MITS-AT CoLaboratories Summary Statistics:
0001f0.jpeg



There are some interesting observations to make by looking at the summary Table above. These are:
  • The number of ideas generated (N) was the smallest for Colaboratory III focusing on action options;
  • The number of ideas receiving one or more votes (V) was the smallest in Colaboratory II focusing on barriers, which resulted in the smallest divergence of preference among the participants, i.e., more consensus;
  • The largest number of distinct connections among ideas in the influence Maps was for Colaboratory I, which led to the highest Situational Complexity Index among the three CoLabortories;
  • The largest number of questions asked to produce the Map was for Colaboratory III, leading to time savings for producing the Map of 62%, or the equivalent of saving 5 hours of group work. In other words, a group of 15 participants were able to construct the Map, by working virtually from different places at the same time, in 3 hours instead of 8 hours;
  • Even though the number of actions options proposed in Colaboratory III was equal to 44, which is a significant smaller number of ideas than Colaboratories I and II, the Divergence was equal to 54%, indicating that the group of participants are not easily converging to a consensus action plan, without the opportunity to construct a Root Drivers Map and discover the action options with the maximum leverage. Those three options are #3, 36, and 27 (see Root Drivers Map in:
  • http://mits-at.wikispaces.com/ Influence+Map+of+Root+Drivers