Evolution of the Structured Democratic Dialogue Process: Difference between revisions

[[John N. Warfield]] developed the methodology in the seventies <ref>Warfield, J. N. (1976). Societal systems: Planning, policy and complexity. New York: Wiley.</ref> He used the [[Nominal Group Technique]] (NGT) in connection with the [[Interpretive Structural Modeling]] algorithm<ref>Warfield, J. N. (1982). “Interpretive Structural Modeling”. In S.A. Olsen (Ed.), Group Planning and Problem-solving Methods in Engineering (pp. 155-201). New York: Wiley.</ref> to define a process he called [[Interactive Management]]<ref>Warfield, J. N., & Cardenas, A. R. (1994). A handbook of interactive management. Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press.</ref>. While the [[Benjamin Broome]] group continues to use the term [[Interactive Management]], most others now use the terms [[Structured Democratic Dialogue Process]], or [[ Dialogic Design Process]] or simply [[Structured Democratic Dialogue Process| Structured Democratic Dialogue]]. Since its inception in the early seventies, the methodology has evolved. The [[Future Worlds Center]] group proposed a generational classification scheme<ref>Laouris, Y., Dye, K. (2023). Multi-stakeholder structured dialogues: Five Generations of Evolution of Dialogic Design. Systems Research and Behavioral Science.</ref> consisting of five stages based primarily on whether some or all stages of the process were implemented synchronously or asynchronously and whether the participants’ presence was physical or virtual. Other aspects such as modifications in the stages of the process, the evolution of the software, domains of applications, file management, methods of collecting or recording contributions, votes, and clarifications, preparation of reports, and key players are also considered and reported within the context of the primary scheme. The figure below depicts five generations of the evolution of the Structured Democratic Dialogue Process along a timeline. The key actors and the predominant technologies used are also included in the diagram.

They called their process: [[Dialogic Design Process]] (DSP). They have also developed more advanced software applications to support the implementation (Root Cause Mapping, [[Cogniscope 1]], [[Cogniscope 2]]). They sometimes called the process itself'''Cogni System''', using the name of their software. Applications conducted between 1987-20005, in strict compliance with DSP have been classified as early applications of GII. Applications conducted by the extended Agoras group (i.e., [[Yiannis Laouris]], [[Jeff Diedrich]]), mostly referred to as [[Structured Democratic Dialogue Process]](and the underlying methodology: [[Dialogic Design Science]], including hybrid (2005-today) are classified as a late wing of GII. These applications use ne software, such as [[Cogniscope 3]], [[IdeaPrism]], [[Concertina]], and [[Logosofia]]. Most applications were conducted f2f, but some were hybrid (examples: Projected data on walls, i.e., [[Reinvent Democracy]] projects). During this period, other innovations included early voting machines used by ([[Cliff Sanders]]) and multi-scoring the ideas that made it to MAP for impact, feasibility, and probability of happening without intervention.