Brainstorming & Priority Setting

Decision-Making /Priority Setting

Decision-Making Roles of Groups – A group may play one or more roles in the decision-making process. It is very important that the group members understand their role so that they do not have inappropriate expectations related to their authority. 1. Decision-making role – These are groups that make decisions that must be obeyed. Typically this role is reserved for governing boards, policy boards/groups, legislatures, etc. 2. Informing role – This is a typical role of a task force, advisory or other type of group at which input is sought. 3. Recommending role – This is a typical role of a task force, advisory or other type of group at which input is sought. Recommendations are advice that the advice recipient is asked to consider but is not compelled to implement. Groups sometimes get confused on this role. That is, they make “decisions” about their recommendations and may, therefore, see these as having authority when, in fact, they are advisory.

Priority Setting - This follows brainstorming. Its purpose is to evaluate a large number of brainstormed ideas based on criteria (usually set by the group). This, in turn, leads to a smaller and more workable number of ideas and decision making related to ideas or plans to pursue. Considerations and common techniques follow.

1. Start with larger pool of brainstormed ideas: a. Use multiple stages b. Focus on unique factors c. Narrow to a manageable few, merging to create strength d. Ensure original ideas "don't get lost"

2. Challenge ideas, not people

3. Establish criteria for analysis: a. Clearly defined b. Common agreement c. Visible and apparent d. Democratic process

It is suggested that you have the group brainstorm a set of criteria. The following are ideas groups often generate. Please note that the following criteria are not necessarily a single list, but a variety of ideas. Your group’s list will likely be a modified subset of similar ideas, the appropriateness of which depends on the topic on which decisions are being made. a. It is the best use of the expertise of the people who are members of this group. b. It is a “cornerstone” item. That is, it must be addressed to pave the way for us to address other key issues. c. It is likely to have a positive impact on the clients we serve/constituencies we represent. d. It is legal. e. We have the resources (fiscal, personnel, facilities, etc.) to do it. 2

f. It contributes to our vision; it is not one shot. g. It reflects an area of greatest need. h. It is an issue on which we have been asked for advice (generally an advisory group consideration). i. It is an issue on which we have a directive (e.g., a court or executive order, legal mandate). j. It would likely result in a "quick victory", producing results with minimal to moderate investment (something "we could do something about").

Some sample criteria used by 2 ICC’s during their planning retreats have been: Sample 1 1. Do we have the resources (human, fiscal, material) to address? 2. Is it a regulatory issue? 3. Is it likely to have statewide impact? 4. Is it feasible for us to address? 5. Is it consistent with our role as an ICC and our locus of control? 6. Is it timely?

Sample 2 1. Which issues have the potential for biggest impact on the Early Intervention System? 2. Do our members have the capacity/expertise needed to adequately address the issue? 3. Do we have the time available to adequately address this issue? 4. Does it reflect an area of greatest need? 5. Is this an issue on which the lead agency has asked for advice? 6. Is it consistent with our mission and role?

4. Determine method(s) by which you will conduct analysis and/or prioritize (see techniques below). Apply these methods using criteria as described in item number 3.

5. Confirm closure with decision(s) summary

Prioritization Techniques

The following are techniques that can used to help a group focus on a subset of alternatives. Many of the techniques may be used together, e.g., one might be used to narrow group choices, then another might be used to select one or more for follow-up.

Basic Techniques 1. Voting - By a show of hands or a blind ballot, participants vote for their chosen alternative. Alternatives are arranged in order of the number of votes. Variation: Establish a "Majority Rule" before the vote, i.e., no item will go to the final list unless it gets X% of the vote.

2. Top Picks - Each participant selects the top 3 (or some other number). Facilitator adds up the frequencies of selection to set priorities. Note: adding the frequencies assume that the selections have equal weight.

3. Rank ordering - Each participant assigns ranks from 1 to X, where 1 is the most desirable or highest priority and X is the total number of alternatives. Facilitator either uses subjective judgment to determine priority based on the number of people ranking items high and low, or adds up the ranks. Variation: Use weighted ranking to tabulate by multiplying the total values by the number of participants selecting the item to get a weighted score, e.g.,

Hypothetical Total Score # who picked Weighted Item (Add votes) the item Total RANK Item A 12 x 3 = 36 3 Item B 10 x 5 = 50 1 Item C 4 x 1 = 4 4 Item D 16 x 3 = 48 2

4. Rating - Each participant assigns a scale rating, e.g., 1 to 5, or 1 to 10, or -3 to +3, to each alternative to indicate its importance or desirability. Scale items are anchored as a Likert item (each scale number is associated with words, e.g., poor, fair, average, good, excellent). Facilitator computes average ratings to obtain a priority listing or computes frequencies of the ratings and makes a judgment of priorities based on the distribution of scores.

5. Dotting - Items are written on flip chart pages or cards and posted for all to see. Each individual is given a number of self-adhesive colored dots (usually equal to the number of priorities the group wants for group focus). Participants stick dots on items they consider to be most important. Facilitator arranges priorities by number of dots assigned or leads the group through a discussion/synthesis activity. Note 1: Determine in advance whether an individual can use more than one dot on a single item. Variation: Other shapes or devices may be used for dotting, e.g., post-it notes, hearts for "getting at the heart of the matter", markers. 4

Sorting Techniques

6. Sorting into Important and Not Important - Each participant or the group as a whole identifies each item as important or not important. Variation: Sort items into more categories, e.g., High importance, average importance, Low Importance.

7. Time frame Sorting - Items are sorted into categories according to when they could/should be implemented. Variation: Put them into "Now" (Immediate), "Soon" or "Later". Variation: Put in order in which they must be implemented, do 1st, do 2nd, etc.

