A group holds an average of 134 opinions about the decision in front of it, with 95% of groups falling between 110 and 190. Conventional group design practices surface 50 to 90. Between a third and two thirds of what the group thinks about its topic goes unsaid. Some because they don't feel safe to share it, some because the process doesn't ask for it.
Measured as: opinions surfaced in conventional dialogue, against the fully elicited set (mean 134; two standard deviations span 110–190). The fifteen measures below are what that shortfall looks like from five different directions.
With anonymity and the right prompts, groups express an average of 134 opinions — two standard deviations spanning 110 to 190, so 95% of groups sit in that band. Conventional dialogue surfaces 50 to 90 of them.
Measured as — opinions surfaced in conventional dialogue ÷ the fully elicited set (mean 134)
Four out of ten opinions key stakeholders express prove inaccurate when anonymously peer-reviewed. Not lies — reasonable inferences the group has no mechanism to test. They enter the dialogue as knowledge.
Measured as — expressed opinions surviving anonymous peer review ÷ all expressed opinions
Facts and figures on current state, trends and change drivers play a small role in how groups design goals and actions. Of the five categories of opinion, only assumptions have data collected for them at the outset — outcomes, means, barriers and unintended negative consequences are raised without evidence. Validation may be sought later for a barrier, but not at the beginning. Across an average 134 opinions, 5–25% carry validating data, against 90–95% that could.
Measured as — opinions with validating data ÷ total opinions used in goal and action design (avg 134), against a 90–95% attainable optimum
When one party judges another's views or actions to be wrong, the judgment rests 95% of the time on a negative reading of that person's intent — that they are trying to achieve something they shouldn't. The research data indicates genuinely conflicting motivations occur less than 5% of the time.
Measured as — negative cross-judgments attributable to actual motive conflict ÷ all negative cross-judgments
The largest by far is Different Data: one party holds facts and information the other does not, so the two draw different conclusions from what looks like the same question. Solving it has been problematic because few people will explain the reasoning behind their conclusions, in case that reasoning is found to be wrong. So the data stays private, and the disagreement is read as a difference of judgment, or of motive.
Measured as — conclusions offered with their supporting reasoning ÷ all conclusions offered
In optimising customer/supplier relationships, BPO contracts, alliances, partnerships and joint ventures, the parties usually learn there are 5 to 7 assumptions, goals or constraints one party believes is holding the relationship back that the other party was entirely unaware of.
Measured as — cross-party constraints known to both sides before disclosure ÷ constraints held (5–7)
A group's goals and actions will change the current system of the topic at hand. Asked to define that system — the precondition for action completeness — groups identify 50% to 80% of it, against a desired standard of 100%. The remainder is changed without being described.
Measured as — portions of the target system the group identifies ÷ the full system, against a 100% standard
Groups average 13 outcomes that would indicate the plan had succeeded. They begin like-minded on 5, and rarely learn about the other 8 at all — so the target quietly settles at the lowest common denominator. This counts outcomes reaching full endorsement, which is a different measure from the depth of agreement shown under The Feasibility: groups agree strongly about outcomes as a category while endorsing few of them outright.
Measured as — outcomes reaching full endorsement ÷ total outcomes expressed (avg 13)
A group's proposed outcomes favour itself over its customers, citizens and member stakeholders by roughly five to one — WIIFM rather than WIIFT, what's in it for them. Measured against an expectation that a topic's target outcomes divide evenly between internal and external value, the external share ranges from none at all to half.
Measured as — external-party outcome suggestions ÷ total outcome suggestions, against an expected 50/50 split
The Cost of Inaction is the do-nothing option — the baseline any design is judged against when deciding whether to implement it, and the denominator of the business case. It is rarely zero. Groups express around 30 assumptions bearing on it, and reach like-mindedness on 6. The return on investment is then calculated against a starting point most of the group does not agree with.
Measured as — cost-of-inaction assumptions reaching full like-mindedness (6) ÷ cost-of-inaction assumptions expressed (30)
The group expresses 49 constraints and proposes 42 actions. It can describe why the plan will fail, and who it will harm, in more detail than it can describe the plan itself.
Asked directly, groups express 35 reasons why their goals and plans are likely to fail. A conventional Risks section names 5 to 8 of them, each with a mitigating solution. The other 27 are not rejected, and not judged acceptable — they are never raised, so nothing is decided about them at all.
Measured as — barriers surfaced and mitigated in the plan (5–8) ÷ barriers the group holds (35)
The group expresses 49 constraints and proposes 42 actions. It can describe why the plan will fail, and who it will harm, in more detail than it can describe the plan itself.
Among the reasons a group believes a plan will fail sits a distinct subset: damage the plan may do to others — unintended consequences, collateral harm, blowback. Groups express 13 of these on average. The people advocating the topic foresee none to two. The subset is small in volume next to other concerns, and it generates far greater resistance.
Measured as — downside concerns acknowledged by topic advocates (0–2) ÷ downside concerns the group expresses (13)
The group expresses 49 constraints and proposes 42 actions. It can describe why the plan will fail, and who it will harm, in more detail than it can describe the plan itself.
When groups anonymously rate their own opinions without attribution, they are like-minded on 24% and non-like-minded on 76% — walking into the first meeting.
Measured as — opinions reaching full like-mindedness ÷ all opinions rated
Like-mindedness is not evenly spread. It is highest on the outcomes a group wants, and falls steadily through means and assumptions to barriers and unintended negative consequences — the two categories that determine whether the plan survives contact with reality.
Measured as — mean degree of like-mindedness per opinion category, scored out of 100
Leaders usually express 1 to 3 goals for a successful outcome. Asked privately, their groups express 13. The leader is not withholding the rest — they have not heard them, and the process gives them no way to.
Measured as — outcomes a leader expresses (1–3) ÷ outcomes the group expresses (13)
