Algorithmic Consensus Selection via Evaluation Time Weighting
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing methods struggle to efficiently form a consensus among large or small groups of people, as direct discussion becomes unwieldy and biased towards a few dominant participants.
Innovation Solution
A computer-based system and method that distributes ideas to participants, collects ratings, records evaluation times, and forms weighted ratings to select a consensus, ensuring that each participant's idea is not directly compared to their own.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Ease of operation
If direct discussion is used to form consensus, then participation is straightforward for small groups, but the process becomes unwieldy and biased for large groups
Solution Approach 1:
The patent replaces the mechanical system of direct human discussion with an algorithmic voting system. Participants submit ideas through a digital interface, and an algorithm automatically evaluates and ranks ideas based on participant votes and evaluation times, eliminating the need for complex verbal discussions while maintaining fair representation of all participants' opinions
Solution Approach 2:
The patent introduces an intermediary algorithm that mediates between participants and the consensus formation process. This algorithm acts as a neutral mediator that collects votes, records evaluation times, and computes weighted rankings, preventing direct comparison of ideas by individuals while ensuring all voices are heard proportionally
2Productivity
If direct discussion is used, then ideas can be exchanged simply in small groups, but the exchange becomes onerous for large groups
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments the idea evaluation process into discrete, independent units. Each participant independently submits votes and evaluation times for individual ideas, and the algorithm processes these segmented data points to produce an overall ranking. This segmentation allows parallel processing of evaluations from multiple participants simultaneously, dramatically increasing productivity while reducing individual time investment
Solution Approach 2:
The patent substitutes the time-consuming mechanical process of extended verbal discussion with automated algorithmic processing. Once participants submit their votes and evaluation times through the digital interface, the algorithm automatically computes weighted rankings without requiring additional time for discussion, thereby increasing productivity and reducing time loss
3Productivity
If majority voting is used, then consensus can be reached quickly, but a small number of dominant participants lead most discussions
Solution Approach 1:
The patent changes the parameters of the voting system by incorporating evaluation time as a weighting factor. Instead of counting only the number of votes (binary parameter), the system uses both vote count and evaluation time to compute weighted rankings. This parameter change ensures that participants who take time to evaluate ideas seriously are given appropriate weight, preventing dominance by a small number of rapid voters while maintaining the speed of electronic voting processing
Solution Approach 2:
The patent implements feedback mechanisms where the algorithm continuously processes votes and evaluation times to generate weighted rankings that reflect the true preferences of all participants. The system provides feedback by displaying intermediate results and allowing participants to see how their evaluation times and votes contribute to the overall consensus, ensuring accurate representation while maintaining voting speed
Data Source
AI summary
A system and method for algorithmic selection of a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. A group of ideas is provided to a group of participants for voting. Voting may occur in a single round or in several successive rounds, optionally until a consensus idea is chosen. Typically, the votes that are cast use discrete levels, such as “approve”, “disapprove”, “positive”, “neutral” or “negative”. For ideas that receive the same votes, a differentiator may be the time spent casting the vote. A relatively long evaluation time may signal some internal conflict in the mind of the participant, when compared with a relatively short evaluation time, which may signal no such conflict. The evaluation time may be combined with the rating of the participant to form a weighted rating. Consequently, a short evaluation time of a positive rating may yield a more positive weighted rating, while a short evaluation time of a negative rating may yield a more negative weighted rating.