Prism Decision Systems

  • Email
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • HOME
  • SOLUTIONS
    • Strategic Planning
    • Decision Support
    • Strategic Resource Allocation
  • TOOLS
    • Dynamic Group Process
    • Group Decision Support System
    • Concept Mapping
    • Frontier Analysis
  • SCHOOLUTIONS
    • Vision, mission and core beliefs
    • Targets, priorities and strategies
    • School improvement planning
    • Facilities planning
    • Shared Decision-Making
    • Facilitation Training
  • WEB & MOBILE APPS
    • CohortTracker™ Web App
    • Budget Playground™ iPad® App
    • SchoolBenchmarker™
  • THE EIGHT KEYS
    • Buy Now
    • Reader Praise for the Eight Keys
    • Training
  • BLOG
  • TESTIMONIALS
  • ABOUT
    • Client List
    • Case Studies
    • Sample Engagements
    • Presentations
    • Papers
    • Readings
    • In the News
    • Newsletter Archive
You are here: Home / SCHOOLUTIONS / Shared Decision-Making

Shared Decision-Making

Prism’s core expertise is the management of shared decision-making, often among multi-stakeholder groups. We make the following three promises to every group we work with:

  • All participants will have the opportunity to contribute in a way that is comfortable to them, both during idea generation and decision-making.
  • We will minimize unproductive discussion of disagreement and maximize productive discussion of disagreement.
  • We will achieve a consensus that will be publicly supported by all participants.

Prism delivers on this promise through the skilled application of group process techniques and the deft use of group decision support systems.

Shared idea generation

Regardless of where they are in any decision process, groups generate ideas within the following three-step framework.

  • The group is asked to respond to the idea generation cue by brainstorming silently and alone. This gives each individual — especially those who may be shy and reflective rather than aggressive and impulsive — the opportunity to generate ideas comfortably.
  • Then, each member is asked to pair and share without judgment, stopping only to extend ideas or to seek clarification. After the pair-share, every participant is armed with ideas to contribute to the group list — either their own or their partner’s.
  • Each subgroup then contributes to a group brainstorm where the deferral of judgment rules remain the same. The goal is that the larger brainstormed list will include a contribution from each member of the team. Thus, throughout the idea generation phase, all members are able to contribute in a way that is comfortable to them.

Shared decision-making

After clustering the group brainstorm, the group can move to decision-making. Group decision support systems allow quick and powerful assessment of options: 1 – n ranking, paired comparison analyses, multi-criteria decision making, strategic profiling, among others. Each member is given a keypad that has the same weight as every other keypad; therefore, no member can drive the discussion or have a disproportionate impact on the outcome.

The beauty of using collaborative technologies during convergence is their efficiency. Once the vote is complete, the system presents the results in graphic form (bar chart, scatter diagram, etc.). Furthermore, the results can be disaggregated by subgroups within the room.


Immediately, the group can see where they agree or disagree. To their surprise, the most important insight is often the group’s discovery regarding how much they agree. The disagreement displayed objectively before them may have remained unspoken — that is, until the team has retreated to the parking lot or to the water cooler where such disagreement is spoken unproductively in hushed tones.

Efficient disagreement

This is where Prism delivers on its promise to minimize unproductive discussion of disagreement and to maximize productive discussion of agreement. Since the group sees explicitly where they agree, they can focus their discussions on where they truly disagree and do so efficiently. Our experience is that in a typical meeting disagreement is often expressed not to advance the conversation or to enrich the solution set; rather, most disagreement is expressed to satisfy individuals’ egos or to feed the voracious needs of turf-war dynamics.

Explicit consensus

Finally, every implicit agreement is tested explicitly in a consensus process. See the consensus process chart above and the sample consensus vote of a 30 member project management team for a prominent Fortune 50 company.

Contact us

[email protected]
607.727.1088

Buy Now!

You Are What You Decide is now available in paperback and for all e-Readers.

BLOG: SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

Blog: recent posts

No, the world is not going to hell in a handbasket

94 year old Marcel Remy will inspire you

Day hiking in Torres del Paine National Park

Argentina’s Glacier National Park

How the NYS Ed Department distorts school performance

Blog: all posts

Recent tweets

Twitter
Sean Brady
Sean Brady
@prismdecision

When I grew up in #Buffalo, we shoveled off the court all winter and played until our hands were numb, went inside, warmed up and then played until our hand were numb @ByErikBrady twitter.com/seankirst/stat…

reply retweet favorite
9:35 am · 03/24/2018
Twitter
The Economist
The Economist
@TheEconomist

The ratio of firms opposed to Mr Trump’s protectionism to those in favour may be as high as 3,000 to one econ.st/2u79LEV

reply retweet favorite
5:45 pm · 03/23/2018 ·
Retweeted by Sean Brady
Twitter
Steven Pinker
Steven Pinker
@sapinker

The media have gotten gloomier over the decades (this is demonstrable) even as war, crime, and poverty have declined. This distortion has consequences | Steven Pinker theguardian.com/commentisfree…

reply retweet favorite
6:22 pm · 03/06/2018 ·
Retweeted by Sean Brady
Twitter
Myles Brady
Myles Brady
@Mylezbee

A few years back Ed stack came close to running for a PA senate seat... as a republican. #neveragain twitter.com/NPR/status/968…

reply retweet favorite
7:45 pm · 03/01/2018 ·
Retweeted by Sean Brady
Twitter
ProPublica
ProPublica
@ProPublica

HUD officials spent $31,000 on a new dining room set for Secretary Ben Carson’s office in late 2017 — just as the White House circulated its plans to slash HUD’s programs for the homeless, elderly and poor. nytimes.com/2018/02/27/us/…

reply retweet favorite
7:42 pm · 03/01/2018 ·
Retweeted by Sean Brady
Twitter
Steven Pinker
Steven Pinker
@sapinker

I talk through three graphs -- not digital, but built from steel & wire -- on rising life expectancy, on Bill Gates's blog & video channel. twitter.com/BillGates/stat…

reply retweet favorite
12:52 pm · 02/25/2018 ·
Retweeted by Sean Brady
Twitter
Sean Brady
Sean Brady
@prismdecision

Yesterday, a rave review in The Economist and today, an interview with the PBS NewsHour. Here’s my (less lofty, more humble) piece on @sapinker: prismdecision.com/world-not-g… twitter.com/sapinker/statu…

reply retweet favorite
12:13 pm · 02/23/2018
Twitter
Sean Brady
Sean Brady
@prismdecision

Here’s my take on @sapinker prismdecision.com/world-not-g… twitter.com/theeconomist/s…

reply retweet favorite
1:08 pm · 02/22/2018

Contact

Sean Brady
President
Prism Decision Systems, LLC
[email protected]
607.727.1088
Skype: PrismDecision
Twitter: @prismdecision

Some home page icons courtesy, The Noun Project

Join us on social media

  • Email
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • RSS
  • Twitter

BLOG: SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

Collaborators

Decision Mechanics Limited
Rural Schools Association of New York State
Westwood International
Cornell University's New York State Center for Rural Schools
Maplegate Technologies, LLC

Copyright © 2018 · Prism Decision Systems, LLC · [email protected]