12 KiB
Advanced Roleplay → Debate → Synthesis Methodology
Workflow
Copy this checklist for advanced techniques:
Advanced Facilitation Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Map stakeholder landscape and power dynamics
- [ ] Step 2: Design multi-round debate structure
- [ ] Step 3: Facilitate with anti-pattern awareness
- [ ] Step 4: Synthesize under uncertainty and constraints
- [ ] Step 5: Adapt communication for different audiences
Step 1: Map stakeholder landscape Identify all stakeholders, map influence and interest, understand power dynamics and coalitions, determine who must be represented in the debate. See 1. Stakeholder Mapping for power-interest matrix and role selection strategy.
Step 2: Design multi-round structure Plan debate rounds (diverge, converge, iterate), allocate time appropriately, choose debate formats for each round, set decision criteria upfront. See 2. Multi-Round Debate Structure for three-round framework and time management.
Step 3: Facilitate with anti-pattern awareness Recognize when debates go wrong (premature consensus, dominance, false dichotomies), intervene with techniques to surface genuine tensions, ensure all perspectives get authentic hearing. See 3. Facilitation Anti-Patterns for common failures and interventions.
Step 4: Synthesize under uncertainty Handle incomplete information, conflicting evidence, and irreducible disagreement. Use conditional strategies and monitoring plans. See 4. Synthesis Under Uncertainty for approaches when evidence is incomplete.
Step 5: Adapt communication Tailor synthesis narrative for technical, executive, and operational audiences. Emphasize different aspects for different stakeholders. See 5. Audience-Perspective Adaptation for stakeholder-specific messaging.
1. Stakeholder Mapping
Power-Interest Matrix
High Power, High Interest → Manage Closely
- Must be represented in debate
- Concerns must be addressed
- Examples: Executive sponsor, Product owner, Key customer
High Power, Low Interest → Keep Satisfied
- Consult but may not need full representation
- Examples: CFO (if not budget owner), Adjacent VP, Legal
Low Power, High Interest → Keep Informed
- Valuable input, may aggregate into broader role
- Examples: End users, Support team, Implementation team
Low Power, Low Interest → Monitor
- Don't need direct representation
Role Selection Strategy
Must include:
- Primary decision-maker or proxy
- Implementation owner
- Resource controller (budget, people, time)
- Risk owner
Should include:
- Key affected stakeholders (customer, user)
- Domain expert
- Devil's advocate
Aggregation when >5 stakeholders:
- Combine similar perspectives into archetype roles
- Rotate roles across debate rounds
- Focus on distinct viewpoints, not individuals
Coalition Identification
Common coalitions:
- Revenue: Sales, Marketing, Growth → prioritize growth
- Quality: Engineering, Support, Brand → prioritize quality
- Efficiency: Finance, Operations → prioritize cost
- Innovation: R&D, Product, Strategy → prioritize new capabilities
Why matters: Coalitions amplify perspectives. Synthesis must address coalition concerns, not just individual roles.
2. Multi-Round Debate Structure
Three-Round Framework
Round 1: Diverge (30-45 min)
- Goal: Surface all perspectives
- Format: Sequential roleplay (no interruption)
- Outcome: Clear understanding of each position
Round 2: Engage (45-60 min)
- Goal: Surface tensions, challenge assumptions, identify cruxes
- Format: Point-counterpoint or constructive confrontation
- Facilitation: Direct traffic, push for specifics, surface cruxes, note agreements
Round 3: Converge (30-45 min)
- Goal: Build unified recommendation
- Format: Collaborative synthesis
- Facilitation: Propose patterns, test against roles, refine, check coherence
Adaptive Structures
Two-round (simpler decisions): Roleplay+Debate → Synthesis
Four-round (complex decisions): Positions → Challenge → Refine → Synthesize
Iterative: Initial synthesis → Test → Refine → Repeat
3. Facilitation Anti-Patterns
Premature Consensus
Symptoms: Roles agree quickly without genuine debate Fix: Play devil's advocate, test with edge cases, give permission to disagree
Dominant Voice
Symptoms: One role speaks 70%+ of time, others defer Fix: Explicit turn-taking, direct questions to quieter roles, affirm contributions
Talking Past Each Other
Symptoms: Roles make points but don't engage Fix: Make dimensions explicit, force direct engagement, summarize and redirect
False Dichotomies
Symptoms: "Either X or we fail" Fix: Challenge dichotomy, explore spectrum, introduce alternatives, reframe
Appeal to Authority
Symptoms: "CEO wants X, so we do X" Fix: Ask for underlying reasoning, question applicability, examine evidence
Strawman Arguments
Symptoms: Weak versions of opposing views Fix: Steelman request, direct to role for their articulation, empathy prompt
Analysis Paralysis
Symptoms: "Need more data" endlessly Fix: Set decision deadline, clarify decision criteria, good-enough threshold
4. Synthesis Under Uncertainty
When Evidence is Incomplete
Conditional strategy with learning triggers:
- "Start with X. Monitor [metric]. If [threshold] not met by [date], switch to Y."
Reversible vs. irreversible:
- Choose reversible option first
- Example: "Buy SaaS (reversible). Only build custom if SaaS proves inadequate after 6 months."
Small bets and experiments:
- Run pilots before full commitment
- Example: "Test feature with 10% users. Rollout to 100% only if retention improves >5%."
Information value calculation:
- Is value of additional information worth the delay?
