so that they are free to listen

Apply a consistent, transparent process -- Use dialogue tools that promote iterative exploration , evolution of learning & emergence of consensus

The Formal Elements Behind Structured Dialogic Design 6 Laws of Effective Dialogue 4 Stages of Interactive Inquiry 7 Patterns of Symbolic Language 3 Axioms for Appropriate Focus 6 Methods for Consensus Background

6 Laws of Effective Dialogue

4 Stages of Interactive Inquiry

7 Patterns of Symbolic Language

3 Axioms for Appropriate Focus

6 Methods for Consensus

Six Laws of Effective Dialogue Requisite Variety ( Ashby ) Requisite Parsimony ( Miller, Warfield ) Requisite Saliency ( Boulding ) Requisite Meaning & Wisdom ( Peirce ) Requisite Authenticity & Autonomy ( Tsivacou ) Requisite Evolutionary Learning ( Dye ) Big Thinkers

Requisite Variety ( Ashby )

Requisite Parsimony ( Miller, Warfield )

Requisite Saliency ( Boulding )

Requisite Meaning & Wisdom ( Peirce )

Requisite Authenticity & Autonomy ( Tsivacou )

Requisite Evolutionary Learning ( Dye )

Four Stages of Interactive Inquiry Definition of the Problem Design of Alternatives Decision on Preferred Options Action Planning Sequencing Process Maps

Definition of the Problem

Design of Alternatives

Decision on Preferred Options

Action Planning Sequencing

Seven Patterns of Symbolic Language Elemental Observation Problematique Influence Tree Options Field Options Profile / Scenario Superposition Pattern Action Plan Pattern Talking Tools

Elemental Observation

Problematique

Influence Tree

Options Field

Options Profile / Scenario

Superposition Pattern

Action Plan Pattern

Three Axioms to Assure Focus 1) VARIETY: We need to pool perspectives to understand complex interconnections 2) PARSIMONY: Attention and cognition can become overloaded in group design so we need to focus and limit the complexity of the logical manipulations of elemental understandings 3) SALIENCY: Information is infinite but relevant information is finite, and we need to rely on an appropriate group’s collective judgment with respect to what is appropriate to include Basics

1) VARIETY: We need to pool perspectives to understand complex interconnections

2) PARSIMONY: Attention and cognition can become overloaded in group design so we need to focus and limit the complexity of the logical manipulations of elemental understandings

3) SALIENCY: Information is infinite but relevant information is finite, and we need to rely on an appropriate group’s collective judgment with respect to what is appropriate to include

Six Methods to Build Consensus Nominal Group Technique Interpretive Structural Modeling DELPHI Options Field Options Profile Trade-off Analysis Best of Class

Nominal Group Technique

Interpretive Structural Modeling

DELPHI

Options Field

Options Profile

Trade-off Analysis

The Mechanics of Structured Dialogic Design Before the Dialogue -- Define scope of inquiry and community of stakeholders Divergent Dialogue to Generate Lists -- Select a “ Triggering Question ” and launch open-ended responses with clarification of all issues (NGT method) Convergent Dialogue to Generate Structures -- Guide formation of affinity clusters of issues and pair-wise voting of relationships between issues (ISM method) Iterate as New Information Becomes Available -- Base action planning upon an exploration of the structure of the relationships among issues as defined by the group Key Elements

Before the Dialogue -- Define scope of inquiry and community of stakeholders

Divergent Dialogue to Generate Lists -- Select a “ Triggering Question ” and launch open-ended responses with clarification of all issues (NGT method)

Convergent Dialogue to Generate Structures -- Guide formation of affinity clusters of issues and pair-wise voting of relationships between issues (ISM method)

Iterate as New Information Becomes Available -- Base action planning upon an exploration of the structure of the relationships among issues as defined by the group

Requirements Statements before Classification Complex Design Situation Classification of Requirement Statements Influence Pattern Defining the Context for Action The Problem Situation Generate & Clarify the Requirements Cluster the Classes Structure the Relations

The Simple Power of Interpretive Structural Modeling “ Suppose we were able to make progress in addressing Factor X , will this SIGNIFICANTLY enhance our capacity to address Factor Y ? ” Software exists to support group work based on this simple structuring algorithm to generate a directional map of influence propagated across the entire SYSTEM of issues Collectively “vote” on the significance of a specified logical linkage between each pair of issues Core Process

