From a decision process excellence perspective, traditional group decision design approaches are weak, fragile processes.

Because the quality leaks are structural, not behavioral. Inaccurate concepts. Flawed methods. Missing frames. The best people, data, knowledge, and wisdom cannot overcome the methodology weaknesses.

Lacking methods to meaure their design's strength, groups must use input quality and meeting success to assess output quality.

No. The closest are consulting firm methodologies that use their choice of concepts, frames, and methods for the GDM-Design aspects of a service focused on a particular topic, such as strategy revision, policy development, project chartering. At the 'as-conducted' level, every group decision design process is unique.

Due to decision-making's focus on choice selection and the decision design blindspot, there has been no research and evidence-based decision design process to utilize.  

Partially. The use of each Optimal GDM concept, frame, or method can close a Constructive GDM quality leak. Using them all advances group designs from 'their best' to 'better' but not to 'best possible.'

Each time a group designs goals and actions to advance a topic using traditional approaches, they move a design with unknown inaccuracy and incompleteness into implementation.