Listen before you leap

Software is not the whole answer.

Situation:

Classic “team meeting” to decide.
More time spent trying to convince, than in trying to understand.
Someone’s got a great software “decision tool.”
Garbage in, garbage out.
Merit is being discussed only in terms of options before you.
Likely outcome: lack of true agreement. Or, no decision.

Elements to leverage:

You already hear the basis for good input.

“This matters more because…”
“This is clearly more important because…”
“This is better because…”
“The whole reason we would….”

Mining the essence of conversation:

Greater confidence in one’s final decision is dependent upon the active, early-on solicitation of comprehensive criteria for judgment.

The goal: To Identify the characteristics of an “ideal”*.

Listen for the above phrases (“Elements to leverage”). They flag the revelation of a “reason” that something is “good” or “better.” That reason is usually a characteristic or a criterion of an ideal. Record it.
It is acceptable to develop a list of characteristics of an “ideal” by first describing the positive aspects or qualities of known options. Be sure to expand discussion to solicit characteristics of an “ideal.”
Do not discuss or mention specific options themselves, while stating their good characteristics. Have participants voice only the characteristic.
Characteristics should be stated generically so that, eventually, all potential options can be judged against them.
Example: “Strengthens our image as innovators.”
Clarify statements for understanding only. Avoid discussion of merit. Judgmental reactions to statements must not be voiced.

* NOTE: If criteria are not identified before options are assessed, any unidentified criterion is likely to be played as a “trump card” later in the day.

Pitfalls to avoid:

The desire to “move ahead,” “vote” or “score” against a defined list of characteristics, treating them as “all equal.”
Not determining relative importance of the characteristics. The results of such scoring have a defacto basis of equal weight.
Weighting that is arbitrarily assigned or “estimated.”

Such foundations are not valid. Arguments about the results will likely ensue.

When and where software makes sense:

Prevention of second-guessing of decisions is dependent on reaching consensus on the relative priority of criteria or characteristics.

This is where a good software package is far better than “placing sticky dots” or “multi-voting” (techniques that are easily gamed).

Relative importance is at the heart of discussion of value or merit.
A simple, quick, disciplined way to reach consensus on relative priority is vital.
You do not need a “steam shovel to kill an ant” in terms of software.
Use a tool that quickly and easily lets each individual in the group be heard, and then collectively shows the results.
Use a tool that gives confidence that the outcome isn’t being skewed.
The software should be flexible. It should be able to incorporate instantly any “trump card” that might be produced, fairly.