This legacy documentation has been superseded by integrated help in the new version of 1000minds.
Use 1000minds to create processes for group decision-making with as many participants as you like.
In addition, we have the following ‘distributed processes’ for 10s or 100s (even 1000s!) of people to participate in.
Survey participants can self-enrol from a sign-up webpage – e.g. great for ‘convenience’ or ‘snowball’ sampling. Or, if you know people’s email addresses, you can enter them into 1000minds, and they’ll be invited to take part.
As well as 1000minds surveys, you can embed another online survey (e.g. Wufoo, SurveyMonkey, Google Forms) into your survey to collect other information of interest such as participants’ socio-demographic data.
This survey entails participants answering questions involving trade-offs between pre-specified criteria.
Participants’ answers determine, via the PAPRIKA method, their individual preference values (or ‘part-worth utilities’) – representing the relative importance (weights) of the criteria – and on average for the group.
The preference values can be used to rank alternatives, and it’s easy to compare participants’ rankings, and their preference values and answers to the survey questions.
This is like the Preferences Survey above, except that participants as a group reveal their preference values – representing the relative importance (weights) of the criteria – by voting on their decisions online.
Alternatively, participants can use a decision-support centre or their laptops from a shared location.
This activity reveals the preference values for the group of participants as a whole, and can be used to rank alternatives.
This survey involves participants ranking descriptions of real or hypothetical alternatives intuitively. Significant disagreements about rankings may indicate the need for a new prioritization approach (e.g. using 1000minds!).
Participants can also work together to rank the alternatives by consensus.
By having participants discuss their rankings, criteria for differentiating amongst alternatives can be teased out and then used to create a 1000minds decision model.
Participants can also work together to rank alternatives by consensus, for use later as a pseudo-gold standard to be compared against rankings from other group decision-making activities.
Participants categorize – or vote on – descriptions of real or hypothetical alternatives according to pre-specified criteria. People can also work together to categorize (vote on) the alternatives by consensus.
In some applications, for example, any disagreements about alternatives’ categorizations may highlight issues with how criteria are worded, so they can be refined.
Alternatives can also be ranked based on how they were categorized by applying the preference values (or ‘part-worth utilities’) – e.g. from a Preferences Survey (as above).