Decision Conferences

Decision conferences are facilitated working meetings that can be used to solve a variety of problems including conflict resolution amongst experts, negotiation of multi- party agreements, and in the development of government policy (Schuman and Rohrbaugh, 1991). However, the widest application of decision conferencing is in organisational planning for which Schuman and Rohrbaugh (1991) mention there have been various uses ranging from defining organisational goals and priorities and

allocating budgets, to the establishment of long-term strategic plans; and evaluating practical issues such as allocating office space and site location selection.

The decision conferencing method enables a small group of key stakeholders and subject matter experts to resolve important issues in their organisation by working together under the guidance of an impartial facilitator to create a decision analysis

model of participants’ perspectives on the issues discussed (Phillips, 2006; Innovative decisions, 2011). A distinguishing feature of a decision conference is that the

discussion revolves around a computer based model, which allows the participants to constructively debate issues and represent the collective judgments of the group in a logically consistent and easily communicative fashion (McCartt and Rohrbaugh, 1989; Innovative decisions, 2011). Although, Phillips (2006) notes that the main purpose of this computer-based model is to serve as a tool for thinking, and not to provide the optimal solution.

A typical decision conference lasts for a period of two to three days in a meeting room away from daily interruptions, which is followed up with further analysis and reporting (Innovative decisions, 2011; Phillips, 2006; McCartt and Rohrbaugh, 1989). Each decision conference session is moderated and controlled by external facilitators, who are responsible for eliciting information and asking questions; channeling responses; and building analytical models based on responses from the group (Innovative decisions, 2011). According to Schuman and Rohrbaugh (1991) the combination of interpersonal communication and computer assisted techniques successfully incorporates the role of human judgment into the decision making process, whilst allowing participants to use information more consistently and coherently.

Phillips (2006) outlines a five stage process to conducting a decision conference (see Figure 4-3), of which two stages occur prior to the commencement of a decision conference, and one stage follows its completion. These five stages are:

1) Initial inquiry from an organisation recognising a gap between desired and actual performance, a recognition that the environment calls for new ways of operating or that current policy or strategy is becoming less relevant to new conditions. The establishment of a motivation for change is also helpful to improve the commitment to implement results.

2) A short meeting prior to the event for the facilitator and decision maker to explore the nature of issues, their compatibility with decision conferencing, and to establish a set of objectives. The key players to be included in the decision conference also need to be identified, and should include those people whose perspectives are likely to make useful contributions towards resolving the issues raised.

3) The decision conference opens with a discussion of the pre-determined objectives and the opportunity for the participants to modify them before they are agreed and taken forward.

4) The issues are discussed amongst the participants, who build up a gradual model of the problem and determine possible results and or solutions to be explored.

5) Following the completion of a decision conference, the facilitator compiles a report of the meeting outcomes and a short follow-up meeting is arranged to resolve any remaining issues.

Figure 4-3 The decision conference process (Phillips, 2006, p11)

Decision conferencing results in the development of a shared understanding of the issues amongst participants and the generation of a sense of purpose and commitment to the way forward (Phillips, 2006). Furthermore, Schuman and Rohrbaugh (1991) highlight that for groups that need to reach consensus on a complex, unstructured problem; decision conferences provide an ideal arena for combining the perspectives of a diverse range of people to develop a mutual understanding and ultimately reach a consensus decision.

4.4.3.1 Advantages and disadvantages of decision conferences

Since their conception in 1979, decision conferences have become established as one possible method of creating a forum for constructive engagement within a focused unconstrained conversation (Phillips, 2006). As such, they provide an effective way of improving communication across disparate parts of an organisation; stimulating creative thinking and fostering collaborative working (Ibid). In general, the most

effective decision conferences are those based on ‘hot’ topics or issues of real concern to the organisation involved, which can be either strategic or operational in nature. Although McCartt and Rohrbaugh (1989) assert that for a decision conference to result in a successful outcome, an action plan for the duration of the conference needs to be

in place along with the expectation that the target problem will be resolved by the end of the conference.

Phillips (2006) identified three key values associated with decision conferences. Firstly, to assist a group of decision makers to generate shared understanding of the issues, without the need for consensus of opinion on each. Secondly, to develop a shared sense of purpose whilst also accepting differences in individual perspectives; and finally to gain commitment to the way forward, whilst preserving individual paths. In addition, senior managers who employed the decision conferencing technique in their organisation reported that despite participants disagreeing over the best decision the process had helped to achieve agreement about the way forward (Ibid).

Despite being a successful strategy formulation process that combines formal analytical thinking with the behavioral aspects of management, Schuman and Rohrbaugh (1991) note that decision conferencing is an expensive process to carry out. It is costly in terms of the amount of management time devoted to a 2-3 day working group, and in the information system required to support the group’s

discussions (Ibid). Phillips (2006, p6) also highlights that “decision conferences don’t work very well for issues that are merely ‘interesting,’ or ‘nice to consider,’ but lacking any sense of urgency for their resolution”. Also, if participants feel little pressure to reach consensus or devote too much time to developing the computer-based model a decision conference is likely to fail to achieve sufficient support and commitment to the implementation of the outcomes (McCartt and Rohrbaugh, 1989). Another potential disadvantage is the need for a specially trained facilitator to help ensure a reasonable level of impartiality remains throughout the conference and to avoid them assuming the role of group leader, and actively assisting the group (Ibid).

They are common in the public sector where for instance it has been effectively used by the Bank of England to look for ways to reduce its operational costs by relocating its Registrar’s Department outside of London (Butterworth, 1989); and by the UK National Radiological Protection Board to develop guidance on relocating the public in the event of a radioactive release (Aumônier & French, 1992).