Evolution of the Structured Democratic Dialogue Process: Difference between revisions

From Future Worlds Center Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:


[[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.
[[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 [[ Structured 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.


[[File:4G_Illustrations-Periods.png|600px|center|alt=Five generations of the evolution of the Structured Democratic Dialogue Process]]
[[File:4G_Illustrations-Periods.png|600px|center|alt=Five generations of the evolution of the Structured Democratic Dialogue Process]]
Line 17: Line 17:
# [[Interpretive Structural Modeling]]
# [[Interpretive Structural Modeling]]


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.
They called their process: [[Structured Design Process]] (SDP). 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.




Latest revision as of 01:20, 12 September 2022

John N. Warfield developed the methodology in the seventies [1] He used the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) in connection with the Interpretive Structural Modeling algorithm[2] to define a process he called Interactive Management[3]. While the Benjamin Broome group continues to use the term Interactive Management, most others now use the terms Structured Democratic Dialogue Process, or Structured Design Process or simply Structured Democratic Dialogue. Since its inception in the early seventies, the methodology has evolved. The Future Worlds Center group proposed a generational classification scheme[4] 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.

Five generations of the evolution of the Structured Democratic Dialogue Process


Generation I

Interactive Management was validated between 1970-1974 mostly in Lab environments, using experimental Algorithms, which culminated to the release of the ISM DOS (Warfield). Fitz [5] called his applications Technology of social learning. Broome and Christakis are credited for taking the methodology outside of the USA and conducting important socio-technical applications. Broome's applications in Cyprus (1994-1999)[6] [7] [8] [9] [10], and later in Ireland and globally[11] [12] [13] [14] were conducted in strict compliance with IM Process and are thus viewed as a late phase of GI. Because Christakis has made modifications to the methodology and developed his own software, his contributions are considered as GII.

Generation II

Christakis, together with Kevin Dye, Ken Bausch, Tom Flanagan, LaDonna Harris, and Reynaldo Treviño-Cisneros have developed a more comprehensive model in which the Interpretive Structural Modeling algorithm has been embedded within an ordered series of steps:

  1. Formulation of a Triggering Question
  2. Idea Generation
  3. Idea Clarification
  4. Clustering
  5. Voting
  6. Interpretive Structural Modeling

They called their process: Structured Design Process (SDP). They have also developed more advanced software applications to support the implementation (Root Cause Mapping, Cogniscope 1, Cogniscope 2). They sometimes called the process itselfCogni 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.


Generation III

GIII begins between 2006-2008 with applications that were conducted mostly virtually and mostly synchronous (e.g., Early Planetary Dialogues, in which all stages were conducted synchronously using teleconferencing for voice and wikis to collect and document ideas, and also as a space for discussion. The process was distributed in shorter sessions using the time between sessions to extend clarifications and collect votes. Cogniscope 3 was used. The key players of this period were Aleco Christakis, Gayle Underwood, and Yiannis Laouris.

Virtual synchronous SDD applications begun in 2019. All stages were conducted synchronously using video conferencing. While Cogniscope 3 was still used, it gradually gave its place to Concertina and Concertina Tools by [[Yiannis laouris|Laouris] and Ekkotek Ltd. as well as Logosofia by Jeff Diedrich. Same as above, the process was distributed in shorter sessions using the time between sessions to improve clarifications and collect preference votes, but also to conduct multi-parameter scoring. Google docs were used (instead of wikis) to host ideas/clarification, discussions, results of stages, including votes, and relevant documents. The Laouris group introduced multi scoring to produce better roadmaps and virtual voting machines embedded within IdeaPrism to enable both synchronous and asynchronous voting.


Generation IV

GIV includes virtual hybrid, synchronous or asynchronous SDD applications. These include early attempts in 2013 to extend the mapping stage individually and asynchronously using ISM parallel[15] as well as applications using IdeaPrism (e.g., Reinventing Democracy, Moscow) and, since 2021, tools that enable individual asynchronous Clustering.


Generation V

GV refers to applications which take place entirely within virtual environments. Early experiments were organized in SecondLife by Yiannis Laouris,Gayle Underwood , and Kevin Dye with members of the Agoras. However, GV is expected to truly launch once the Metaverse becomes widely available.


