CLASSES OF INCLUSION:
Primary
(A) Design interest
(1) Vested Interests
(2) Privileged Interests
Secondary classes
(3) Expert Interests
(4) Stakeholder interests
[neither initially vested or privileged)
(5) Community interests
(6) 'Disinterested'
Basic operational classes of process:
LOW STRUCTURE - LOW FUNCTION
key: not designed <> "informal" often ad hoc, inclusive, unclear about what constitutes qualifications of interest <> tends to self-organize or fall apart if structure/function can't be clarified
HIGH STRUCTURE - LOW FUNCTION
key: qualifications for admission are a matter of design <> "non-formal" but not ad hoc, not inclusive but also not functionally very organized <> function tends to self-organize, may fall apart, but, also is prone to minimal functionality
LOW STRUCTURE - HIGH FUNCTION
key: inclusive and process is designed to operationalize function <> "non-formal" but with functionality designed around the loose structure, qualification of various interests self organizes around a priori design of how they functionally cooperate <> may tend to get bogged down in integration of variety of interests and group functionality
HIGH STRUCTURE - HIGH FUNCTION
key: admission and process operations are pre-designed <> "formal" <> the operationalization of group dynamics is known in advance, (couldn't be a matter of design and testing if it were not so) <> may be: simple or complex
To speak of "design" is to imply that there is a <design interest>. A design interest with respect to structure alone will be only concerned with who is admitted into the process. A design interest with respect to function alone will only be interested in how the process operates.
The design of functionality and operations is itself subject to 'complexification'. In other words, the 'designer' can orient the design around simple objectives or complex objectives. An example of objective in terms of functionality is the flow of ideas into critical functions; i.e. is a given idea accurately propositionalized, and implicated, is it properly interpreted/analyzed?
(Air Traffic control is a certain example of HF/HS process for which everything rides on information passing through efficient critical structures.)
The kicker is this: truisms about the effectiveness of critical dynamics in groups having to do with the actual effectiveness of groups, given their objectives, are completely researchable. Presumptive truisms may or may not be true.
For example, an expert can sit in on a group and report back about various structural and functional aspects. This expert can analyze how ideas flow through critical functions, how biases at the level of individual psychology impact functionality, and, among many interesting facets, how tacit (hidden,) features sympathize or distort functionality.
Very often, in the civic space, groups, effect High Structure/Low Function simply because their operational functions weren't designed to begin with, and, over time, they haven't "self-organized" high function; (when it happens such function is an example of "design-after-the-facts".)
Furthermore, extremely inclusive, (or big,) groups aren't prevented from being High Function at all. They surely are when their functionality isn't clear from the git-go, yet, as a matter of design, High Functionality can be built into the process. High Functionality often can be built on the spot by very expert facilitation.
Whether a new idea, proposal, direction is generated through the political powers and forces, or from the grass roots, one imperative remains the same. Before the idea is brought before who must eventual pass upon it, it is necessary that those who will one day set it out for review, first fully explore and investigate their idea. I would much rather a thoroughly considered plan be presented, as opposed to a half baked idea, yet to be vetted.
In technical terms, this isn't an imperative at all. It begs lots of interesting questions, none is more interesting than whether those who will one day set it out for review,
can optimally do so. In HS/LF groups, admission is designed but function is not. There's nothing about being admitted into a group that alone insures that critical process is highly function. Importantly, mere procedure cannot constitute functionality. In other words, a group can have very strict rules and also be, in effect, very 'stupid'. It's also possible that procedures and norms can be implemented which mitigate functionality.
When we consider the effects which come from the qualification of privilege, many truisms of group effectiveness come under even more pressure.
Okay, eyes glaze over. (Whatever...) The fact is: civic intelligence at its highest levels of functionality will tend to be implicated in well-designed processes. Short of design, (tempted to say 'intelligent design,'!) the actual effectiveness of groups, whether members of the group are really interested in group effectiveness or not, is completely researchable. Whatever is truly true about group process, (aside from purported truisms,) can be elicited, resolved, actualized via investigation of how groups really happen to work.
It is not true that smaller groups are per force more effective than larger groups. Most groups are, by definition, complex and it is very often the case that civic groups do not know themselves very well or know their group process to be very complex matters of behavior. Every adult group oriented around the vetting of ideas is very likely going to be very complex. This is a naturalistic fact about the domain of group dynamics.
Badly designed groups can be less effective than messy LS/LF groups that benefit from better self-organizing dynamics.
Then there are the dynamics of privilege and 'privileging' which impact greatly group effectiveness, especially in the civic spaces where wll known groups usually are at least High Structure; i.e. are designed to admit Betty but not Billy.
