Structured Dialogic Design ---

A Process Science for Social System Design

Alexander N. Christakis, PhD

President, CWA Ltd

Dialogic Design Consultants

www. CWALtd.wetpaint.com

Fundamentals of Structured Dialogue

Begin at the beginning and unpack complexity – Stakeholders often leap into

solving problems before they have fully defined the problem to be resolved

– Complex knowledge needs to be reduced to elemental observations so that it can be processed systematically and systemically

Fundamentals of Structured Dialogue (cont.)

Construct new meaning with disciplined dialogue– Collaboratively manipulate and

reconfigure ideas based upon rules of logic

Fundamentals of Structured Dialogue (cont.)

Seek understanding first and agreement second– Stakeholders have differing

perspectives and different power bases

– Stakeholders can only succeed by collaborating

The Special Need for Structured Dialogic Design

• In situations characterized by “wicked complexity” the normal rules for the practice of dialogue break down

• Based upon the axioms and laws of the Science of Dialogic Design, we understand why this situation represents special challenge for our cognitive capacities

• Structured Dialogic Design science represents a disciplined response to the increasingly familiar breakdowns in collective planning AND DESIGN situations

Wicked Complexity leads to

Underconceptualization Wicked complexity is characterized by large

numbers of issues, large numbers of interconnections among issues, and limited transparency of both the issues and the connections

When stakeholders seek to assign priorities to lists of issues without sufficient conceptualization of interdependencies among those issues, stakeholders select erroneous priorities which then lead to ineffective actions (Erroneous Priorities Effect)

Systematic and systemic exploration of issues and relationships among issues assures evolutionary learning

How Complex is Complex?

The Situational Complexity Index is defined as

DK (N-7) / R (R-1) where D = (V-5) / (N-5)

N = Number of total observations by all observers

R = Number of observations INCLUDED IN THE PROBLEMATIQUE (Influence Map)

V = Number of observations with 1 or more votes

K = Number of DISTINCT links among observations

D = Divergence or “spread think” of importance votes

_________________________________

7 is the “Miller number” (7 ± 2) and

5 is the “Warfield spread think number”

Trends in Complexity

• Average Complexity of Issues Addressed with the Technology of Unassisted Democracy in the Athenian Agora (conjectured) = 3

• Average Complexity in Situations that Collaboration Sponsors Identify as Wicked Problems = 30

• Greatest Level of Complexity Calculated in a Modern Collaborative Design Situation Employing SDD = 55

The Upfront Costs Benchmark estimates are that

participatory planning will raise direct program costs by about 15% to 20% -- and will return on the investment through reduced error, attrition, delay & transaction costs during implementation

The cost of creating a “robust requirements definition” -- often the most costly aspect of building a shared understanding of a complex problem -- can be reduced by 70% through the use of the CogniScope™ software

The buy-in to an action plan is deeper and more durable with the shared understanding created by CogniScope™ software

Ways to Make Decisions from within Groups

Consensus Methods

Brainstorming

Nominal Group Technique

Simulation

Participatory Action Research

Alternative Futures & Scenarios

Focus Groups

Structured Dialogic Design

Structured Dialogic Design

• Assure a “level playing field”-- Guide participants to contribute with equal power to avoid “group think”

• Cultivate an environment for authentic listening-- Protect and promote the authenticity of participants who are desperate to have their voices heard

• Apply a consistent, transparent process-- Use dialogue methods that promote iterative learning, and the emergence of group agreement with understanding

The Architecture Behind Structured Dialogic Design

Science

4 Axioms to Assure Sound Foundations for the Science

6 Methods to Build Consensus

7 Patterns of Graphic Language

4 Stages of Interactive Inquiry

7 Laws of Effective Dialogue

Four Axioms COMPLEXITY: We live in a world that is very

complex. Most observers are confused. Social systems design issues are strongly interconnected (Warfield).

PARSIMONYY: Human cognition & attention is limited. Human beings are usually overloaded in group design meetings leading to bad designs (Simon).

SALIENCY: The field of options in designing social systems is multidimensional. Salient synthesis is difficult (Boulding).

ENGAGEMENT: Disregarding the participation of the stakeholders in designing social systems is unethical, and the designs are bound to fail (Ozbekhan).

