Difference between revisions of "Decision making"

From OVN wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 61: Line 61:
 
==Types of decisions==
 
==Types of decisions==
 
See [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ukADSYqMntWLAi4Q1tmrccNtFQcP8DT8xL0aoum4Oc0/edit Sensorica's doc about decision making]
 
See [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ukADSYqMntWLAi4Q1tmrccNtFQcP8DT8xL0aoum4Oc0/edit Sensorica's doc about decision making]
 +
 +
=Specificity of OVNs=
 +
 +
Decision making depends strongly on the organizational context, which in turn depends on the economic context. Thus, to understand decision making within OVN we need to understand what set them apart as organizations.
 +
 +
 +
This reflexion is principally intended for a RESSOURCE-intensive open enterprise or an open value network (OVN). It can also apply to other types of open and decentralized projects, VENTUREs or enterprises, even DAOs.
 +
 +
An open VENTURE / enterprise is a VALUE-based network, not a power-based hierarchy. It is also a collaborative environment, a socioeconomic setting in which ideas, initiatives, and projects compete with each other for RESSOURCEs, NOT individuals.
 +
 +
Hierarchies have explicit ROLEs that exclusively engage in decision making. The decision making process can take many forms, but in the end, a set of individuals are empowered to cut through the debate, and bear the responsibility of the consequences of his decision. It is assumed that the individuals in charge have the capacity to weigh all the costs and benefits, but this is not always the case. Democratic decision making (a majority vote for example) is also used, in which case the responsibility is shared. The democratic process can be broad-based or selective, including only specialists. 
 +
 +
An open enterprise is decentralized. It is based on the assumption that AFFILIATEs have equal potential (which is NOT to say that they all actualize their potential equally). It is an empowering environment, stimulating everyone to passionately contribute to the VENTURE. It is a fluid VALUE system in which good initiatives have a greater chance to be implemented, even if they arise on the “margins” of the network. The open enterprise has a distributed decision making system, flat or decentralized in that sense, but it is not flat with respect to its PROCESSes. AFFILIATEs need to understand their ROLEs in PROCESSes, and coordinate with their peers, even subordinate to some peers, in order to increase the potential of the group, to increase the probability of mutual benefits, which binds all the participants together. Subordination is voluntary, but it naturally arises if every participant understands the collaboration PROCESS, to allow the emergence of a set of positive incentives that drive every one's involvement. So a ROLE system is needed.
 +
 +
When it comes to making decisions, every AFFILIATE needs to understand not only every other AFFILIATE’s ROLE and capacity, but also the REPUTATION. A REPUTATION system is needed. REPUTATION is a complex. It cannot be projected onto one dimension or be represented by a number. In fact, REPUTATION is strongly related to predictability in context. It is a complex of indices, acquiring their VALUE mostly from the past, but not only, which help us determine the probability that a player of a game will act rationally, to increase his/her reward, and the VALUE/strength of the entire community, which is in part transferred back to the same player as reward. In other words, the REPUTATION of an AFFILIATE of an OVN is the probability that this AFFILIATE respects the norms and rules that govern the co-creation PROCESS, that regulate transactions within the network, which, if the network is properly designed, should maximize reward for the AFFILIATE, which in turn aligns with what makes the network sustainable (strive to maximize alignment between individual interest and collective interest!).
 +
 +
There are different types of decisions to be made within an OVN. Some of them refer to incremental additions to a project or VENTURE. Others determine a path among different possibilities, not only binary cases. Decisions over allocation of RESSOURCEs should be less common within an OVN, because RESSOURCEs and capacity can always be increased by integrating external structures. (allocation of RESSOURCEs is bottom up)
 +
 +
What are the consequences of NOT having someone invested with the power to cut through and make a decision? Whenever a new initiative arises, some AFFILIATES who don’t understand the VALUE system well can oppose measures, even disregarding the REPUTATION structure. The network can be paralyzed in interminable debates. Obviously politics becomes much more complex within a decentralized organization. How can this problem be circumvented to allow the group to focus on constructive activity rather than losing its focus and energy on lengthy debates?
 +
 +
