e-Deliberation General Presentation
•
0 j'aime•566 vues
This is a general PowerPoint presentation describing where e-Deliberation™ fits in the tool set of senior executives and change managers to create broad-based support for their strategies, indeed, to involve the broad-base of stakeholders and people who care, including employees and the supply chain in the formation of these strategies. Further it describes the innovation of the e-Deliberation™ process. e-Deliberation™ is the only web-based collaborative deliberation process that enables teams of 15 to 80 persons to a) attack a problem situation, a challenge or a goal from several complementary angles at the same time b) ensure that each of these angles of resolution are integrated, consistent one with another, and garner the consent and support of the participant group. c) develop a critical mass of support for the strategy using consent-based decision-making. Note: Many of the slides have presenter notes which provide more depth to the interested reader. These notes can be viewed below, in the tab entitled "Notes on Slide XX" next to the comment entry space.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Dernier
Dernier (20)
En vedette
En vedette (20)
e-Deliberation General Presentation
- 1. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 1 Introducing e-Deliberation™ Solving the Problem of Strategic Planning with Collaborative Deliberation Jean-Daniel Cusin Chief Solutions Architect e-Deliberation Inc. ©e-Deliberation.com
- 2. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 3e-Deliberation: When You Need It Checklist to validate that a situation warrants using e-Deliberation™ to address it* * If any two of the above are true, e-Deliberation is the most effective medium of collaborative deliberation. When Your Situation/Goal/Context: Concerns several stakeholder groups Cannot be solved using a deterministic algorithm or proven recipe; no “silver bullet” More than 10 persons will be affected by the decision and imposing it will not work Requires the buy-in of a certain number persons for any proposed changes Participants cannot free up their agenda or travel to a central location for a conference Requires a strategic thinking process to help participants converge to an agreed-upon set of solutions Has several intertwined aspects to it which cannot be looked at independently of the others Requires the input of a number of different types of experts working together in tandem Participants have access to the Internet ©e-Deliberation.com
- 3. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 4The Problem of Strategic Planning & Collaborative Deliberation The Problem How Addressed Today e-Deliberation™ Get busy people together Consider all needed aspects Bridge silos Flesh out an effective strategy Get buy-in The challenges of strategic planning and collaborative deliberation ©e-Deliberation.com
- 4. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 5 The Problem How Addressed Today e-Deliberation™ Get busy people together Conference call (shallow) Do a Retreat ($$$, time & priority conflicts ) Consider all needed aspects Convene the few critical people Use Robert’s Rules of Order Bridge silos Convene the critical few Flesh out an effective strategy Dependant on the facilitator (variable & situational – not robust) One focus predominates (partial) Get buy-in Presentations (Passive) Top-down (Enforced) The Problem of Strategic Planning & Collaborative Deliberation ©e-Deliberation.com
- 5. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 6 Issue How Addressed Today e-Deliberation™ / Benefits Get busy people together Conference call (shallow) Retreat ($$$, time & priority conflicts ) On-line, sync & asynchronous No travel required Low cost, flexible Easy to schedule Consider all needed aspects Convene the few critical people Use Robert’s Rules of Order From 15 up to 80 people Active participation, w/metrics Exclude no-one Consider all aspects Bridge silos Convene the critical few Invite everyone, or a deep slice Access to needed expertise Flesh out an effective strategy Dependant on the facilitator (variable & situational – not robust) One focus predominates (partial) Multiple strategy vectors developed in integration Proven high-variety process Visual, multiple feedback loops Tough situations are addressed from all aspects Feasible, real outcomes A repeatable process Get buy-in Presentations (Passive) Top-down (Enforced) Consent-based engagement Committed critical mass High probability of success in strategy implementation Solving The Problem of Strategic Planning with Collaborative Deliberation ©e-Deliberation.com
- 6. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 7Benefits of e-Deliberation™ ©e-Deliberation.com
