Dave, I agree with your basic point about the value of dissent. I will read the ritual dissent document with interest. I do think you underestimate the "entrained" method of dissent of scoring points or defending turf that is so common among the professional class I work with. It is especially rife in academia where you see people so often attack ideas to score points, show their bonefides. Outside of academia I find a variation of that -- dissent comes across as either protecting the status quo or working down a (mental)list things that "should be done" according to accepted best practices. It is dissent from outside of the idea.

For new ideas, this kind of dissent can be useful in that it helps you identify where you will be attacked most and strengthen your arguments. Some of this dissent is pernicious, but often it reflects a way of thinking, habits of the mind. So you are then mainly in a defensive posture (protecting the baby from the wolves)-- but this is useful in its place.

But the kind of dissent I read into your history of Cynefin seems to be dissent from the inside of the idea. You and others jointly seeing a problem -- and struggling with how to think anew about decisionmaking and KM frameworks. Yes, the dissent of some IBM people often included entrained thinking and pointed commentary, but this helped your clarify your thinking and refine the framework.

It seems to me that dissent and debate inside an idea can be much richer, and by this, i do not mean politer. To get dissent from inside the idea, it seems to me you need people to give it much deeper consideration -- and have a willingness to hold off on knee-jerk responses. A willingness to sit in the aeron chair before simply criticizing it.

Dave,

In our group, we are making efforts to test and critique ideas via prototyping - quick and dirty ideas brought to life via story, form, or other. The challenge we (I) encounter is to use the feedback to evolve the idea instead of killing the idea. To "make it more resilient" takes the right kind of feedback, and the right reaction to that feedback.

Following another IDEO guideline of looking beyond the devil's advocate, we also try not to introduce debate and criticism until a thought or idea has been built upon and approached generatively. I find it more difficult to switch to this mode of not critiquing in the early phases of a conversation than it is switch back to the constructive criticism default mode to get some feedback.

Thoughts on trying to be generative up front before being critical? Finding the balance of energy invested in this phase is also not perfectly intuitive.

Remember that we are talking here about a formalised process for taking a contrary perspective - the devils advocate not deliberately destructive dissent designed to stop an idea in its tracks.

Ritual dissent (see reference) is a way of getting people to think about their weakness at an early stage of the process while its possible to modify. Three or four rounds will produce often contradictory criticism, but it ensures that people listen to improve as opposed to listen to respond.

So I would introduce it early but in a highly ritualised form.