See http://www.tobe.net/topics/choice.html
in large groups (when there aren't enough facilitators): http://blog.tobe.net/?p=59
Also commentary by TomAtlee at http://www.co-intelligence.org/I-decisionmakingwithout.html#choicecreating
TransformationalTalking? is dialogue which transforms the participants and shifts the possibilities.
- Is there any difference between DynamicFacilitation? and TransformationalFacilitation??
Choice-creating is a particular transformational conversational process developed by Jim Rough - it is a form of and best facilitated by DynamicFacilitation?, which includes among other things fully hearing the significant things people have to say and writing them on four chart pads (problem statements, possible solutions, concerns, and data), following the group's energy (rather than pre-ordained agendas or topics), encouraging passion while making the space safe for differences (e.g., by reframing disagreements as valid concerns), and stirring the pot of possibilities by frequently asking things like "So how would you handle that?"
In choice-creating, all comments are welcome, and the facilitator reflects them to make sure the speaker knows they've been heard, then writes them on one of the four chartpads. Rather than stopping to formally discuss anything that is brought up, anyone can say anything at any time. The group as a whole gravitates towards those issues for which there is general energy. The facilitator follows that energy as best they can. People's statements are recorded on the four chart pads, primarily to help speakers know that they are really heard, partly to provide a center for the group's attention, and only lastly to provide a record of what was said. If anyone has reactions - concerns, data, etc. - to what was said, that goes up on a chartpad, too.
With skillful facilitation and enough time (three hours is short for this), useful insights and results often simply arise, that take all of the voiced issues into account.
Also see WisdomCouncil
To compare ChoiceCreating to BrainStorming?: Both processes diverge from familiar linear forms of conversation in ways that enhance creativity. Beyond that, there isn't much similarity.
- Both diverge from LinearPractices?, and there's a shared strategy of keeping things moving, no stopping to talk about whether or not something should be written down, it just is and keep going. This is a similarity in practice, not purpose. The records from ChoiceCreating often go unused (though they're often valuable later to see how far we've come.
Brainstorming can be used as part of ChoiceCreating, but the purpose of ChoiceCreating is not so much to find a brilliant solution as to transform (a) significant aspects of the situation and (b) who participants are in relationship to both the situation and each other.
Choice creating can lead to some very powerful creativity, and bypasses a lot of potential upset, but not by suppressing anything (quite the opposite!). I have not experienced it personally enough to see all the results i've heard of, but have heard enough of them second-hand from people i trust (e.g. Tom Atlee, and others), and it makes so much sense to me, that i feel confident enough to recommend it. People who use it say it works best with "impossible" problems.
There are four chartpads:
- Problems (or Situation Statements, or Inquiries)
- Solutions (or Possibilities or Options)
- Concerns
- Data
Participants are always speaking to the facilitator. Anything anyone says, the facilitator reflects until they get it clear, then writes it on one of those charts. Ideally this is done quickly enough to keep things moving/flowing - it has a brainstormy feel to it in that sense (although it's much richer - a brainstorm would typically include only the Solutions). The point of writing things down is less about recording it for later, and more about letting the person know that what they're saying is being taken seriously, and giving the whole group the chance to get it both verbally and visually. A frequent result is that a group goes through all their usual issues, reactions, etc. (more than once if necessary) and eventually have purged enough of that (and are now holding all of it together to some degree), and start to get really creative. One thing about this process is that it usually doesn't work with just a 1/2 hour - three hours might be a safer minimum, because if the group spends the whole time only going through their usual stuff it could be a negative experience.
One of the many ProcessArts