FAQ anonymous Stakeholder Dialogue

How does a dialogue work?

In five steps: strategy workshop, setup and invitation, the dialogue, the results, the feedback. You provide the context, BrainE4 the concept. The dialogue space is ready within 48 hours. After that, BrainE4 takes care of moderation, analysis and the report.

How long does a dialogue take?

21 days. During this time, your stakeholders contribute ideas and arguments anonymously and rate each other's. Afterwards, you have reliable priorities in hand, together with new ideas and arguments, prioritized by the participants themselves.

How much effort is this for us?

Three hours and one approval. Three hours in the workshop, one approval of the communication. BrainE4 takes care of moderation, evaluation and the report. You receive all contributions, in order: what most people consider important is at the top.

How quickly can a dialogue start?

Within 48 hours of the workshop. BrainE4 sets everything up: technology, invitation texts, design, with your logo. You share a link, your stakeholders click, the dialogue begins. There is no IT project.

What happens in the strategy workshop?

Beforehand, BrainE4 analyzes your situation and develops a first proposal for questions, hypotheses, stakeholder group and participation channel. In the workshop, the concept is refined together, and the six assumptions per question that the dialogue is to test are recorded. You then decide whether a pilot dialogue or a dialogue mandate follows. The concept belongs to you, even if no dialogue follows.

Who develops the questions?

BrainE4. Large dialogues need the right questions: open questions and the hypotheses to be tested. You provide the situation, goals, stakeholders and assumptions; BrainE4 turns them into the concept, the key questions and the communication.

Who moderates the dialogue?

BrainE4, every day for three weeks, with no work for you. Every new contribution is reviewed so that the dialogue stays factual and safe.

Can you see what is happening during the dialogue?

Yes. You follow along live and see every day which topics dominate. It creates no work for you.

What do we have under control?

You don’t decide the answers. But you decide what is being answered. We agree together in the workshop on how narrow or broad the questions are. You follow along live, are the first to see the ranking, and receive answers to exactly what was asked. Off-topic content stays out.

How much time do participants need?

Ten minutes over the course of the dialogue, anonymously and at any time of day. There are no appointments and no attendance requirements.

What happens after the dialogue?

You receive ready-made communication for your stakeholders, transparent and easy to follow. The feedback shows: "You listened." A sample report from a citizen dialogue is publicly available.

Do we have to implement what comes out on top?

You receive a ranking, not a mandate. What you implement is up to you. Participants know from the start that their judgement is a basis for decisions, not a promise.

Doesn't the dialogue raise expectations?

Expectations exist anyway. The dialogue shows which ones many people share. Expectations nobody knows about, nobody can answer. After the dialogue, you know what matters to many and what matters to only a few. BrainE4 writes the feedback to participants ready to send; you approve it.

What is the insight guarantee?

You set the benchmark yourself before anything starts. In the strategy workshop, you record six assumptions per question. BrainE4 enters them anonymously, indistinguishable from your stakeholders' contributions. The result is a complete ranking, often several hundred ideas and arguments. The benchmark is the top 10. There, BrainE4 guarantees you at least five topics that were not on your radar, averaged across all questions. If this is not achieved, BrainE4 does not invoice the dialogue. The strategy workshop is excluded, as its concept is yours in any case. You keep the full analysis either way.

Why can BrainE4 guarantee this?

Because experience backs it up. Across more than 60 dialogues, clients on average did not know eight of the ten most important contributions. Few consultancies commit in advance to how much new insight they will uncover. BrainE4 does, and puts its fee behind it.

Why are the assumptions entered anonymously?

So that they follow the same path in the dialogue as every other argument: rated by everyone, with no recognizable origin. This makes it possible to verify at the end what was genuinely new and what you had expected anyway, rather than what merely feels new.

What does a dialogue cost?

Scope and cost ceiling are agreed before the start. For a dialogue mandate, you receive a quote with a binding cost cap in advance. The scope depends on the number of questions, the size of the stakeholder group and the languages.

What forms of collaboration are there?

Four: strategy workshop, pilot dialogue, dialogue mandate and framework mandate.

The pilot dialogue is a clearly limited run on one question from the workshop. You experience the Idea Duel on a real decision. The dialogue mandate is the full implementation. The framework mandate repeats dialogues at fixed intervals and shows you how things develop over time.

What does a framework mandate offer?

A basis for comparison for anyone who has to make decisions regularly. Because the concept, activation and question structure are already in place, each follow-up dialogue costs less. Instead of a snapshot, you see changes as they happen.

Are there licence or user fees?

No. You don't buy a licence and you don't set anything up. No IT project, no user licences.

What is included in the mandate?

Question development, invitation and communication concept, setup of the dialogue space in your design, daily moderation for three weeks, review of every contribution, analysis and segmentation by your criteria, a results report per question, a one-pager and ready-to-send feedback.

Can we see it beforehand?

