Large Group Consensus Methods

[Dutch_Driver]

It's be quite a few years since I've posed a query here. I hope my old friends are still around to help.

I'm working as a contractor to a US Government Agency. It is at a department level in one of the smaller Gov't agency, so increasing profit is not a motive. Increasing trust and collaboration is one of the primary drivers.

They conducted a culture assessment Q3 2008 indicating the leadership team needed to set a departmental vision and mission. That work is done. Their strategy was to have 8 teams of volunteers work for appox. one month on strategic approaches to implement the vision and mission.

The department is having a one-day outbrief meeting on from the teams who should be recommending 3-5 approaches to implement the four themes in their vision and mission. So, there could be anywhere from 24-40 items for consideration.

I'd like to have a consensus from the approx 50-80 members of the teams on which of the items should be taken up. They will have about 90 minutes for prioritizing by consensus.

Sticky dots methods are not receiving much traction, so far.

I would welcome some discussion here. And, I suspect that there are links to blogs you've stored away ready to throw out should a need arise. Pull them out and toss them in the soup for all to benefit.

Great Optimism,

Dutch Driver
http://twitter.com/choragus
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dutchdriver

[Dutch_Driver]

Some additional research led me to a few new approaches that I'd heard of but not connected the dots.

Wikipedia has an entry called unconference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconference#Styles_of_facilitation) with listings for facilitating large groups of people. Some I've used others are innovative formulas.


Appreciative Inquiry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciative_Inquiry)
Barcamp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcamp) and its cousin BIL
Birds of a Feather (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds_of_a_Feather_%28computing%29)
Code Camp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Camp)
The Fishbowl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishbowl_%28conversation%29)
FooCamp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FooCamp)
Knowledge Cafe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Cafe)
Lightning Talks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Talk)
Open Space Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology)
Speed Geeking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_Geeking)
World Cafe (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_World_Cafe&action=edit&redlink=1)

Great Optimism,
Dutch Driver

[Gary_Rush]

Hi Dutch,

Sounds like fun! You're on the right track with your research. I'd try a modified Open Space idea. Instead of leaving the flips blank in the various sections of the room, post the ideas that they need to prioritize. Ask the participants to walk around and post comments/ideas/whatever on blank sheets next to each idea (give them 30 minutes or so). See where the most energy is and cull the ideas down to the few that generate the most interest (try to get down to fewer than 12). See if any comments by the other ideas might be incorporated.

Once you are down to a dozen ideas to prioritize, then ask the participants to discuss them. You might find one that percolates to the top. If not, the discussion will help if you go with the sticky-dots (which the group must agree that the result they can live with or it's not consensus).

With a large group, culling it down to a workable list is important otherwise you can get bogged down in process.

Just a quick idea. I hope that it helps some. Good luck and please let us know how it goes. Thanks.

Ciao,
Gary

[Martin_Gilbraith]

Hi Dutch, it sounds to me that the ToP Consensus Workshop method would
be perfectly suited to this task - see
http://www.ica-uk.org.uk/facilitation/gfm.htm#consensus ('http://www.ica-uk.org.uk/facilitation/gfm.htm#consensus') and
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Workshop-Book-Individual-Creativity-Action/dp/0865714703 ('http://www.amazon.co.uk/Workshop-Book-Individual-Creativity-Action/dp/0865714703')

best wishes,
Martin

Dutch_Driver wrote:
IAF Forum Instant Email - Group Facilitation

You may reply to this email to post a reply to the forum.
You can also begin a new thread by sending an email to
Remember to add anywhere in the subject the following :
IAF-Forum-Response
______________________
CURRENT MESSAGE FROM: Dutch_Driver

Some additional research led me to a few new approaches that I'd heard of but not connected the dots.

Wikipedia has an entry called unconference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconference#Styles_of_facilitation) ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconference#Styles_of_facilitation)') with listings for facilitating large groups of people. Some I've used others are innovative formulas.

* Appreciative Inquiry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciative_Inquiry) ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciative_Inquiry)')
* Barcamp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcamp) ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcamp)') and its cousin BIL
* Birds of a Feather (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds_of_a_Feather_%28computing%29) ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds_of_a_Feather_%28computing%29)')
* Code Camp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Camp) ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Camp)')
* The Fishbowl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishbowl_%28conversation%29) ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishbowl_%28conversation%29)')
* FooCamp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FooCamp) ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FooCamp)')
* Knowledge Cafe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Cafe) ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Cafe)')
* Lightning Talks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Talk) ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Talk)')
* Open Space Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology) ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology)')
* Speed Geeking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_Geeking) ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_Geeking)')
* World Cafe (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_World_Cafe&action=edit&redlink=1) ('http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_World_Cafe&action=edit&redlink=1)')

Great Optimism,
Dutch Driver



______________________
PREVIOUS MESSAGE FROM: Dutch_Driver

It's be quite a few years since I've posed a query here. I hope my old friends are still around to help.

I'm working as a contractor to a US Government Agency. It is at a department level in one of the smaller Gov't agency, so increasing profit is not a motive. Increasing trust and collaboration is one of the primary drivers.

They conducted a culture assessment Q3 2008 indicating the leadership team needed to set a departmental vision and mission. That work is done. Their strategy was to have 8 teams of volunteers work for appox. one month on strategic approaches to implement the vision and mission.

