ConCensus™ is: "A process and device for facilitating group decision-making that electronically enables complex multiple factors to be compared rapidly and without conflict by placing factors into a matrix, thereby separating active comparisons into binary pairs."
ConCensus™ has been computerized and expanded into a powerful projection/presentation tool.
The Psychology of Choice A single person should be able to decide between two things relatively quickly. Either one choice is obviously better than the other, or they begin to approach equality. The more equal they appear the longer it takes to make a decision between the two… until they seem exactly equal and the choice can take forever. So ironically, we end up spending more and more time on decisions that are closer and closer to being equal - a clear threat to efficient resource allocation.
Choosing between three things becomes higher math, and we start 'looping'.
Add even one more person to the process and it's a wonder that anything gets accomplished. Imagine the time it takes a group of 10, 50, or 1000 to reach consensus!
The Psychology of ConCensus™ Perception of individual input in the context of a group effort is most important to what occurs after the 'vote'.
Thorough participation by all parties in the process fosters understanding and enables resonance with ultimate group endorsement.
ConCensus™ combines analog 'fuzzy-logic' human instinct with precise, binary, digital computer processes. It forces all involved to literally compare all factors pertinent to an issue to each other. These one-on-one comparisons proceed in a rapid, focussed manner until they are all considered. Then, instantly, the fully prioritized matrix appears - cascading all factors from most to least important.
Equalizing: One of the most important pluses of the process is its ability to mitigate potential political quagmires. These regularly surface when people involved in approval processes are pulled from different areas of a company but are about equal in their corporate or institutional hierarchy.
Multi-Voting There are two genre of related art regarding attempts to determine choice measurement among groups of people:
"ConCensus™ combines analog 'fuzzy-logic' human instinct with precise, binary, digital computer processes."
In both of these systems, consensus is thwarted. The input on the part of the user is a simple selection that, when activated, elevates the selected choice and locks out alternatives. Call it, "the process of elimination" as opposed to our "process of illumination." In voting booths and response systems, all of the reasoning that influences the user's choice and contributes to the making of the decision takes place in private in the mind of the individual user in an environment not suited to group commitment to that choice.
These systems do not enable minority positions to be satisfactorily registered in a cooperative framework, and so achieve little in the way of conflict resolution. The end result always results in winners and losers. A close 'vote' leaves almost half of an 'electorate' disenfranchised and often prompts renewed opposition efforts.
In addition, these systems do not allow for methodical measurement when the 'voter' is selecting from more than two alternatives. Tabulating a prioritization is time-consuming on the one hand and open to many different final interpretations on the other, dependent completely on equally valid various methods of evaluating the results…