A guide for selecting a Collective Decision-Making Method

(This is an article in a longer series about collective or collaborative decision making - if you missed the start, click here)

Decision making is a complex process. taking place in a complex environment. None of the six methods we explored over the past nine articles will be a perfect fit for any realistic situation. Yet some of them will be much more suitable, with minor downsides that can be addressed, while others will be inappropriate.

This final article is intended to help you navigate towards a method that best corresponds with the various aspects of the collective decision-making process, from the nature of your organization and the kind of decision you face, to the rich context within which it is set and any specific criteria that it must adhere to. An initial selection tree allows you to relatively quickly separate the most fitting options from those that are manifestly incompatible with your situation. The detailed framework profiling the six methods (the full profiles are in the appendix) then allows you to validate your choice and refine the detailed approach as needed. When the fit is somehow unsatisfactory, and refining the method does not help, considering an alternative, adjacent method may offer a solution.

We conclude with a practical guide for setting up for collective decision making, and point out some common pitfalls to be aware of.

1.????? Initial selection tree

Step 1: Primary Constraint

Start with identifying your most pressing constraint.

• Time Pressure - Quick decision with clear process Initial candidate methods: Consultative, Voting Eliminated: Consensus, Delphi (too time-intensive)
• Buy-in - Strong stakeholder support needed Initial candidate methods: Consensus, Nominal Group Eliminated: Consultative, Delegative (insufficient engagement)
• Expertise - Deep specialist knowledge needed Initial candidate methods: Delphi, Consultative Eliminated: Voting, Consensus (insufficient expertise focus)
• Accountability - Defined decision ownership needed Initial candidate methods: Consultative, Delegative Eliminated: Consensus, Voting (diffused responsibility)

Step 2: Decision Context

Based on your initial direction, consider the following aspects and how important they are for your situation:

• Multiple Independent Components - Clear separation possible Strong match: Delegative Consider as backup: Consultative
• Well-Defined Options - Clear choices available Strong match: Voting Consider as backup: Nominal Group
• Complex Expert Input - Need systematic convergence Strong match: Delphi Consider as backup: Consultative
• Balanced Input/Evaluation - Need structured participation Strong match: Nominal Group Consider as backup: Consensus
• Full Stakeholder Alignment - Need genuine agreement Strong match: Consensus Consider as backup: Nominal Group
• Rapid Expert Input - Need quick specialist views Strong match: Consultative Consider as backup: Voting

Step 3: Organizational Readiness

Evaluate the capability of the organization for collective decision making:

• High Maturity - Strong processes in place Proceed with the selected method and use the framework for identifying potential detailed concerns and fine-tuning
• Growing Maturity - Processes are developing Proceed with the selected method and use the framework for identifying areas for special attention and potential support processes
• Low Maturity - Limited processes exist Consider the simpler alternative if possible, and use the framework to identify the organizational development needs

?

2.????? Using the Framework to Validate and Refine

Validation check

After the quick selection tree suggests a method,

• Check the Organizational Fit: verify sector alignment, confirm value creation model match, and review risk environment suitability

• Evaluate the Context Alignment: assess the process requirements match, check any anonymity needs, verify workforce stability and trust and review political dynamics

• Confirm the Decision Type Match: validate strategic/operational fit, check the stakeholder composition, and assess the reversibility requirements

• Review the relevant Decision Criteria: confirm the time requirements, verify expertise availability, check implementation clarity, and review the accountability needs

Refinement as needed based on the validation

If the validation reveals gaps, proceed as follows

• Minor Misalignment Modify method implementation by adding supporting processes and/or enhancing specific capabilities

• Moderate Misalignment Consider a hybrid approach, or a more drastic adaptation of the method to meet the specific requirement, and put in place any necessary safeguards to handle potential issues

• Major Misalignment Review alternative methods and seek a compromise, reassess the constraints and their relative importance, or consider a sequential approach with different methods

?

3.????? Exploring Adjacencies

If a method does not feel quite fitting, depending on exactly what the concern is, certain other methods may be ‘adjacent’ and represent a suitable alternative. Some form natural groupings: Consultative, Nominal Group, and Delphi are structured methods that make use of specific expertise; Voting and Consensus represent opposite ends of stakeholder engagement spectrum while Delegative stands somewhat apart due to its unique component-based approach. The most common reasons for switching to an alternative are time pressure, a higher (or lower) need for structure, stakeholder dynamics and, for Delegative, component separability. When methods have fundamentally different philosophical bases (e.g., Consensus vs Voting) or very different structural requirements (e.g., Delegative vs Delphi) they are not practical alternatives.

