Features

Login screen

Alpha version – access is pretty restricted, and we kept the features to the very minimum that will allow us to test the concept itself. Please register in the Contact page form if you feel like testing a new mode of collective decision !



Vote on Complex Issues

Most problems or decisions have more than two possible solutions. When this happens, the traditional hand-lifting vote method does not work that well any more. Because the proposal preferred by most people can also generate the strongest opposition.

For instance, let’s assume your executive committee must select a new Executive Manager (e.g. HR manager) out of a pick of Games of Thrones characters.


  • Brienne respects the law and can take hard decisions, but has no cunning
  • Bronn is very intelligent and tough, but will take very lightly inconvenient regulations
  • Drogo commands respects, even fear – employees will quit rather than complain
  • Samwell Tarly is very intelligent and loyal, but is really soft

If Alex, Bernie, Charles, Daisy and Eleanor participate in the vote, their orders of preferences may be really different according to what they believe a HR manager should bring to the company.

S.elect proposes a single-pass vote on many issues, simply by ordering the proposals by preference. All group members do that on their mobile, and that’s it !
A revised Condorcet method compute the best proposal instantly.

Here Alex and Daisy have a preference for smart people, while Bernie wants someone who can be trusted to follow the rules and Charles believes in authority is foremost.

and the winner is …


Decision strength rating

Even the best of the proposals may be only gather lukewarm support. And this can be a big problem during execution. When the going gets tough, the plan will need first-rank supporters ; and outright opponents should not be simply ignored.  So S.elect also computes the decision strength in terms of execution drive.

This allows the group to evaluate whether the winning proposal is good to go without further discussion, or if the level of support should be enhanced.

In our example, Samwell is obviously the best option. But it is perhaps not a choice satisfactory enough for such a decision as recruiting a new Executive board member.



Discussion identification

S.elect assumes that everybody has a good reason for their level of support for the current winning proposal : a single dissenter may have information unknown to the rest of the group, which could easily become a blind spot of the decision.

Even when the majority has it right, the time taken to convince the dissenter and bolster his implication is time well spent : even the most conscientious collaborator will have a hard time implicating himself in a plan he does not believe in.

S.elect identifies topics of discussion that can lead to changes in votes with the effect of either upgrading the level of support of the current proposal, or switching to another proposal altogether.



Decision Driven Process

S.elect begins a decision process with a vote, and let the group iterates on discussions and voting until a proposal has reached a satisfactory level of support. The group can then close the decision with the assurance that everybody has been implicated in it.

This process is very open – everyone can issue a proposal and  is free to switch opinions – and at the same it always focused on the decision to make.