In many cases, it is decided through the "deepening of the discussion". Or rather, the typical pattern is that the president tried to convince the directors, and over the discussions like "this or that" beforehand, finally it is determined at the Board of Directors. As a matter of course, it is recorded only "as the result of careful deliberation, the proposal was approved without objection" in the [Board minutes]. Such as the initial opinion of each director and complicated interactions will not remain in the official records.
Yet, the most [important information] is the "process" till the determination.
It is "the process" till the determination, that information which directors of the future would want to read.
The following workflow is a system that each director can record their opinions independently. First, select from "-2, Disagree", "-1, Somewhat Disagree", "0, Neither Disagree nor Agree/ Pending", "+1, Somewhat Agree", "+2, Agree". Then record their own opinions freely. Anyhow, it will be operated separately from the "minutes" which prone to formalism. That is, it is utilized for the assertion of opinions and ideas before the meeting, or to record the post-discussion opinion and thoughts over the discussion after the meeting. It is definitely different from mere "electronic voting system".
[Opinion Expressing flow]
[Opinion Expressing flow:"2b. Vote and Opinion (Time stamp)" screen]
[Data Items List screen]
Needless to exemplify "TPP participation" or "privatization of the postal services", even the Diet members would change their claim. Even "the public opinion" behind itself would change in the middle of a discussion, and the "trend of the times" would change as well. When it comes to "pros and cons of nuclear power plant", it truly has changed dramatically.
However, when looking back later, it will be very important information that, in how much approval has the organization's intention of each moment been determined? Moreover, information such as "What kind of dissenting opinions were there?" and "What was the risk that had been discussed till the end?", will be the most precious thing. (the minutes in formalism will never be comparable at all.)
Wander off the topic a little, opinions would be divided even in the "Field of Justice" sometimes.
The fact that is unforgettable in the IT industry in Japan, there was a trial case (assistance of copyright infringing acts) concerning file sharing software "Winny". Since the software creator was arrested in 2004, various discussions have been carried out until the verdict decision of the Supreme Court 2011, he was found "not guilty in 4-to-1 in the Supreme Court" after "guilty at the first trial", "not guilty at the second trial". Thinking well now, I can say this is an example that the state power had been changing.
By the way, the existence of ≪the minutes for submission to Legal Affairs Bureau≫ is evil because it might facilitate the formalism. No one would want to describe "discussion with the content" (complicated interactions) in it. Or alse, I feel that "the minutes in paper" are conducive to formalism somewhat. That is, because the risk of caught in the eye of the administrative staff during the course of the creation and storage is high, so it makes people anxious that "Our Business strategy may leak to rival companies?" or "HR policy becomes rumors and it may lead to internal factional struggle". Nevertheless, the opportunities for directors who are mainly supposed to read them, are few.
To build a free opinion environment, and make it open to anyone who are allowed to view. The secrecy for that, it probably should be affirmed.
[Free Download]
- Business Template: Opinion Expressing flow
- Registry Flow of New Share through Third-party Allotment (2013-08-12)
- Ringi Workflow, How to Design 'Proxy Approval' (2013-02-12)
- Operations that not be Defined its Processing Procedure Clearly, also on Workflow! (2013-09-17)