One can suggest a democratic process, but we all know that a vote only reflects the lowest common denominator, as smart decisions can be blocked by an ill-informed majority. Somehow, REPUTATION must be taken into consideration (a selective democratic process). But how can we steer clear of elitism? We want to allow brilliant initiatives arising from the edge of the network to express themselves. There are cases when a vote is justified, if it is preceded by a wide process of education and analysis. But in the case of decisions regarding incremental additions to the VENTURE, democracy fails miserably, because most of the time decisions are about very technical issues, and it would imply voting on almost every little addition (which would constitute a big distraction for the entire group).
 +
 +
Is there a way out of this conundrum?
 +
 +
A good initiative is one that adds VALUE to the VENTURE and, by the same token increases the rewards for AFFILIATEs. We need to consider the open and decentralized enterprise as a Darwinian environment for ideas, proposals, initiatives, in which the good ones get traction and the bad ones are neglected/forgotten. Some conditions must be fulfilled in order for this to happen. This is all about STIGMERGY.
 +
 +
The VALUE system (sources and distribution) must be very well understood by every AFFILIATE.
 +
Transparent ROLE and REPUTATION mechanisms must be implemented
 +
AFFILIATEs must have access to the entire community in order to make their intentions known.
 +
A space must be provided in which all AFFILIATEs could potentially participate to evaluate new initiatives.
 +
Access to PROCESSes must be kept open, in order for new initiatives to be initiated without permissions
 +
 +
A rule of thumb for an open and decentralized enterprise is to grant automatic permission to implement and test new initiatives. It is the responsibility of the initiator to rally support and RESSOURCEs for his/her initiative. If the initiator can do it alone the initiative cannot hurt the group, even if it does not represent a valuable CONTRIBUTION to the whole. 
 +
 +
This process transfers the decision making to every stakeholder and participant. Everyone makes an individual decision according to how benefits and costs are estimated at the individual level. These individual decisions aggregate and influence each other within the open space. The initiative is given a chance to get started and its progressive and continuous implementation further influences other AFFILIATE's decisions. The collective decision making process becomes continuous, fluid, and is constantly coupled to the initiative itself (the object of decision). If this new initiative produces good results more AFFILIATEs will allocate RESSOURCEs for it, which fuels the initiative even more, and so on... That is what we mean by traction. Negative effects are also rapidly felt and propagate through the system, making bad initiatives short lived.
 +
 +
What if everyone starts implementing initiatives, wouldn’t that defocus the group’s activities and stretch thin its RESSOURCEs? Well, if the VALUE system is well understood and if communication flows freely everyone will realize how to get to the rewards in the most effective way. Before AFFILIATEs invest themselves in one initiative or another they will weigh the benefits and the risks themselves. Some participants might get it wrong and adopt a bad initiative, but most of them will not. The individual choices of participants with higher REPUTATION will have an impact on other participants. This is how skills, talent and capacity are included into this process.
 +
 +
Moreover, open VENTUREs should have two diffuse layers, a very pragmatic core, composed of goal-driven individuals, and an outer layer composed of passionate, idealistic, fun seeking individuals. For a revenue-driven open VENTURE we can say that we have a market and a gift economy intertwined. The VALUE system needs to be conceived in such a way to avoid conflict between these two classes of AFFILIATEs, participating on the extremes of these two types of economies, within the network. In other words, the revenue-driven AFFILIATEs should have no business putting pressure on passion-driven participants, or vice versa, because both types of AFFILIATEs will end up increasing the potential of their VENTURE (if the network is built properly).
 +
 +
The general advice is to NEVER spend energy killing new initiatives. Let them run and the good ones will get traction and will be implemented. The bad ones will be forgotten. This is NOT a perfect system, whatever that means! But it is one which solves the decision making problem in a VALUE-based decentralized environment.
 +
 +
  
 
=Decision Types and Tools=
 
=Decision Types and Tools=

Revision as of 02:04, 4 January 2024

Here we present our best knowledge about decision making processes that are compatible with open networks (OVNs), as well as praxis, or how decision making is implemented or used in an OVN, or open ventures.

