This document discusses structured dialogic design (SDD) as a methodology for facilitating large group collaboration and decision making around complex problems. It outlines some key challenges with large group work, including complexity, lack of shared understanding, and limited cognitive abilities. SDD provides a structured process and graphic tools to help large groups unpack complexity, build shared understanding, and make informed decisions through techniques like clustering observations, identifying influence relationships, and developing action plans. The document includes examples of SDD being used to address barriers to public participation in broadband access.
PAIN CONSULT workshop address large problems through collaboration
1. PAIN CONSULT Concept design workshop Tom Flanagan Chair, Board of Directors Institute for 21 st Century Agoras We must learn to work together in large groups So that we can begin solving large problems Structured Dialogic Design SM January 1, 2010
2. Recall you experiences within large groups The more essential it is for a group to share significant resources and work together, the harder it is to get the group to agree upon a joint action plan. We work together in large groups only when we must.
3. Drivers of Large Group Collaborative Planning Businesses No Longer Compete: Business strategists argue that with the decentralization of business structures and with the emergence of complex supply and distribution networks, individual businesses are not the unit of competition. Competition is now among entire supply and distribution webs. Without our business partners, we cannot sustain our competitive position within our markets. Business Cultures Converge : Many service industries are experiencing consolidation (e.g., healthcare, banking, retail, etc.). When two or more independent business cultures come together, the forced collaboration either leads to success or to failure. Innovation Occurs at the Margins : It is often the capacity to see our situation differently that leads to new ways of thinking through our barriers. Sharing different perspectives leads to creative breakthroughs. Finding the root causes of complex civic problems requires reaching across silos. No Individual Can See the Big Picture : With truly complex problems, we cannot see enough to plan with confidence and inspire confidence in others because we cannot see into the intentions of others who will be responding even as we seek to implement our response.
4.
5. Source: Max Hardy, Twyford Consulting Leaders and large groups frequently distrust each other
6. " I would not give a whit for the simplicity this side of complexity ( a simple approach ), but I would give my life for the simplicity on the far side of complexity ( a simple resolution )." O. W. Holmes Large groups are OK for broadcasting. Explaining, training, motivating, and idea harvesting Large groups do not resolve complexity well. Design and decision making Leaders frequently lack skills for coaching large groups
7.
8.
9. “ Sponsors are rarely willing to invest adequate time in building firm foundations for their teams at the start of a project. But they are often willing to start over when the project fails .” Unknown Author How Do Groups Handle Complexity ? POORLY
17. The Talking Point: Creating Environments for Exploring Complex Meaning Thomas R. Flanagan & Alexander N. Christakis Information Age / January 2010 The Talking Point
18. How People Harness their Collective Wisdom & Power to Construct the Future in Co-Laboratories of Democracy Alexander N. Christakis & Kenneth C Bausch Information Age / February 2006 Co-Laboratories of Democracy
19. Graphic by KMC Dye Global sites where SDD has been used
20.
21. Level I Level II Level III Level IV Deep Driver Trend No-influence Trend The example shown above is an INFLUENCE structure demonstrates the direction of plausible influence demonstrates a contingent pathway Trends & Contingencies (red) Contingency An SDD Influence Map
22. Complex Situation Articulate Observations Cluster Inductively Frame and Focus on a Triggering Question ? Develop Shared Language Vote & Rank Structure Abductively Evaluate Cross-Impact Interpret Learning Class Label Type A Type C Type B Influence Steps in Each Stage of SDD Inquiry Clarify Meaning
23. AN EXAMPLE __ Participation in the Broadband Society A systemic evaluation of obstacles preventing the wider public benefiting from and participating in the broadband society Yiannis LAOURIS 1 , Marios MICHAELIDES 2 , Bartolomeo SAPIO 3 1 Cyprus Neuroscience & Technology Institute, Cyprus [email_address] 2 Cyprus Intercultural Training Initiative, Cyprus [email_address] 3 Fondazione Ugo Bordoni , Italy [email_address] THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UNEXPECTED The user and the future of information and communication technologies A trans-disciplinary conference organised by COST Action 298 Moscow, Russian Federation 23 rd -25 th May 2007
25. “ What are the obstacles to the wider public benefiting from and participating in the broadband society ? ” Triggering Question AN EXAMPLE __ Participation in the Broadband Society
26.
