page 4 of 5
 


Introduction to Group Decision Making
.....
..

.
....H O W...D O...Y O U...F A C I L I T A T E...C O N S E N S U S?
.
.
.
"Facilitating consensus" sounds good, but what does it really mean? Here's an example a participant shared in one of our classes:
.
.
. .. . . .
. . "Our team was really frustrated. We were tasked with implementing a new computer system for logging and tracking customer requests. Our implementation dates were very aggressive so staff was feeling the pressure to get the new software tested. The management team was trying to determine the best way to train the application support team. The issue came down to - should we train staff before we implement the new system or right after? If we train them before hand we might not make our project due date. If we train after we might interfere with customer support and Y2K testing. Since it was new software we needed people who understood the code, how it worked and how to modify it so they could support the application later on. The management team couldn't agree on the best approach for training. One manager wanted to train everyone at once. Another manager wanted to train employees in two phases. Another thought we could send a few people to training then those people could come back and train the rest of us. They couldn't agree on what should have been a simple issue." .. .
. . . . .
.
.
In this case, the management team couldn't reach consensus. Unfortunately this is a common problem in business. Often times a group will sit around discussing options for hours with little progress. Why? Because there are no clear considerations and priorities for basing a decision. Unless a group first agrees on considerations and priorities that impact their decision, progress will be slow. Here's how a structure technique - a Decision Matrix - could have helped.

Step 1: What are the options under consideration?
....
The group identified 4 ways to deliver the training as follows;
.
Ex. Options
.
.
1
 . Train all personnel prior to implementing the new software package / no contractors trained
. .
2
 Train all personnel after implementing the new software / no contractors trained
. .
3
 Train primary support personnel (Phase 1 – Formal training) then secondary support personnel (Phase 2 – Formal training). Note: Classes would be offset by contractors.
. .
4
 Train primary support personnel (Phase 1 – Formal training). Note: Classes would be offset by contractors. Then secondary support personnel (Phase 2 – Informal training).
.

Step 2: What issues should the team consider when selecting among the options?
..
Next the group listed important considerations for choosing a training option. This step is very important because it allows decision making participants to voice their motivations/concerns about the decision for the entire group. In this case, the group identified the following considerations which they put into a decision making matrix;

Ex. Considerations

 
. Training Options
Considerations		 Definition Weight Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Testing Testing of actual system code
.
.
.
.
.
Implementation Installing system code to production
.
.
.
.
.
Support Handling problems / questions after implementation
.
.
.
.
.
Y2K Testing to ensure system is Y2K compliant
.
.
.
.
.
Cost Cost of training
.
.
.
.
.
Total Impact score (impact X weights)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Step 3: Which considerations are most critical?
..
Next the team must decide which of these considerations are most important. By assigning a weight to each consideration the group has some boundaries for evaluating each option. The difficulty is in assigning the weights. For instance, using the above example, in one person's opinion Y2K may be the most critical consideration because if the system isn't Y2K ready a lot of customers could be impacted. Another person may think implementation is most important since if you don't implement - why worry about Y2K. The key point is, this is a very useful format for gaining group consensus on decision making variables. Below is a sample of possible weights;

Ex. Weights
Weight (importance) Rating
Extremely Important
4
Very Important
3
Important
2
Low Importance
1
Not important
0


Ex. Weighted Considerations

 
Training Options Considerations Definition Weight Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Testing Testing of actual system code
3
.
.
.
.
.
Implementation Installing system code to production
3
.
.
.
.
.
Support Handling problems / questions after implementation
2
.
.
.
.
.
Y2K Testing to ensure system is Y2K compliant
4
.
.
.
.
.
Cost Cost of training
1
.
.
.
.
.
Total Impact score (impact X weights)
.
.
.
.
.
.


Step 4: Determine the impact each option has on each consideration
..
Now the group has a logical process for comparing each option to each consideration to see if it has a positive or negative impact.
Below is a sample of the impact ratings the group used;


 
Impact Positive (+) Negative (-)
Very high impact
4
-4
High impact
3
-3
Moderate impact
2
-2
Low impact
1
-1


Ex. Training options rated against considerations

 
Training Options Considerations Definition Weight Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Testing Testing of actual system code
3
-4
-1
3
3
Implementation Installing system code to production
3
-4
-1
3
3
Support Handling problems / questions after implementation
2
-2
3
2
-3
Y2K Testing to ensure system is Y2K compliant
4
-4
2
3
2
Cost Cost of training
1
4
2
-3
3
Total Impact score (impact X weights)
***
.
.
.
.


Step 5: Calculate Total Impact Score for each option.
..
The Total Impact Score is an objective rating that reflects the group's opinion on each option. The rating is based on cumulative consensus. That is, the group first agrees on possible options, then agrees on weights and finally on impact ratings. This logical approach makes it easier for a group to focus on particular steps without getting overwhelmed by dissenting opinions.

To calculate the Total Impact Score the weight and the impact rating is multiplied for each option and added together. For instance, using the example below the Total Impact Score for Option 1 is -40, calculated as follows;


 
Testing
Implementation
Support
Y2K
Cost
Total
3 X -4 = -12
3 X -4 = -12
2 X -2 = -4
-4 X -4 = -16
1 X 4 = 4
-40

 
Training Options Considerations Definition Weight Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Testing Testing of actual system code
3
-4
-1
3
3
Implementation Installing system code to production
3
-4
-1
3
3
Support Handling problems / questions after implementation
2
-2
3
2
-3
Y2K Testing to ensure system is Y2K compliant
4
-4
2
3
2
Cost Cost of training
1
4
2
-3
3
Total Impact score (impact X weights)
***
-40
10
31
23
.
Note: The higher the score the more effective the option.


Based on this exercise Option 3 appears to be the best choice. If cost was more of a factor, then Option 4 may be a better course of action. This is an excellent exercise to help a group tackle a difficult decision. .
.
. .
The next section provides an example of Decision Paradox based on real events. Check it out and see if you've ever been part of a similar situation. Click to move on.
.		 . .
.....

.
.

 
.


 

Return to TTB Home Page