• Only members participate in the decision making process
• Concerns / ideas / fears are addressed, members feel heard and equal in the team
• Individuals can delegate their vote to other members where they do not feel competent to make a decision
• Individuals can call for 3rd party advice where there are not enough competencies in the group
• Members want to be open about how decisions are made
• Members hold the ideals of the group in mind when decisions need to be taken
• Members want to learn from our experience by documenting the process
• Members are open to consider the facts and evidence presented when voting

• Documents concerns, comments, fears and ideas - can be referred back to when needed
• Members feel confident that their concerns and fears are addressed before a decisions is made

• It may take some time to address everyone's concerns
• Self identification of competencies may lead to overestimation of one’s competency to make technical decisions

• Adaptable model, success criteria can be changed as needed by the group
• Room for alternative proposals and amendments to proposals by members before final decision is made

• Malicious intent could sabotage decision making process built on trust
• Missed opportunities if there are time constraints on decisions making

• Name of person making proposal: Person A
• Time frame for initial vote: 4 weeks
• Proposal: Our criteria are organic and/or regional - based on decision already made in this meeting. Now we need to define what this means in practice so that the person/s responsible for making contact with suppliers & producers knows which products we want to stock in the shop.
• Defining Regional: 100km radius or 150km radius includes some parts of Poland or 190km radius this includes more parts of Hamburg. Additional option: perhaps we should add to the criteria that we would like to go as local as possible ie less than 25km radius.
• Defining Organic: with certificate and/or without certificate based on trust

A: Confirmation that the suppliers we have contact with are within the 150km radius would be nice but should not stop the decision. 190km would be already have a greater environmental impact which I would like to avoid.

B: I am afraid that if we set the radius limit too low (below 190km) we won’t be able to find enough suppliers / producers - but I do not know this to be true unless a list of producers is available. Before the final vote I would like to see the list of producers in the 100km and 150km radius.

C: 190km would be already have a greater environmental impact which I would like to avoid. I would like more information about how many suppliers we would have in above 150km and below 190km to be able to make a more informed decision.

D: I think we have enough suppliers in the 100km, other larger options would carry increased cost and environmental impact however if this isn’t true I would be open to hearing more about it.

E: I feel that our preferred radius (25km) is much too small in addition to more info about how much suppliers we have there I would like to propose an additional option for 50km preferred, this would be inclusive of agricultural areas like Plau am See where we already have contacts. I also feel negative about making the area too large for environmental impact reasons and increased costs due to transportation and because I believe we have enough suppliers in the nearby areas (150km). For organic status we should document how many/which members trust the supplier and status should be revised once a year.

F: I do not have enough information about the producers we have to know where they fall on the map, in general I would prefer if the radius is as low as possible. Idea: we can have a map in the shop with pins pointing to our suppliers and preferred radius.

At initial vote submitted we can see that people’s concerns have triggered some tasks for the product team to provide more information for defining regional - this has to be completed before a final vote can be taken.

Suggestions & Ideas - group members are invited to submit suggestions and ideas linked to the topic they are voting on.

• Eg. Idea: we can have a map in the shop with pins pointing to our suppliers and preferred radius.

This is can be a quick vote item for the marketing team, once a list of suppliers is already provided by the product team or it can be added to the idea pot until someone has time to work on it.

• Eg. For organic status we should document how many/which members trust the supplier and status should be revised once a year.

This will need to be reformulated as a question to the group for a decision to be made. Options to vote for could include: how often the status should be checked, how to document endorsement of non certified suppliers etc.

A vote is considered successful when an option has only 5 & 4 score values. In case of multiple options the one with the highest total score is chosen.

In that case the group / person making the proposal can go back to the drawing board, taking into account the documented fears / concerns and make a new proposal, starting the process from the beginning or abandon the proposal altogether.

In that case you can vote all options as 4 in the initial vote and than pick your favorite as 5 in the final vote. In cases where all options are voted as 4 and one has a 5 score vote the option with a 5 score vote will go through. Use your vote wisely in the interest of the group and in the spirit of finding a solution. If you feel that you are not competent to make this decision you can delegate it to another member of the group.

The group can set a criteria for example the vote is still valid when 75% of the active members have voted the vote still goes through. In general if a member knows that the have no time they should delegate their vote to another active member so as not to stall the process.

You should not only provide the options but also as much information as possible about them. The alternative option/s will be then included in the final voting round unless an appropriate option has already been chosen by the group at the initial round.

The process is focused on reaching an agreement in the quickest time possible, this would not be possible without expressing and addressing members concerns.