See also the page on Governance.


Theory

An OVN is a dynamic and diverse ecosystem with complex interconnected processes. Governance is the set of principles and processes by which the OVN is collaboratively developed by participants (affiliates) through collective intelligence. Different types of sense-making, decision making, and responsiveness are needed for efficient and optimal conduct. The governance framework provides different decision making mechanisms that may be applied. Sub-networks (i.e. different projects or communities) are free to adopt decision making processes that suite their culture and philosophy, as long as the results allow for a stable interface with the rest of the network.

What is a decision?

Definition: Decision-making can be regarded as a cognitive process resulting in the selection of a course of action (including the expression of an idea or opinion) among several alternative possibilities. Every decision-making process produces a final choice that may or may not prompt action. See Wikipedia - Decision making

Here we are more concerned with collective decision making processes that correspond to the OVN organizational model and its economic model. In other words, how the fruits of collaboration, the artifacts that we create, as well as the organization itself, evolve through p2p processes and interactions. Sometimes we need to make conscious decisions, weighing pros and cons of various alternatives (making individual and collective conscious choices). Other times, things evolve through emergent processes like stigmergy, where every participant makes allocation decisions on what matters most in context, at a given time.

Self-determination

Making a decision is making a choice. Decision making presupposes free will of the individuals involved in an individual or a collective decision process, however the choice may or may not be free of influence. For example, the election process, collective decision (actors are all citizens who vote) by an entire nation, is not free from influence. The opinions of voters (actors) are heavily manipulated by propaganda from different sides. Although we can never dissociate a decision making process from peer influence, in an OVN environment the culture is one of individual sovereignty or freedom, with a lot of room form self-determination. That is substantiated by the fact that OVNs or open ventures are opt in organizations, i.e. affiliates are free to join and leave at will. In other words, the only thing that keeps someone around is a perception of individual benefit (tangible or not), a purpose for which the organization serves as a conduit, an important need (the sense of belonging for example), or any other type of intrinsic motivation. We call all this an experience of value. But one's perception can be influenced by others or by the environment. We strive to minimize influence by designing the organization in such a way that self-determination can be maximally expressed.

Having said that, we also need to consider that p2p is understood as a synthesis of libertarianism and communism, two extremes that oppose individualism to communitarianism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty. This, the concept of self-determination in p2p supposes a concern for the community around, as the individual and its community (social relations) are inseparable. Within the p2p framework one cannot conceive an individual in abstraction of its social relations. Success for an individual evolving within an organization cannot be conceived without the success of the organization, which provides the infrastructure, access to much needed resources and collaborators (skills and morel support).

Degree of certainty

A decision is NOT choosing among different outcomes, because there could be risk involved, i.e. a suspected outcome is not 100% probable. The choice can be made knowing with certainty the outcome of some or all possible actions, or can be made in absence of certainty. For the second case, the outcome can be negative, positive, or neutral, which will affect the decision making process.

Random or analysis

Making a choice also implies some knowledge about the situation. The choice can be made at random. This happens when the actor(s) have no information on the situation and simply toss a coin. In absence of information we tend to rely on trust, i.e. follow the opinion of other individuals who are recognized to know more (reputation). This can also happen when other decision making mechanisms are absent. The choice can be educated, a result of an effort of analysis. Voluntarily biased analysis amounts to manipulation and to an influenced decision. There is a distinction between genuine analysis and understanding and false/deceiving analysis and explanation.

Actors and scope

A decision making process has actors (individuals involved in the decision making process) and scope (the group of individuals that are affected by the choice).