Citations

  1. ↑ Warfield, J. N. (1976). Societal systems: Planning, policy and complexity. New York: Wiley.
  2. ↑ 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.
  3. ↑ Warfield, J. N., & Cardenas, A. R. (1994). A handbook of interactive management. Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press.
  4. ↑ Laouris, Y., Dye, K. (2023). Multi-stakeholder structured dialogues: Five Generations of Evolution of Dialogic Design. Systems Research and Behavioral Science.
  5. ↑ Fitz, R. (1974, November). Reflections on interpretive structural modeling as technology of social learning. In 1974 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control including the 13th Symposium on Adaptive Processes (pp. 693-696). IEEE.
  6. ↑ Broome, Benjamin J. (1995). Designing the Future of Peace-Building Efforts in Cyprus. Report of Design Workshops held during Fall 1994 and Spring of 1995 with Conflict Resolution Trainers and Project Leaders. Cyprus Fulbright Commission. media:Broome_Cyprus_Bi-communal_Trainers_Workshkops_1994-95_Report.pdf
  7. ↑ Broome, B. J. (1997). Designing a collective approach to peace: Interactive design and problem-solving workshops with Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities in Cyprus. International Negotiation, 2(3), 381-407.
  8. ↑ Broome, B. J. (1998). Overview of conflict resolution activities in Cyprus: Their contribution to the peace process. Cyprus Review, 10(1), 47-66.
  9. ↑ Broome, B. J. (2002). Participatory planning and design in a protracted conflict situation: applications with citizen peace‐building groups in Cyprus. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 19(4), 313-321.
  10. ↑ Broome, B. J. (2004). Reaching across the dividing line: Building a collective vision for peace in Cyprus. Journal of Peace Research, 41(2), 191-209.
  11. ↑ Hogan, M. J., Johnston, H., Broome, B., McMoreland, C., Walsh, J., Smale, B., ... & Groarke, A. M. (2015). Consulting with citizens in the design of wellbeing measures and policies: lessons from a systems science application. Social Indicators Research, 123(3), 857-877.
  12. ↑ McHugh, P., Domegan, C., Mazzonetto, M., Duane, S., Joyce, J., Devaney, M., ... & Piwowarczyk, J. (2017). Seas of energy: Using a systems research approach for a wicked problem. In Social Marketing (pp. 329-338). Routledge.
  13. ↑ Ma, J., Hogan, M. J., Eyre, E. L., Lander, N., Barnett, L. M., & Duncan, M. J. (2021). Enhancing the implementation and sustainability of fundamental movement skill interventions in the UK and Ireland: lessons from collective intelligence engagement with stakeholders. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 18(1), 1-17.
  14. ↑ Hogan, M., Harney, O., & Broome, B. (2015). Catalyzing collaborative learning and collective action for positive social change through systems science education. In The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 465-480). Routledge.
  15. ↑ Laouris, Y. (2022). Method to integrate asynchronously produced individual influence maps into an extrapolated population influence map following the face‐to‐face stage of a structured democratic dialogue. Systems Research and Behavioral Science.



Other Warfield References

  • Warfield, J. N. (1973a). Intent structures. IEEE Transactions: System, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-3(2), 133–140.
  • Warfield, J. N. (1973b). Binary matrices in system modeling. IEEE Transactions: System, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-3, 441–449.
  • Warfield, J. N. (1973c). Assault on complexity. Battelle Monograph, 3 April. Battelle Memorial Inst., Columbus, OH.
  • Warfield, J. N. (1973d). On arranging elements of a hierarchy in graphic form. IEEE Transactions: System, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-3, 121–132.
  • Warfield, J. N. (1974a). Structuring complex systems. Battelle monograph. Columbus, OH: Battelle Memorial Inst. 4.
  • Warfield, J. N. (1974b). Developing interconnection matrices in structural modeling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, (1), 81-87.
  • Warfield, J. N. (1974c). Towards Interpretation of complex structural models. IEEE Transactions: System, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-4(5), 405–417.
  • Warfield, J. N. (1976). Societal systems: Planning. Policy and complexity. New York: Wiley.
  • Warfield, J. (1979). History and Applications of Interpretive Structural Modeling. In Canadian Operational Research Society, Annual Meeting, May (Vol. 23).
  • Warfield, J.N. (1989) ISM software history. Notes by Rose: https://mars.gmu.edu/jspui/bitstream/handle/1920/3204/Warfield_24_33_A1b.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  • Warfield, J. N. (1994). A science of generic design: Managing complexity through systems design. Iowa: Iowa State University Press.
  • Warfield, J. (1995). " A Compressed History of the Development of: Interpretive Structural Modeling, The Science of Complexity, The Science of Generic Design, and Interactive Management," August 1995.
  • Warfield, J. N. (1999). Twenty laws of complexity: Science applicable in organizations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16(1), 3–40.
  • Warfield, J. N. (2003). The mathematics of structure. Palam Harbor, FL: Ajar Publishing Company.
Retrieved from "https://futureworlds.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Evolution_of_the_Structured_Democratic_Dialogue_Process&oldid=26313"