8. Rule of 1/3 or 1/5 - Participants sort the alternatives into the top 1/3 and the bottom 2/3. Work proceeds on the top 1/3. Variation: Participants sort into the top 1/5 and bottom 4/5 (using the 20-80 rule - 20% of the ideas will result in 80% of the effects and the other 80% will only accomplish 20%). Variation: Ask participants to use dots as follows: • Red dot = stop, we should not pursue this • Yellow dot = caution, this is a good idea; however, we should only pursue this is certain concerns are addressed • Green dot = go, we should pursue this

9. Cost-Benefit Matrix - For each alternative, estimate the cost (staff time, $, political, etc.) and the benefits. After the list is complete, have participants rate the cost-benefit of each item from 1 to 10 (or some other range), where 10 is high.

10. Likelihood-Impact Rating - Assign a number or letter to each item to be considered. Participants write the numbers or letters on post-its or note cards (one per). Each participant rates each alternative on two dimensions: likelihood that the alternative could be made to happen and the impact it would have on the goal/issue/problem assuming it could be made to happen. The facilitator prepares a flip chart or storyboard with 4 quadrants and participants stick post-its or note cards in appropriate quadrants. For example:

Quadrant 2: Quadrant 1: • Low Likelihood • High Likelihood • High Impact • High Impact

Item B Item G Item C Item E

Quadrant 3: Quadrant 4: • High Likelihood • Low Likelihood • Low Impact • Low Impact

Item A Item H Item F Item D Item I 5

Items in Quadrant 1 will be those you will want to pursue. If it seems appropriate to consider priorities in addition to quadrant 1 items, you may want to consider items in quadrant 2. That is, if the possibility of impact is high, you may want to brainstorm strategies to make this item more “doable”, that is, more likely so that it could “move” to quadrant 1. Quadrant 3 and 4 activities should be discarded, unless some quadrant 3 activity might have some strategic advantage. An example of this might be something that would give the group a “quick victory” (a big impact on the group’s sense of accomplishment) even though it has minimal impact on the overall issue. 6

Consensus Building

11. Modified consensus - Ask the group to respond to the proposal in light of the following criteria: What would you add, delete or otherwise modify so that you could live with it and publicly support it? Continue discussion with the group until the group as a whole concludes that it can “live with and publicly support it”.

12. No objections - Discuss alternatives for clarification only. Then go item-by-item, asking "Does anyone object to this item as stated?". People do not have to explain their objections. Mark each item for which there is an objection and continue until the full list has been reviewed. Return to the marked items, ask, "What alternative do you propose?" and note the alternative. Then ask the total group, "Can you live with it now?". Continue until the list contains only items to which there are no objections. Variation: Veto or eliminate any item to which there is an objection (Note: this can be done without allowing debate/discussion/cross talk).

13. Fist to Five - Ask participants to put their hand in the air, showing consensus as follows: • 5 fingers showing - vital • 4 fingers - important • 3 fingers - like it • 2 fingers - some questions/reservations • 1 finger - trust group enough to go along • 0 finger/fist - can’t live with it If there are no fists, there is some level of modified consensus. If there are mostly 1 or 2 fingers raised, the facilitator may want to probe for how we could make the proposal more acceptable.

14. Round Robin Editing - Small groups (e.g., 4 groups of 5 people) develop lists of ideas (e.g., alternatives, proposed next steps). These can all be on the same topic, but most commonly is used when each small group is dealing with a particular aspect of the issue or planning activity. For example, the group is engaged in a planning activity through which the group identifies X number of major priorities they way to pursue in their annual plan. These priorities are then each assigned to a small group for the purpose of developing strategies on how to proceed.

After groups generate initial lists, each group assigns one person to stay behind as facilitator, while the rest of the group moves to another group’s work. Each group rotates so they have a chance to review and comment on the work of each group. Set time allocations for each rotation.

If you had 4 groups, it would operate as follows:

Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Group 1 is at Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Group 2 is at Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 1 Group 3 is at Station 3 Station 4 Station 1 Station 2 Group 4 is at Station 4 Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Group 1 is at Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 7

When a new group arrives, "home" facilitator clarifies but does not defend “home” group ideas. New group can edit ideas by: (1) adding ideas, (2) deleting or marking through (but not eradicating) ideas, or (3) otherwise modifying home group’s ideas. Each group can edit any work appearing at the station...even putting back in ideas another group “deleted”. Facilitator listens to the new group’s comments, asking questions as needed to “seek to understand” their rationale for their edits. When the set time has expired, groups rotate to the next station, continuing to do so until they have visited each group’s work and returned “home”.

When groups return to their home station, each group’s facilitator leads a debrief through which the group attempts to come up with a final set of recommendations reflecting ALL the groups’ ideas. These are then presented to the large group for a final review. Usually, the group is able to accept the recommendations fully...or with only minor editing. Note: This activity is particularly beneficial when each group is working on related issues, e.g., 4 aspects of the same problem, 5 priorities for an annual plan, etc. That is, visiting each of the group’s stations helps everyone not only comment on the work of others, but also get a sense of the “big picture” of ideas of the group as a whole, so that final ideas resulting from the small groups are “congruent” across the large group. Variation: This strategy can be modified for brain storming/idea generation only, followed later by the same or some other activity for decision-making/priority setting.

15. Advocate Method - The list of alternatives is created and the facilitator announces that only items that have an advocate will be moved to the priority list. Individuals look over the list and recommend items to be moved over. Variation: Indicate that the person who advocates for an item will also be accepting responsibility to lead the follow-up.

Peggy Hayden, 1997 (Derived from 2 sources: (1) compilation by Mid-South Regional Resource Center staff, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY as part of 1992 staff retreat & (2) subsequent revisions by the author as a result of additional experiences with a variety of groups.) 8