Pictured here are the participants (less the cameraman, João Lourenco), at the 20th meeting of the International Decision Conferencing Forum, held in Lisbon on June 11th and 12th, 2016.
Since the first UK decision conference, in 1981, I have facilitated over 300 of these workshops, which originally were intended to improve decision making by engaging all the expertise in the room, giving everyone a chance to make their case and providing on-the-spot peer review. Systematic research comparing ordinary meetings with decision conferences shows the latter emerging as more preferred on nearly every aspect of a meeting. Digging more deeply, and conducting further interviews, especially with senior members of the teams, revealed that improved decisions were not as important as the social benefits: gaining a shared understanding of the issues, developing a sense of common purpose, and achieving commitment to the way forward.
Managing directors, especially, when asked what was the main problem in the organisation, often replied, "Getting everyone to pull in the same direction. It was the alignment achieved in the decision conference, not necessarily any of the agreed decisions, that enabled us to move forward in new ways." Decision conferences reinforce what is currently achieving the organisation's objectives, help to balance existing paths, and create new paths that add future potential.
Once that is agreed, it is then possible to try out different scenarios about the future. After one decision conference with International Computers Ltd (ICL), Robb Wilmott, the then managing director sat down with me and tried out different assumptions about possible future events that would affect the strategy of the company. He would say, "Let's try this assumption", I would enter it into the computer, and he would either be satisfied or alarmed at the outcome. Eventually, he said I could close the computer; he knew what to do. He turned to me and said, "This process is wonderful. I get to try out the future before I have to live it!"
Soon after that experience, and many decision conferences later, ICL's Peter Hall and I gathered all the decision conference facilitators in the USA and the UK together in London for a three-day meeting, from which emerged the International Decision Conferencing Forum (IDCF), whose 20th meeting is shown above. The rest of this page describes the IDCF and decision conferencing.
Managing directors, especially, when asked what was the main problem in the organisation, often replied, "Getting everyone to pull in the same direction. It was the alignment achieved in the decision conference, not necessarily any of the agreed decisions, that enabled us to move forward in new ways." Decision conferences reinforce what is currently achieving the organisation's objectives, help to balance existing paths, and create new paths that add future potential.
Once that is agreed, it is then possible to try out different scenarios about the future. After one decision conference with International Computers Ltd (ICL), Robb Wilmott, the then managing director sat down with me and tried out different assumptions about possible future events that would affect the strategy of the company. He would say, "Let's try this assumption", I would enter it into the computer, and he would either be satisfied or alarmed at the outcome. Eventually, he said I could close the computer; he knew what to do. He turned to me and said, "This process is wonderful. I get to try out the future before I have to live it!"
Soon after that experience, and many decision conferences later, ICL's Peter Hall and I gathered all the decision conference facilitators in the USA and the UK together in London for a three-day meeting, from which emerged the International Decision Conferencing Forum (IDCF), whose 20th meeting is shown above. The rest of this page describes the IDCF and decision conferencing.
Members of the Forum
are facilitators with experience of
gain commitment to action.
support the full problem solving process
from information gathering through implementation.
have experience within every segment
of the public, private and not-for-profit sectors.
are internationally interspersed
over four continents.
are electronically linked
to draw on each other’s expertise and resources to leverage value for each others’ clients.
meet annually
to share developments and experiences.
- leading group processes,
- managing information,
- using analytical tools, and
- resolving conflicts to help decision makers produce effective decisions.
- decision theory,
- group processes, and
- information technology
gain commitment to action.
support the full problem solving process
from information gathering through implementation.
have experience within every segment
of the public, private and not-for-profit sectors.
are internationally interspersed
over four continents.
are electronically linked
to draw on each other’s expertise and resources to leverage value for each others’ clients.
meet annually
to share developments and experiences.
What is Decision Conferencing?
Decision Conferencing is a series of intensive working meetings, called decision conferences, attended by groups of key players who are concerned about some complex issues facing their organisation, and who represent a diversity of perspectives. 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, the United States and Germany, 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
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 and the Bayswater Institute. The service and supporting software continued to be developed throughout the 1980s and 1990s in association with International Computers Limited Krysalis Limited and now Catalyze Ltd. As Decision Conferencing spread around the globe, facilitators felt a need to share experiences, so they created in 1989 the International Decision Conferencing Forum, which meets annually. Decision Conferencing is now offered by about 20 organisations located in the United Kingdom, the United States, Portugal, Germany, 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 in the portfolio; 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; to create a new policy for health care provision, to assess the harms from misusing psychoactive drugs; and to establish the benefit-risk balance of prescription drugs. 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.