Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Decision Structuring Dialogue

  • Original Article
  • Published:
EURO Journal on Decision Processes

Abstract

The paper presents a dialogue method called Decision Structuring Dialogue to be used in group decision making. Through a focus on the facilitation of dialogue and on the conversational aspects of problem structuring, we show how Decision Structuring Dialogue facilitates collective framing and structuring of complex problems under conflicting interests. Decision Structuring Dialogue is suitable for structuring problems that involve multiple actors, multiple perspectives and conflicting interests. Decision Structuring Dialogue is a process helping to create a shared vision of the problem and the possible decision alternatives. It complements other problem structuring methods and acts as the first step in multiple criteria decision analysis. The method was successfully applied in the steering group of a Finnish lake regulation project with a high conflict factor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson H, Goolishian H (2003) Human systems as linguistic systems: preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory. In: Midgely G (ed) Systems thinking, vol III. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin M (1981) The dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of Texas Press, Austin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bana e Costa CA, Ensslin L, Corrêa EC, Vansnick JC (1999) Decision support systems in action: integrated application in a multicriteria decision aid process. Eur J Oper Res 113:315–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belton V, Stewart TJ (2002) Multi criteria decision analysis—an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Belton V, Ackermann F, Shepherd I (1997) Integrated support from problem structuring through to alternative evaluation using COPE and VISA. J Multi-Crit Decis Anal 6:115–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger P, Luckman T (1966) The social construction of reality. Anchor Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Boele D (1997) The benefits of a socratic dialogue OR: which results can we promise. Inq Crit Think Across Discipl 17:48–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm D (1996) On dialogue. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bolten H (2001) Managers develop moral accountability: the impact of socratic dialogue. Reason in practice. J Philos Manag 1(3):21–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley RT (2002) Dialogue, information, and psychological organization. In: Roberts N (ed) The transformative power of dialogue. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 243–288

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Buber M (1947) Dialogue. Between man and man. Routledge, London, pp 1–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Burley-Allen M (1995) Listening: the forgotten skill. John Wiley and sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman CW (1968) The Systems Approach, Delacorte Press, New York (revised and updated edition 1979, Dell Publishing, New York)

  • Conklin J (2005) Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Wiley

  • Cooperrider D, Whitney D (1999) Appreciative inquiry. Berret-Koeler Communications, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Dash DP (ed). (2002) Special issue: Participatory planning and designing. Sys Res Behav Sci 19

  • Dessel A, Rogge ME (2008) Evaluation of intergroup dialogue: a review of the empirical literature. Confl Resolut Q 26(2):199–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch M, Coleman PT (eds) (2000) The handbook of conflict resolution. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon N (1998) Dialogue at work. Lemos and Crane:London

  • Failing RG, Harstone M, Long G, McDaniels T, Ohlson D (2012) Structured decision making—a practical guide to environmental management choices. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  • Flood RL (1999) Rethinking the fifth discipline. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA (2006) Forms of conversation and problem structuring methods: a conceptual development. J Opl Res Soc 57:813–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA, Lord E (2011) Understanding multi-methodology: evaluating the perceived impact of mixing methods for group budgetary decisions. Omega 39:362–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA, Montibeller G (2010) Facilitated modeling in operational research. Eur J Oper Res 205:489–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French S, Simpson L, Atherton E, Belton V, Dawes R, Edwards W, Hämäläinen RP, Larichev O, Lootsma A, Pearman A, Vlek C (1998) Problem formulation for multi-criteria decision analysis: report of a workshop. J Multi-Crit Decis 7:242–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French S, Maule J, Papamichail N (2009) Decision behaviour, analysis and support. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gadamer HG (1975) Truth and method. Seabury Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Geldermann J, Rentz O (2003) Environmental decision and electronic democracy. J Multi-Crit Decis 12:77–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geldermann J, Bertsch V, Treitz M, French S, Papamichail KN, Hämäläinen RP (2009) Multi-criteria decision support and evaluation of strategies for nuclear remediation management. Omega 37(1):238–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerard G, Ellinor L (1998) Dialogue. Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gergen KJ, McNamee S, Barrett F (2002) Realizing transformative dialogue. In: Roberts N (ed) The transformative power of dialogue. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 77–105