- 7. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 8 The e-Deliberation™ protocol uses divergent/convergent thinking modes, multiple feedback mechanisms and a multifaceted strategy development process. It ensures a high variety of ideas and concerns flow through to a sustainable and consent-based resolution. It can be used for both online and co- located participants and it yields a multifaceted, integrated strategy. Has a process variant for every type of collaboration needed. Click here for more details. The e-Deliberation™ Collaboration platform ©e-Deliberation.com
- 8. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 9 Process Variant Description Get Feedback Get feedback from people about a project, a policy, a plan, or a strategy. Get Proposed Orientations Ask people for agenda items or what to do about a certain issue or challenge. Establish Expedited Priorities Quickly decide as a team which priorities should be tackled first. Establish and Assign Expedited Priorities As a team, zero in on which priorities should be tackled first, and assign teams to make them happen. Establish Priorities As a team, assess current conditions/ situation and then set priorities. Expedited Collaborative Deliberation (Single Wave) As a team, develop a multifaceted strategy to address a complex issue/challenge and draft the what & how for each spoke. Collaborative Deliberation (Two Wave) As a team, develop a multifaceted strategy, draft the what & how for each spoke in a first iteration, review the whole and fine tune in a second iteration. Collaborative Deliberation (Three Wave) As a team, develop a multifaceted strategy, draft the what & how for each spoke in a first iteration, review the whole and fine tune over two more iterations to achieve full support for the strategy. Click here for more details. Choose The e-Deliberation™ Process Variant For The Collaboration Outcome You Want. ©e-Deliberation.com
- 9. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 10 How e-Deliberation compares to other online participation tools e-Deliberation™ Engagement Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower Increasing Degree of Participant Engagement IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum Categories IncreasingDegreeofParticipantContentSharing e-Deliberation Thoughtstream Mindmixe r Dialogue App, Crowdbrite Change By UsPlaceSpeak, PublicForums Citizen Participation Suite Budget Simulator, Citizen Space, Engaging Plans, Ideascale, Metroquest, Open Town Hall ©e-Deliberation.com
- 10. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 11The User Interface The following slides illustrate some of the main steps of the process. ©e-Deliberation.com
- 11. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 12 Users are invited or self-select (public events) to join Public View of Event Information Members of the public can be invited via hyperlinks to find out about the event and to sign up.The Event Promoter can format the presentation of the event any way desired, including pictures and videos. Besides the Event Focus, Description, Impact Statement, the user also sees related Keywords, who are the Stakeholder Groups invited and the geographical Region impacted or targeted by this Event. ©e-Deliberation.com
- 12. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 13User Invitations & Briefing Users are invited or self-select (public events) to join Private events are by invitation only For Public events, Registered Users click here to sign-up. Collapsible texts provide context of e-Deliberation event. User briefing materials are available based on what phase the event is in. For public events, users can comment and make suggestions to improve the focus of the event. ©e-Deliberation.com
- 13. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 14Participant Introductions & Briefing Participants are invited to introduce themselves, upload Submissions and make suggestions to improve the Focus of the event User clicks here to expand briefing instructions for the current phase User clicks on any of these to see the Event details and schedule. Participant can offer suggestions to improve event Focus. Participant community introductions and interactions Participants can upload Submissions to inform the deliberations. ©e-Deliberation.com
- 14. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 15Perspectives Phase Participants brainstorm a backdrop of ideas about the Focus, and its problem & solution space Example of expanded Participant briefing Instructions for current phase. User clicks here to add a new brainstorming idea. Brainstormed ideas, with keywords. ©e-Deliberation.com
- 15. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 16Topic Jostle - Provocative Propositions Phase Participants propose provocative topics worthy of deliberation regarding the Focus Participant clicks here to propose a new topic. Participant clicks here to endorse topics they feel have merit. Materials generated in previous phases are always accessible in this Reference section. ©e-Deliberation.com
