Multi-Perspective Decision Wheel
Structure a decision or design challenge through multiple perspectives before committing to action. Use as a synthesis step after scoping, mapping, and dilemma navigation when a group needs a wiser next step.
What it does
Structures a decision or design challenge by examining it through multiple perspectives — stakeholders, disciplines, time horizons, and value systems — before committing to action. Each perspective is a spoke on the wheel: it sees something the others cannot, asks a question others might miss, and has a blind spot. The synthesis of all perspectives produces a wiser decision than any single viewpoint could.
This skill comes last in the H3Uni sequence, after scoping, hexagon mapping, Three Horizons mapping, and dilemma navigation. Running it without prior inquiry produces shallow, opinion-based wheels. Its value lies in synthesising the insights and tensions that earlier methods have surfaced into a considered, multi-perspective recommendation.
The skill does not produce a formula for the right answer. It produces a structured understanding of what each perspective sees, misses, and asks — from which a group can make a wiser decision than they could without it.
Sources
- H3Uni Wheel of Wisdom tutorial and facilitation guides (CC BY-SA 4.0, practitioner method)
- Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice. Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
- Rajagopalan, R., & Midgley, G. (2015). Knowing differently in systemic intervention. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 32, 546–561.
How to use it in your lesson
For the best results with EvidenceLesson, give it:
- decision_or_challenge — The specific decision, proposal, or design challenge to examine — must be a question of judgement, not a factual question
- context — The school, curriculum, or community context in which the decision sits
- prior_inquiry_summary (optional) — Insights from prior scoping, hexagon mapping, Three Horizons mapping, or dilemma navigation that inform this decision
- perspectives_to_include (optional) — Specific stakeholders, disciplines, time horizons, or value lenses to include as spokes on the wheel
- student_level (optional) — Year group or age range
- decision_constraints (optional) — Real constraints the decision must operate within — resources, authority, time, policy, or community factors
Known limitations
- Synthesis requires human judgement. The skill produces structured inputs for a wise decision; it does not produce the decision. Weighing competing insights and acting under uncertainty requires teacher and student judgement.
- Quality depends on prior inquiry. The wheel's analytical value depends on the quality of prior scoping, mapping, and dilemma navigation. A wheel drawn from surface impressions produces surface results.
- Perspective selection is consequential. Which perspectives are included and excluded shapes the synthesis. Teachers should treat perspective selection as an explicit analytical and ethical choice, not a neutral exercise.
- Cannot assess implementation feasibility. The next responsible step is based on constraints provided. It cannot assess whether the action is actually feasible in a specific school's culture, governance structure, or resource environment.
Before you deliver: a quick check
- [ ] The central question is a genuine question of judgement, not a factual question.
- [ ] At least 4 perspectives are included.
- [ ] Each perspective has: sees, misses, asks, and contributes.
- [ ] At least one perspective represents those most affected who are not present in the room.
- [ ] At least one genuine tension between perspectives is named.
- [ ] Synthesis insights go beyond what any single perspective offered.
- [ ] The proposal improvement step names what to keep, change, test, and stop.
- [ ] The next responsible step names action, responsibility, evidence needed, and limits.
- [ ] All five quality gates are applied and reported.