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R, Keeney R (1994) Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values. Manag Sci 40:1035–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory WJ, Romm RAR (2001) Critical facilitation: learning through intervention in group processes. Manage Learn 32:453–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R, Wellmann K (2001) Bringing stakeholders values into environmental policy choices: a community based estuary case study. Ecol Econ 39:1035–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griessler E, Littig B (2003) Socratic dialogue as a new means of participatory technology assessment? The case of Xenotransplantation. Pract Philos 6:56–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1981) Theorie des kommunikatives Handelns. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP (1988) Computer assisted energy policy analysis in the Parliament of Finland. Interfaces 18:12–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP (1991) Facts or values—how do parliamentarians and experts see nuclear power? Energy Policy 19(5):464–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP (2003) Decisionarium—aiding decisions negotiating and collecting opinions on the web. J Multi-Crit Decis Anal 12(2–3):101–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Leikola O (1996) Spontaneous decision conferencing with top-level politicians. OR Insight 9(1):24–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Saarinen E (eds) (2004) Systems intelligence—discovering a hidden competence in human action and organizational life. Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports 88, Helsinki

  • Hämäläinen RP, Saarinen E (2008) Systems Intelligence—the way forward? A note on Ackoff’s “why few organizations adopt systems thinking”. Systems Res Behav Sci 25(6):821–825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs BF, Meier P (2000) Energy decisions and the environment—a guide to the use of multicriteria methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaacs W (1999) Dialogue and the art of thinking together. Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis IL (1982) Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascos. Houghton-Miffin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (eds) (2000) Choices, values and frames. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie A, Pidd M, Rooksby J, Sommerville I, Warren I, Westcombe M (2006) Wisdom, decision support and paradigms of decision making. Eur J Oper Res 170:156–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1994) A primer on decision making: how decisions happen, Free Press, 289

  • Marttunen M, Hämäläinen RP (1995) Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment. Eur J Oper Res 87:551–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen M, Hämäläinen RP (2008) The decision analysis interview approach in the collaborative management of a large regulater water course. Environ Manage 42:1026–1042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maturana H, Varela F (1987) The three of knowledge. Shambhala Publications, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Meredith JR (2001) Reconsidering the philosophical basis of OR/MS. Oper Res 49:325–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midgley G (2000) Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology, and practice. Kluwer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J (2001) Multimethodology—mixing and matching methods. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Wiley, Chichester, pp 289–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J, Rosenhead J (2001a) An overview of related methods: VSM, system dynamics, and decision analysis. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Wiley, Chichester, pp 267–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J, Rosenhead J (2004) Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Op Res 152:530–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J, Rosenhead J (2001b) Diverse unity: looking inward and outward. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Wiley, Chichester, pp 337–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Montibeller G, Belton V, Ackermann F, Ensslin L (2008) Reasoning maps for decision aid: an integrated approach for problem-structuring and multi-criteria evaluation. J Oper Res Soc 59:575–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustajoki J, Hämäläinen RP, Sinkko K (2007) Interactive computer support in decision conferencing: two cases on off-site nuclear emergency management. Decis Support Systems 42(4):2247–2260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson L (1965) Socratic method and critical philosophy: Selected essays. Thomas K. Dover, NewYork

    Google Scholar 

  • Papamichail KN, Alves G, French S, Yang JB, Showdon R (2007) Facilitation practices in decision workshops. J Oper Res Soc 58(5):614–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips LD, Phillips MC (1993) Facilitated work groups—theory and practice. J Oper Res Soc 44:533–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priscolli JD (1997) Participation and conflict management in natural resources decision making. In: Sohlberg B and Saija M (eds) Conflict management and public participation in land management. EFI proceedings 14. 61–87

