Alex Baumann <akme.baum...@gmail.com>

Hi Chris,
I can see what your trying to do here and I think it would be great if
people could remove the tension from co-operation - just cooperating
where there was obvious common ground but I have to say this process
doesn't work for me on a number of levels. To try and summarise that
giant email I just sent:

1. To assume that people will not launch into full blown negotiation
and decision-making as soon as they engage with an idea is unrealistic
in my opinion. If they fully support an idea and are coming in behind
it they will still quickly find room for difference and while
splitting up is always an option it is certainly not the first port of
call as suggested in step 3-4. People will necessarily look for
understanding and win win or even an acceptable compromise so they can
retain the benefit of cooperation. I think people would find splitting
up highly unsatisfactory - more than this I think they would find it
unacceptable as a first port of call.  I don't think that people think
this way in groups and asking them to walk down this path is just too
different. While there are exceptions, I think people are generally
seeking common ground to cooperate from, not seeking a forum for
personal idea expression and group division. For this reason the
process comes across as prescriptive, counter-intuitive and complex to
me.

2. This process assumes a very strong individualistic approach to idea
development which I think is inconsistent with the reality that many
ideas evolve out of groups bouncing thing around with no individual
needing or wanting personal responsibility. I think that the
opportunity for individual idea development needs to be there but to
have a process that neglects group idea development would be a big
problem. In a collective PIN idea description, if they don't have
common ground they will be helped to see that straight away because
PIN makes all agendas clear. The bigger group will either negotiate
common ground from there or not it doesn't really matter - but that is
the path they will want to travel down and it can be traveled down
respectfully with PIN and a good decision-making process. I just think
to take it further than that becomes too artificial.

3. Even if there are enough individual ideas in the group the notion
that all would develop them at the same time is practically very
problematic when I consider the typical group setting. It makes the
application of our process a much bigger exercise (almost like a
planning day) than it needs to be. Ideas usually just bubble up or are
brought in by one person and groups simply need a way to reject them,
refer them to a smaller group or chase them. Our process just provides
a few simple tools to make that natural process they are already
following much better. Like the brainstorming of jobs it is just an
intuitive process improved by PIN and a good decision-making process
which can be as simple as a show of hands and a platform for the
minority and another show of hands.

Re decision making, I think a simplified decision-making process can
just be integrated with the silent brainstorm to form one definative
process that is easy to use for every step. We can recommend more than
this but the group will use it to the extent that they are committed
to consensus. I'll also do a draft to show you what I mean here.

There may be a few other points I'm making in the giant email but i
think these are the main issues for me.

Alex

2009/5/25 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>: