Introduction
Systemic consensus is a decision making process developed by Erich Visotschnig and Siegfried Schrotta - two ex-IBM system analysts from Austria - in 2001.[website] competition-promoting can be most people Systemic consensus online and offline, in short and full formats stages NB: probably what you're used to and reprogramming of old habits.Overview
The systemic consensus process takes a question as an input and gives a decision as an output. The framework for this process is composed of the following stages;
- The question
- The systemic consensus cycle
- Express needs, wants and values
- Form proposals
- Vote
- The decision
Express needs, wants and values
When a question is presented within the systemic consensus cycle, the first thing to do is gather the needs, wants and values (herein NWVs) of the involved individuals. This allows those involved to connect with each other and communicate their feelings in a structured way which is highly important because the wholeThe question
As the input for an intensive process, it is important to form questions as best possible. Questions should be clear & open and made with self-awareness & research. More on forming questions in Question forming guidance.
Participation self-selection
Contributors decide for themselves if and how they will take part in a systemic consensus: We don't restrict access to decisions, but value the self-determination of contributors by trusting them to self-select their level of participation in the systemic consensus cycle.
| Excerpt |
|---|
In order to figure out how you should participate in a systemic consensus, ask yourself the following;
If you answer 'yes!' to...
|
The systemic consensus process
Express needs, wants and values
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Participants express their feelings towards the question.
This provides a safe space for personal, emotional expression and a connection between participants: This is important because the rest of the process is emotionally quite 'cold' and deliberately
prevents discussion from stalling the process. Participants are invited to briefly write from the personal perspective of 'I' and 'me', not 'us' and 'we'. Keeping things brief makes people really think about what their core feelings are. Speaking from the personal perspective shows what the group actually thinks and prevents debate.
'Needs, wants and values'
reflect how people feel about the question
with proposals being withheld for the next stage in the process.
| Gliffy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Form proposals
| Anchor |
|---|
3.b Form proposals
The next stage in the cycle is to form proposals which answer the question. This is also done individually, typically with a time limit. No proposals are excluded from the vote, but writing good proposals is useful and will likely receive less resistance. Good proposals are typically;
- Coherent: Actually referring to the question asked.
- Concise: No longer than they need to be.
- Clear: Without ambiguity
Add always the zero solution and the further solution as control proposals.
The zero solution: This proposal means that, if chosen with least resistance, whatever was in place before will stay in place. If the group can not agree on what was in place before easily the zero solution could be named chaos, general disagreement or uncertainty.
The further solutions option: With this option the group can decide to restart the systemic consensus in order to create better proposals in the coming round. If chosen with the least resistance the systemic consensus goes directly again to the needs, wants and values and the forming of proposals.
|
Participants form proposals to answer the question.
All proposals are included in the ballot, though considering the needs, wants and values of the group and the Proposal forming guidance will help form proposals that are less likely to meet resistance.
In addition to proposals from individuals, two control proposals are always included;
- Zero option: We keep everything as it is and change nothing. This should include a description of 'how everything currently is' before the vote begins. If the 'how everything currently is' cannot be clarified or is disputed then the zero option is "Not definable"
- Further solutions: We look for other solutions. The cycle restarts on the same question: participants express NWVs, form proposals then vote again.
| Gliffy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Vote
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Participants vote against each proposal with a resistance rating.
The vote is a multi-choice, resistance rating: voters rate each proposal with how much they resist that option being selected. The scale starts at zero which expresses the absence of resistance, the maximum value of the scale expresses maximum resistance.
The proposal with the lowest net resistance is selected.
- If 'Further solutions' is selected, the cycle restarts, otherwise the cycle stops.
- If the 'Zero option' is selected, the current situation is maintained - no changes are made.
If two proposals have equally low resistance, just those two proposals are immediately re-voted on.
| Gliffy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The decision
Coming to a decision is hopefully a celebration: good decisions feel good!
Assessment
Looking at the % maximum resistance of the selected proposal can give an indication of how happy people are with the outcome;
| Expand | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||
|
- 0 % maximum resistance: Congratulations! You and your group have reached a consent.
- 1 - 10 % maximum resistance: Very low resistance, wide acceptance.
- 10 % - 25 % maximum resistance: Fair resistance, worth considering reevaluation.
- > 25 % maximum resistance: Considerable resistance, schedule reevaluation.
Sometimes decisions have low % maximum resistance but may have very high point resistance(s). This is more common in decisions with larger groups and shouldn't be ignored. Reaching out to the voter with resistance and finding out the reason for their voting behaviour might sometimes prove to be very useful.
Reevaluation
Reevaluation of decisions is done by re-initiating the same systemic consensus. This is currently done on an ad-hoc basis.
History
It was initially conceived of by Erich Visotschnig and Siegfried Schrotta in 2001, two ex-IBM system analysts from Austria.[website]
| Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Last positive review 2016/03/09 by Joachim Thome |