Agent skill

stakeholder-preference-elicitor

Stakeholder preference elicitation skill for structured value and weight gathering

Stars 514
Forks 31

Install this agent skill to your Project

npx add-skill https://github.com/a5c-ai/babysitter/tree/main/library/specializations/domains/business/decision-intelligence/skills/stakeholder-preference-elicitor

Metadata

Additional technical details for this skill

domain
business
category
collaboration
priority
medium
specialization
decision-intelligence
tools libraries
[
    "custom forms",
    "pandas",
    "statistical aggregation"
]

SKILL.md

Stakeholder Preference Elicitor

Overview

The Stakeholder Preference Elicitor skill provides structured methods for gathering value judgments and weights from decision stakeholders. It supports multiple elicitation techniques, consistency checking, and preference aggregation for group decisions.

Capabilities

  • Swing weight elicitation
  • Direct rating collection
  • Trade-off questioning
  • Consistency checking
  • Preference aggregation
  • Disagreement identification
  • Facilitation guidance
  • Preference documentation

Used By Processes

  • Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)
  • Structured Decision Making Process
  • KPI Framework Development

Usage

Elicitation Session Setup

python
# Configure elicitation session
session_config = {
    "decision": "Enterprise Software Selection",
    "criteria": [
        {"name": "Total Cost of Ownership", "unit": "USD", "direction": "minimize"},
        {"name": "Implementation Time", "unit": "months", "direction": "minimize"},
        {"name": "Functionality Fit", "unit": "percent", "direction": "maximize"},
        {"name": "Vendor Stability", "unit": "score", "direction": "maximize"},
        {"name": "Integration Capability", "unit": "score", "direction": "maximize"}
    ],
    "stakeholders": [
        {"id": "S1", "name": "CIO", "role": "Decision Maker", "weight": 0.3},
        {"id": "S2", "name": "CFO", "role": "Decision Maker", "weight": 0.3},
        {"id": "S3", "name": "IT Director", "role": "Technical Expert", "weight": 0.2},
        {"id": "S4", "name": "Business Lead", "role": "User Representative", "weight": 0.2}
    ],
    "elicitation_method": "swing_weights"
}

Swing Weight Elicitation

python
# Swing weight process
swing_weight_protocol = {
    "step_1_ranges": {
        "description": "Define worst and best levels for each criterion",
        "ranges": {
            "Total Cost of Ownership": {"worst": 2000000, "best": 500000},
            "Implementation Time": {"worst": 24, "best": 6},
            "Functionality Fit": {"worst": 60, "best": 95},
            "Vendor Stability": {"worst": 3, "best": 9},
            "Integration Capability": {"worst": 2, "best": 10}
        }
    },
    "step_2_reference": {
        "description": "Imagine all criteria at worst level. Which would you most want to swing to best?",
        "responses": {
            "S1": "Functionality Fit",
            "S2": "Total Cost of Ownership",
            "S3": "Integration Capability",
            "S4": "Functionality Fit"
        }
    },
    "step_3_relative_weights": {
        "description": "If most important swing = 100, rate the value of other swings",
        "responses": {
            "S1": {
                "Functionality Fit": 100,
                "Total Cost of Ownership": 80,
                "Integration Capability": 60,
                "Implementation Time": 40,
                "Vendor Stability": 30
            }
            # ... other stakeholders
        }
    }
}

Trade-off Questions

python
# Trade-off elicitation
tradeoff_questions = {
    "format": "matching",
    "questions": [
        {
            "id": "TQ1",
            "question": "You can have software with 95% functionality fit. How much extra cost would you accept to maintain this level vs. 75% fit?",
            "criteria_pair": ["Functionality Fit", "Total Cost of Ownership"],
            "anchors": {"Functionality Fit": {"from": 75, "to": 95}}
        },
        {
            "id": "TQ2",
            "question": "Implementation in 6 months vs 12 months: how much more would you pay for the faster option?",
            "criteria_pair": ["Implementation Time", "Total Cost of Ownership"],
            "anchors": {"Implementation Time": {"from": 12, "to": 6}}
        }
    ]
}

Consistency Check

python
# Check for consistency
consistency_check = {
    "method": "transitivity",
    "checks": [
        {
            "stakeholder": "S1",
            "issue": "weight_inconsistency",
            "details": "Cost weight (80) + Fit weight (100) implies Cost > Time, but trade-off suggests otherwise",
            "severity": "warning",
            "recommendation": "Revisit cost vs. time comparison"
        }
    ],
    "overall_consistency": 0.85
}

