The SDP Process

The architecture of SDP integrates 31 components including: Consensus Methods, Language Patterns, Time Phases, Role Responsibilities, and Software.  It keeps separate: Context, Content, and Process.  The context developed by the preparatory team is a white paper describing the situation and a triggering question that gives direction to the designing stage.  Content is the sole responsibility of the stakeholders.  Process is the sole responsibility of the facilitation team.

The details for a key design stage are schematically depicted below:

Step (a) is the geometric representation of the Problematique that structured dialogue is asked to address.  It consists of many interrelated institutions, cultures, economic, political and social factors, etc.  During the Discovery phase the inquiry design team investigates this “mess” with the intent to prepare a White Paper, and to frame the triggering question.

In step (b), the triggering question defines the context of the dialogue.  A typical triggering question might read:

In response to this question, the participants articulate their ideas in their own words to the full attention of the other participants, step (c).  Their words are posted on a wall of the Collaborative facility and everyone agrees not to alter them.  In a second round robin, step (d), the authors of the statements are given the opportunity to respond to questions by other participants in order to explain the meaning and intent of the their observations.  This approach authenticates each person irrespective of his or her education level or position of power.  It produces a palpable reduction of tension.  People seem surprised as they are being heard, perhaps for the first time, in important designing matters affecting their lives.

In step (e), the participants collaborate to inductively cluster the observations they have made.  Then in step (f), they agree upon labels for the clusters they have created.  These steps enhance the understanding of the meaning of the observations and build a consensual language and a sense of shared competence within the group.  The Law of Requisite Meaning and the Law of Requisite Parsimony are implemented during this step.

In step (g), participants rank the ideas presented in the affinity clusters according to individual and subjective relative saliency.  This step brings into sharp relief the different priorities and values within the group.  In the ensuing discussion about the distribution of votes, stakeholders come to understand where their co-participants are coming from, which leads to a respectful working relationship based on defined mutual interest.  The Law of Requisite Saliency is implemented in this step.

In step (h), participants explore influence relationships among the observations and construct abductively a tree of influence.  Charles Peirce is credited with the invention of abductive reasoning, which is a combination of inductive and deductive thinking.  It is the type or reasoning that contributes to the construction of hypotheses.  In this step, they relate their observations in paired judgments asking whether observation A really influences observation B, and vice-versa.  The Law of Requisite Meaning and the Law of Requisite Parsimony are implemented in this step.

In steps (i) and (j), the stakeholder/designers examine the “tree of meaning” they have constructed in step (h).  As a group, they analyze and interpret the cross-impacts existing among the observations they have made.  If there is a need to amend the preliminary pattern of influences after the interpretation, they can do this efficiently again with computer assistance, and produce a new version of the tree-pattern.  In many cases participants volunteer to share their interpretations of the tree of meaning in the context of their experience, thus contributing to the richness of the dialogue.

In this manner, step-by-step, SDP dialogue progressively clarifies the situation and opens the way to greatly enhanced decision-making and action planning.  In addition it:

• Authenticates every stakeholder/participant;
• Elicits ideas and points of view from all stakeholders;
• Moves toward effective and meaningful consensus;
• Elicits and deals with the different priorities of stakeholder/participants;
• Equalizes power relations among the stakeholders; and
• Goes beyond identifying factors that are important, to specifying those that are most influential in addressing the social system-designing situation.