“ Suppose we were able to make progress in addressing Factor X ,

will this SIGNIFICANTLY enhance our capacity to address Factor Y ? ”

Software exists to support group work based on this simple structuring algorithm to generate a directional map of influence propagated across the entire SYSTEM of issues

Representative Interpretive Structural Model

Representative Application of Structured Dialogic Design

During the 20th-century, systems scientists identified inherent human constraints to democratic dialogue Limited individual perspective within complex, multidimensional systems [ Ashby , 1958]. Each participant in a dialogue thinks and acts from a different perspective, within a multidimensional reality. Limited individual capacity for short-term processing of information [ Miller , 1956]. Individuals have an inherently limited short-term ability, in physiological and psychological terms, to process information.

Limited individual perspective within complex, multidimensional systems [ Ashby , 1958]. Each participant in a dialogue thinks and acts from a different perspective, within a multidimensional reality.

Limited individual capacity for short-term processing of information [ Miller , 1956]. Individuals have an inherently limited short-term ability, in physiological and psychological terms, to process information.

During the 20th-century, systems scientists identified inherent human constraints to democratic dialogue The unshakable cognitive burden imposed by human values of uneven quality that hinder human transformation [ Goudge on C.S. Peirce , 1969]. Each participant in a dialogue is often guided by conflicting values, which are deeply socialized during childhood or in the places they live and work.

The unshakable cognitive burden imposed by human values of uneven quality that hinder human transformation [ Goudge on C.S. Peirce , 1969]. Each participant in a dialogue is often guided by conflicting values, which are deeply socialized during childhood or in the places they live and work.

Diagrammatic Representation of Structured Dialogic Design

Conclusion: Shared Understanding is an Asset Creating an Agreement is Relatively Simple Creating an Understanding can be Genuinely Difficult Creating an Shared Understanding from within a Group is both Possible and Practical -- but only if Attempted with Proven Processes The Time to Create a Shared Understanding is Before Parties Make Commitments to an Agreement that they do not Fully Understand Organizations which can Create the Best Shared Understandings will have a Competitive Advantage Value Proposition

Creating an Agreement is Relatively Simple

Creating an Understanding can be Genuinely Difficult

Creating an Shared Understanding from within a Group is both Possible and Practical -- but only if Attempted with Proven Processes

The Time to Create a Shared Understanding is Before Parties Make Commitments to an Agreement that they do not Fully Understand

Organizations which can Create the Best Shared Understandings will have a Competitive Advantage

Consistent Logical Relationships While Structuring Ideas Provide a Consistent Framework for Making Pair-Wise Judgments among a set of Ideas Track Ideas which have been Compared Record the Comparison Made Between Ideas Prompt the Group to Make the Fewest Logical Comparisons Needed to Exhaustively Examine the Set of Ideas Provide a Graphic Summary of the Network of Relationships that the Group has Identified Among Ideas Features

While Structuring Ideas

Provide a Consistent Framework for Making Pair-Wise Judgments among a set of Ideas

Track Ideas which have been Compared

Record the Comparison Made Between Ideas

Prompt the Group to Make the Fewest Logical Comparisons Needed to Exhaustively Examine the Set of Ideas

Provide a Graphic Summary of the Network of Relationships that the Group has Identified Among Ideas

Explicit Deliverables EQUANIMITY Engage Stakeholders in Democratic Design which Respects their Cultural Autonomy through a Formal System Founded in Process Science SPEED Rapidly Harvest and Share a Comprehensive Set of Problem Definitions and Solution Options UTILITY Democratically Converge on an Action Plan with Strong Commitment to Support Implementation WISDOM Retain a Strong Image of the Context of the Design Constraints and the Leverage of the Action Plan COMFORT Capture Egalitarian Skill in Boundary-Spanning Problem Solving through Consensus Core Process

EQUANIMITY Engage Stakeholders in Democratic Design which Respects their Cultural Autonomy through a Formal System Founded in Process Science

SPEED Rapidly Harvest and Share a Comprehensive Set of Problem Definitions and Solution Options

UTILITY Democratically Converge on an Action Plan with Strong Commitment to Support Implementation

WISDOM Retain a Strong Image of the Context of the Design Constraints and the Leverage of the Action Plan

COMFORT Capture Egalitarian Skill in Boundary-Spanning Problem Solving through Consensus