Yes. BrainE4 shows you a completed dialogue with real results, including a sample report from a citizen dialogue. In a twenty-minute initial call, we go through your specific question. If a dialogue won't move your decision forward, BrainE4 will tell you.

What does the initial call cost?

Nothing. Twenty minutes are enough to clarify what you need to decide and whether a dialogue will get you there.

How does the Idea Duel differ from a survey?

In a survey, participants tick predefined answers. In the Idea Duel, they write their own, and everyone else weighs them against each other in direct comparison. This way you also learn what nobody would have thought to ask. Surveys count votes, but they never see the real ideas and arguments.

Does this turn into a wish list?

Anyone can wish. Only what prevails against everything else makes it to the top. “More budget” or “clear responsibilities”? Having to choose shows what really matters. A wish shared by only a few sinks to the bottom. What ends up at the top is backed by many.

Can organized groups tip the results?

No. Volume counts for nothing here. Every contribution is judged in many independent comparisons, and the number of judgements per person is limited. Those who coordinate gain no advantage. If a group is over- or under-represented, the ongoing weighting balances it out.

Is statistical uncertainty reported?

Yes, for every single finding. Each statement comes with a credible interval.

Can you analyze results by area?

Yes. BrainE4 compares departments, regions or criteria you define yourself. This shows you where a position holds and where it falls apart.

What question types are available?

The Idea Duel is at the center. On request, closed questions can be added, such as multiple choice, Likert scales or the Net Promoter Score, for example when an existing time series needs to be continued. The figure shows where you stand. The Idea Duel shows the why behind it and topics nobody would have asked about.

Is this an AI process?

No. Every judgment comes from a human being. AI only helps with structuring and never decides. The human being is at the center, with their full judgment.

What if too few people take part?

The invitation is half the battle. BrainE4 writes it ready to send, along with reminders and feedback, and you send it out. People are not invited to a survey, but with words that name what your question is really about. Taking part takes ten minutes over the course of the dialogue, anonymously and at any time of day. Typical participation is 70 to 90 percent of employees, 60 to 80 percent of managers, 10 to 20 percent of customers, 6 to 10 percent of members and 7 to 24 percent of the population.

Is participation anonymous?

Yes. Participation in the dialogue is open, voluntary and anonymous. Each person submits their own ideas and arguments in their own words. There are no predefined answers and no link between contributions and individuals.

Can the client see who wrote what?

No. You see arguments, rankings and segment analyses, never individual people. You follow live which topics dominate, without any link to individuals.

Are we risking a shitstorm with a dialogue?

A shitstorm feeds on applause. Here there is none. No names, no stage: anyone who wants to object writes their own contribution, and it has to hold its own in the duel. Every contribution is moderated beforehand.

What happens to angry contributions?

Insults stay out, criticism stays in. BrainE4 reviews every contribution. Like any other, an angry contribution has to hold its own in many comparisons. If it still ends up near the top, many people see it that way, and then you are better off knowing.

How are inappropriate contributions handled?

BrainE4 reviews every new contribution to keep the dialogue factual and safe. The basis is the published community guidelines: insults, calls for violence, spam, advertising and political propaganda are removed and, in the spirit of good corporate governance, disclosed in the report. Controversial content stays. Disagreement is the purpose of the method, not a malfunction.

Are the dialogues GDPR-compliant?

Yes. Dialogues are conducted in compliance with the Swiss FADP and the GDPR.

Should we communicate the results?

That is your decision: what you communicate and to whom. During the dialogue, nothing goes public. Afterwards, you gain a great deal of trust by reporting back what came out and what you are doing with it. The message behind it: “We listened to you, and we take you seriously.” Experience shows that participants value this highly. BrainE4 provides a modular communication kit for this; you choose and approve.

We are a public authority and subject to freedom of information.

What is published is a reviewed ranking, not a comment section. During the dialogue, everything stays internal. You have the results first, and you are the first to explain them, together with your response.

What information do participants provide about themselves?

For weighting purposes, BrainE4 assigns each person to a weighting cell based on their information, along sociodemographic dimensions such as gender, age, education and region. Which dimensions are collected can be configured for each question and is disclosed in the results report.

Where is it developed?

100 % Swiss Made, in collaboration with OST and ZHAW.

What decisions is BrainE4 suited for?

For decisions where you want to know in advance where consensus holds and where resistance lies: strategy, mission statement, post-merger integration, reorganization, CEO onboarding. For associations: services, member retention and communication. In the public sector: location development, budget priorities and proposals ahead of a vote.

We already know criticism is coming. Why should we go and collect it?

The issues are there anyway. Better that you know them first. You know there is criticism. You don’t know which of it counts most, and what is going well alongside it. In more than 60 dialogues, clients did not know, on average, eight of the ten most important contributions.

Which dialogues are there?

Leadership dialogue for strategy and direction, culture dialogue for culture and change, customer dialogue for market and customers, member dialogue for associations and their members, citizen dialogue for the public and politics. One method, five fields of application.