The department is having a one-day outbrief meeting on from the teams who should be recommending 3-5 approaches to implement the four themes in their vision and mission. So, there could be anywhere from 24-40 items for consideration.

I'd like to have a consensus from the approx 50-80 members of the teams on which of the items should be taken up. They will have about 90 minutes for prioritizing by consensus.

Sticky dots methods are not receiving much traction, so far.

I would welcome some discussion here. And, I suspect that there are links to blogs you've stored away ready to throw out should a need arise. Pull them out and toss them in the soup for all to benefit.

Great Optimism,

Dutch Driver
http://twitter.com/choragus ('http://twitter.com/choragus')
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dutchdriver ('http://www.linkedin.com/in/dutchdriver')

______________________
View this thread online:
http://www.iaf-forum.org/showthread.php?t=1345 ('http://www.iaf-forum.org/showthread.php?t=1345')

To unsubscribe from this forum, please visit this page:
http://www.iaf-forum.org/subscription.php?do=addsubscription&f=2 ('http://www.iaf-forum.org/subscription.php?do=addsubscription&f=2')



--

*Martin Gilbraith* <martin@ica-uk.org.uk <mailto:martin@ica-uk.org.uk>>

*Director, ICA:UK*
registered charity #1090745 & company limited by guarantee #3970365
registered in England & Wales, at 41 Old Birley Street, Manchester M15 5RF
tel/fax: 0845 450 0305 or 0161 232 8444 - _www.ica-uk.org.uk
<http://www.ica-uk.org.uk/>___ ('http://www.ica-uk.org.uk/>___')

The Institute of Cultural Affairs (ICA) - a global network of autonomous
not-for-profit organisations in 30 countries
/"concerned with the human factor in world development"/

*IAF Certified Professional Facilitator* & IAF Board member for Europe
The International Association of Facilitators -- _www.iaf-world.org_

[Andor_Gregorics]

Hi Dutch,

To add to Gary's idea you might consider adding a step (20-25 minutes) where you let the group look into what criteria or principles should guide them in their work of prioritizing. With these criteria in place (e.g. high value, quick win, big impact etc.) the group will have a common and visible platform.

You could even put the criteria on a scale, e.g. "must have", nice to have" etc.

With such a short time frame, it will have the full group start working towards common choices as early as possible.

Good luck,

Andor

[Emily_Passino]

In a facilitation with a similar challenge, the process we used had many of the features mentioned already, but worth passing along is this particular idea: We divied out the large number of ideas (over 100) so that small groups each had about 24 ideas (and each idea was considered by 2 groups). We then asked each group to sort the ideas into three categories:
* green = completely do-able right now, this year.
* brown = groundwork now – will take longer than a year, but need to get started/keep momentum going around this issue
* blue – “forget me not” – important to do, but not realistic that it can get done or even started within the next 2 years

After this exercise, we had each small group send up 5 of their "most promising ideas" from either the green or brown categories, and then used the ToP process to cluster and name the action areas, which in turn became the basic charge for work groups.

The people we were working with were prison wardens and high level correctional dept staff who were used to thinking of things in organizational silos. This approach allowed the group to see the interconneted-ness of the good ideas. It also effectively removed the "pie in the sky" ideas that can be so seductive.

[Eunice_Shankland]

I am sorry, I worked for an hour to send you my ideas but then it magically disappeared. Maybe I can recreate it but you could call me - 303-993-8935 or maybe another time.

Ciao,
Eunice

[Mike_Kiska]

Andor's idea sounds a lot like the Kepner-Tregoe method of decision making. Come to think of it, engineers would probably love that method for all the math that's part of the process.

A few years back, I read about the KJ-Technique which is billed as a group process for establishing priorities. I've never used the entire process but I have done parts of it that fit well with nominal group process methods. It involves sticky notes on walls, grouping and categorizing items, voting and ranking. It touts consensus in record time. I found out about it at www.uie.com/articles/kj_technique/ .

Great to hear from you again, Dutch, and to know that you're still in the game. Speaking of games, with college basketball's March madness going on here in the US, maybe a fun way to reach the championship round (consensus) is by preparing a bracket (see http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/bracket ('http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/bracket') for ESPN's example) and listing ideas, or at least one or two words representing each idea, instead of teams in each slot. Then in a World Café style, different tables could argue the merits of assigned ideas and move the winners on to the next round.

Mike Kiska
Training & O.D. Manager - Administrative Services
Jefferson County Public Library
Find us on the Web: http://jefferson.lib.co.us ('http://jefferson.lib.co.us')

[Cameron_Fraser]

An aside and a little caution about the Kepner-Tregoe decision process mentioned above. Its a great process and one that has saved me a lot of personal money and heartache on major purchases like houses and cars. Its also been very useful and successful in my facilitation practice.

One of the applications I use it for is as part of a risk based decision making process which I teach and use widely in the aviation industry. While it has a math component the numbers which rank the criteria and the relative performance of options against criteria are assigned through discussion and consensus rather than any scientific method. Engineers (and other analytical folks, and not all of them obviously) sometimes balk at this.

While it initially looks like a mathematical method it is not (and is not intended to be) statistically valid. If that isn't clearly explained, and accepted, up front then the gap between expectation and reality can get you in trouble.