Group Aggregation

python
# Aggregate preferences
aggregation_config = {
    "method": "weighted_geometric_mean",
    "stakeholder_weights": {"S1": 0.3, "S2": 0.3, "S3": 0.2, "S4": 0.2},
    "individual_weights": {
        "S1": {"TCO": 0.26, "Time": 0.13, "Fit": 0.32, "Stability": 0.10, "Integration": 0.19},
        "S2": {"TCO": 0.35, "Time": 0.15, "Fit": 0.25, "Stability": 0.15, "Integration": 0.10},
        # ... etc.
    },
    "aggregated_weights": {
        "TCO": 0.29,
        "Time": 0.14,
        "Fit": 0.28,
        "Stability": 0.12,
        "Integration": 0.17
    },
    "disagreement_metrics": {
        "highest_variance_criterion": "Total Cost of Ownership",
        "coefficient_of_variation": 0.15
    }
}

Input Schema

json
{
  "session_config": {
    "decision": "string",
    "criteria": ["object"],
    "stakeholders": ["object"],
    "method": "string"
  },
  "elicitation_data": {
    "method": "swing|direct|tradeoff|pairwise",
    "responses": "object"
  },
  "aggregation_config": {
    "method": "geometric_mean|arithmetic_mean|majority",
    "stakeholder_weights": "object"
  }
}

Output Schema

json
{
  "individual_weights": {
    "stakeholder_id": {
      "criterion": "number"
    }
  },
  "aggregated_weights": {
    "criterion": "number"
  },
  "consistency": {
    "individual_scores": "object",
    "issues": ["object"]
  },
  "disagreement_analysis": {
    "high_variance_criteria": ["string"],
    "stakeholder_clusters": "object",
    "discussion_points": ["string"]
  },
  "documentation": {
    "methodology": "string",
    "assumptions": ["string"],
    "limitations": ["string"]
  }
}

Elicitation Methods

Method Best For Complexity
Swing Weights Trading off criteria Medium
Direct Rating Quick assessment Low
Pairwise Comparison Systematic comparison High
Trade-off Understanding value Medium
Point Allocation Intuitive weights Low

Best Practices

  1. Explain criteria clearly before elicitation
  2. Use concrete examples and scenarios
  3. Check for consistency and discuss discrepancies
  4. Allow stakeholders to revise after seeing group results
  5. Document reasoning, not just numbers
  6. Consider cognitive biases (anchoring, order effects)
  7. Use multiple methods for important decisions

Common Biases

Bias Description Mitigation
Anchoring Over-reliance on first information Randomize order
Availability Weight by memorable events Use structured data
Overconfidence Narrow probability ranges Calibration training
Order Effects Influenced by question sequence Vary order across stakeholders

Integration Points

  • Feeds into AHP Calculator for weight processing
  • Connects with MCDA Facilitator agent
  • Supports Consistency Validator for quality checks
  • Integrates with Decision Documentation for audit trail

Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.

a5c-ai/babysitter

gsd-tools

Central utility skill for GSD operations. Provides config parsing, slug generation, timestamps, path operations, and orchestrates calls to other specialized skills. Acts as the unified entry point that the original gsd-tools.cjs provided via its lib/ modules (commands, config, core, init).

514 31
Explore
a5c-ai/babysitter

model-profile-resolution

Resolve model profile (quality/balanced/budget) at orchestration start and map agents to specific models. Enables cost/quality tradeoffs by selecting appropriate AI models for each agent role.

514 31
Explore
a5c-ai/babysitter

verification-suite

Plan structure validation, phase completeness checks, reference integrity verification, and artifact existence confirmation. Provides the structured verification layer ensuring GSD artifacts are well-formed and complete.

514 31
Explore
a5c-ai/babysitter

state-management

STATE.md reading, writing, and field-level updates. Provides cross-session state persistence via .planning/STATE.md with structured fields for current task, completed phases, blockers, decisions, and quick tasks.

514 31
Explore
a5c-ai/babysitter

git-integration

Git commit patterns, formats, and conventions for GSD methodology. Provides atomic commits per task, structured commit messages, planning file commits, branch management, and milestone tag operations.

514 31
Explore
a5c-ai/babysitter

frontmatter-parsing

YAML frontmatter parsing and manipulation for .planning/ documents. Provides read, write, update, query, and validation operations on frontmatter blocks in GSD markdown artifacts.

514 31
Explore

Didn't find tool you were looking for?

Be as detailed as possible for better results