Structured Dialogic Design --- A Process Science for Social System Design

1. Structured Dialogic Design ---A Process Science for Social System Design Alexander N. Christakis, PhD President, CWA Ltd Dialogic Design Consultants www. CWALtd.wetpaint.com

2. 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

3. Fundamentals of Structured Dialogue (cont.) • Construct new meaning with disciplined dialogue • Collaboratively manipulate and reconfigure ideas based upon rules of logic

4. 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

5. 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

6. Wicked Complexity leads to Underconceptualization • Wicked complexityis 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 selecterroneous prioritieswhich then lead to ineffective actions (Erroneous Priorities Effect) • Systematic and systemic exploration of issues and relationships among issues assuresevolutionary learning

7. 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”

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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).

14. Six Methods to Build Consensus • Nominal Group Technique • Interpretive Structural Modeling • DELPHI • Options Field • Options Profile • Trade-off Analysis

15. Seven Patterns of Graphic Language • Elemental Observation • Problematique (A mess) • Influence Tree (Root Cause Map) • Options Field • Options Profile / Scenario • Superposition Pattern • Action Plan Pattern

16. Four Stages of Interactive Inquiry • Definition or Anticipation • Design of Alternatives • Decision • Action Planning

17. Seven Laws of Effective Dialogue • Requisite Variety (Ashby) • Requisite Parsimony (Miller, Warfield) • Requisite Saliency (Boulding) • Requisite Meaning & Wisdom (Peirce) • Requisite Authenticity & Autonomy (Tsivacou) • Requisite Evolutionary Learning (Dye) • Requisite Action (Laouris)

18. The Practice ofStructured Dialogic Design Process • Before the Dialogue (DISCOVERY PHASE)-- Define scope of inquiry and community of stakeholders • Divergent Dialogue to Generate Lists-- Select a “Triggering Question” and launch open-ended responses with clarification of all issues (NGT method)

19. 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

20. Defining the Context for Collective Wisdom Problematique Situation Generate & Clarify the Issues Cluster the Issues Structure the Relations Complex Design Situation Classification of Issue Statements Influence Pattern Issue Statements before Classification

21. The Power ofInterpretive Structural Modeling Collectively “vote” on the significance of a specified logical linkage between each pair of issues “ Suppose we were able to make progress in addressingFactor X, will thisSIGNIFICANTLYenhance our capacity to addressFactor Y? ” Software exists to support group work based on this simple structuring algorithm to generate a directionalmap of influence propagated across the entire SYSTEM of issues (Efficiency gains of a factor of 4 or more)

22. Representative Interpretive Structural Model

23. Representative Facility for Application ofStructured Dialogic Design Process

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. The New Geometry of Languaging viaStructured Dialogic Design

27. 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

28. 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

29. Implicit Deliverables of SDD Process • EQUANIMITYEngage Stakeholders in Democratic Design which Respects their Cultural Autonomy through a Formal System Founded in ProcessScience • SPEEDRapidly Harvest and Share a Comprehensive Set of Problem Definitions and Solution Options • UTILITYDemocratically Converge on an Action Plan with Strong Commitment to Support Implementation

30. 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 • COMFORTCapture Egalitarian Skill in Boundary-Spanning Dialogue for Problem Solving and Design