  • Some decisions only concern the actor: what I will eat for dinner.
  • Some decisions only affect others: the policeman to give or not to give a ticket
  • Some decisions that involve a very few actors can have a broad scope with important consequences: a tyrannical regime, but also representative democracies
  • Some decisions involve the entire society and have a society-wide scope: a referendum, presidential election (which is influenced - see below)

Access to decision making

When it comes to technical decisions, averaging across everyone's opinion may not lead to the best outcome, since one educated voice can surpass the validity of everyone's voice. In some circumstances, participation in a decision making process can be seen as a privilege, a form of benefit. In sensitive cases, indiscriminate access to decision making can constitute a vector of attack. How can we think about distributing access to decisions making in an open network?

Kurt advocates a governance equation which automates access to group decision making processes.


Distinctions

making up one’s mind, according to a set of criteria and implementation, which can be done in various ways, is not a decision per say, if it is not enacted. Some decisions become effective as soon as they are uttered (ex. the decision of a judge). Others need complex actions to be enacted, implemented or become effective. Thus, we need to make a distinction between having made one's mind or reaches a consensus and having made a decision, which is an individual or collective commitment to take the proper action for implementation. The decision will be ultimately evaluated based on its impact in the real world, and that depends not only on the decision itself, but also on its implementation. Thus, a group can make a good decision and do a poor implementation, leading to undesired outcomes.


reversible decisions (ex. getting married) and irreversible decisions (ex. commit suicide). Reversibility can be only partial, because decisions have consequences that cannot be reversed, as we cannot reverse time (ex. after a divorce- the reverse decision to getting married, the family estate gets divided). Irreversible decisions carry a higher burden for those involved, higher responsibility must be applied, access to decision making must also be well considered.

Subject

Refers to the thing on which the decision is made.

Examples

  • allocation of resources - some type of resource
  • modifying the governance - some norms
  • exclusion of an affiliate (a member)

Types of decisions

See Sensorica's doc about decision making

Specificity of OVNs

Decision making depends strongly on the organizational context, which in turn depends on the economic context. Thus, to understand decision making within OVN we need to understand what set them apart as organizations.


This reflexion is principally intended for a RESSOURCE-intensive open enterprise or an open value network (OVN). It can also apply to other types of open and decentralized projects, VENTUREs or enterprises, even DAOs.

An open VENTURE / enterprise is a VALUE-based network, not a power-based hierarchy. It is also a collaborative environment, a socioeconomic setting in which ideas, initiatives, and projects compete with each other for RESSOURCEs, NOT individuals.

Hierarchies have explicit ROLEs that exclusively engage in decision making. The decision making process can take many forms, but in the end, a set of individuals are empowered to cut through the debate, and bear the responsibility of the consequences of his decision. It is assumed that the individuals in charge have the capacity to weigh all the costs and benefits, but this is not always the case. Democratic decision making (a majority vote for example) is also used, in which case the responsibility is shared. The democratic process can be broad-based or selective, including only specialists.

An open enterprise is decentralized. It is based on the assumption that AFFILIATEs have equal potential (which is NOT to say that they all actualize their potential equally). It is an empowering environment, stimulating everyone to passionately contribute to the VENTURE. It is a fluid VALUE system in which good initiatives have a greater chance to be implemented, even if they arise on the “margins” of the network. The open enterprise has a distributed decision making system, flat or decentralized in that sense, but it is not flat with respect to its PROCESSes. AFFILIATEs need to understand their ROLEs in PROCESSes, and coordinate with their peers, even subordinate to some peers, in order to increase the potential of the group, to increase the probability of mutual benefits, which binds all the participants together. Subordination is voluntary, but it naturally arises if every participant understands the collaboration PROCESS, to allow the emergence of a set of positive incentives that drive every one's involvement. So a ROLE system is needed.

When it comes to making decisions, every AFFILIATE needs to understand not only every other AFFILIATE’s ROLE and capacity, but also the REPUTATION. A REPUTATION system is needed. REPUTATION is a complex. It cannot be projected onto one dimension or be represented by a number. In fact, REPUTATION is strongly related to predictability in context. It is a complex of indices, acquiring their VALUE mostly from the past, but not only, which help us determine the probability that a player of a game will act rationally, to increase his/her reward, and the VALUE/strength of the entire community, which is in part transferred back to the same player as reward. In other words, the REPUTATION of an AFFILIATE of an OVN is the probability that this AFFILIATE respects the norms and rules that govern the co-creation PROCESS, that regulate transactions within the network, which, if the network is properly designed, should maximize reward for the AFFILIATE, which in turn aligns with what makes the network sustainable (strive to maximize alignment between individual interest and collective interest!).

