Decision conferencing

Generating a sense of common purpose and agreeing the way forward is often desired in organisations but not always achieved.  The reasons are many: local concerns may conflict with the aims of the organisation, personalities may clash, individuals may be too averse to taking risks, plans that are best for each unit in the organisation may not be collectively best.  Whatever the reason, there may be a place for an improved approach to decision making, so people can arrive at a shared understanding of the issues, develop a sense of common purpose and achieve commitment to action.  Those are the purposes of Decision Conferencing.

What is Decision Conferencing?

Decision Conferencing is a series of intensive working meetings, called decision conferences, attended by groups of people who are concerned about some complex issues facing their organisation.  There are no prepared presentations or fixed agenda; the meetings are conducted as live, working sessions lasting from one to three days.  A unique feature is the creation, on-the-spot, of a computer-based model which incorporates data and the judgements of the participants in the groups.  The model is often based on multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), which provides ample scope for representing both the many conflicting objectives expressed by participants, and the inevitable uncertainty about future consequences.  The model is a ‘tool for thinking’ enabling participants to see the logical consequences of differing viewpoints, and to develop higher-level perspectives on the issues.  By examining the implications of the model, then changing it and trying out different assumptions, participants develop a shared understanding and reach agreement about the way forward.

Stages in a typical Decision Conference

Four stages typify most decision conferences, though every event is different.  The first phase is a broad exploration of the issues.  In the second stage, a model is constructed of participants’ judgements about the issues, incorporating available data.  All key perspectives are included in the model, which is continuously projected so all participants can oversee every aspect of creating the model.  In the third stage, the model combines these perspectives, reveals the collective consequences of individual views, and provides a basis for extensive exploration of the model, always done on-line.  Discrepancies between model results and members’ judgements are examined, causing new intuitions to emerge, new insights to be generated and new perspectives to be revealed.  Revisions are made and further discrepancies explored; after several iterations the new results and changed intuitions are more in harmony.  Then the group moves on to the fourth stage summarising key issues and conclusions, formulating next steps and, if desired, agreeing an action plan or set of recommendations.  The facilitator prepares a report of the event’s products after the meeting and circulates it to all participants.  A follow-through meeting is often held to deal with afterthoughts, additional data and new ideas.

Role of the facilitators

The group is aided by two facilitators from outside the organisation who are experienced in working with groups.  The main tasks of the facilitators are to see and understand the group life, and to intervene, when appropriate, to help the group stay in the present and maintain a task orientation to its work.  The facilitators attend to the processes occurring in the group, provide structure for the group’s tasks, but refrain from contributing to content.  They structure the discussions, helping participants to identify the issues and think creatively and imaginatively.  The facilitators help participants in how to think about the issues without suggesting what to think.

Benefits of Decision Conferencing

The marriage in Decision Conferencing of information technology, group processes and modelling of issues provides value-added to a meeting that is more than the sum of its parts.  Follow-up studies, conducted by the Decision Analysis Unit at the London School of Economics and by the Decision Techtronics Group at the State University of New York, of decision conferences in the United Kingdom and the United States, for organisations in both the private and public sectors, consistently show higher ratings from participants for decision conferences than for traditional meetings.  Organisations using Decision Conferencing report that the process helps them to arrive at better and more acceptable solutions than can be achieved using usual procedures, and agreement is reached more quickly.  Many decision conferences have broken through stalemates created previously by lack of consensus, by the complexity of the problem, by vagueness and conflict of objectives, by ownership in ‘fiefdoms’, and by failure to think creatively and freshly about the issues.

Why Decision Conferencing works

Decision Conferencing is effective for several reasons.  First, participants are selected to represent all key perspectives on the issues, so agreed actions are unlikely to be stopped by someone else arguing that the group failed to consider a major factor.  Second, with no fixed agenda or prepared presentations, the meeting becomes ‘live’, the group works in the ‘here-and-now’, and participants get to grips with the real issues that help to build consensus about the way forward.  Third, the model plays a crucial role in generating commitment.  All model inputs are generated by the participants and nothing is imposed, so that the final model is the creation of the group, thereby ‘owned’ by participants.  Perhaps most important, the model helps to minimise the threat to individuality posed by the group life: the model reveals higher-level perspectives that can resolve differences in individual views, and through sensitivity analysis shows agreement about the way forward in spite of differences of opinion about details.  Fourth, computer modelling helps to take the heat out of disagreements.  The model allows participants to try different judgements without commitment, to see the results, and then to change their views.  Instant play-back of results which can be seen by all participants helps to generate new perspectives, and to stimulate new insights about the issues.

A brief history of Decision Conferencing

Decision Conferencing was developed in the late 1970s by Dr Cameron Peterson and his colleagues at Decisions and Designs, Inc., largely as a response to the difficulty in conducting a single decision analysis for a problem with multiple stakeholders, each of whom takes a different perspective on the issues.  The approach was taken up in 1981 at the LSE’s Decision Analysis Unit by Dr Larry Phillips, who integrated into the facilitator’s role many of the findings about groups from work at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.  The service and supporting software continued to be developed throughout the 1980s and 1990s in association with International Computers Limited and Krysalis Limited.  As Decision Conferencing spread around the globe, facilitators felt a need to share experiences, so they created the International Decision Conferencing Forum, which meets annually, and the UK Decision Conferencing Forum, which gathers twice a year.  Decision Conferencing is now offered by about 20 organisations located in the United Kingdom, the United States, Portugal, Australia and Hungary.

