Each of these group decision techniques has its own strengths and weaknesses. The choice of a technique depends on the criteria you want to put forward and the cost-benefit balance. For example, as the following figure shows, brainstorming is good for producing many ideas, nominal group technique minimizes conflict, the devil`s advocate generates high-quality ideas and brainstorming builds the assembly of a group. Keep in mind that the group`s performance varies widely, regardless of the techniques you use. Redding, R. E. (2012). Likes attract: The socio-political thought group of psychologists (social). Psychological Science Perspectives, 7 (5), 512-515.
Implementing the solution requires advanced planning, and it should not be done hastily, unless the group is operating with severe time constraints or delays can result in some kind of damage. While some solutions can be implemented immediately, others can take days, months or years. As mentioned above, it may be advantageous for groups to assess who will be affected by the solution, what they think, or even to conduct a pilot test to observe the effectiveness of the solution and the reaction of people. Before implementation, groups should also determine how and when they would evaluate the effectiveness of the solution by asking, “How do we know if the solution works or not?” Since the evaluation of solutions varies with the dissolution of the group, the groups should also consider the following questions: If the group dissolves after implementation, who is responsible for evaluating the solution? If the solution fails, will the same group meet again or will a new group be formed? Johnson, D.W., Johnson, F.P. (2012). Fusion – group theory and group skills (11th edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Consensus does not mean “unanimity” – even though it is a rule that has been adopted as part of a decision-making process. The amount of agreement required to make a decision is called the “decision rule.”   Group polarization does not occur in all groups and settings, but generally occurs when there are two conditions: first, group members must have an initial propensity for a particular opinion or decision. While group members generally support liberal policy, their views are likely to be even more liberal after the discussion. But if the group is equally composed of Liberals and Conservatives, group polarization should not be expected.
Second, group polarization is reinforced by the discussion of the subject. For example, in the research of Myers and Kaplan (1976), the group indicated, under some experimental conditions, that they expressed their opinion, but that they did not discuss the subject, and that these groups had less polarization than the groups discussing the subject. In the Spokescouncil model, affinity groups make common decisions by designating a speaker and sitting behind that speaker`s circle, much like the spokes of a wheel. While speaking rights may be limited to the delegate of each group, the meeting may give the constituent groups breakage time to discuss a topic and return to the circle through their spokesperson. In the case of an activist spokesman who was preparing for the A16 protests in Washington D.C in 2000, affinity groups denied the imposition of non-violence by their spokesperson. They got the grace to let groups organize their own protests, then the city`s protest was divided into slices of cakes, blocked by the choice of protest from an affinity group. Many participants spontaneously learned the Spokescouncil model by participating directly, and came to better understand their planned action, hearing the concerns of others and expressing their own.  In all of these group decision techniques, you need to be alert to emotional conflicts and seek healthy cognitive conflicts.