Lack of quarreling
0,25
80
30
A charrette is a series of short meetings in which a small group of people work together quickly on a specific topic. It is an open process and stakeholders meet in different groups. By providing short, repetitive feedback participants get a holistic view of the topic.
Charrette is used in real estate or urban development processes. However, it is certainly possible to apply it to any process with multiple variables and stakeholders.
step 1:
mapping
Take into account the following elements for successful application of the charrette method.
In the preparation:
o
Make sure the right stakeholders are present. Consider all groups that have an interest in the outcome, are affected or can make decisions.
o
Clearly define the topic and purpose of the charrette and inform each participant accordingly.
o
Arrange a good process facilitator who can steer people toward a quick outcome, but also make sure everyone stays on board.
o
Collect the right data to quickly answer questions in the process.
In the execution:
1
Create groups of maximum seven people. Ensure a diverse composition of each group. You can also give everyone a specific perspective to reason from, so that the problem is viewed from multiple angles.
2
Give each group a dedicated topic. Determine how long this topic can be discussed. You can schedule a quiet moment at the beginning so everyone formulates his/her ideas before you start discussing.
3
When the time is up, have all groups come together. Share and discuss the results. Choose the best ideas based on quality and in a democratic manner.
4
Rank the ideas. Based on this, make an action plan to implement.
Other sources and materials for the charrette method:
o
Use this toolkit to see how a charrette has been developed to make buildings sustainable.
o
Read an evaluation of the charrette method in this academic article on its application in a reconstruction process following the 2011 natural disaster in Fukushima, Japan.
o
Discover more examples of where the charrette method has been applied.
Making predictions is not easy. One solution is to do a premortem, a method invented by psychologist Gary Klein. In hospitals, postmortem analyses are often performed: a patient has died and the researcher must find out what the reason was. A premortem does the opposite: the researcher has to imagine that the patient is going to die and what factors caused it.
You can also apply this method for a plan you have made. Someone tells you that at some point in the future, say a few months, your plan failed. Now you have to argue why this plan failed and what caused it. Psychological research shows that people can give richer and better explanations when they are sure something is going to happen, compared to when you ask what might happen.
step 2:
predicting
Take into account the following elements for successful application of the premortem method.
In the preparation:
o
Find a relevant case or plan involving multiple stakeholders.
o
Provide a facilitator for the group who creates the briefing and coordinates the meeting. This could be a relevant role for a project manager, for example.
In the execution:
1
The facilitator gathers everyone together and announces that their case or plan failed spectacularly.
2
Everyone individually writes down all the reasons why it failed, including causes that are unlikely or possibly rude to name.
3
Everyone takes turns naming a reason until all the different reasons have been named.
4
The facilitator collects all the ideas and looks at how the plan can be improved.
Other sources and materials for the premortem method:
o
Read a more detailed explanation from creator Gary Klein about the premortem here
o
Ultimately, you want to make a decision. For this, the value model can help. This model lists the values that are most important to you. These don't only have to relate to yourself, but can also reflect your worldview. You then link these values to the different scenarios for the decision to be made. The scenario with the highest score is the best option to go for.
If you have done thorough pre-work, you should be able to calculate a precise score for each possible scenario. If this is difficult, you can also do a qualitative analysis by describing how the different scenarios affect your values.
step 3:
deciding
Take into account the following elements for successful application of the value model.
In the preparation:
o
Always determine the scores of your values before making a decision. This prevents discussion, with yourself or others, about which scenario it should be afterwards.
o
It can also be useful to use different values in a case with different stakeholders. This gives you insight into the impact of the scenarios for these stakeholders.
In the execution:
1
Determine which values are important for the decision to be made.
2
Give each value a score between 0 and 1: from unimportant to very important.
3
Next, for each scenario, run through the values and give them a score between 0 and 100.
4
Finally, multiply the scores of your values (between 0 and 1) by the scores of your values in each scenario (between 0 and 100). For each scenario, add up your values and the scenario with the highest score wins.
Steven Johnson created in Farsighted a value model for a decision biologist Charles Darwin had to make: should I get married or not? It looked like this:
Values
Weights
(between 0 and 1)
Scores scenario ‘don’t marry’
(between 0 and 100)
Scores scenario ‘marry’
(between 0 and 100)
Lack of quarreling
0,25
80
30
Childres
0,75
0
70
Freedom
0,25
80
10
Lower expenses
0,5
100
10
Deep talks with clever men in clubs
0,1
80
40
Lifelong companion
0,75
10
100
If you then multiply the score of your value by the scores of the scenario, you get a total score. So the score of the value 'lack of quarreling' is 0.25 and you multiply this by the score of 'lack of quarreling' in the 'don't marry' scenario: 0.25 x 80 = 40.
Values
Scores scenario ‘don’t marry’
(between 0 and 100)
Scores scenario ‘marry’
(between 0 and 100)
Lack of quarreling
20
7,5
Childres
0
52,5
Freedom
20
2,5
Lower expenses
50
5
Deep talks with clever men in clubs
8
4
Lifelong companion
7,5
75
Total
105,5
144,5
Steven Johnson concluded that, like Darwin himself, it was the best choice to marry.
SOLFEM has its own example of a method for making a complex decision: Climate Tables. In this game, about 20 players will decide what the energy transition should look like. Players decide on the level of emissions, costs and public support.
Climate policy is complicated, but the game helps to get a picture of the future. It is a method for Step 2, Predicting. At the end of the game, each player has their own story about the consequences of the choices made. The outcomes of all the games together also provide insight into what future scenarios are desirable.
A classic method for making a complex decision is to make a 'pros-and-cons-list'. You may have made such a list before, for instance to decide whether you wanted to do this Deep Dive. It may have looked like this:
Why I should do the deep dive on Bias
Why I should not do the deep dive on Bias
I have become immensely curious after reading The Argument to learn more about biases
The Argument was already pretty long and this looks even longer (correct, ed.)
I’m a little afraid of my own biases and want to avoid them
I'm super smart so I don't suffer from biases
I'm not sure how to make complex decisions
I (still) have to do grocery shopping
My mom doesn't want me to spend too long on the computer but if I do this it's okay (and I can still keep playing online Catan without her realizing it)
Hey, is there a cat running outside right now? That's crazy, I've never seen that one before. Whose cat is this? Why isn't it inside? What is this cat's name? What is a cat anyway? Let me look it up
While you can make a good decision based on such a list just fine, the methods of this chapter can help you do it better. After all, a good process increases the likelihood of better decisions. And such a list may also be insufficient for really complex decisions.
This was the end of Part 2 of deep dive. In Part 3, you will get a summary of the previous chapters, a reflection on biases, overview of used and to be explored sources, and a quiz in which you can test yourself on the knowledge gained.