The key to consistent quality

Optimal GDM Methods

Unnecessary variation replaced with easy-to-use methods.

Each step in designing goals and plans defined for anyone's use.

10 people, 10 methods

A common theme in the research was that when asked how someone would perform a task, facilitate a dialogue, draw a conclusion, noone had the same approach.

Human and AI variance

There are certain tasks that just need to be done a right way. But even trained humans will vary, and AI generates a different suggestion each time it is asked.

GDM-Design Task Standards

To prevent the 41 quality leaks found in traditional GDM-Design techniques, we identified 'Done' for each step and field-developed repeatable how-to. Group decision guides can learn them, the software reinforces them.

The Right Concepts and Frames Yield Effective Methods

Weak methods have placed the performance burden on leaders, consultants, and facilitators

Constructive GDM

Optimal GDM

Why It Matters

Stakeholder Interviews

Collective Intelligence

1920s-era Stakeholder Interviews and Analysis – not designed for GDM – have an unseen flaw that has quietly misdirected groups since its adoption in the 1980s.

Subjective "Best"

Objective Strength

Output quality has been a subjective claim. Optimal GDM measures optimal Fit, Feasibility, and Alignment.

Unique Sequences

Outside-In Sequence

Each situation uses a different dialogue pathing logic.  Our research found one that works for all topics.

Opinion Analysis

We replaced the unpredictable, flawed Stakeholder Interviews and Analysis method with the Opinion Analysis method. It enables three different group decision guides to make the same observations and draw the same conclusions about a group's initial thinking on their topic.

Agenda Design

We replaced subjective crafting of agendas with an agenda design method that ensure the optimal design is in the group's solution space. Using the 3 GDM-Design Frames, different decision guides can produce the same base agenda proposal.

Resolving Disagreement

The most consequential dialogue method is reconciling non-likemindedness yet no de facto or formal standard methods exists. We filled this quality leak with the Collaborative Design technique originally developed by students of Harvard Professor, Chris Argyris. It provides a technique anyone can learn to produce convergence.

Public Availability

Prior education and training in any particular discipline is not required to learn and use these and other GDM-Design methods. Utililzing them removes the downside of human variability where human creativity, innovation, and faciitation are unnecessary. 

The Right Concepts and Frames Yield Effective Methods

Weak methods have placed the performance burden on leaders, consultants, and facilitators

Constructive GDM

Optimal GDM

Why It Matters

Stakeholder Interviews

Collective Intelligence

1920s-era Stakeholder Interviews and Analysis – not designed for GDM – have an unseen flaw that has quietly misdirected groups since its adoption in the 1980s.

Subjective "Best"

Objective Strength

Output quality has been a subjective claim. Optimal GDM measures optimal Fit, Feasibility, and Alignment.

Unique Sequences

Outside-In Sequence

Each situation uses a different dialogue pathing logic.  Our research found one that works for all topics.
Where is the list of all Optimal GDM methods?
All of the methods are taught in our training. They are also embedded into the software to maximize the likelihood they will be used, and applied correctly. This is critical to addressing the fundamental training problem of partial, inaccurate application post-training for activities that are not habitual.
Do I always have to use the Schellingoint method, or can I use my methods when I think they are better?
Yes. However, please bear in mind that the research showed that those regularly involved in Group Design, such as consultants and facilitators, have existing methods. Some, like Stakeholder Interviews, they borrowed, others they developed. However, they support the traditional Constructive GDM approach and are not designed to support the oFFA-based Optimal GDM approach.
Will the methods change in the future?
Probably. Some of the methods have not changed since they were first identified and locked after the initial R&D triggered by a research insight. Others have been revised as their growing application identified gaps. The current lexicon is stable, but further research and application may yield adjustments.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
▲
Where is the list of all Optimal GDM methods?
▲
Do I always have to use the Schellingoint method, or can I use my methods when I think they are better?
▲
Will the methods change in the future?
▲
How is Optimal GDM different from facilitation?
No items found.

© 2026 SchellingPoint LLC