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.