Re: [xdi] A proposal for the F2F

[Peter C Davis <peter.davis@neustar.biz>]

+1

--- peterd

On Thursday 21 April 2005 10:18 am, Barnhill William wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'd imagine that like last year's F2F we'll need to be making a lot of
> decisions. I'd like to propose using a particular tool to help
> speed/capture those decisions. Not sure of the name, but I call it a
> decision wheel. Steve Cisler invented AFAIK. Below is a pasted description
> of the tool. To see a quick vote on whether to use it or not, I'd propose
> everyone respond to this message with a simple message body with a simple
> +1 (For), -1 (Against), or 0 (Ambivalent). I'll tabulate the results, or
> Marc can for impartiality :) (Trust me, I'm not THAT tied to the tool).
>
> My quick pattern for using this:
>
> Name: Decision Wheel Consensus
>
> Context: A F2F group with a whiteboard, or online group with blackboard
> capability, needs to make several decisions.
>
> Forces:
>
> ..Decision time is limited
>
> ..Number of decisions can be discussed at once
>
> ..Shared vision must be captured
>
> Solution:
>
> ..Pick a moderator
>
> ..Draw a center for the wheel
>
> .. For every decision to be made, create a decision axis
>
>      .. draw two spokes in opposite directions from the center, ideally in
> a different color for each decision
>
>      .. Label the spokes with the quality that needs deciding (color,
> centralization, attributes Vs elements)
>
>      .. Label one spoke with the value at one end of quality spectrum (all
> elements)
>
>      .. Label opposing spoke the value at other end of spectrum (All
> attributes on single element)
>
> .. For each member have them plot on the decision axis where their views
> are, and make a brief case for why
>
> .. Once all members have gone, let any member that wishes change their plot
> points, and briefly state why
>
> .. Repeat until for each axis a consensus has been reached by tightly
> grouping plot points, or until no member wishes to change their mind.
>
> .. If no member wishes to change their mind, then the topic needs
> discussion, or tabling until further information can be added.
>
> Result Context: For each decision axis a group plot point has been created
> and a decision made, or a range of plot points have been captured and the
> decision has been tabled until after further discussion/new information.
>
>
>
>
>
> Tool description follows:
>
> Steve Cisler described the use of a spoked circle as a graphical decision
> aid
>
> (see figure below). The circle represents the "space" of decisions that
> must be made, while the endpoints
>
> of the spokes represent the two possible extremes of each decision. In his
> paper on "Community
>
> Networks: Past and Present Thoughts." Cisler describes how the
> spoked-circle approach was used by the
>
> Silicon Valley Public Access Link project. The upright spoke, for example,
> might be labeled "system
>
> architecture" and the location of the small circle on the spoke near the
> "distributed" endpoint depicts the
>
> decision to use a distributed architecture instead of a centralized one. A
> point on the middle of a spoke
>
> would indicate an intermediate position between the views represented by
> the endpoints.
>
> There are no stringent requirements as to how to use the tool. Simply
> identifying the spokes can be an
>
> important first step, as the spokes clearly show which decisions are to be
> made. It may not be critical to
>
> determine the exact location of the decision. In some cases, a group may
> decide to postpone a decision,
>
> but it is a group decision, nevertheless, that ultimately must be made with
> others in the group. If a
>
> difference of opinion hasn't been resolved - for example, whether an online
> resource should be free to
>
> use or whether there should be fees - the organizers could say, "We're
> still trying to resolve this. Which
>
> approach do you think is best?" The tool can also be used as a way to
> explain compromises or transitional
>
> circumstances by showing the current point in relation to the direction
> along which the developers plan to
>
> proceed. For example, when the system is launched it might be deemed
> necessary to charge users a small
>
> fee, but ultimately the system would be expected to be free to use. It
> might also be necessary to begin
>
> with text-only displays, but with a commitment to move to more advanced
> graphical displays later.