27. # Factor 42 POVERTY IN THE NEW CENTRAL AND EASTERN EU COUNTRIES 43 LACK OF SELF CONFIDENCE IN MASTERING THE TECHNOLOGY 44 TOO MUCH TIME CONSUMING AND RISK OF ADDICTION 45 MORAL PANIC REGARDING THE INTERNET 46 INERTIA 47 LACK OF USER FRIENDLINESS 48 POOR INTERFACE DESIGN 49 FEAR OF TECHNOMAFIA 50 LACK OF SOFTWARE DESIGN CAPACITY 51 DIFICULTIES TO CHOOSE BETWEEN SERVICE PACKAGES 52 FEAR OF BEING WATCHED BY THE BIG EYE 53 SHORTERM NATIONAL POLITICAL DECISIONS 54 FRUSTRATION BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF RELIABILITY OF THE CONTENT 55 SNOBISM 56 NOT HAVING A COMPUTER 57 TELECOM FOCUSING ON 3G, WHEREAS PEOPLE ON WIFI 58 NON USE AS A DELIBERATE LIFESTYLE 59 AGE 60 LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF ADVANTAGES 61 PREDICTABLE MALE DOMINATION AMONG USERS 62 FRAGILITY OF IT SYSTEMS 63 TECHNOLOGICAL DETERMINISM 64 LACK OF CONSENSUS TO FIGHT AGAINST TECHNOLOGICAL DOMINATION 65 BAD SOFTWARE DESIGN 66 LACK OF ORGANIZATION OF PROMOTION ACTIVITIES 67 SPAM 68 TECHNOLOGY PUSHED SERVICES 69 SLOW ABSORBTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES WITHIN ORGANIZATIONS 70 VIRUSES 71 INTERFERENCE OF HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS 72 LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE NEED TO DEFINE THE DIGITAL CITIZENS RIGHTS 73 VIABILITY OF EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES 74 LACK OF STANDARTIZATION OF QUALITY ISSUES 75 IVORY TOWER OF HUMANIST SOCIOLOGISTS 76 LACK OF INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN SYSTEMS 77 OTHER PREFERENCES EG. SPORTS, TV, ETC 78 LACK OF OPEN DESIGN INTERFACES 79 NEOPHOBIA, THE FEAR OF THE NEW 80 BAD SPAM FILTERS 81 FEAR OF GLOBALIZATION 82 ETHICS
28. Clustering of the 82 factors in 11 categories AN EXAMPLE __ Participation in the Broadband Society
29. 5 votes per participant: 5x26 for 82 factors AN EXAMPLE __ Participation in the Broadband Society
30. 11 highly preferred factors were structured AN EXAMPLE __ Participation in the Broadband Society
31. Factors 30: The inadequate public promotion of its importance Factor 47: The lack of user friendliness These are the obstacles, which must be addressed with priority. Their resolution will significantly help address all other obstacles. The group focused efforts on the 2 deepest drivers AN EXAMPLE __ Participation in the Broadband Society
32.
33. SDD is not “just” for large groups Keep meetings focused Stop recycling issues Clearly identify objectives Confidently explain our decisions Quantify risk Prioritize objectives Encourage consensus Collect and organize ideas Collaborate effectively Hold fewer meetings Capture our knowledge Slide from Steve Mack, Decision Management Group
34. To get more information on this topic http://www.globalagoras.com/
35. Tom Flanagan, Ph.D., MBA Director, South Coast Community Collaborative Design Studio ><((((º>·..¸¸·´¯`·.><(((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·..¸¸><((((º> .·´¯`·..><(((º>.·´¯`·..><(((º> "Discussions as usual can lead to no more than business as usual" South Coast Community Collaborative Design Studio is a project of the Community Foundation of Southeastern Massachusetts. Our mission is to build community capacity through the use of advanced collaborative design practices. We are a resource for multi-organization planning and not a direct source of funds. VOICE: 508-264-0066 EMAIL: TRFlanagan@aol.com WEBSITE: http://socodesign.wetpaint.com/ SKYPE: SoCoDesign THE TALKING POINT http://www.infoagepub.com/products/The-Talking-Point Thank You !!
Editor's Notes
What usually happens? Even with facilitation … Group discussion wanders Those with power use it to settle differences Iterative discussions take hours, even weeks Group work products of uneven quality or usefulness; No standard meaningful output Not democratic : Experts settle the issues they “own,” relieving burden of learning Not participatory : True diverse stakeholder sessions are rare, “customers” have no say
http://www.turningpointprogram.org/toolkit/pdf/Fund_Concepts_Slides.ppt http://www.collaborativejustice.org/how.htm The Relationship Between Collaboration and Teamwork The focus of this Web site is on working together. Too often the problems we face are not reflections of a lack of knowledge or skill, but rather, a lack of understanding of the true nature of the problem to be addressed, and the resources at our disposal. Sometimes the necessary knowledge or resources rests with another—perhaps an individual, agency, or even a community—that could be mobilized in an effective way. But generally we fall short of identifying our assets, and even when we do know what their potential is, we have difficulty marshalling them in an effective way. The information and tools that follow, therefore, are designed to help individuals and teams to understand clearly the work they are engaged in: the outcomes they seek, the values that guide them; the partnerships that will make success possible; the structures and methodologies that hold the greatest possibility for success; and the management of the relationships that are key to making the endeavor possible.
THIS GRAPHIC IS FROM: Dr Lyn Carson Government & International Relations University of Sydney May 2007 www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/.../exploring-powerful-engagement-methods.ppt
During the 20th-century, systems scientists identified inherent human constraints to democratic dialogue Limited individual perspective within complex, multidimensional systems [ Ashby , 1958]. Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety. &quot;The control variety available in a situation must equal or exceed the system-generated variety.&quot; 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. 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.
Structured dialogic design shares many of the benefits of more familiar processes and avoids one of their key shortfalls. Everyone works with groups to help groups construct lists and forge some agreement on what they feel is important. Our empirical research has shown that when groups are guided to a collective decision, they are almost universally wrong when they first set their priorities. We call this erroneous priorities . The reason that we are able to make this statement is because we have tested group preferences when they vote for priorities in an unstructured list, and then also when they have had the opportunity to build a structure from that list. Our breakthrough is that we provide a means for folks to connect the dots and capture new insights about what is really most important. Some are familiar with this as a systems view. Very few folks are currently even attempting to construct systems views with live audiences, and of those who are trying this far fewer can actually do this well. Our sweet spot is in guiding a discussion so that groups are prepared to co-create a systems view , and then allowing them to consider that view BEFORE they set priorities. We save time, resources, and group confidence by helping groups set their priorities with authentic systems thinking. We are unique in this way.
Whenever stakeholder observations are interdependent , assigning priorities by aggregating individual “importance votes” leads to erroneous priorities & ineffective actions.
GOALS: To create a shared understanding regarding the obstacles that prevent the general public exploit. To build commitment within the COST 298 community to an action agenda for collaboratively addressing the ‘system of obstacles To serve as a model for other European networks working on complex problems
Individuals think quickly. Groups think slowly. Special consideration is needed so that rapid-thinkers do not divide the group. A “triggering question” helps groups retain their focus during extended deliberation.