- 16. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 17Topic Jostle – Preference Poll Phase Participants individually rank the endorsed topics according to how relevant or worthy they are of further deliberation. The topics that did not obtain sufficient endorsements are list below and are not included in poll. Each Participant star-rates each topic to indicate how important they believe it is to include it for further deliberation. ©e-Deliberation.com
- 17. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 18Topic Jostle – Assignment Poll Phase Participants use this poll to indicate which topics they would prefer to be assigned to work on in Topic Teams. Colors are automatically assigned to Topic Teams to simplify identification. Note the Phase-specific briefing notes which Participants can use to improve the quality of their participation. Participants indicate which topics they would prefer to work on by giving these more stars. ©e-Deliberation.com
- 18. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 19Topic Jostle – Inclusion Forum Phase Participants review the Perspectives brainstorm and the non-prioritized topics to see if these contain ideas that should be used to enrich the selected topics. They make suggestions to each of the Topic Teams as input to their deliberations. Participants suggest ideas that should be brought forward from past Phases to the Topic Teams. Participants have access to information about previous phases here. ©e-Deliberation.com
- 19. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 20Outcome Resolve Waves (3) In Topic Teams Working in Topic Teams, participants collaborate synchronously and/or asynchronously to exchange ideas and positions to adopt regarding the Topic in support of achieving the Focus of the event. The conclusions are written up by each Team in a draft Outcome Resolve document. Instant Messaging with other Participants of this Topic Team. This interactive mindmap refreshes to show new ideas posted by fellow Participants. Access to the data from past Phases and feedback from Wave Polls. ©e-Deliberation.com
- 20. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 21Outcome Resolve Wave Polls (3) At the end of each Wave, each Team’s draft Outcome Resolve is presented to each Participant for review and feedback. Consent (two stars) versus dissent (one star) star-rating. Where the Participant enters their feedback. ©e-Deliberation.com
- 21. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 22Nurturing Participant Collaboration Participants • Schedule their daily participation to dovetail with their rest of life priorities • Work with a defined number of other participants over a predefined period of time, with clear goals, deliverables and process • Give their opinions and feedback at multiple points in the process • Gain influence based on the power of their ideas • Work individually, in sub-teams and in whole group according to the phase • Take on some responsibility for teamwork when in sub-teams • Get emails when each phase starts and when it is wrapping up • Get “reputation points” for their contributions (posts, comments, polls, star-rates) and for receiving star-rates from others • Can see others’ Reputation Points and when they last showed up • Attendance is tracked by a Project Manager. S/He can also bar disruptive users from the event if necessary ©e-Deliberation.com
- 22. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 23 ᵷᵷᵷᵷᵷᵷ Servers based in Montreal, Quebec, Canada in a world class world class infrastructure offers state-of-the-art redundant systems that assure power availability, temperature and humidity control and security. Operations head quarters in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada All data traffic encrypted 256 bit High Grade (Camellia-256) Site certified by Geotrust Contact: inquiry@e-Deliberation.com About e-Deliberation™ ©e-Deliberation.com
- 23. A Meeting of the Minds e-Deliberation™ : A Decidedly Better Way to Solve Complex Business Problems With Your Team 24 e-Deliberation™ is a web-based adaptation of Stafford Beer’s Team Syntegrity protocol. Mapping The e-Deliberation Process To Team Syntegrity ©e-Deliberation.com
Notes de l'éditeur
- V 3.1
- This slide identifies the general use case for e-Deliberation. Situations, problems, challenges that look like this need e-Deliberation.e-Deliberation is the only process easily available to support teams deal with complex or multifaceted situations.The main issue with all of these points is complexity. No other process besides e-Deliberation offers a robust capability to deal with massive complexity to yield a usable strategy that has the explicit consent of all the participants.
