FREE online courses on Effective Meeting Facilitation - Sample Forms Tools
Checklists - 4 INTERPRETIVE STRUCTURAL MODELING - PAIRED COMPARISONS
ISM is a process that forces participants to focus on the
importance of one idea in light of a competing idea. The structured discussion
about preferences is as much a part of the process as arriving at the end
product -- which is a list of items in order of priority.
Preparation: In a complex, potentially conflictual situation,
each item would have a one-page briefing paper to inform participants more fully
about what the item encompasses. This step is not necessary for all situations,
though.
Each item is written on a piece of cardboard 30" by 6" (so
everyone in the room can see when the cardboard is held up by the facilitator).
These items are numbered. The facilitator also prepares index cards with
corresponding numbers to track the group's priorities as the process moves
along.
The facilitator must also prepare a "comparison statement" --
i.e., "X is of greater priority to budget for than Y" -- or, "A must be
accomplished before we can go on to B".
Anywhere from 10 to 20 items may be compared -- experienced
facilitators have used this process to sort through as many as 80 items. For
larger number of items, you need two facilitators -- one as a "controller" and
the other as a "presenter."
Step 1. The controller picks any two items. For example, item
#4 and item #7. The presenter, displaying the cardboard, asks the group, "Is #4
more important to you that #7 -- and encourages someone from the group to speak
on behalf of each item. Then the group votes which is of greater importance.
(For the sake of example, #4 is the preferred item by a majority of the group).
The controller reflects the priority of the two items with the index cards only
s/he can see for now. [ #4 #7 ]
Step 2. The controller selects the next item to be compared
-- compared to the lesser preferred of the first pair. For example, #3 is
compared to #7. If a majority of the group votes for #7, then #3 becomes third,
so far. If #3 is voted more important than #7, the presenter will ask the group
to compare #3 with #4.
For the sake of an example, the majority decides #3 is of
greater importance than #4. The controller arranges the index cards in this
order: [ #3 #4 #7].
Step 3. The controller continues to select items to be
compared, always starting out the comparisons from the middle of the sequence
(i.e., #4 in this example) and moving up or down, depending on the preference of
the group. So, if the controller selects #8, the presenter asks the group to
compare #8 with #4. If #8 is of lesser importance, then the presenter will
compare it with #7. If #8 is of greater importance than #4, the presenter will
ask the group to compare it to #3. If #8 turns out to be of lesser importance
than #3, the display becomes: [ #3 #8 #4 #7 ].
If two items are of equal importance, the display can reflect
that. For example, when the new item #1 is compared with #4, the group's vote
come out even. The display of index cards is formed with #4 and #1 in line
vertically:
#1
[#3 #8 #4 #7]
Step 4. Step 3 is repeated until all items have been compared
and put in order. The presenter then arranges the 30" by 6" cardboard items in
the same order as the controller has displayed the index cards, giving the
participants a visual sense of their priorities.
Note: This process is time consuming because it involves
discussion. Discussion is a critical part of reaching consensus and should be
encouraged. This activity should be planned, as the last activity the group will
do for the day. Participants generally take great satisfaction in both the
discussion and the end product of this process.
