Collective Intelligence through Structured Dialogue A methodology for tackling complex challenges with multiple stakeholders INCOSE UK Bristol Local Group, 11 th March 2019 1 Overview Systems Engineers often need to engage with Collective stakeholders and address complex or wicked problems. Intelligence Structured Dialogic Design is a methodology that evolved from the field of Interactive Management in the US, through starting in the 1980s. In its various forms (and under different names) it has been widely applied across the Structured globe in enabling groups to tackle wicked problems and complex challenges, but is not well known in the UK, Dialogue despite applications in MoD, Rolls Royce and the NHS. This presentation will outline the methodology, it’s provenance, and the current state of practice. 2 Applications In today’s world many of the problems are not complicated, they are complex and wicked. The methodology delivers consulting redesigned specifically for these situations. Complex and wicked problems can only be resolved by bringing together people with the necessary variety of perspectives and expertise in a collaborative setting where their ideas are freed, protected, and equally Forecasting an Unknown Wicked Problems and Future and Strategic Planning Complex Challenges considered with all others. 3 The Demosophia Methodology Discover Diagnose Design Define Do Discover Diagnose the Design the Define strategic Implement required system at work path forward priorities and adaptively diversity of develop plans perspectives Colabs 4 Colabs A Colab is a gathering of stakeholders who together share, learn, and create a deep understanding of a complex problem using the Structured Democratic Dialogue (SDD) process. • A unique and powerful type of facilitated meeting • Specifically designed to address wicked problems • Efficiently tapping into the collective wisdom of a wide variety of stakeholders • Harnessing cognitive diversity (knowledge, experience, worldview etc.) • Enabled and supported by technology 5 Colab Principles 1. A diversity of viewpoints is essential when engaging stakeholders in a dialogue for defining and resolving a complex issue. 2. Dialogue must be structured so that participants can think clearly by ensuring they are not overloaded with too much information. 3. Each idea must be protected so that its independence and genuineness remain. 4. Participants will understand the relative importance of their ideas only when their ideas are compared with others. 5. Through understanding how different people’s ideas relate, participants become wiser about the meaning of their own ideas. 6. The whole group learns and evolves as each participant sees how their ideas influence those of others. 6 7 8 9 Factor 85: More Positive Programs At my school we only have two positive programs – Gear Up and Bridges. We need more programs like that. The Gear up club helps expose kids to college at a very young age. At the age of 14, for instance, if they are in the Gear up program, they learn about college. The Bridges program teaches kids how to have a strong homework ethic. These kids go right to the cafeteria and do their homework as soon as possible. Adults assist them with homework. 10 Capital School District Five-year strategic planning Shaping the future for tomorrow’s Senators A few months after hiring a new Superintendent, a new five-year strategic plan was needed for the Capital School District. The Board of Education placed a significant emphasis on the importance of truly engaging a wide-variety of stakeholders in the process of creating a vision, determining strategic priorities, and implementing the plan. “The Capital School District has made tremendous strides in bridging gaps between the district and community during its strategic planning process with the help of Demosophia and Structured Democratic Dialogue. We focused on the ideas that would have the greatest impact on students and families and create positive changes that will ultimately improve our students’ performance, health and positive impact on our community.” Dan Shelton, Ed.D., Superintendent/Chief School Officer 11 Air Force Research Laboratory Collaborative Strategic Planning The Air Force Research Laboratory plans technology investments in the context of a 20-year strategic R&D horizon. This study evaluated collaborative, bottom-up strategic planning as a complement to the traditional top-down process. A structured dialogue approach was applied as the bottom-up methodology, enabling a greater number and variety of stakeholders and technical experts to participate in ideation, reasoning and structured planning. The process visualizes planning outputs in a structural influence map revealing systemic relationships, supporting a list of planning priorities. Case Study “Comparison with a parallel strategic planning and foresight initiative validated that the SDD methodology achieved a superior planning product with wider organizational consensus.” 12 Chronic Kidney Disease Initiative Enabling major systemic change over more than a decade The Council of American Kidney Societies (CAKS), composed of the president and president-elect of six major renal organizations, determined a need to coordinate and more rapidly advance numerous programs pertinent to chronic kidney disease (CKD). An initiative was formed (the CKDI), with a nine-member Steering Committee. A workshop for CKDI “stakeholders” using Structured Democratic Dialogue was held in February 2003 to clarify the issues to improve outcomes for patients and create an action plan. In 2017, these recommendations are now a reality as CKD identification and evidence-based care is now delivered at scale across the country. Today there is acceptance of the importance of treating CKD in the medical community; a universal definition for CKD; appropriate screening measures; evidence-based care guidelines; and a change in the workforce, allowing many more of the 11 to 30 million people with some stage of the disease to receive quality care. “When I gather with colleagues who led the work over the years we mention how effective the process was, and that despite the shifting leadership, we are really pleased with how it turned out.” 13 Dr. Thomas Parker III The process in more detail 14 Structured Democratic Dialogue • A rigorously validated collaborative design methodology • Integrates tacit knowledge from diversified perspectives • A diverse group co-creates a shared understanding of: • A vision • A problem • An action plan • Designed to tackle wicked problems • People learning together to develop a common language • People co-developing a ‘systems view’ • People collectively owning the problem and the solution • A process supported by an enabling software toolset • Specialised facilitators focused on the process • Technology supporting clear thinking and preventing overload 15 Colabs - Types • Visioning Co-Lab: • This is an opportunity for the group to DREAM, free of constraints (including time and money). If nothing existed and you could design anything to address the issue, what would it include? • Challenge/Barrier Co-Lab: • This phase identifies and prioritise the Barriers to achieving the vision • Action Co-Lab: • This Co-Lab focuses on identifying Actions to overcome the identified barriers and get as close to the ideal as possible 16 Demosophia Colabs - Stages 1) Statement Generation • Participants will silently and independently generate very concise responses (think newspaper HEADLINE) to a triggering question, with each statement containing only one idea • These statements should capture the essence of what you mean 2) Statement Clarification • Each author clarifies what is meant by his/her statement and these statements are recorded to ensure the intent of the author is maintained • The goal is ensuring everyone understands the intent of the author • The process does not allow for disagreement (or agreement) at this stage • Participants can request additional clarification if they do not understand the author’s intent 17 Demosophia Colabs - Stages 3) Classification • Ideas will be categorised according to similarity of meaning (based on author’s intent) • Participants will gain a deeper understanding of the meaning based on similarities. The name of the category will be based on the meaning of the ideas in the category • (vs. having pre-determined categories that you fit ideas into) • Participants will have opportunity to review and amend the categories 4) Prioritisation • Each participant will be provided 5 dots to vote on what they perceive to be the most important ideas (what resonates in the context of the Triggering Question) • Votes will be for individual ideas (vs. categories or clusters of ideas) • A subset of ideas, based on number of votes, will be included in the influence mapping 18 Demosophia Colabs - Stages 5) Influence Mapping • Participants look at two ideas and make a judgment regarding the influence relationship of the ideas • Participants have an opportunity to persuade the group by sharing their rationale for how they voted. During this stage, participants engage in deeper dialogue, agreeing and disagreeing with one-another, and often re-voting to determine the level of consensus • A lot of learning occurs but, as with every other stage, the authenticity of the author is protected • A “Yes” vote requires a super majority (typically 75%) consensus • Ultimately an “Influence Map” will be generated based on the consensus voting of the group. The influence map will identify