Before you start Generating solutions Evaluating solutions Making a decision Once a group has defined and analyzed a problem, the next task is to decide what might be done about it. The first idea that comes to mind is not necessarily the most effective, feasible, or appropriate response. There may also be several reasonable options, each with different benefits, costs, risks, and tradeoffs. A useful solution-development process therefore separates several tasks: Generate a range of possible responses Clarify and improve the options Compare them using explicit criteria Use the appropriate decision process Document the decision, assumptions, and next steps Group participation can broaden the range of ideas and knowledge available, but the group should also be clear about who is providing input, who has decision authority, and who will be responsible for implementation. Before you start Good idea generation depends less on creating a particular atmosphere than on creating conditions in which people can contribute meaningfully. Before beginning, make sure participants understand: The problem as it is currently understood The intended outcome Important evidence and uncertainties What is within and outside the group's authority Important legal, ethical, safety, budgetary, or policy constraints How the final decision will be made Create conditions for useful participation People are more likely to offer developing or unconventional ideas when they do not expect ridicule, retaliation, or immediate dismissal. Encourage participants to: Ask questions Suggest ideas that are not yet fully developed Challenge assumptions respectfully Build on another person's idea Identify concerns and uncertainties This does not require every idea to be praised or ultimately accepted. Evaluation comes later, but respectful clarification is appropriate throughout the process. Make participation accessible Physical comfort matters because unnecessary discomfort can interfere with concentration and participation. Depending on the setting, consider: Accessible meeting space Seating Restrooms Lighting and acoustics Temperature Breaks Water or refreshments where appropriate Language access Captioning or interpretation Accessible electronic or printed materials Remote participation where needed Technology that participants can use effectively Do not assume that one environment or activity will make everyone equally comfortable. Use introductions or relationship-building only when useful If participants do not know one another, a brief introduction may help establish who is present and what knowledge or role each person brings. Do not require personal disclosures, games, or unrelated icebreakers simply because the group is beginning a creative activity. Review relevant evidence before generating solutions Creativity is more useful when participants understand the problem. Depending on the issue, review: Relevant data Community and lived experience Previous efforts Research evidence Available resources Policy or legal requirements Important uncertainties If a group does not have enough information to evaluate possible responses responsibly, gather additional evidence before making a high-stakes decision. Generating solutions The purpose of idea generation is to develop a reasonable range of options before committing to one. Different methods work well for different groups. The facilitator should choose a process that fits the number of participants, available time, accessibility needs, power relationships, and complexity of the problem. Generate ideas individually One useful approach is to give participants several minutes to think and write independently before group discussion begins. This can give people time to develop ideas without immediately being influenced by the first suggestion or by the most vocal or highest-status participant. Ideas can be written on: Paper or cards A shared document A digital whiteboard An anonymous form Use a structured round Participants can take turns offering one idea at a time. Allow someone to pass rather than requiring every person to contribute on every round. Continue until the allotted time ends or the group has no significant new ideas to add. Use brainwriting Brainwriting allows participants to develop ideas in writing and build on one another's suggestions. For example: Each participant writes one or more possible responses. Ideas are shared with other participants. Participants add questions, extensions, or related possibilities. The ideas are collected and reviewed by the group. This method can be useful when participants prefer written reflection, when the group is large, or when rapid spoken discussion would make participation difficult. Use brainstorming Brainstorming can help a group generate options quickly. During the initial idea-generation stage: Focus on generating possibilities rather than choosing among them Avoid premature criticism Allow clarification when an idea is not understood Encourage participants to combine or build on ideas Record ideas where participants can review them Brainstorming does not require pretending that every conceivable action is acceptable. Ideas should remain within relevant: Legal requirements Ethical boundaries Safety requirements Respect for people's dignity and rights The legitimate scope of the group's work Within those boundaries, avoid rejecting an idea simply because it is unfamiliar or different from what the organization usually does. Ask what assumptions are limiting the options A group may narrow the solution space without realizing it. Ask: What are we assuming cannot change? Are we assuming we must create something new? Are we assuming our organization must do this alone? Are we assuming the current budget, process, location, schedule, or staffing model cannot change? Which constraints are real, and which are assumptions? Look for existing approaches Generating solutions does not mean every solution must be invented from scratch. Ask: Is something already working within part of the community? Has another organization addressed a similar problem? Is there relevant research or practice guidance? Could an existing program be improved, expanded, or made more accessible? Consider different types of response Possible options might include: Improve an existing program or process Create a new intervention Change a policy or procedure Remove an unnecessary barrier Partner with