Strong Natural Adjacencies

• Consultative ? Nominal Group

Consider switching from Consultative → Nominal Group when:

1. More structured evaluation of options is needed
2. There is enough time to conduct a systematic process
3. There is a need to reduce the influence of strong personalities
4. There is a desire to ensure equal input opportunity

Consider switching from Nominal Group → Consultative when:

1. There is a need for faster decision-making
2. There is a clear decision owner has emerged
3. Clearer accountability is needed
4. Less structure in input gathering is acceptable

• Nominal Group ? Delphi

Consider switching from Nominal Group → Delphi when:

1. Group dynamics must be completely eliminated
2. Geographical/timing constraints prevent group meetings
3. There is a desire for deeper expert reasoning through multiple rounds
4. Anonymity is important

Consider switching from Delphi → Nominal Group when:

1. Face-to-face interaction is possible and beneficial
2. There is a need for faster convergence
3. There is a desire to leverage group synergies
4. Real-time discussion would add value

• Consensus ? Nominal Group

Consider switching from Consensus → Nominal Group when:

1. More structure is needed in the process
2. Group dynamics must be reduced
3. Clearer evaluation criteria are needed
4. Time constraints demand a more efficient process

Consider switching from Nominal Group → Consensus when:

1. Deep buy-in is critical
2. There is enough time for fuller discussion
3. Ownership of outcome must be shared
4. Relationship building is important

Moderate Adjacencies

• Consultative ? Delegative

Consider switching from Consultative → Delegative when:

1. The decision clearly breaks into distinct components
2. Component expertise is well-defined
3. Clear interfaces exist between components
4. Parallel processing would be beneficial

Consider switching from Delegative → Consultative when:

1. Components are more interdependent
2. More central coordination is needed
3. There is a desire for broader input gathering
4. Clearer central accountability is needed

• Voting ? Nominal Group

Consider switching from Voting → Nominal Group when:

1. More nuanced evaluation is needed
2. Options need more development before a choice can be made
3. Structured input is desired before the decision
4. There is enough time to conduct a systematic process

Consider switching from Nominal Group → Voting when:

1. A clear, binary choice is needed
2. A simpler process is desirable
3. Equal stakeholder voice is a priority
4. Time constraints require a faster process

Limited or No Practical Adjacency

• Consensus ? Voting These methods represent fundamentally different approaches: Consensus seeks shared understanding and agreement, while voting accepts majority rule. These are rarely practical alternatives for the same situation
• Delphi ? Voting These methods serve very different purposes: Delphi seeks expert judgment convergence, while Voting seeks stakeholder choice. They are not realistic alternatives for same decision
• Consensus ? Delegative These methods have opposing foundations: Consensus seeks holistic agreement, while Delegative seeks component separation. These are rarely appropriate alternatives
• Delphi ? Delegative These methods have different core purposes: Delphi focuses on expert opinion convergence, while Delegative focuses on parallel component processing. They are not practical alternatives

4.????? Practical Application Guide

• Start with Quick Selection: Use the selection tree for initial direction and get to candidate method quickly; also note the secondary option(s)

• Validate the candidate using the Framework: Review all dimensions, ensuring you examine all the pertinent elements for your situation to identify any gaps, and document the concerns

• Make an Action Plan: address any organizational or individual capability gaps, plan the necessary modifications to the chosen method, and set up the necessary support processes

• Prepare the Implementation: brief the stakeholders, set expectations and establish monitoring

?

5.????? Common Pitfalls to Avoid

During the Selection Phase

• Don't force-fit to the preferred method
• Consider all relevant constraints, not just the most obvious ones
• Be realistic about timing

During Framework Validation

• Don't skip dimensions without checking them
• Validate all characteristics
• Document concerns properly as guidance for any modifications

While modifying the chosen method

• Don't over-modify core elements
• Maintain the integrity of the method
• Balance any adaptations, with adequate considerations of the trade-offs

?

So, here ends our journey through the complex, but fascinating landscape of collective decision making. Good luck!

Appendix – Method profiles

?