- Note: this is the first of a series of 3 slides which zero in on the problem, how it is traditionally managed, and what e-Deliberation brings to the table, and the associated benefits.The Problem column: Notes Get busy people togetherThe “right” people to invite are usually the busiest because of their other responsibilitiesMeetings have to be planned long in advanceSchedule constraints tend to move meetings so far out in advance that they risk losing their relevance for time critical or strategic directionConsider all needed aspects/perspectivesIf insufficient or polarized perspectives are brought to bear on strategic decisions, the outcomes will be partial and risk being a failure, they will cause a lot of people to become disenfranchised (their reality was not acknowledged).The entire problem space needs to be “in mind” when looking for strategic solutionsThe entire solution space must be available to find the “best fit” solution that will generate support and best address the challenge.Bridge silos (of expertise, or organizational structure, etc.)Complex problems are complex because they tend toBridge across multiple areas of expertise and their respective terminologies and conceptsCannot be solved using a pre-determined algorithmThese multiple types of expertise and knowledge need to be “in the room” when trying to solve such problems.To fully understand the problem spaceTo underwrite the outcomes of the deliberation and ensure the strategy worksFlesh out an effective strategyThe results of the meeting arise from the interaction between peopleIn a face to face context, the interaction is constrained by biological needsIn a meeting with 10 people, only 1 person, or 10% of the team, can speak at a time (90% loss of efficiency)The more verbose extroverts and organizational hierarchy tend to dominate. Problems this causes:Extroversion does not necessarily correlate with intelligence or wisdomThe nature of organization is to filter out a lot of information from outside the organization on its way up the hierarchy, so not all the information is tabledThe input from less politically powerful and more expert persons is lostBody language is relied on to communicate some of the information, which introduces innuendo, a loss of clarity, and polarization of those “in the know”Get buy-inWhen decisions are enforced top down, the quiet resistance of the lower ranks will sabotage the best of strategiesBuy-in happens when what is proposed corresponds to people’s self-interest. In order to create a bias for action to implement the strategy, a critical mass of persons must be “on board” to act as a leaven in the organization.If there is no buy-in from the persons who are to be impacted by a decision, this decision becomes an imposition which stratifies the organization in an “us versus them” politic, and undermines the effectiveness of the organization.
- How Addressed Today column: Notes Conference CallSuffers from the same biological constraints of a face to face meetingAlso retains some of the difficulty of scheduling everyone to the same timeVisual artifacts to support the conversation are less usable, which undermines the effectiveness of the call in terms of making progressRetreatVery costly and time consuming in terms of logistics, hosting, travel : a 3 day retreat cost $2-6K per attendee with about a quarter of the total time away spent in meeting timeWhile away, other work and family needs and priorities tend to be put on hold or be delayed.While getting together offsite has good team building advantages, retreats happen too infrequently to be depended upon for the creation of team cohesion.Convene the critical few Invites bandwidth issues and rarefied variety: The critical few are usually the managers who have a broad yet shallow depth of understanding of both the problem space as well as the solution space.Leads to assumptions that remain unverified and unchallengedDiminishes conflict and so curtails the search for new ground in understanding, leads to blind collusionUndermines buy-in from those impacted by the decisions but who were excludedUse Robert’s Rule of OrderBasically to manage the biological constraint of only having one person talk at a time, and yet to make sure there is progress against the purpose of the meeting. The tradeoff is that this suppresses much of the variety of ideas and concepts that could be brought to bear onto the problem. The Rules of Order constrain:The sequence of speakersTheir frequency of contributionThe number of solution pathways that can be explored at any one timeDependant on the facilitatorSome are good, some aren’tThe facilitation, while necessary, consumes precious meeting time and may be quite arbitrary in its application (process and in-progress decisions)Adds to the cost – typically one facilitator per 10-12 persons, max.One focus predominates (partial)“Partial” because the conversation can only successfully follow a single track at a time, that track will dominate the solution space, at the expense of other potential rich complementary or alternative tracks that could also have been considered.Other complementary or even better tracks will be ignored or avoided to simplify the conversationPresentationsIn meeting presentations Push information from the presenter to the others, who tend to be passiveStifles the variety of ideas tabled – the presenter gets the focusPost meeting presentationsPresent others with a fait-accompli: disenfranchises people and their passionsDo not substitute adequately for active participation in the thinking processUndermines the leadership/presenter when the situation assessment and the solution offered inadequately portrays the reality of the situation.Top DownTop-down enforcement does not constitute buy-inIt disenfranchises the “bottoms” and takes away their capacity to own, to care for and to engage with the proposed strategy.