another organization Refer the issue to an organization with greater authority or expertise Test a small pilot Implement the change in stages Stop an ineffective activity Continue the current approach while collecting additional information Include the current approach or taking no additional action when it is a legitimate option. This gives the group a comparison point for judging whether a proposed change is actually better. Use anonymous input when appropriate Anonymous or confidential contribution may be useful when: Participants have different levels of authority A supervisor or funder is present People may experience consequences for challenging the current approach The issue is sensitive Anonymous input does not eliminate every power difference, but it can provide another route for ideas or concerns that may not emerge publicly. Know when to stop generating More ideas are not always better indefinitely. Stop when: The agreed time has ended Few genuinely new ideas are emerging The group has a sufficiently broad range of realistic options to evaluate New alternatives can still be added during evaluation if an important option was overlooked. Evaluating solutions After generating a range of possibilities, clarify the options and compare them systematically. The goal is not simply to identify which idea people like best. The group should ask which option, combination of options, or staged approach best fits the problem, evidence, values, resources, responsibilities, and constraints. Clarify each option Before evaluating an idea, make sure participants understand what it actually proposes. For each option, clarify: What would be done Who would be responsible Who would be affected What resources would be required What outcome the option is expected to influence Establish evaluation criteria Agree on important criteria before participants become strongly attached to one option. Criteria may include: Evidence: What evidence suggests this approach could work? Expected effectiveness: How likely is it to improve the intended outcome? Feasibility: Can it be implemented with available or obtainable staff, time, resources, technology, partnerships, and authority? Cost: What resources will it require? Opportunity cost: What other work may receive fewer resources if this option is chosen? Equity: Who is likely to benefit, and who may be left out or experience additional burdens? Accessibility: Can the people who need the intervention actually use or participate in it? Safety: What risks could it create or reduce? Legal and ethical fit: Is the approach consistent with relevant rights, responsibilities, policies, laws, and ethical requirements? Community and participant impact: How do people affected by the proposal understand its likely benefits, barriers, and consequences? Organizational fit: Is it consistent with the organization's legitimate mission and responsibilities? Sustainability: What would be needed to maintain the approach if it proves useful? Unintended consequences: What additional positive or negative effects might occur? Reversibility: If the approach does not work as expected, how difficult would it be to modify or stop? Evaluation: How would the group know whether it was working? Not every criterion will carry the same weight. Identify which considerations are requirements, which are priorities, and which involve tradeoffs. Examine evidence and uncertainty For each option, distinguish: What is supported by strong evidence What is supported mainly by local experience or professional judgment What assumptions the option depends on What remains uncertain Absence of perfect evidence does not always mean that no action should be taken. It may mean that the response should be proportionate to the uncertainty and monitored carefully. Examine who benefits and who bears burdens Do not look only at the overall effect. Ask: Who gains access, resources, protection, or opportunity? Who may face new costs, requirements, risks, or barriers? Are some effects concentrated among people with less decision-making power? Can harmful effects be prevented or reduced? Consider implementation early An option can appear promising on paper and still fail because the conditions for implementation are missing. Ask: Who would lead implementation? What authority would they need? What staffing and training are required? What partners or approvals are needed? What dependencies could delay the work? How long would implementation take? Consider a pilot When an option is promising but uncertainty remains, a smaller or time-limited pilot may be appropriate. Before beginning, specify: What the pilot is intended to test What outcomes will be monitored How long it will run What would justify continuing, expanding, modifying, or stopping it Use a decision matrix where helpful A group can place options in rows and criteria in columns and compare how well each option meets the criteria. This can make tradeoffs easier to see. If numbers or scores are used, remember that they summarize judgments. They should not create an impression of mathematical certainty where the underlying evidence or values remain uncertain. Improve or combine options Evaluation does not have to leave each idea unchanged. The group may: Modify an option to reduce a risk Combine useful parts of several options Implement different strategies for different parts of the problem Stage actions over time Remove options that do not meet necessary requirements Some options may be eliminated because they: Violate a legal, ethical, or safety requirement Fall outside the organization's authority Require resources that cannot reasonably be obtained Are unlikely to address the problem Create harms that cannot be adequately reduced For important decisions, record why major options were rejected. Making a decision Before deliberating among the final options, participants should understand who has authority to make the decision and what process will be used. Common approaches include: An accountable person makes the decision An accountable person makes the decision after consultation A delegated team or committee decides The group votes according to established rules The group uses consensus The group uses consent or another established decision method No single method is best for every decision. The method should fit: Formal decision authority Governance requirements The importance and reversibility of