convergence with "stickie dots"

[Pannwitz, Michael M]

Dear Sticky Dotters,
I have used the standard, 55 dots Delphi Method. It is a statistical
procedure (described in the Users Guide), that gives you a standard
curve. There are at least 4 issues, often 5 or 6 and sometimes 7, but
never more than that which really have the heighest weight. This is
regardless of number of issues in the sense of very many and
regardless of the number of participants. It is very predictable. In
addition, you get a broad field of issues closely bunched and always
at least one that has a very low weight, sometimes two, I never had
three.
To me the question is, regardless of what weighing procedure you use
(I try to avoid the words voting or prioritizing) what do you do with
the results. What do the results mean?
After having done it several times according to the book and in other
ways, I found that often the issue with weighed most heavily did not
get any action.
Now, I have gone to consider all this as additional data. Just that,
additional data for participants or the system.
But not the basis for action planning.
So after having done dots or a procedure I call "forming of families"
(people selforganize bunching of issues and find a new heading for
each bunch, usually it turns out to be seven bunches) I pause, ask
everyone to have a look at all this and try to figure out what that
means for them individually, for their work, their community, etc.
And then I ask them to go to the center and write down (open space
style) what they want to take action on.
It is these action proposals I then ask people to congregate around
and decide on first steps.
Greetings from Berlin
mmp

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:34:19 +1100, Fr Brian S Bainbridge wrote:

>For Lisa Heft et al
>I have only ever used five dots, regardless of the number of
>participants.
>Always comes out with a small number of items focused on, and then a gap
>to the other matters on the walls.
>Whatever of mathematics and such - and I'm not into that - it just might
>be that participants re able to express their opinion clearly and
>helpfully. That's how it seems to me, at least.
>And there's always a gap between the "high dotted" items and the rest.
>It's kind of uncanny, but it always happens.
>One delicacy is the difficulty participants sometimes have in dotting a
>whole topic or a single item of that topic report. As usual, if they
>ask I respond whatever seems the right thing for you. That works, too.
>It's their program, after all.
>Cheers and blessings, BRIAN.
>
>
>*
>*
>==========================================================
>OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
>------------------------------
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
>view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
>Visit:
>
>http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
>





Michael M Pannwitz
boscop
Draisweg 1
12209 Berlin, Germany
FON +49 - 30-772 8000 FAX +49 - 30-773 92 464
www.michaelmpannwitz.de

An der E-Gruppe "openspacedeutsch" für deutschsprechende open
space-PraktikerInnen interessiert? Enfach eine mail an mich.




*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
Visit:

http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20030306/6b4ce500/attachment-0017.htm>