When Roles Fundamentally Disagree
Disagree and commit:
- Make decision, all commit to making it work
- Document disagreement for learning
Escalate to decision-maker:
- Present both perspectives clearly
- Let higher authority break tie
Parallel paths (if resources allow):
- Pursue both approaches simultaneously
- Let data decide which to scale
Defer decision:
- Explicitly choose to wait
- Set conditions for revisiting
When Constraints Shift Mid-Debate
Revisit assumptions:
- Which roles' positions change given new constraint?
Re-prioritize:
- Given new constraint, what's binding now?
Scope reduction:
- What can we cut to stay within constraints?
Challenge the constraint:
- Is the new constraint real or negotiable?
5. Audience-Perspective Adaptation
For Executives
Focus: Strategic impact, ROI, risk, competitive positioning
- Bottom-line recommendation (1 sentence)
- Strategic rationale (2-3 bullets)
- Financial impact (costs, benefits, ROI)
- Risk summary (top 2 risks + mitigations)
- Competitive implications
Format: 1-page executive summary
For Technical Teams
Focus: Implementation feasibility, technical tradeoffs, timeline, resources
- Technical approach (how)
- Architecture decisions and rationale
- Resource requirements (people, time, tools)
- Technical risks and mitigation
- Success metrics (technical KPIs)
Format: 2-3 page technical brief
For Operational Teams
Focus: Customer impact, ease of execution, support burden, messaging
- Customer value proposition
- Operational changes (what changes for them)
- Training and enablement needs
- Support implications
- Timeline and rollout plan
Format: Operational guide
6. Advanced Debate Formats
Socratic Dialogue
Purpose: Deep exploration through questioning Method: One role (Socrates) asks probing questions, other responds Questions: "What do you mean by [term]?", "Why is that important?", "What if opposite were true?"
Steelman Debate
Purpose: Understand deeply before challenging Method: Role B steelmans Role A's argument (stronger than A did), then challenges Why works: Forces genuine understanding, surfaces real strengths
Pre-Mortem Debate
Purpose: Surface risks and failure modes Method: Assume decision X failed. Each role explains why from their perspective Repeat for each alternative
Fishbowl Debate
Purpose: Represent multiple layers (decision-makers + affected parties) Format: Inner circle debates, outer circle observes, pause periodically for outer circle input
Delphi Method
Purpose: Aggregate expert opinions without groupthink Format: Round 1 (anonymous positions) → Share → Round 2 (revise) → Repeat until convergence
7. Complex Synthesis Patterns
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)
When: Multiple competing criteria, can't integrate narratively
Method:
- Identify criteria (from role perspectives): Cost, Speed, Quality, Risk, Customer Impact
- Weight criteria (based on priorities): Sum to 100%
- Score alternatives (1-5 scale per criterion)
- Calculate weighted scores
- Sensitivity analysis on weights
Pareto Frontier Analysis
When: Two competing objectives with tradeoff curve
Method:
- Plot alternatives on two dimensions (e.g., Cost vs Quality)
- Identify Pareto frontier (non-dominated alternatives)
- Choose based on priorities
Real Options Analysis
When: Decision can be staged with learning opportunities
Method:
- Identify decision points (Now: invest $X, Later: decide based on results)
- Map scenarios and outcomes
- Calculate option value (flexibility value - upfront commitment value)
8. Facilitation Best Practices
Reading the Room
Verbal cues:
- Hesitation: "Well, I guess..." (not convinced)
- Qualifiers: "Maybe", "Possibly" (hedging)
- Repetition: Saying same point multiple times (not feeling heard)
Facilitation responses:
- Check in: "I sense hesitation. Can you say more?"
- Affirm: "I hear X is important. Let's address that."
- Give space: "Let's pause and hear from [quieter person]."
Managing Conflict
Productive (encourage):
- Disagreement on ideas (not people)
- Specificity, evidence-based, openness to changing mind
Unproductive (intervene):
- Personal attacks, generalizations, dismissiveness, stonewalling
Interventions: Reframe (focus on idea), ground in evidence, seek understanding, take break
Building Toward Synthesis
Incremental agreement: Note areas of agreement as they emerge
Trial balloons: Float potential synthesis ideas early, gauge reactions
Role-checking: Test synthesis against each role iteratively
Closing the Debate
Signals: Positions clear, tensions explored, cruxes identified, repetition, time pressure
Transition: "We've heard all perspectives. Now let's build unified recommendation."
Final check: "Can everyone live with this?" "What would make this 10% better for each of you?"
9. Case Studies
For detailed worked examples showing stakeholder mapping, multi-round debates, and complex synthesis:
- Monolith vs Microservices - Engineering team debate
- Market Entry Decision - Executive team with 5 stakeholders
- Pricing Model Debate - Customer segmentation synthesis
Summary
Key principles:
-
Map the landscape: Understand stakeholders, power dynamics, coalitions before designing debate
-
Structure for depth: Multiple rounds allow positions to evolve as understanding deepens
-
Recognize anti-patterns: Premature consensus, dominant voice, talking past, false dichotomies, appeal to authority, strawmen, analysis paralysis
-
Synthesize under uncertainty: Conditional strategies, reversible decisions, small bets, monitoring plans
-
Adapt communication: Tailor for executives (strategic), technical teams (implementation), operational teams (execution)
-
Master advanced formats: Socratic dialogue, steelman, pre-mortem, fishbowl, Delphi for different contexts
-
Facilitate skillfully: Read the room, manage conflict productively, build incremental agreement, know when to close
The best synthesis integrates insights from all perspectives, addresses real concerns, makes tradeoffs explicit, and results in a decision better than any single viewpoint alone.