One head is good, but ten is better? part 2

Collective decision making methods

First part

"Delphi" - the method or method of the "Delphic oracle"

This method was proposed as an iterative procedure during brainstorming , which would help reduce the influence of psychological factors and increase the objectivity of the results.
The main means of increasing the objectivity of the results when applying this method is to use feedback , familiarize participants with the results of the previous survey and take these results into account when assessing the significance of expert opinions.
In developed versions of the “delphi” - the procedure is a program of consecutive individual surveys using questionnaire methods. Questionnaires from tour to tour are specified. Participants are assigned weighting coefficients of significance of their opinions, calculated on the basis of previous surveys, also refined from round to round and taken into account when receiving generalized survey results. (It is very, very similar to the karmic principles of the habr :) To reduce such factors as suggestion or adaptability to the majority opinion, it is sometimes required that participants substantiate their point of view, but this does not always lead to a positive result, but, on the contrary, can enhance the effect of adaptability , the so-called Oedipus effect . (do not find anything familiar?)

When organizing an expert survey with an oral discussion between the survey rounds, the expert leader can gradually lead the group in the desired direction. This feature was called the "Oedipus Effect" . (Not to be confused with the Oedipus complex).

Due to the laboriousness of processing the results and the time-consuming “delphi” - the procedure is not always possible to put into practice.

Role method.

This method is similar to the "for-against" method , but there are some important differences that allow you to select it.
At the preparatory stage, the task of the group is the identification of conflict situations. The most suitable partners are selected from the group to imitate this conflict situation. Preparation for the role takes about 20-30 minutes. The game itself is about 15-20 minutes. The performers substantiate their points of view with objective data and refute the opponent’s counterarguments. All arguments, including the results of rhetorical techniques, emotional transitions to the individual and even flying over the heads of the stools are recorded in the form of "theses, antitheses."
The experience gained in the process of the game is formed in the form of concrete theses, which are discussed and evaluated by all the group members.

The following test questions are posed:

• What are the most unpleasant arguments, questions and objections for the counterpart?
• Which of them remained unanswered or were not refuted?
• What are the best reasons?
• Which require rethinking?
• What arguments should be connected, connected, so that they complement and reinforce each other?
• What particular behavior did the participants show in the “game” process?

Selected as useful and promising arguments are analyzed in detail and detailed by specially created subgroups.

Synectic method.

This method got its name by the name of the company Sinectic , created by William Gordon in 1960, which successfully applied it. The main peculiarity of the synectics and the difference from brainstorming is the lifting of the ban on criticism of the generated ideas and the formation of more or less permanent groups to solve new problems. Members of these groups gradually get used to working together, stop being afraid of criticism, do not get offended when someone rejects their proposals. Gradually, the group accumulates experience in solving problems. As a rule, an experienced specialist who is familiar with the basics of this method leads the synectic group . He should be better off than others in the task. Initially, the problem is discussed in general, then the field of research is narrowed. In the course of work, you can use literature, expert advice, make models. The head gives the formulation of the problem as it is. Sinectors consistently change the wording of the problem in their understanding. Then comes the approach of the problem as it is to the problem as understood by the members of the group. The main working mechanism for developing a solution is a directed search for analogies . To this end, it is revealed how such problems could be solved in areas far from the problem being solved.
')
If, after evaluating the participants, it turns out that the idea does not materialize, then the “session” continues to analyze other ideas. To the advantages of this method, I would take the smoothing of a congenital brainstorming defect, by partially lifting the ban on criticism and the focus on the use of analogies, and the use of psychological techniques settings.
And the disadvantages include the need to create a permanent group (with a small staff of specialists, this is a problem in itself), the participants of which must undergo some training.

PS For the additions in the comments of the previous article and the links provided, thanks to comrades MapToBckuu and velios
PPS In the description of the synectics, these materials were used , all interested must read.