PRAGMA 17 Workshop in Hanoi, Vietnam. Do they look like long-term collaborators that know well how each other works to you? ;-) I took this photo while attending PRAGMA 17 Workshop in Hanoi, Vietnam, 2009. The four computer scientists from three continents, have been very good colleagues and friends knowing and working with each other closely since around 2000. The context of this photo was – they were the panelist at the beginning of a plenary session discussing the future of ‘grid computing’, what the trends and impact in high-performance, distributed computing means when we are going to do everything “in cloud”, and what each working group should start experimenting and making sense of the new development. -Message of the photo: yes even experienced team science leaders with decades of experience, they struggle too when building a shared vision, a shared framework of understanding. From there then the team can develop goals and action items that will get the team work toward completing the goals, fulfillingthe shared vision. PRAGMA 17 Workshop in Hanoi, Vietnam.

Left: GLEON 11 Student Workshop (Nanjing, China 2010) - Depending on the content and purpose of what scientists get together to do, newly formed groups for training such as the student workshop in a GLEON all-hands meeting (G11 photo), and teams that have evolved overtime such as a GLEON working group like the top right photo shows, all groups go through some kind of “divergent – groan – convergent zone” process to varied extent. Left: GLEON 11 Student Workshop (Nanjing, China 2010) Top right: GLEON 12 Ecosystem Modeling Working Group (Israel, 2011) Bottom right: GLEON 12, Climate & Lake Physics Working Group (Israel, 2011)

In reality, discussions may go like this… A “hypothetical” problem-solving or shared goals discussion probably looks like this: In reality, discussions may go like this… - There is no right or wrong work flow or model. These are just two possibilities among many we should recognize. It is normal that it happens in groups sometimes, but it up to us as a group to decide how we want the collaborative journey to be like, how we want to work together, what we want to achieve and HOW WE AGREE TO GET THERE.

The Idealized Group Decision Making Process DIVERGENT Thinking Generate a list of ideas Free-flowing open discussion Seeking diverse points of view Suspending judgment CONVERGENT Thinking Sorting ideas into categories Summarizing key points Exercising judgment Coming to agreement vs.

A more realistic model  - The ‘groan zone’ is a period of confusion and frustration after we all have our air time and share familiar opinions to explore diverse perspectives, group members go through the process for integrating new and different ways of thinking with their own The “Groan Zone” is where we – “struggle in the service of integration.”

The Diamond of the Participatory Decision-Making -Or in GLEON FP we call it the ‘Fish’ model of Participatory of Group Decision Making  The Diamond model is developed by Sam Kaner, Lenny Lind, Catherine Toldi, Sarah Fisk and Duane Berger. Co-authors of the Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making (Jossey-Bass Business & Management, 2011)

When an issue has an obvious solution or the group members come up with more or less the same idea for solution, it makes sense to close the discussion quickly. What’s the challenge? Most groups try to bring ‘every’ discussion to closure this quickly. This risks the oversight of more creative or thorough considerations of what the group could have decided to do and achieved next.

Pre-requisite of building sustainable agreements. What are we doing in the “Divergent Zone”? Pre-requisite of building sustainable agreements.

What are we doing in the ‘Groan Zone’? To clarify competing frames of references, compare, negotiate goals and inclusive solutions, ensure full participation, establish mutual understanding and prepare to share responsibilities.

What’s the value and end result (we aim for) of the ‘Groan Zone’? Creating the SHARED Framework of UNDERSTANDING. 

The Convergent Zone AND the Closure Zone

What are we doing in the convergence zone? Remember to discuss and establish clear “decision rules”  when reaching the CLOSURE ZONE (Decision Point). This is the single most structural element of group decision-making to take the group beyond ‘Decision Point’ to IMPLEMNTATION.

Full Participation Shared Responsibilities Inclusive Solution Mutual Understanding Inclusive Solution Shared Responsibilities The Four Participatory Values of the Diamond Decision-Making model for groups

By Midge Eliassen. LSPA, Sunapee, NH. January 2013 -The Fellowship team(s)! By Midge Eliassen. LSPA, Sunapee, NH. January 2013

 Thank you  The Diamond [or ‘fish’] of Participatory Decision-Making diagrams, the definition of each zone and the value of the model are excerpted from Kaner, S., Lind, L., Toldi, C, Fisk, S., and Berger, D. The Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2011. All photos are used in this presentation are taken by Grace Hong unless noted otherwise.