  • Raiffa H (2002) Decision analysis: a personal account of how it got started and evolved. Oper Res 50:179–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauschmayer F (2001) Reflections on ethics and MCA in environmental decisions. J Multi-Crit Decis 10:65–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn O (2006) Participatory processes for designing environmental policies. Land Use Policy 23:34–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts N (ed) (2002) The transformative power of dialogue. Elsevier, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J, Mingers J (2001) A new paradigm of analysis. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Wiley, Chichester, pp 1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Saarinen E and Hämäläinen RP (2004) Systems intelligence: Connecting engineering thinking with human sensitivity. In Hämäläinen RP and Saarinen E (eds) Systems intelligence—discovering a hidden competence in human action and organizational life. Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports 88, Helsinki, 9–37

  • Salo A, Hämäläinen RP (2010) Multicriteria decision analysis in group decision processes. In: Kilgour M, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 269–283

  • Sampson EE (1993) Celebrating the other. Westview Press, Denver

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge P (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge P (1994) The fifth discipline fieldbook—strategies and tools for building a learning organization. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, NewYork

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw D, Ackermann F, Eden C (2003) Approaches to sharing knowledge in group problem structuring. J Opl Res Soc 54:936–948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw D, Franco A, Westcombe M (eds) (2006) Problem structuring methods. Special issue. J Oper Res Soc 57(7)

  • Shaw D, Franco A, Westcombe M (eds) (2007) Problem structuring methods. IISpecial issue. J Oper Res Soc 58(5)

  • Sheffield J (2004) The design of GSS-enabled interventions: a Habermasian perspective. Group Decis Negot 13:415–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sice P, French I (2004) Understanding humans and organizations: philosophical implications of autopoiesis. Philos Manag 4:55–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siitonen P, Hämäläinen RP (2004) From conflict management to systems intelligence in forest conservation decision making. In: Hämäläinen RP and Saarinen E (eds) Systems intelligence—discovering a hidden competence in human action and organizational life. Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports A88, Helsinki

  • Simon S (2007) Complexity, democracy and sustainability: promoting water security through systemic online negotiations. Syst Pract Act Res 20:273–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha C (1999) Grounding, mapping and acts of meaning. In: Janssen T, Redeke G (eds) Cognitive linguistics: foundations, scope and methodology. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinkko K, Hämäläinen RP, Hänninen R (2004) Experiences in methods to involve key players in planning protective actions in the case of a nuclear accident. Radiat Prot Dosim 109(1–2):127–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slotte S (2006) Systems sensitive dialogue intervention. Systems Res Behav Sci 23(6):793–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taket A, White L (2000) Partnership & participation—decision making in the multiagency setting. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas H, Samson D (1986) Subjective aspects of the art of decision analysis: exploring the role of decision analysis, decision structuring, decision support and policy dialogue. J Oper Res Soc 37:249–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich W (1987) Critical heuristics of social systems design. Eur J Oper Res 31:276–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich W (2003) Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse. J Oper Res Soc 54:325–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hooft S (2001) Overcoming principles: dialogue in business ethics. Teach Bus Ethics 5:89–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Väntänen A, Marttunen M (2005) Public involvement in multi-objective water level regulation development projects—evaluating the applicability of public involvement methods. Environ Impact Assess Rev 25:281–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt D, Fasolo B (2009) Structuring decision problems: a case study and reflections for practitioners. Eur J Oper Res 199:857–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh M, Hostick T (2005) Improving health care through community OR. J Oper Res Soc 56:193–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watzlawick P, Weakland J, Fisch R (1974) Change: principles of problem formation and problem resolution. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Yankelovich D (2001) The magic of dialogue—transforming conflict into cooperation. Touchstone books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanakis SH, Theofanides S, Kontaratos AN, Tassios TP (2003) Ancient Greeks’ practices and contributions in public and entrepreneurship decision making. Interfaces 33:72–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Science, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Aalto University, P.O. Box 11100, 00076, Espoo, Finland

    Sebastian Slotte & Raimo P. Hämäläinen

Authors
  1. Sebastian Slotte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raimo P. Hämäläinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raimo P. Hämäläinen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Slotte, S., Hämäläinen, R.P. Decision Structuring Dialogue. EURO J Decis Process 3, 141–159 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-014-0028-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-014-0028-7

Keywords

Mathematics subject classification

Search

Navigation