Creative Interchange Institute, Inc. - Group Problem-Solving & Decision-Making Process

892 South Plum Grove Road
Suite 104
Palatine, Illinois 60067
Phone: +1.847.358.2100
Email: info@ciinstitute.com
Web site: www.ciinstitute.com

[return to Resources | Home]

Group Problem-Solving & Decision-Making

“To decide is to kill the alternative(s). It is therefore important as to how that execution takes place.”

There are a number of group decision-making processes that groups use, e.g., majority rule, nominal group, unanimity (everyone must agree), random-chance (short-straw, coin-flip), etc., that may “work” in a given context at a given time. Over the long-term, groups that lack a solution-development-and-decision-making process--that recognizes the value in offered solutions/recommendations while massaging them to enhance the valuable aspects and minimizing the drawbacks-- risk polarizing group members, and reducing the number and quality of solution sets offered in the future.

There are several key issues to be addressed before jumping into a decision-making technique. First, is the decision located in the right place in the organization? Is the group crafting a recommendation for someone else to actually make a decision? Is the group making a decision they are empowered to make, and can they then take action to implement? Bottom line—who owns the right to make the decision? The nature of the problem and/or solution may necessitate that the decision owner share that responsibility in an an attempt to secure support for actually implementing the solution. Thus, power sharing has benefits, as well as risks.

If the boundaries and charter are clear, then the group can get down to the business of their internal process. Research has shown that few, if any, decisions are made in an entirely rational modality. It is through the emotional systems that humans assign preference or value to choices. So at some fundamental human level there is emotion (conscious or unconscious) attached to making choices. With this in mind, the way in which alternative ideas are gathered, massaged, evaluated, and eliminated is important.

Caveat--We have found that training groups in an understanding of the foundational philosophy of Creative Interchange (CI) helps them to understand the validity of the tools and techniques they use to solve problems and maximize opportunities. From that knowledge base, they are able to pick and choose tools and techniques that will increase the likelihood of creating and sustaining a truly synergistic group environment. Without the CI grounding, the “technique” alone may not provide the outcome result(s) and/or group cohesion being sought!

With the above caveat noted, one of the problem-solving/decision-making processes we have introduced is outlined below. (I would recommend using flip charts or whiteboard to capture the data. Also, an outside group facilitator is recommended until the group is able to successfully blend content work and process issues on their own.)

Pre-Step1: Ensure that the people involved in the following process have the technical and
collaborative skill sets required to be successful.

Pre-Step 2: Make sure the group recognizes that two distinct meetings are going to take place.
The same people may or may not attend/participate in both meetings. The first meeting is a
problem-solving meeting that will craft possible solution sets. The second meeting (which may
or may not occur immediately after the problem-solving) will be a decision-making meeting.

BEGIN PROBLEM SOLVING MEETING

Step 1: List all the offered solutions/recommendations.

Step 2: From looking at the lists, does any one “jump out” as THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION?
(Sometimes it could happen that someone just nails it and it’s obvious to everyone
that they did. If not, continue with problem-solving meeting.)

Step 3: List each of the others at the top of a flip chart. One idea per page.

Step 4: Ask the person offering the idea to give a brief clarifying statement about the idea.
(There is a more powerful approach to use here, but a CI grounding makes its value more
understandable.)

Step 5: Ask each individual group member to consider each solution/recommendation and
articulate what’s useful or valuable about the idea. They need to find at least four positive
aspects. Capture those on the flip chart.

Step 6: Ask each member for possible drawbacks s/he sees to the idea—as currently understood.
This could include previously agreed upon criteria for success that the solution/recommendation
in its current form does not meet, e.g., resources, times, scope, etc. Note those on the same
flipchart.

Step 7: Now ask team members to work on converting the drawbacks to actionable items.

Step 8: The original idea/solution/recommendation can now be viewed in its synergistic
fullness—the valuable aspects and the modifications required to enhance it (converted drawbacks).

BEGIN DECISION-MAKING MEETING

Step 1: To reduce politicizing decisions, agree up front on what "success criteria" the solution set
must meet. If the group had access to this information during the solution creation process, it is
likely that the alternatives brought forward are ones which can meet or beat that criteria.

Step 2: The decision owner reviews the remaining solution set(s).

Step 3: The decision "owner" makes the decision. If the group owns the decision, they review
which possible solution best fits the criteria needed to move forward. In the event that multiple
possible solutions fit the criteria equally well, the group can review each to see if one or more
requires extra energy, effort, resources, etc. and drop it. The rationale being, if there is truly
another solution that can accomplish the same outcome using fewer resources, keep it simple
and save the resources for other purposes.

The challenge many groups face is an inconsistency in how solution sets are crafted and decisions are made--this time we use this technique, but next time we vote, etc. This approach can become a problem in organizations with a highly competitive and/or politicized culture. This type of culture is usually not skilled at extracting the very best results from teams and work groups with the same success and intensity it draws out individual contribution.

Organizations that desire the benefits of the synergistic advantage of true teamwork need to begin the transformation somewhere. A place to begin is in the internal team processes. The old 1960's adage, 'trust the process' is applicable. To trust the process, team members need an experience that demonstrates that contributed ideas will be treated with respect, and decisions will be made in a way that increases the likelihood that the group will produce the best it can. A win-win for all.

For more information about this process, or other team-based issues, contact us.

[return to top]