Six Methods to Build Consensus

1) Nominal Group Technique

2) Interpretive Structural Modeling

3) DELPHI

4) Options Field

5) Options Profile

6) Trade-off Analysis

Seven Patterns of Graphic Language

1) Elemental Observation

2) Problematique (A mess)

3) Influence Tree (Root Cause Map)

4) Options Field

5) Options Profile / Scenario

6) Superposition Pattern

7) Action Plan Pattern

Four Stages of Interactive Inquiry

1) Definition or Anticipation

2) Design of Alternatives

3) Decision

4) Action Planning

Seven Laws of Effective Dialogue

1) Requisite Variety (Ashby)

2) Requisite Parsimony (Miller, Warfield)

3) Requisite Saliency (Boulding)

4) Requisite Meaning & Wisdom (Peirce)

5) Requisite Authenticity & Autonomy (Tsivacou)

6) Requisite Evolutionary Learning (Dye)

7) Requisite Action (Laouris)

The Practice ofStructured Dialogic Design

Process

1) Before the Dialogue (DISCOVERY PHASE)-- Define scope of inquiry and community of stakeholders

2) Divergent Dialogue to Generate Lists-- Select a “Triggering Question” and launch open-ended responses with clarification of all issues (NGT method)

The Practice ofStructured Dialogic Design Process

(cont.)

3) Convergent Dialogue to Generate Structures/Patterns-- Guide formation of affinity clusters of issues and pair-wise voting of relationships between issues (ISM method)

4) Iterate as New Knowledge Emerges (Flexibility of thought and structure)-- Base action planning upon a flexible understanding of the patterns of relationships as defined by the group

Issue Statements

before Classification

Complex Design

Situation

Classification of Issue

Statements

InfluencePattern

Defining the Context for Collective Wisdom

Problematique Situation

Generate & Clarify the Issues

Cluster the Issues

Structure the Relations

The Power ofInterpretive Structural Modeling

“ Suppose we were able to make progress in addressing Factor X ,

will this SIGNIFICANTLY enhance our capacity to address Factor Y ? ”

Software exists to support group work based on this simple structuring algorithm to generate a directional map of influence propagated across the entire SYSTEM of issues (Efficiency gains of a factor of 4 or more)

Collectively “vote” on the significance of a specified logical linkage between each pair of issues

Representative Interpretive Structural Model

Representative Facility for Application ofStructured Dialogic Design Process

 

During the 20th-century, systems scientists identified inherent human constraints to democratic dialogue

Limited individual perspective within complex, multidimensional systems [Ashby, 1958].

Each participant in a dialogue thinks and acts from a different perspective, within a multidimensional reality.

Limited individual capacity for short-term processing of information [Miller, 1956].

Individuals have an inherently limited short-term ability, in physiological and psychological terms, to process information.

During the 20th-century, systems scientists identified inherent human constraints to democratic dialogue

(cont.) The unshakable cognitive burden

imposed by human values of uneven quality that hinder human transformation [Goudge on C.S. Peirce, 1969].

Each participant in a dialogue is often guided by conflicting values, which are deeply socialized during childhood or in the places they live and work.

The New Geometry of Languaging viaStructured Dialogic Design

Steps in each Stage of InquiryComplexSituation

ArticulateObservations

ClarifyMeaning

ClusterInductively

Frame andFocus on aTriggeringQuestion

?DevelopShared

Language

Vote &Rank

StructureAbductively

EvaluateCross-Impact

InterpretLearning

Interactive Management Consultants

Class

Label

Type A Type CType B

Copyright © 1999 - All Rights Reserved

Influence

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

(f) (g) (h) (i) (j)

Conclusion: Shared Understanding is an Asset

Creating an Agreement is Relatively Simple

Creating an Understanding can be Genuinely Difficult

Creating an Shared Understanding from within a Group is both Possible and Practical -- but only if Attempted with Proven Processes

The Time to Create a Shared Understanding is Before Parties Make Commitments to an Agreement that they do not Fully Understand

Organizations which can Create the Best Shared Understandings will have a Competitive Advantage

Consistent Logical Relationships

While Structuring Ideas, CogniScope™ software will:

Provide a Consistent Framework for Making Pair-Wise Judgments among a set of Ideas

Track Ideas which have been RELATED

Record the Relations Made Between Ideas

Prompt the Group to Make the Fewest Logical Relations Needed to Exhaustively Examine the Set of Ideas

Provide a Graphic Summary of the Pattern of Relationships that the Group has Identified Among Ideas

Implicit Deliverables of SDD Process

EQUANIMITY Engage Stakeholders in Democratic Design which Respects their Cultural Autonomy through a Formal System Founded in Process Science

SPEED Rapidly Harvest and Share a Comprehensive Set of Problem Definitions and Solution Options

UTILITY Democratically Converge on an Action Plan with Strong Commitment to Support Implementation

Implicit Deliverables of SDD Process (cont.)

WISDOM Harness Collective Wisdom by retaining a Strong Image of the Context of the Design Situation and the Leverage of the Action Plan

COMFORT Capture Egalitarian Skill in Boundary-Spanning Dialogue for Problem Solving and Design