- e-Deliberation column: Notes On-line, sync & asynchronousAn e-Deliberation event has a specific focus or goal, and follows a predetermined schedule of steps in a collaborative deliberation process to achieve it.People meet online, and commit to participate a certain amount of time every day within the constraints of the rest of their life commitments and priorities. The interaction can be direct or differed – the site keeps the threads of the conversations aliveThe process is self documentingPeople can choose from an additional variety of modes of interaction such as face to face, skype, oovoo, conference call, instant messaging, email, etc.No travel, commit to 1-2 hrs/dayParticipation in the e-Deliberation event can be full-time or be as little as one hour per day over a longer period.Participants are briefed at every step about what is expected of them, and how to do it, and by when it must be completed.They can attend from wherever they are, when it fits their schedule, with no travel overhead.15 – 80 people, active participation.The optimum group size is about 30-35 persons, but the process can support between 15 and 80 persons in a given e-Deliberation event.The group works together in plenary sessions, as well as in smaller teams.Participants are assigned to these teams based on their interest in the team topic as well as to ensure every person is connected with every other person either directly or one person removed. This reinforces the flow and integration of ideas.Everyone can be active simultaneously – reading what others have shared, contributing their own thoughts, voting, etc.Visual, multiple feedback loopsEnsure that important ideas reverberate throughout participant deliberations based on their merit and usefulness.Consent-based feedback moves the strategies in the direction of full group consent and approval from everyone.Feedback polls occur regularly to assess support for draft proposals to help align subsequent drafts.Team interaction and effectiveness is also evaluated and fed back with suggestions to improve same.Invite everyone, or a deep sliceWith the capacity of hosting up to 80 persons, it is possible to invite all the stakeholders who care or will be affected by the outcomes of the e-Deliberation event.If there are more than 80 stakeholders, a deep slice selection of participants across all departments/sectors and at all levels of the organization is still possible. Everyone else can be signed up as a Follower.Alternatively, several e-Deliberation events can be scheduled in parallel to include everyone, and then, a further event to consolidate the outcomes of the first events. Multiple strategy vectors developed in integration The outcome of an e-Deliberation event is a strategy that is developed along several complementary vectors. Each vector is called an Outcome Resolve.The feedback loops in the process ensure that the various Outcome Resolves do not overlap and are consistent with one another.Proven high-variety processe-Deliberation was developed based on the work of Stafford Beer, a renown cyberneticist. He developed Team Syntegrity, a face to face method of collaborative deliberation. It required a 4-5 day retreat and 5 facilitators. e-Deliberation is the online version. The facilitation is built into the site as an evolving interface to support the task at hand and in the form of work flows and automatic reminders. As well, an event Project Manager and the site Facilitators work together to procure a smooth experience to the participants.Consent-based engagementConsent means there are no argued and paramount objectionto a proposed decision. All participants are invited to give their consent to the Outcome Resolves, or to provide a paramount objection if they cannot give their consent.A Paramount Objection is one which is of overriding importance. Argued means that it is articulated in terms that can be understand by the group. A consent-based decision is not a consensus – a consensus amounts giving a veto to any individual – it is where no-one gets hurt and it achieves the purpose of the decision. Critical mass committed to the success of the strategyWhen several dozen participants consent to collaboratively deliberated decision or strategy, this creates a powerful force for change, and a deeply felt collaborative group energy.The expectation of the participants, after having invested several hours online agreeing to a strategy, is that it will not go to the waste of inaction.
- The benefits of e-Deliberation accrue on multiple levels, are complementary and form a bias to getting things done.
