If you have ever gone out to lunch with a large group of people, you may have experienced how challenging it is for a group of people to make a group decision. Maybe your colleagues and friends are different, but for me, it can be a real pain in the neck to find a lunch destination that everyone is happy to visit. Consensus-building methods for formal settings loosely applicable to a group lunch destination decision exist that are more appropriate for complex issues. Two group decision-making models are the Delphi method and the Structured Design (Dialogic) (SDD) method. Both group decision-making methods ensure that group decisions are objective. In addition, both ways strive to include introverts, balance contributions from extroverts, and have all perspectives. The ideal results of each method include group decisions with holistic viewpoints rather than decisions based on who was the loudest or more senior person in a group. The strategy should reflect the issue's complexity, so I would prefer to use SDD over Delphi for complex problems. The Delphi Method begins with a series of open-ended questions about the decisions to be made. Participants then discuss the answers until a consensus is reached (Sekayi & Kennedy, 2017). For example, in our lunch destination scenario, participants may begin by asking if anyone has any food allergies or specific types of food that are strictly off-limits. The group can then eliminate some destinations to narrow down the lunch destination. Each person provides information about their preferences and slowly whittle down potential destinations. Unfortunately, this technique may still "out-vote" one or more person's preferences and rely on a majority vote, leaving someone less vocal stuck eating Thai food when they hate Thai food. Alternatively, Structured Design (Dialogic) (or Structured Dialogical Design) (SDD) may be more appropriate for complicated strategies and plans. In SDD, the persons most concerned or affected by the issue(s) are the primary participants. Triggering questions (TQ) focus the decision, followed by statements responding to the TQs. Next, further clarification narrows outcomes, and the group then comes up with comparison and contrasting options (e.g., clustering). Following the grouping of choices, the participants select their preferences and explore their relations. Finally, interpretation of those relationships occurs, and the group plans to move forward (Laouris & Romm, 2021). I would not want to use SDD to develop a lunch destination; however, a verbal version may be used to ensure that all stakeholders' interests are taken into consideration. The similarities between the Delphi method and SDD are that both ways use framing or, as Laouris and Romm describe it, focus on the problem or issue of interest. They also involve a discussion of participants and aim to eliminate less desired options. The two methods differ most drastically in the analysis and proper selection of group preferences and a deeper exploration of potential solutions that occurs in SDD. SDD aims to explore as many relationships between the group decision choice and build consensus through metrics analysis and choice relationship analysis.
In the case of SDD, it would not make a very effective method for determining a trivial group decision-making method because it requires extensive analysis. The Delphi method or a modified version works best for a more rapid decision-making process. The SDD method value is more inherent with groups such as Think Tanks, business strategy planning, or scenario planning for organizations. For now, I think I'll stick with conceding to eat at a Thai restaurant when lunching with a group instead of turning the decision-making process into an academic exercise. Unless you're into that sort of thing? Happy trails! References Sekayi, D., & Kennedy, A. (2017). Qualitative delphi method: A four round process with a worked example. The Qualitative Report, 22(10), 2755-2763. Yiannis, Laouris, Norma RA Romm. (2021). Structured dialogical design as a problem structuring method illustrated in a Re-invent democracy project. European Journal of Operational Research, 2021, ISSN 0377-2217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.11.046.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am a Doctoral Scholar at Colorado Technical University and a graduate of the Cyber Security Operations and Leadership program from the University of San Diego. I work in cybersecurity, and have accumulated twenty years in the IT industry. There are few IT roles I have not performed, which gives me great insights into making sense of all the IT confusion. Archives
February 2022
Categories
All
|