There are different types of decisions to be made within an OVN. Some of them refer to incremental additions to a project or VENTURE. Others determine a path among different possibilities, not only binary cases. Decisions over allocation of RESSOURCEs should be less common within an OVN, because RESSOURCEs and capacity can always be increased by integrating external structures. (allocation of RESSOURCEs is bottom up)

What are the consequences of NOT having someone invested with the power to cut through and make a decision? Whenever a new initiative arises, some AFFILIATES who don’t understand the VALUE system well can oppose measures, even disregarding the REPUTATION structure. The network can be paralyzed in interminable debates. Obviously politics becomes much more complex within a decentralized organization. How can this problem be circumvented to allow the group to focus on constructive activity rather than losing its focus and energy on lengthy debates?

One can suggest a democratic process, but we all know that a vote only reflects the lowest common denominator, as smart decisions can be blocked by an ill-informed majority. Somehow, REPUTATION must be taken into consideration (a selective democratic process). But how can we steer clear of elitism? We want to allow brilliant initiatives arising from the edge of the network to express themselves. There are cases when a vote is justified, if it is preceded by a wide process of education and analysis. But in the case of decisions regarding incremental additions to the VENTURE, democracy fails miserably, because most of the time decisions are about very technical issues, and it would imply voting on almost every little addition (which would constitute a big distraction for the entire group).

Is there a way out of this conundrum?

A good initiative is one that adds VALUE to the VENTURE and, by the same token increases the rewards for AFFILIATEs. We need to consider the open and decentralized enterprise as a Darwinian environment for ideas, proposals, initiatives, in which the good ones get traction and the bad ones are neglected/forgotten. Some conditions must be fulfilled in order for this to happen. This is all about STIGMERGY.

The VALUE system (sources and distribution) must be very well understood by every AFFILIATE. Transparent ROLE and REPUTATION mechanisms must be implemented AFFILIATEs must have access to the entire community in order to make their intentions known. A space must be provided in which all AFFILIATEs could potentially participate to evaluate new initiatives. Access to PROCESSes must be kept open, in order for new initiatives to be initiated without permissions

A rule of thumb for an open and decentralized enterprise is to grant automatic permission to implement and test new initiatives. It is the responsibility of the initiator to rally support and RESSOURCEs for his/her initiative. If the initiator can do it alone the initiative cannot hurt the group, even if it does not represent a valuable CONTRIBUTION to the whole.

This process transfers the decision making to every stakeholder and participant. Everyone makes an individual decision according to how benefits and costs are estimated at the individual level. These individual decisions aggregate and influence each other within the open space. The initiative is given a chance to get started and its progressive and continuous implementation further influences other AFFILIATE's decisions. The collective decision making process becomes continuous, fluid, and is constantly coupled to the initiative itself (the object of decision). If this new initiative produces good results more AFFILIATEs will allocate RESSOURCEs for it, which fuels the initiative even more, and so on... That is what we mean by traction. Negative effects are also rapidly felt and propagate through the system, making bad initiatives short lived.

What if everyone starts implementing initiatives, wouldn’t that defocus the group’s activities and stretch thin its RESSOURCEs? Well, if the VALUE system is well understood and if communication flows freely everyone will realize how to get to the rewards in the most effective way. Before AFFILIATEs invest themselves in one initiative or another they will weigh the benefits and the risks themselves. Some participants might get it wrong and adopt a bad initiative, but most of them will not. The individual choices of participants with higher REPUTATION will have an impact on other participants. This is how skills, talent and capacity are included into this process.

