Protocol
Average independent estimates before debating one number
A group average built before the argument preserves more independent signal than one built after the room converges.
When it fits
- Several people estimate the same underlying quantity and no one has unique authoritative information.
When to avoid it
- Do not average judgments that answer different questions or encode genuinely different stakeholder values.
Why it matters
Collect estimates independently, calculate a simple or justified weighted aggregate, then use discussion to investigate large outliers and missing information. Keep the independent distribution visible even if the group later chooses a different final number. Aggregation is most useful when the judgments target the same measurable quantity.
Steps
- Collect estimates independently.
- Check that all estimates refer to the same quantity and horizon.
- Aggregate before group discussion.
- Inspect the spread and reasons for extreme estimates.
- Revise only when new information or a justified weighting rule warrants it.
An example
Collect independent migration-duration estimates from four experienced leads before discussing the schedule together.
Check your result
The baseline forecast contains the information from multiple independent judgments rather than only the negotiated consensus.
Keep this limit in mind
- Do not average judgments that answer different questions or encode genuinely different stakeholder values.
Connected ideas
Useful withDiscuss the reasons, then re-rate privately
Evidence and sources
Averaging independent judgments is a repeatedly supported method for reducing random judgment error when the judgments target a common quantity.
Averaging is not appropriate when disagreement reflects different legitimate objectives or when one evaluator has unique decisive information.
Improving Workplace Judgments by Reducing Noise: Lessons Learned from a Century of Selection Research · Aggregation of independent judgments