Structured Design Process and Pacific Northwest Energy Efficiency

Alexander Christakis describes and examines the use of Structured Design Process (SDP) in his book “How People Harness Their Collective Wisdom and Power to Construct the Future in Co-Laboratories of Democracy” [1]. Christakis reveals several case studies; one of those was conducted in the Pacific Northwest United States to examine how to foster energy efficiency. It is a long lasting and substantial undertaking for a group of people to collaborate on a topic that sets decades-long action items and behaviors of governments and populaces. This entry analyzes the energy efficiency case study in its use of the SDP.

The Structured Design Process (SDP) consists of 29 entities; six methods of reaching consensus, seven patterns of language, three phases of execution, three key roles, four stages of inquiry, and six dialogue laws. Several of the SDP entities are evidenced in the case study of evaluating the actions for achieving greater energy efficiency in the Pacific Northwest. All three phases of design are included in the case study. Discovery, the creation of triggering questions, defining of boundaries, and planning of activities is manifested in the planning of the gathering, the triggering questions of what trends and events are having the greatest impact on electric energy efficiency and what short-term action options will affect trends.

Some of the language patterns used in the case study include the influence tree pattern, the options field pattern, and the verbal and graphic patterns. The influence tree pattern is modified to be a plausibility tree and used to advantage of understanding relationships between four separate tracks. Track 1, energy conservation, is shown to influence the other tracks and many components within the tracks. The verbal language pattern is evident in the discussions and definitions of terms. The options field pattern is deployed iteratively to narrow down the original ninety-one action options to 17 team deliberated options, finally yielding a total of eight consensus action items.

All four stages of inquiry were used during the energy efficiency collaboration. The facilitators defined the intent of the design and drove toward action items that increase electric energy efficiency. The sub-teams of participants created and chose alternative action designs, they chose preferred alternatives, and they planned for action reaching eight agreed upon actions. Of the six consensus methods, the SDP for energy efficiency used the options field, trade-off analysis, and nominal group technique. The participants were divided into teams and performed their analyses on the options.

Regarding the dialogue laws, there was a large diversity of participants from industry, government, and academia representing ranging interests from energy production, to the environment, and political science. Dialogues were contained in groups to avoid mental overload by the material.

[1] Christakis, Alexander and Bausch, Kenneth. How People Harness Their Collective Wisdom and Power to Construct the Future in Co-Laboratories of Democracy. Information Age Publishing. Greenwich, Ct. 2006.