Moreover, open VENTUREs should have two diffuse layers, a very pragmatic core, composed of goal-driven individuals, and an outer layer composed of passionate, idealistic, fun seeking individuals. For a revenue-driven open VENTURE we can say that we have a market and a gift economy intertwined. The VALUE system needs to be conceived in such a way to avoid conflict between these two classes of AFFILIATEs, participating on the extremes of these two types of economies, within the network. In other words, the revenue-driven AFFILIATEs should have no business putting pressure on passion-driven participants, or vice versa, because both types of AFFILIATEs will end up increasing the potential of their VENTURE (if the network is built properly).

The general advice is to NEVER spend energy killing new initiatives. Let them run and the good ones will get traction and will be implemented. The bad ones will be forgotten. This is NOT a perfect system, whatever that means! But it is one which solves the decision making problem in a VALUE-based decentralized environment.


Decision Types and Tools

Decisions amongst a group of stakeholders can be reached through many different participatory mechanisms. Most familiar is "majority rules" yes/no voting. Other systems like Consensus encourage deeper inquiry and alignment to reach agreement from all affiliates.

A comparison of different types: http://socialcompare.com/en/comparison/decision-making-tools

Online Tools

Recently, AI has been integrated into decision making tools.

Praxis

Sensorica

Implemented by Tiberius Brastaviceanu during the early days of Sensorica, influenced by discussions with other Sensorica affiliates and observers see original document on Decision making.

  • A space for suggestions was created, where members could propose something new, discuss and rate different opinions. The implementation was a Google Moderator embedded in a webpage on SENSORICA's website.
This was used a bit in the beginning (2011, 2012) but not very much afterwards. A lot of propositions and discussions were carried out on Sensorica's general mailing list. Some discussions were carried out on G+, very few on Facebook.
  • A space for decision making was created where issues were presented and decisions ware made by voting. This space is a webpage on Sensorica's website, using an announcements template, and voting was implemented using Google forms enbedded on this page.
Only a few decisions have been made. The data was recorded in a folder on SENSORICA's database (Google Drive) named Decisions forms. Affiliates also had the option to subscribe to page changes or announcements to get an email every time a new decision is published on the decision page.


Folder - Governance and decision making

Some important docs

Other docs

metamaps.cc

Based on spheres of activity and impact, decisions are addressed within the appropriate membrane through a process of awareness, coordination, informing, and feedback. A recipe book of "governance patterns" is in development to support swift and adaptable configuration of decision making framework.

These patterns include:

  • Sphere of activity: project or intention space (membrane)
  • Scope of activity: range limits of governance (time, type, overrulings)
  • Required capacities: skill sets or contribution types relevant to sphere
  • Allocation strategy: how are tasks and needs described and fulfilled in sphere
  • setting collective targets - via workgroup, deputies, or network
  • identifying crucial needs - via workgroup, deputies, or network
  • gathering proposals (open space style)
  • entering into contracts (enterprise mode)
  • posing agreements (non-dominium)
  • individual initiative (free agency)
  • Collaborative framework: nature of engagement and value creation in sphere
  • open participation / free flow
  • designated team / membrane
  • designated roles / accountabilities
  • private work tracks
  • Decision-making framework: default mode for collective sensing and resolution
  • self-determining - autonomous, within basic network guidelines
  • subsidiary - subject to an encompassing body or governing board
  • counseled - subject to formal response from peer body or board
  • executive - subject to express determinations from an exec role
  • network - subject to ongoing adjustment by network input
  • Governance around decision framework: self-organization and/or oversight
  • Coordination/Informing Process: transparency and publication / synchronization
  • realtime visibility
  • scheduled updates
  • dedicated liaison
  • indeterminate
  • Feedback Process: response and adjustments by peers during implementation
  • Execution Process: key permissions, accountabilities, metrics
  • Feedback Process: response, rating, reputation following results
  • public comment threads
  • p2p interaction on record
  • scheduled open hearings
  • formal rating system (per result)
  • formal reputation system (per participant)

See also

Links for decision making documents from individuals and organizations close to the OVN model.

From Bayle Shank

Retrieved from "http://ovn.world/index.php?title=Decision_making&oldid=1815"