- e-Deliberation Process Summarye-Deliberation FocusThe goal or target of the e-Deliberation event: what it is we are trying to achieve.PerspectivesThe purpose of this first phase is to do an unrestricted brainstorm of ideas about the e‑Deliberation Focus to help emerge the different perspectives of the various Participants to the event. These ideas will create a foundation which will inform the next phases of this event.Topic JostleThe goal of Topic Jostle is to come up with valid, substantial Topics that will form the agenda of the e‑Deliberation.First, the Participants brainstorm provocative propositions on the basis of, but not limited to the ideas in Seeds of Vision. Participants endorse topic propositions they like. Only topics with at least 5 endorsements continue.Preference Poll: Participants are asked to star-rate the endorsed topics to indicate how strongly they feel each can contribute to the resolution of the e‑Deliberation event's Focus. The top-starred topics proceed to the next step. The number of topics that proceed depends on the size of the group. A group of 30 participants can support 12 topics, which each become a strategic vector in resolving the Focus. Assignment Poll: This next poll allows the Participants to indicate on which topics they would prefer to work on. The participants are assigned to Topic Teams based on their assignment preferences, as well as the need to maintain a high degree of interconnection between all participants in the various team assignments. Inclusion: This short phase invites participants to make suggestions to the Topic Teams in formation about how to bring important ideas seen in Seeds of Vision and the non-promoted topics forward to enrich the scope of the Topics that were promoted.Topic Teams and 3 Waves of e-DeliberationThe Topic Teams collaboratively deliberate an Outcome Resolve for their assign Topic in support of achieving the Focus of the event, using a variety of online tools.At the end of each wave, a poll asks each Participant for consent-based feedback as to how they receive each of the Topic Teams’ Outcome Resolve. This feedback is important input to the next wave of e-Deliberation.Final ReviewWhen the e-Deliberation waves are completed, the final poll results are reviewed by each team to see if they can accommodate any argued and paramount objection posed by participants who have not given their consent. If not, these objections are appended to the Team’s Outcome Resolve as a Minority Report.Executive SummaryDelegates from each Topic Team work together to draw up an Executive Summary which summarises and integrates the various Teams’ Outcome Resolve into a one to two page document. This concludes the event itself.
- Depending on what outcomes are desired, the user can select one of several possible variants of the e-Deliberation process. The variants include one, several or all of the standard e-Deliberation process stages and deliver the outcomes indicated in the Description column.
- The IAP2 is the International Association for Public Participation. They have defined a spectrum of public engagement in public policy decisions:Inform: To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions.Consult: To obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions.Involve: To work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered.Collaborate: To partner with the public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution.Empower: To place final decision-making in the hands of the public.Most online participation tools on the market today limit participation in policy and strategy making to the “Consult” and “Involve” parts of the spectrum. People are provided with predefined decisions or proposals and are asked to comment or otherwise react to these, the underlying assumption or promise being that these inputs will help shape public policy, but without going so far as inviting participants to help in the creation of these policies or strategies.The variants of the e-Deliberation process cover the essential breadth of the public participation spectrum. The graph shows as well that e-Deliberation gives participants an unprecedented ability to share their own thoughts and concerns, much more than just reacting to predefined content.
- The following slides present several of the main aspects of the user interface as it evolves to support the various phases of the e-Deliberation process. The bubble texts highlight some of the more important aspects of each screen.
- After the event promoter or project manager has drafted the event description, this is what the e-Deliberation event looks like when it is made public. Participants can be specifically invited or, in the case of a public e-Deliberation event, they can also self-select to sign-up. Sign-ups are approved by the Project Manager to ensure a fair representation of all the stakeholder groups that should be part of this event.
- Participants can be specifically invited or, in the case of a public e-Deliberation event, they can also self-select to sign-up. Sign-ups are approved by the Project Manager to ensure a fair representation of all the stakeholder groups that should be part of this event. General notes about the UI:Collapsible texts are used throughout to expose information useful to Participants without consuming too much screen real estate. The user clicks on the title, and the content expands below it, pushing everything else on the screen down to make room.The briefing materials at the bottom of the screen change depending on the phase of the event.
- Participants are invited to introduce themselves, upload Submissions and make suggestions to improve the Focus of the event up until the event start date/time. General notes about the UI:The Participant Instructions at the top of the screen expand to give each Participant a summary of what the current step is about, what is expected of him/her, and how to achieve or deliver that.Submissions can be uploaded as substantive input to the Participants in preparation for the start of the e-Deliberation event. Participants, event Followers and the event Project Manager can upload Submissions.