the decision Available time The need for expertise or community participation Who will be accountable for the outcome Decision by an accountable person Sometimes one person is responsible for the final decision. That does not prevent the person from seeking information and advice from others. Be clear from the beginning that consultation is informing the decision rather than transferring final authority to the group. Voting Voting can be appropriate when the group has formal decision authority and voting rules are established. Follow applicable requirements involving: Quorum Voting thresholds Conflicts of interest Abstentions Avoid inventing a voting threshold only after the group sees how members are divided. Consensus Consensus can be useful when broad support is important and the group has enough time to examine disagreements carefully. Define what consensus means before using it. Depending on the group, it might mean: Unanimous agreement Agreement that everyone can support the decision No participant has a defined blocking objection These are not the same standard. Consensus should not require someone to hide a serious concern simply so the group can report agreement. During consensus discussion Encourage participants to: Listen carefully to reasoning they disagree with Explain the evidence or values behind their concerns Change their position when new evidence or reasoning warrants it Avoid changing their position merely to end the discussion Look for modifications that address legitimate concerns A compromise or third option can sometimes resolve disagreement, but it is not automatically better simply because more people find it acceptable. Structured ranking and nominal group technique Structured methods can help when a group has many options or when some participants are likely to dominate open discussion. One method is the nominal group technique. A typical process includes: Participants generate ideas silently and independently. Ideas are shared in a structured round. Participants clarify and discuss the options. Participants privately rank or vote on priorities. Results are summarized and used according to the group's established decision process. A ranking can inform the decision without necessarily determining it automatically. If the group intends the ranking to determine the final choice, establish that rule before participants rank the options. What if the group cannot decide? Whenever possible, establish the fallback process before deliberation begins. If the group cannot reach the required decision threshold, it may: Use another authorized decision method Gather missing evidence Seek legal, financial, technical, or community input Modify the options Pilot one or more approaches Refer the decision to the person or body with appropriate authority Defer the decision when additional time would serve a clear purpose Deferral should not become a way to avoid a difficult decision indefinitely. Protect dissent and unresolved concerns Disagreement does not automatically mean that the process failed. A participant may identify a risk or consequence that the majority considers acceptable but that still deserves documentation. Depending on the setting, record: Significant unresolved concerns Dissenting positions where relevant Information that must still be gathered Document the decision Once a decision is made, clarify: What was decided Who made the decision What decision method was used Which criteria were most important Major evidence and assumptions Important tradeoffs or unresolved concerns Who is responsible for implementation What happens next Ask for process feedback After an important decision, useful questions may include: Was the decision process clear? Did participants have appropriate opportunities to contribute? Were the important criteria and evidence considered? Are there material concerns that still need to be documented or addressed? Are responsibilities and next steps clear? Do not require everyone to say that they are completely satisfied with the outcome. A legitimate decision may still involve disagreement or tradeoffs. In Summary Generating and choosing solutions requires both creativity and disciplined judgment. Begin with a clear understanding of the problem, relevant evidence, important constraints, decision authority, and the outcome the group hopes to achieve. Generate several options before committing to one. Use methods that give people different ways to contribute, including individual reflection, written or anonymous input, structured rounds, brainstorming, and collaborative idea development. Then evaluate the options using explicit criteria. Consider evidence, effectiveness, feasibility, cost, equity, accessibility, safety, legal and ethical requirements, organizational authority, sustainability, unintended consequences, and how results will be measured. Choose a decision method that fits the situation. Consensus can be useful, but it is not automatically preferable to voting, delegated authority, consultation followed by an accountable decision, or another established process. Finally, remember that selecting a solution does not complete the problem-solving process. Clarify responsibility, document assumptions and tradeoffs, plan implementation, monitor results, and be prepared to modify the approach when evidence shows that it is not working as expected. Contributor Jenette Nagy Marya Axner Resources Print Resources Avery, M., Auvine, B., Streibel, B.,& Weiss, L. (1981). Building united judgement: A handbook for consensus decision making. Madison, WI: Center for Conflict Resolution. Dale, D., & Mitiguy, N. Planning, for a change: A citizen's guide to creative planning and program development Dashiell, K. (1990). Managing meetings for collaboration and consensus. Honolulu, HI: Neighborhood Justice Center of Honolulu, Inc. Interaction Associates, Inc. (1987). Facilitator institute handbook. San Francisco, CA: Author. Lawson, L., Donant, F., &Lawson, J. (1982). Lead on! The complete handbook for group leaders. San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact Publishers. Meacham, W. (1980). Human development training manual. Austin,TX: Human Development Training. Moore, C. (1987). Group techniques for idea building. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Morrison, E. (1994). Leadership skills: Developing volunteers for organizational success. Tucson, AZ: Fisher Books.
