Versions Compared

Old Version 12

changes.mady.by.user Douglas Webb

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Douglas Webb

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Current initiation criterion

Info
titleTaken from Quick systemic consensus article on 2016-08-18

Quick SysCon starts with a certain topic and normally with a direct proposal (or a question followed by a proposal). As soon as the proposal is properly identified and recognized as valid for the framework it is immediately checked for resistance "Is there any resistance to this proposal?". This is done by raising one hand.

  • If there is no resistance and the proposal fits in the framework the proposal is accepted as a decision. The decision should be noted in a protocol.
  • If there is resistance expressed by at least one person, the process is taken to the board.

(Emphasis added)

Proposed clarification of current initiation criterion

Although other criteria could be used to initiate Quick Syscon (see below) the single hand raise has advantages:

...

In this way an idea can be explored and questions asked openly until a person makes a proposal starting with "I propose we...". Understanding this convention will lead to investigative dialogue seeking towards resistance-freedom before a proposal is made - in the case where a resistance-free solution is in the room, it may be quickly found. Individuals will learn that "I propose we..." is the initiation to Quick Syscon and that it helps to clearly state a full proposal if it is to be immediately accepted. Suggesting an idea would be simply regarded as dialogue, however, if an individual has forgotten the "I propose we..." convention but seems to be actually making a proposal, any member can prompt them with the question "Are you making a proposal?". Individuals who feel like investigative dialogue is going nowhere can exit this space by making a proposal.

Case

The /wiki/spaces/YUN/pages/50069579 where Martin and Raphael announced their intention to split off from yunity in Kirchheim 2016-08-07. There was no clear agenda, no clear process, no agreed facilitator, no agreed time-frame and not everyone trained or understanding of (Quick) Syscon Consensus. At some point Lars proposed a break, the formation of an agenda and then returning to the meeting: after 90 minutes into the meeting and there was still no clear line of conversation and a lot of talking in circles. Some people expressed resistance to his proposal and vague proposals were suggested... Joachim suggested to use Quick Syscon to reach a conclusion. This process proposal was met with some resistance but no better suggestions were brought forward. Joachim had to explain how the process worked to some people who didn't know exactly how it worked and some proposals were amended several times: the length of time this took to some discontent in group, but a decision was reached about 15-20 minutes later with leading to a smoother second half.

Retroanalysis

Addressing any of the issues "No clear agenda, no clear process, no agreed facilitator, no agreed time-frame, not everyone trained or understanding (quick) systemic consensus." would have likely averted the length of the process towards to the process conclusion. Solutions could include:

...

Panel
titleStill possible, but single hand raise may well be sufficient.

Alternative initiation criteria

With largely harmonious proposals, the voicing of a single issue and a quick amendment by the proposer can very quickly lead to a conclusion. As it stands, this scenario is not an option and the voicing of any resistance leads to the initiation to Quick Syscon. Whilst a well-trained and prepared group can use Quick Syscon very quickly, it is this authors opinion and experience (Douglas Webb by the way!) that it still takes a considerable amount of time. Are there better scenarios to lead to someone stepping up to implement a Quick Syscon?

  • "...a principled objection." In the consensus/consent decision making process used by Buurtzorg teams, this is the criteria for opening up the process to get alternative solutions. Advantage: Accounts significant resistance, lets other team members realize that progressing with this solution might alienate the resister. Disadvantage: Resister might not have another solution leading to a Quick Syscon of just the proposed solution and the passive solution. Resistor may not be able to articulate resistance at that time, either because it is complex or because it is emotional/subconscious (which doesn't make it not real!)
  • An alternative proposal. This could even just be the passive solution. Advantage: It is clear that there are other options being desired. Disadvantage: Could lead to competitiveness where people are presenting what they want instead of what someone else wants, overlooking the cooperativeness of finding group resistance.
  • Resistance perceived or explicit to the syscon moderator/facilitator/meeting member. Advantage: A trusted individual will likely be accepted by the group to use their intuition. Disadvantage: In borderline cases of perceived resistance, the moderator may wish to talk to resister first, potentially leading to off conversations. Group could feel dragged into unnecessary Quick Syscon with liberal initiation.
  • 5 minutes after dissent genesis. Moderator starts to time the perceived origin of a dissent (can be prompted to do so by others), announces they are doing so and times for five minutes to see if it resolves itself. Advantages: Quite simple. Not a significant quantity of sunk time and seems like proportional quantity of time for 'rough consensus'. Disadvantage: Timing requires vigilance, start time could be a source of disagreement.
  • 3 calls. If three individuals call for Quick Syscon, it goes ahead. Advantage: Quite simple to understand. Not just in the hands of one person.

...