- In this step, the participants seek to flesh out the problem or opportunity space so the realities of the various stakeholders are well reflected. This could include an environmental scan, the conclusions of a SWOT analysis, and/or a spree of divergent inputs from which will emerge new connections and understandings. General notes about the UI:When the Participant clicks on any of the brainstormed ideas, a new screen opens listing that idea, as well as all the other brainstormed ideas that are related to it via similar keywords.
- The participants propose topics for further deliberation/action designed to resolve the focus of the event. Proposed topics that have been endorsed by at least five other participants are considered worthy of further consideration. General notes about the UI:A Proposed Topic consists of a short title, which appears in the list on this screen, as well as an extended description which allows the Participant to explain the intent, thrust and scope of his/her proposal. This appears as a hypertext when the cursor moves over the topic title, and is available when the user clicks through to the topic’s entry form.A Proposed Topic needs 5 endorsements for it to be considered as a valid candidate topic of deliberation. The endorsements only mean that the topic merits deliberation. An endorsement does not imply that the Participant supports the intent of the topic. The endorsement process filters away topics that are ill-conceived, expressed or unable to garner a minimum of interest.Additional Notes: We use the term “Provocative Topics” to steer Participants away from idealistic topic proposals that are unarguable and therefore not worthy or capable of deliberation. The following piece was extracted from the Participant briefing materials; it provides guidance about what constitutes a good proposition.What Makes a Good Deliberation Topic?Good deliberation topics allow a good deliberation to happen. This excludes:Unarguable ideas, such as general principles or axioms (for instance “Everyone needs to have sufficient food” or “In favor of Motherhood!”) - because there is nothing to debate;Hateful or destructive topics that demean the value of the Participants’ time and energy. This would include racist slurs and other forms of discrimination, or negative provocation.Proposals that violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.Great deliberation topics include one or several of the following qualities:They are provocative – they hook into what people care about, they elicit a reaction;They inspire and excite;They can open up to actionable outcomes;They are debatable allowing the discovery of new ground, areas of agreement, and possibilities;They force you to explore possibilities “outside the box”, to travel uncharted territories;They factor in a substantial amount of variety – in other words, they cater to a lot of the categories of ideas that came out in the Seeds of Vision;They confront the “elephant in the room” – naming what hasn’t been named or what has been avoided. They kill “sacred cows”, as the expression goes, and serve them up as new possibilities.Note:A great topic does not need to resolve, all by itself, the e-Deliberation Focus. It is highly unlikely that any one idea could. That’s why the e-Deliberation process goes at it from the multiple perspectives of several Topic Teams, and works to bring the resolution proposed by each and every Topic Team into complementary alignment with the other Topic Teams.The topic statement does not necessarily need to be a proposed solution. It can be a direction of inquiry. The best topics are the ones that imagine a future state without specifying how to get there, leaving this to the deliberators to figure out.
- Choosing which topics, of all the ones brainstormed,should be deliberated on.Endorsed topics from the Topic Jostle phase are submitted to participant vote to see which ones should be retained for further consideration/action.As a result of this poll, the Topics with the least star-rated support will be culled so that we end up with a sufficient number of topics based on the number of Participants.For instance, a group of 30 Participants can support 12 Topics. In the event these screen shots were taken from, the 23 Participants justified 9 topics.
- Assigning Participants to TopicsWith this poll, Participants indicate which topic/Topic Team they would prefer to be assigned to work on/in.These Participant preferences are used to help guide the assignment of Participants to Topic Teams.A Topic Team is formed around each Topic. Each Participant will be assigned to two of these Topics in a Deliberator role , and to up to two other teams in a Guardian role. The Participant assignment process ensures an even distribution of team members to all the topics such that each team member, via his/her assigned roles, has a connection with every other Topic Team either directly or one person removed. This is to facilitate the flow of ideas during the deliberations.