When Decision Conferencing is appropriate

Decision conferencing can be applied to most major issues facing private organisations, government departments, charities and voluntary organisations.  Topics typically cover operations, planning or strategy.  For example, organisations have used Decision Conferencing to develop corporate plans and strategies; to evaluate alternative visions for the future; to prioritise R&D projects and create added value; to design factories, ships and computer systems; to resolve conflict between groups; to allocate limited resources across budget categories; to evaluate the effectiveness of government policies, schemes and projects; to improve utilisation of existing buildings and plant; to determine the most effective use of an advertising budget; to assess alternative sites for a technological development; to deal with a crisis imposed by potentially damaging claims in a professional journal; to develop a strategy to respond to a new government initiative and to create a new policy for health care provision.  Any issue that would benefit from a meeting of minds in the organisation can be effectively resolved with Decision Conferencing, which provides a way for ‘many heads to be better than one.’

Guidelines

Experience shows that Decision Conferencing works best in organisations when four conditions are met reasonably well.  First, the style of decision making in the organisation should allow for consultation and deliberation, time allowing.  Second, the organisation should be open to change, for decision conferencing is usually experienced as a very different way to deal with complex issues.  Third, a climate of problem solving should exist, so that options can be freely explored.  Finally, authority and accountability should be well-distributed throughout the organisation, neither concentrated at the top nor totally distributed toward the bottom.  When these conditions are met, Decision Conferencing can release the creative potential of groups in ways that enable both the individual and the organisation to benefit.

Quotes from clients

“The value-added of decision conferences comes from several things: (1) a structure that links top-down strategy with bottom-up quality and expertise, and (2) a strategy framework for considering where we are now, what we wish to become and how we could get there.”

CEO

Private Medical Provider and Insurance Company

“It served to bring issues to a head and has enabled everyone to see and agree the way forward.”

Research Manager

“…we were all very pleased with the progress that was made.”

Business Development Manager

“Everybody feels that the decision conference and, indeed, the week was very successful, although it has raised very starkly a number of issues which perhaps we have tended in the past not to address head-on.  This is a very healthy experience and will do us no harm whatsoever!”

Group Managing Director

“Thank you very much indeed for completing the report so rapidly.  I also would like to stress how enjoyable the two days were at your unit and how valuable I perceived the basis we have laid for the decision to go with a pro-active strategy.”

Medical Director

“Thank you very much for an excellent decision conference.  Although we do not yet have a set of commitments I think everyone thought that the two days had moved us on considerably.  It has certainly clarified and highlighted some of the key issues and priorities for our development.”

Consultancy Company Partner

“This was an extremely productive and informative exercise.  The group worked extremely well together, and with Larry’s facilitation, expertise, and the software programs that he has developed, we were able to focus our attention on critical issues for the future in our organisations, have identified several key areas that require immediate attention, and have begun to identify in quantitative terms the input of resources that will be required as we face the challenges between now and 1995.”

Head of Chemical and Preclinical Development

“Thanks you very much indeed for taking us through the prioritisation exercise on Friday.  It was extremely useful and I shall be making full use of the conclusions in making future plans.  …you have given us a considerable amount of food for thought which I know will be of great benefit.”

Head of Food Safety (Chemical) Unit

“We really did find the two days most stimulating and I am positive we all benefited from the two days together, discussing our tactics for the future.”

Chairman of the Board

“Overall, after some initial scepticism on my part, I found the process fascinating.

- Concentrated the mind wonderfully, and made me give more detailed consideration to the reasons behind the projects I am proposing.

- Especially useful in considering financial and corporate objectives and whether these projects match these criteria sufficiently to justify further development

- Would like to review the process in the next 2-3 months, as new projects come into my request portfolio, which could quite severely displace some of the current projects in the list of priorities.”

Projects Manager

“Decision Conferencing really put us as members in control of the corporate planning process. It gave us a clear framework within which to make some very difficult decisions. More importantly it is a truly objective mechanism we can use to show the people of East Hampshire how and why we have come to a particular decision.  It is a vital tool in supporting local democracy.  I would recommend the process to any organisation.”

Ferris Cowper

Leader of East Hampshire District Council

“Transparency and objectivity of decision making is a key attribute of any public sector body.  The decision conferencing process has transformed the way the Council does business.  It challenges managers to properly justify new initiatives.  It puts the politicians where they should be - in charge, and it means that we really make decisions which reflect the priorities set by the whole Council.  I would encourage all organisations to consider using the process.”

Will Godfrey

Chief Executive of East Hampshire District Council

"Very many thanks – we all gained immensely from the experience. Excellent work."

(Comment on many years of decision conferences prioritising projects.)

Medical Director

Pharmaceutical Company