1. Decision Methodologies
Brainstorming
Problem Census
Nominal Group Decision Making
Delphi
Voting
Consensus

2. Brainstorming Problem presented with problem to solve (etc.)
Members generate as many solutions as possible without criticism.
Ideas are recorded for all to see as fast as possible.
Brainstorming has a time limit and ideas are evaluated at another time.

3. Rules for Brainstorming
Criticism is ruled out.
“Free-wheeling” is welcome.
Quantity is wanted. Combination and improvement are sought.
45years of research on brainstorming has found that individual brainstorming is more productive than group brainstorming and brainstorming is significantly worse in terms of fostering creativity that having the same number of folks work independently on a given task.

4. Problem Census Group seated in semi-circle facing chart.
Explain purpose of technique.
Ask each person round robin to present one problem (or question, difficulty, etc.)
Post each on board or chart as presented.
Group votes on priorities.
Each problem dealt with in turn.

5. Nominal Group Technique
Problem, situation, or question presented.
Private generation of features or answers in writing without discussion.
Round robin sharing of ideas and recording on board or chart.
Members clarify the items but do not evaluate.
Group ranks items or votes on priorities.
Discussion and then a decision is reached.

6. Nominal Group Possible Alternative Steps
After initial ranking, the various proposals may be discussed and evaluated by the members.
Various proposals may be reviewed and combined or integrated where possible.
Rating scales or voting may be used in place of ranking.
The ranking procedure may be repeated until a convergence occurs.
Various adaptations are possible.

7. Voting Only when necessary
Creates an active minority to oppose majority

8. Delphi Technique Technique done via mail, e-mail, FAX, etc.
Leader suggests in writing problem or idea among group.
Individually members think and respond in writing to Leader.
Leader summarizes and circulates to members.
Various iterations of process, including use of ranking & rating scales, strive to evolve a consensus before a meeting.

9. Decision Making Style
Description
Autocratic l (Al)
Leader solves the problem alone using information that is readily available to him/her
Autocratic ll (All)
Leader obtains additional information from group members individually, then makes decision alone. Group members may or may not be informed.
Consultative l (Cl)
Leader shares problem with group members individually, and asks for information and evaluation. Group members do not meet collectively, and leader makes decision alone.
Consultative ll (Cll)
Leader shares problem with group members collectively, but makes decision alone
Group l (Gll)
Leader meets with group to discuss situation. Leader focuses and facilitates discussion and does not push personal preference. Group makes final decision.

10. Quaker-based consensus
The model used by the Quakers is effective because it puts in place a simple, time-tested structure that moves a group towards consensus. The Quaker model has been well-received when employed in secular settings because it gives everyone a chance to speak while limiting potential disruptors (e.g., people who want unlimited airtime, or who have a particular axe to grind). The following aspects of the Quaker model can be effectively applied in any consensus decision-making process:
Multiple concerns and information are shared until the sense of the group is clear.
Discussion involves active listening and sharing of information.
Norms limit number of times one asks to speak to ensure that each speaker is fully heard.
Norms limit repetition and long speeches.
Norms include a short silence after every comment so deliberations are truly thoughtful.
Ideas and solutions belong to the group; no names are recorded.
Differences are resolved by discussion. The facilitator ("clerk" or "convenor" in the Quaker model) identifies areas of agreement and names disagreements to push discussion deeper.
The facilitator articulates the sense of the discussion, asks if there are other concerns, and proposes a record of the decision.
The group as a whole is responsible for the decision, and the decision belongs to the group.
The facilitator can discern if one who is not uniting with the decision is acting without concern for the group or in selfish interest.
Dissenters' perspectives are embraced

11. Size
The total number of possible social interactions for any sized group is simply the sum of all possible combinations taken two at a time or higher. These are calculated for 2-person interactions:

12. # of Social Interactions and Size; 2 person interactions