In short
Setting a research or policy agenda works best when people distribute points across themes instead of just ticking a few boxes. ConsensIQ lets a group prioritise across several rounds until an agenda emerges that genuinely has broad support. That stops the loudest voice or a narrow majority from deciding the list on its own.
Why a tick-box list falls short
A research institute, knowledge platform or local authority setting an agenda for the coming years often asks members to tick the three themes they find most important. The trouble is that everyone ticks roughly the same safe, familiar options, and you never see how strongly that preference is actually felt. A theme that half the group considers essential and the other half finds unimportant gets the same weight as one everyone feels mildly positive about.
With ConsensIQ, people distribute 100 points across the proposed themes instead. Anyone who cares deeply about one topic puts most of their points there. Anyone who is indifferent spreads them out. That shows you straight away where the energy in the group genuinely lies, not just who argues loudest.
How to structure the session
Start by gathering candidate themes, for example through a short round beforehand or with the open-question feature in PresentersWall, which lets you collect ideas before the voting starts.
See exactly how a ConsensIQ session runs, from the setup wizard through to the presentation screen.
Put the main candidates into one question as options, for example 'What should our research agenda focus on over the next two years?'. Let the group distribute points and build in rounds: after each round the least-supported theme drops out, and participants who had points on it get them back to reallocate.
From brainstorm to agreed agenda
- 1
Gather themes
Collect candidate topics before or during the session, for example through an open question or a preparatory working group.
- 2
Turn them into a question
Enter the ten most relevant candidates as options in the wizard, with short, concrete descriptions.
- 3
Distribute and discuss
Let participants spread their points, freeze the question for discussion when needed, and adjust a description if it turns out unclear.
- 4
Let rounds play out
The weakest theme drops each round until a manageable, broadly supported agenda remains.
- 5
Export and share
Export the final result together with the intermediate rounds, so you can show how the agenda came about.
Why this beats a survey
A digital survey sent out in advance only captures a snapshot: people fill it in without having heard each other's arguments. With ConsensIQ, the prioritisation happens inside the meeting itself. Someone can explain during the discussion why a theme is more urgent than it looks, and others can move their points straight away. That is the difference between a list sitting on paper and an agenda the group actually stands behind.
For larger groups, such as member consultations or regional networks, this works just as well: everyone votes from their own screen, so not everyone needs equal speaking time to be heard.
A practical scenario
A knowledge platform with forty affiliated organisations wants to set a research agenda for the next two years. Instead of a written round with every member, it organises a hybrid meeting. Twelve candidate themes go in as options, participants distribute points, and after three rounds five priorities remain that clearly stand out above the rest. The result is presented to the board that same afternoon, with the intermediate rounds as evidence of how it was reached.
In short
An agenda reached this way is not a compromise nobody is excited about, but a weighted choice you can show the reasoning behind. That makes it easier to fall back on later if priorities are questioned.