decision structuring dialogue
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Decision Structuring Dialogue

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 21

Decision Structuring Dialogue - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 125 Views
  • Uploaded on

Decision Structuring Dialogue. Sebastian Slotte and Raimo P. Hämäläinen Systems Analysis Laboratory Aalto University School of Science. Dialogue in Decision Analysis. First phase of problem structuring is of vital importance

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Decision Structuring Dialogue' - myrna


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
decision structuring dialogue

Decision Structuring Dialogue

  • Sebastian Slotte and Raimo P. Hämäläinen
  • Systems Analysis Laboratory
  • Aalto University
  • School of Science
dialogue in decision analysis
Dialogue in Decision Analysis
  • First phase of problem structuring is of vital importance
  • Raiffa said that he totally missed the boat when he overlooked the non-mathematical underpinnings of a human decision
  • Need to develop a process to create a shared problem ownership and understanding in group decision making
  • Bridge Problem Structuring Methods (PSM) and DA
dialogue
Dialogue
  • A specific form of verbal interaction
  • Not negotiation or debate
  • Roots in ancient philosophy
  • Not a new concept within the context of problem structuring
  • Habermas’ theory of communicative action discussed in the Soft-OR
  • Must fulfill a set of qualitative criteria
debate
Debate
  • Method
  • advocacy
  • arguments against person
  • rhetorical asking and questioning
  • evidence in favor of ones own point of view and against opponents points of view
  • Goal
  • winning
  • being right
  • getting ones own view to be accepted

Intention

  • proving ones argument to be right
  • getting ones own view to be accepted
  • showing weaknesses in the opponents argumentation
negotiation
Negotiation
  • Intention
  • resolution
  • decision for action
  • deal
  • contract
  • Method
  • bargaining
  • showing strengths
  • pointing to weaknesses
  • counting
  • Goal
  • getting to yes
  • avoiding loosing
  • consensus or compromise
dialogue1
Dialogue
  • Intention
  • thinking and understanding together
  • wisdom
  • shared understanding
  • Method
  • inquiry
  • genuine asking and voicing
  • suspension of assumptions
  • listening
  • building on others ideas
  • co-creation of meaning
  • Goal
  • consensus on a common ground for action
  • determining where and if collaboration is possible
  • understanding and respecting differences
decision structuring dialogue1
Decision Structuring Dialogue
  • Systems intelligence perspective (Saarinen and Hämäläinen 2004, Hämäläinen and Saarinen 2008)
  • Facilitation and problem structuring creates a system which cannot be isolated from the problem and its context
  • Facilitator has to see herself as a part of the system
  • Group members active parts of the system
  • Creates a basis for: Avoiding conflicts, creating trust, help in framing, recognizing biases, avoiding group think
decision structuring dialogue dsd
Decision Structuring Dialogue (DSD)

Stage 1. Introduction of the dialogical skills and rules

Stage 2. Dialogue about the problem and formulation of

an initial question

Stage 3. Reformulation of the initial question.

Stage 4. Answers to the reformulated question.

Stage 5. Visioning of the ideal big picture

Stage 6. Dialogue on future measures

the system of group decision making
The System of Group Decision Making
  • The process starts early already when the stakeholders are contacted
  • Facilitator works from within the system
  • Decision Structuring Dialogue aims at surfacing
    • values, beliefs
    • priorities
    • facts, points of view
    • constraints and consequences
dialogical skills of facilitator stage 1
Dialogical Skills of Facilitator – Stage 1
  • Process: listening, inquiry, thinking together, suspension of judgment and appropriate voicing of everybody
  • Facilitator refrains from taking any stance concerning the content of the dialogue
  • Makes sure that everyone has a say
  • Makes notes of statements, concepts and problems
rules of dialogue stage 1
Rules of Dialogue – Stage 1
  • Arguments directed against another participant’s personality are forbidden

Especially important in conflict situations

  • Speak from experience

When a participant speaks from her own experience she is not making a general judgement

  • Do not appeal to external authorities such as reports or experts
  • Refrain from advocating
  • Do not weight opinions
slide13

Rules of Dialogue – Stage 1

  • Show genuine interest
  • Express your doubts
    • Prevents groupthink
  • Inquire together
    • Building on each others’ ideas as a group
  • No debating
  • No decisions
  • Framing the situation in a way that is acceptable to all the participants
initial question stage 2
Initial Question – Stage 2

DSD starts with a topic that all participants consider to be important in light of the problem at hand

Examples:

  • What are the good aspects of the problem or the situation?
  • What would co-operation be like?
  • In which aspects of the problem is consensus possible?
  • How can we make better decisions in this situation?
  • What should the situation look like after some months?

Each participant tells a story based on personal experience about the problem or decision

Stage 3: Reformulation of the question

stages 4 6
Stages 4 - 6

Stage 4: Suggest answers to the reformulated question

  • Building mutual understanding and trust

Stage 5: Visioning

    • Each participant expresses his or her view of an ideal situation or solution
    • The situation will encourage the participants to ask clarifications and give comments

Stage 6: Participants can discuss if and how the dialogue should affect the following decision workshop/conference

Group is working together

decision structuring dialogue in environmental conflicts
Decision Structuring Dialogue in Environmental Conflicts
  • Environmental issues and problems are increasingly important and the risk of conflict is often high
  • Decision analysis approaches have been of great help
  • Clear need to develop the participation process
  • Problem structuring phase is often crucial
  • Avoidance of the escalation of conflicts
slide18

DSD in the Lake Kemijärvi Case

  • Initial question (stage 2):
  • What is good mutual understanding?
  • Reformulation of the initial question (stage 3):
  • What is mutual understanding?
  • Participants commit to co-operation
  • Answers (stage 4):
  • Better interaction
  • Acknowledging also other than power interests
  • Improve grass roots level participation …
slide19

Visioning the Ideal Big Picture (stage 5)

  • Main result: Consensus is not to be reached only by changes related directly to the regulation.
  • Improvement of communication, public participation and collaboration is crucial
  • Created a new frame
  • Some of the stakeholders who had previously wanted fundamental changes in the water level expressed that there are strong power production, flood protection, and employment reasons that support the current regulation practice
summary
Summary
  • Participants agreed that Decision Structuring Dialogue enhances respect of and listening to different points of view
  • Dialogue brought a new problem frame to the participants’ attention
  • DSD creates a fruitful starting point for decision analysis
  • Needs to be introduced early before any other problem solving takes place
  • DSD useful when risk of conflict is high
references and links
References and links

Systems Intelligence Research Group

www.systemsintelligence.tkk.fi/

References:

E. Saarinen and R.P. Hämäläinen: Systems Intelligence: Connecting Engineering Thinking with Human Sensitivity R. P. Hämäläinen, E. Saarinen (eds.): Systems Intelligence - Discovering a Hidden Competence in Human Action and Organizational Life, Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports A88, October 2004, 9-37.

R.P. Hämäläinen and E. Saarinen, (eds.): Systems Intelligence - A New Lens on Human Engagement and Action Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory, August, 2008.

P. Siitonen and R.P. Hämäläinen: From Conflict Management to Systems Intelligence in Forest Conservation Decision Making R. P. Hämäläinen, E. Saarinen (eds.): Systems Intelligence - Discovering a Hidden Competence in Human Action and Organizational Life, Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports A88, October 2004, 199-214.

ad