- Participants review the Perspectives brainstorm and the non-prioritized topics to see if these contain ideas that should be used to enrich the promoted topics. They make suggestions to each of the Topic Teams as input to their deliberations.NotesThe risk, as we converge on a core number of topics for deliberation, is that we will drop an idea along the way that was of capital importance and which, in its absence, would cripple the validity of the e-Deliberation outcomes. This step takes a circumspect look at the Perspectives (first phase of the process) and the non-prioritized topics to ascertain whether this is the case, and if so, make suggestions to the Topic Team whose topic is best suited to integrate that idea.The Topic Teams will take these suggestions as such, suggestions, but nevertheless, these brought-forward ideas will be back in awareness and in play.
- Working in Topic Teams, participants deliberate exchanging ideas and positions regarding the Topic in support of achieving the Focus of the event. The conclusions are written up in a draft Outcome Resolve document. The collaboration can be synchronous as well as asynchronous.Notes about the UIThis screen is similar for each of the three waves of Deliberation. This screen shot comes from Wave 2. If Participants are co-located in proximity, they can opt to meet face to face to deliberate on their Topic, or alternatively they may Skype, use Google Hangout or do conference calling, etc.. They may use the mindmap as a repository of ideas and as the minutes of their reflection. Their product is not the mindmap – the product is the Team’s Outcome Resolve statement.Teams that are not co-located, or cannot schedule to be available at the same time, can use the mindmap in an asynchronous mode as the main repository for their structured conversation. Participants will show up once or twice a day to build on what other participants have posted.Instant messaging (with a history of past posts) is available to the Team to help it organize its work.Participants in the Deliberator role are the only ones who can actually edit the draft Outcome Resolve for the current Wave. The Teams are asked to designate a Scribe who will take on the word-smithing.
- Participants individually review the Outcome Resolves of each Topic Team and star-rate two stars if they support it, and one star if not, and add a comment of the exact nature of their objection, and what change would be needed for them to consent to it. This gives each team a pulse of where the rest of the group is at, and what is needed to achieve a higher degree of support for their Outcome Resolve.Additional NotesTaken from the Participant Briefing notes, an explanation of Consent-based:The approach in e-Deliberation is that everyone directly affected by a decision is involved in making that decision. Everyone must consent to that decision before it is considered valid or accepted. Leaning on the sociocratic definition of the word Consent means there are no argued and paramount objection[1] to the proposed decision.A proposed decision is deemed accepted when no-one has an argued and paramount objection to it. Now, what does that mean?If someone objects to a proposed decision, for the objection to be deemed valid, it must be “paramount” and it must be “argued”.Paramount means “above all others, of chief concern or importance”. A team member has a duty to raise an objection if indeed they deem it paramount – not raising it could potentially sabotage the wisdom of the eventual decision. Paramount in this context implies that the objector would be so negatively impacted by the proposed decision that they would be unable to function or they would lose their integrity. It also means that progress cannot be vetoed by insignificant objections or preferences. But it is not enough to raise an objection; it must be argued.In this context argued means a clear expression of a truth or a characteristic – a statement of facts and the conclusions drawn from them. The objection can’t be “I don’t like it” because that is not a clear expression of a truth or a characteristic. The objector needs to explain why they object in terms that the others can understand – and thereby advance the state of understanding of the whole team. From that moment on, the objection belongs to the whole team, and the team works to resolve it.
- Obviously, the success of an e-Deliberation event depends on participants showing up and contributing to the deliberation from beginning to end. The listed features help foster a high level of participation and community buildingAt the onset, participant invitation and sign-up approval must be managed by the Project Manager to ensure each participant knows what they are signing up to, and that they are committed to show up and contribute to the successful conclusion of the event.
- e‑Deliberation™ is a web-based adaptation of Stafford Beer’s Team Syntegrity protocol. Stafford Beer was a renown management cybernetician who was one of the first to apply the principles of cybernetics and complexity management to the area of business management and the operational improvement of organizations.