What does the leadership dialogue deliver?

Between you and the truth lie layers of hierarchy. Each one filters and smooths until only the tame version reaches the top. In the leadership dialogue, your entire organization thinks along, anonymously and as equals. In 21 days, blind spots are visible, priorities are ranked and consensus is proven, before the budget is committed.

What does the culture dialogue deliver?

Engagement scores tell you that something is wrong. They almost never tell you why. The culture dialogue makes the why visible, anonymously and unfiltered. Nobody can steer which arguments gain weight. You learn the reason while you can still act, instead of in the exit interview.

What does the customer dialogue deliver?

You see which arguments convince and which cost trust, before the market passes judgment. Your customers weigh the arguments against each other blind: no leading questions, no vocal minority. In 21 days, you know why people buy, hesitate and leave.

What does the member dialogue deliver?

A general meeting that everyone attends. At a traditional meeting, those who dare speak up, and only a few turn up. In the member dialogue, everyone takes part, anonymously and as equals. In 21 days, you see what matters most to your members, which services keep them on board and where expectations and offering diverge.

What does the citizen dialogue deliver?

You see what really moves your population, before you decide, not afterwards. The citizen dialogue secures legitimacy beyond the few dozen who attend the information evening, makes conflicts visible while they can still be resolved and lowers the risk of a referendum. The decision remains with the authorities and voters. Three hours of work for your administration, compliant with the Swiss FADP and the GDPR.

How does BrainE4 differ from an employee survey?

A survey delivers yes-or-no answers and scattered individual voices: no weight, no consensus. BrainE4 delivers validated top arguments and the why behind them, in the employees' own words, and shows which explanation the workforce actually shares.

How does BrainE4 differ from a participation platform?

BrainE4 is not another participation platform but a complementary method: reasoning instead of commenting, no likes and no noise, but dynamic consensus validation. Protected identities, so that organized groups cannot distort the result. And a decision-ready outcome: validated majority and minority positions in the words of those affected.

How does BrainE4 differ from a workshop?

Workshops provide depth, but only for the few in the room. The larger the group, the more the loudest voices dominate. In the anonymous Idea Duel, the argument counts, not the position of the person who wrote it.

How does BrainE4 differ from likes and comments?

Comments remain individual voices without weight. Likes measure popularity and say nothing about what matters. In the Idea Duel, every argument is judged by many people in direct comparison and then weighted.

When is BrainE4 not a good fit?

If a dialogue won't move your decision forward, BrainE4 will tell you in the initial call, before a quote is on the table.

How does BrainE4 derive representative statements?

Participation in a BrainE4 dialogue is open, voluntary and anonymous. The dialogue is not tied to a pre-defined quota-based random sample. To ensure that the dialogue represents the target population, participants' votes are weighted using the so-called raking method: votes from participants in underrepresented groups are given more weight, while votes from overrepresented groups are slightly reduced. The weighting is readjusted with every new data point during the dialogue in order to match the specified marginal distributions of the target population. Assuming that participants and non-participants with the same sociodemographic profile do not differ substantially in their assessments, this yields representative statements for the target population.

Which dimensions are used for weighting?

For citizen dialogues in Switzerland, the target population is the permanent resident population. We describe it along sociodemographic dimensions, up to seven in the standard model, including gender, age, education, party affiliation, region and income. Calibration is performed against the marginal distribution of each individual dimension, not against their full combination. The target values come from official sources.

Which dimensions are used can be configured depending on the question, target group and client. The configuration used is disclosed in the results report of every dialogue.

How is weighting applied during the dialogue?

Participants are weighted, not individual contributions. Each person is assigned to a weighting cell based on their information. The weights of all cells are recalculated with every new data point. The number of Idea Duels counted per person is limited, so that individual participants cannot influence the result disproportionately. Over- or underrepresentation of individual groups in the raw data is thus continuously corrected, so that a demographic or political imbalance does not settle into the result.

Which weighting method is used?

The adjustment is made using Iterative Proportional Fitting (IPF, also known as raking), a method established since the 1940s for simultaneously calibrating sample data to several known marginal distributions. We then cap extreme individual weights through trimming. Since trimming alters the exact match with the marginal distributions, calibration and trimming are repeated alternately until both conditions are met together.

What is the statistical foundation of the analysis?

The content analysis of the Idea Duels uses a Bayesian method of the Bradley-Terry family (Bradley & Terry, 1952). A credible interval is reported for every statement, disclosing the statistical uncertainty under the documented assumptions.

Where does the scientific basis come from?

The methodological foundations for dialogue-based participation and the aggregation of pairwise comparisons were developed as part of Innosuisse project no. 57442.1 together with ZHAW and OST. IPF raking and weight trimming are established standard methods in survey research, which BrainE4 has further developed for real-time application in a dialogue format.

What does this mean for your decision?

Through ongoing weighting against known population shares, we derive representative statements, with transparently reported statistical uncertainty for every single finding.