Context for consensus workshop

Here's an email I sent to the SP people prior to the consensus workshop. I spent a long time working on it, so I figured that instead of replicating it, I could put it here for those who are interested in what we're doing:
---
Hi Everyone,

As we're getting closer to this Consensus Workshop on Tuesday, I figured it might be helpful to send a little bit of information about the process I'm planning to use and some of the ideas behind it.

My request of you guys is that you show up as much on time as possible, and that you plan to stick it out until the end. I can't just add you in in the middle, and it will be hard for you to weave your opinion into the group decision if you don't attend. If you're late, we'll wait for 5 minutes max, but then have to go on.

This is kind of like baking a cake - if you're the eggs or vanilla or oil, we can't just add you after the cake comes out of the oven, and things have to take place in a particular order in order for the chemistry to happen.

I will do my best to make the process last between 30-60 minutes, and to really have everyone's input included in whatever our decision is.

I can't say that we'll have our show completely planned out by the end of this, but we should all have an idea about what we want from it for ourselves and our audience. I think if we can get this sort of basic "value" question answered, we will be greasing the wheels for the logistics part of the work.

It might be that we do another round of this, or it might be that just some people decide to move forward with the logistics after we agree on this part. We'll see. It does take time, but it should be time that means we're organized and saves us time dealing with confusion down the road.

I remember taking a class in undergrad where we had to develop a socially interactive public art piece where everyone was held accountable for some aspect of it. Oh, and we had no guidance, facilitation or input from the instructor on how to do this. I think he would just leave the room when it was time to work on it. I have to say that it was one of the most excruciating and least fulfilling waste-of-time kind of experiences of my adult life. Actually, I think that that was my main impetus for learning about facilitating. I just remember thinking that it was such a shame that all of these really creative capable people spent 3 months arguing, feeling put off, and feeling completely paralyzed when they could have been making interesting things happen.

So, let's try to bypass the arguing and paralysis and make something interesting happen!
---------------------
This part might be confusing to just read - it will make more sense when we do it. It's here for any of you who really really want to know what we're going to do. Feel free to browse and/or just wait for Tuesday.

---------------------

The process I will be using was developed by an organization called the Institute for Cultural Affairs in order to "help groups think, talk and work together by providing facilitators with structured methods to:

• Recognize & honor the contributions of all
• Let a group deal with more data in less time
• Pool individual contributions into larger, more informative and inclusive patterns
• Welcome diversity while minimizing polarization and conflict"(The Institute of Cultural Affairs, 1991, 1994, 1996, 2000)
  

I don't know if this sounds like a bunch of managerial mumbo-jumbo to you guys (it did to me when I first started learning about it), but the idea here is that there are scientifically proven processes that can help groups of people get a bunch of information out on the table and organize it efficiently, without it having to be a hierarchically driven, conflict laden or extremely laborious process.

The method we'll use looks a little like this:
1. Context: I do a little work to set the stage, clarify the question we're trying to answer, outline the processes and time frame, and lead the group in talking about the topic for a few minutes.

2. Brainstorm: Generate new ideas. Participants individually list answers to the workshop question. They divide into teams, select important ideas and write them on 3x5 cards. They pass up the first round of cards to me.

3. Cluster: Forming new relationships. I put the cards on the wall, and we form 4-6 pairs of cards that clearly go together. I ask for cards that are different than the ones on the board, and add those to the existing pairs as possible, forming "clusters". Once the cards are up, the group tries to quickly give each cluster a 1-2 word name tag. We mark the remaining cards with a tag and pass to the front.

4. Name: Discerning the Consensus. We talk about the largest cluster first. We give this cluster a 3-5 word name or title which answers the workshop question and describes the cards. Repeat with remaining clusters.

5. Resolve: Confirm the resolve. We read all of the title cards. We discuss the significance of the Consensus. We create a chart or some kind of visual image, or outline to use in moving forward with the consensus. We discuss next steps.
---

Thanks for your time in reading (or at least browsing through this), and thanks for letting me try this process out. I hope it makes our time together feel purposeful and ultimately meaningful.