decision structuring dialogue
DESCRIPTION
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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Sebastian Slotte and Raimo P. Hämäläinen
Systems Analysis Laboratory
Aalto University
School of Science
Decision Structuring Dialogue
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
• 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, Negotiation and Dialogue
Debate
Intention• proving ones
argument to be right
• getting ones own view to be accepted
• showing weaknesses in the opponents argumentation
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
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
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 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)
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 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
Rules of Dialogue – Stage 1
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
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
Stages 4 - 6
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
Lake Kemijärvi Water Level Regulation 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 …
DSD in the Lake Kemijärvi Case
• 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
Visioning the Ideal Big Picture (stage 5)
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
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.