A hyper-democratic process for harnessing the collective wisdom of the people

1. A hyper-democratic process for harnessing the collective wisdom of the people

2. “The science of dialogue is truly a science that enables people from all walks of life to become "systems thinkers." This is the sole rationale for its invention and evolution.” -Aleco Christakis

3. Six Principles of SDD 1. A diversity of points of view is essential when engaging stakeholders in a dialogue for defining and resolving a complex issue. 2. Dialogue must be structured so that participants are not overloaded with too much information at once. 3. Participants will understand the relative importance of their ideas only when they compare them with others in the group. 4. Participants become wiser about the meaning of their own ideas when they begin to understand how different peoples’ ideas relate. • Every person matters, so it is necessary to protect the autonomy and authenticity of every person’s observations. 6. The whole group learns and evolves as each participant sees how their ideas influence those of others.

4. We hear someone else’s idea and decide it’s better When engaged in dialogue we often think we have good (even great) ideas

5. SDD promotes deeper learning & ultimately better solutions In the process of getting the best ideas we learn humility…

6. APPLICATION STAGES OF THE CO-LABORATORY DIALOGUE Anticipating the System of Requirements ANTICIPATION EnhancementPattern Complex Situation Requirement Statements Before Classification Classification Of Requirement Statements

7. APPLICATION STAGES OF THE CO-LABORATORY DIALOGUE Anticipating the System of Requirements Wicked Problem ANTICIPATION EnhancementPattern Complex Situation Requirement Statements Before Classification Classification Of Requirement Statements

8. APPLICATION STAGES OF THE CO-LABORATORY DIALOGUE Anticipating the System of Requirements ANTICIPATION EnhancementPattern Complex Situation Requirement Statements Before Classification Classification Of Requirement Statements Many ideas generated in reaction to the triggering question

9. APPLICATION STAGES OF THE CO-LABORATORY DIALOGUE Anticipating the System of Requirements ANTICIPATION EnhancementPattern Complex Situation Requirement Statements Before Classification Classification Of Requirement Statements Organized according to similarities

10. APPLICATION STAGES OF THE CO-LABORATORY DIALOGUE Anticipating the System of Requirements ANTICIPATION EnhancementPattern Complex Situation Requirement Statements Before Classification Classification Of Requirement Statements Influence relationships determine likely leverage points

11. Getting Started

12. Discovery Phase

13. Discovery Phase

14. Discovery Phase

15. Discovery Phase

16. Discovery Phase

17. Design Phase

18. Archetype: Futures Creative • Transformational Stages: • Day 1: VISUALIZING THE IDEAL • Day 2: IDENTIFICATION OF BARRIERS • Day 3: IDENTIFICATION OF ACTIONS TO OVERCOME BARRIERS AND APPROXIMATE THE IDEAL • Each day is comprised of the components represented in the subsequent slides

19. Roles: Lead Facilitator • Must remain neutral • Protect the autonomy and authenticity of participants • Ensures everyone is an equal at the table (controlling inequitable power relations) • Sets the tone • Lays down the ground rules

20. Roles: Recorder • Capture ideas as they are formulated • Capture the dialogue as ideas are clarified (via remote transcription) • Post & distribute Co-Lab artifacts • Data entry

21. Roles: Software • Lessens the cognitive demands • Generates better designs • Increases the speed of the design process • Maintains participant-driven vs. expert-driven deliberations • Tracks logic expressed in participant pair-wise decisions • Generates visual displays of the outputs generated by participants

22. Content Production • Stakeholders/participants generate, clarify, and construct relational maps that represent their collective wisdom (they are considered to be the “content experts”) • Artifacts are produced, posted, and shared with stakeholders throughout

23. Stakeholders • Stakeholders are free to give total attention to the content • Context is already fixed • Process is being managed by the facilitation team • Ideas are generated in response to the triggering question without fear of censure or criticism • Their autonomy is respected and protected • Ultimately they have complete control over the content

24. Step 1: Idea Generation • Participants silently and independently generate ideas in response to the triggering question. • Focus on identifying requirements characterizing the situation - Save details and elaboration until later • Include only ONE idea in a single statement (Break complicated inequities into additional statements) Concise “bumper sticker” statements that capture the essence

25. Step 2: Clarification of Ideas You understand it when you can explain it. At this stage, the authenticity of the author is protected. Participants must understandthe author’s idea – they do not necessarily need to agree with it.

26. Step 3: Amendment & Naming of Clusters CATEGORY A (label) CATEGORY B (label) CATEGORY C (label) IDEA 54 IDEA 2 IDEA 25 IDEA 12 IDEA 65 IDEA 66 IDEA 32 IDEA 36

27. Step 4: Voting on Relative Importance In the context of THE TRIGGERING QUESTION, what do you believe to be the top five most important priorities?

28. “Erroneous Priorities Effect” • Issues with highest awareness or popularity among participants may not be those with the most influence on other inequities, often leading to erroneous priorities • Effective priorities emerge ONLY after evolutionary, democratic, and authentic inquiry of the interdependencies among the ideas– the next stage, influence mapping, minimizes the risk of erroneous priorities

29. Erroneous Priorities Effect

30. Step 5: Influence Mapping Generic Question: “Suppose we are able tomake progress in meeting: (Requirement - X) will this help SIGNIFICANTLY in meeting: (Requirement - Y) in the context of successful outcomes of the triggering question?”

31. INFLUENCE MAP (ROOT CAUSES # 63, & 3) IDEA 2 IDEA 11 LEVEL I LEVEL II LEVEL III LEVEL IV IDEA 8 IDEA 33 IDEA 57 IDEA 57 IDEA 9 IDEA 22 IDEA 13 IDEA 63 IDEA 3

32. Ideas at the deeper levels of the map are the leverage points. Arrows leading up to other ideas signify influence. Addressing these ideas are likely to have bigger impact on achieving the goal identified in the triggering question.

33. Step 6: Collaborative Action Plan • Stakeholders interactively design a Collaborative Action Plan (co-owned by them) through participation in the Structured Dialogue • The outputs are interpreted, analyzed, and evaluated in response to agreed-upon criteria

34. Conclusions/Advantages

35. Conclusions/Advantages of Structured Dialogue Honors diversity of perspectives while protecting the authenticity and autonomy of all stakeholders

36. Conclusions/Advantages of Structured Dialogue Honors diversity of perspectives while protecting the authenticity and autonomy of all stakeholders Establishes shared ownership of the wicked problem and enhances commitment to the collective action for implementation

37. Conclusions/Advantages of Structured Dialogue Honors diversity of perspectives while protecting the authenticity and autonomy of all stakeholders Establishes shared ownership of the wicked problem and enhances commitment to the collective action for implementation Avoids cognitive overload

38. Conclusions/Advantages of Structured Dialogue Honors diversity of perspectives while protecting the authenticity and autonomy of all stakeholders Establishes shared ownership of the wicked problem and enhances commitment to the collective action for implementation Avoids cognitive overload Minimizes the phenomenon of “Erroneous Priorities” through influence mapping & identification of leverage points

39. Appendices

40. Appendix A:

41. Appendix B:

42. Appendix C: Stakeholder Recruitment

43. Thank you.