Workspace for teams and SMBs evaluating digital stacks, product roadmaps, and HR policies. Each proposal compares costs, integrations, and change-management needs. Concorder staff publishes pilot proposals that demonstrate corporate participation best practices.

Marino

Concorder Enterprise Hub

Which hybrid model to adopt (cadence-based, role-based, or activity-based)

How long the pilot should run and what success looks like

Which minimum rules must apply (right to disconnect, meeting norms, space booking)

In 2026 we want to formalise a hybrid work policy that reduces ambiguity (who is onsite, when, and for what) while improving collaboration without losing flexibility. Common friction points include poorly planned hybrid meetings, “empty office days,” and perceived fairness differences between roles.

The right model depends on how work gets done: some functions benefit more from in-person time (onboarding, complex reviews, customer-facing sessions), while others can operate more remotely. To demonstrate Concorder’s mixed-option flexibility, each model includes an explicit pilot date range, optional attachments (policy references), and pros/cons to capture operational trade-offs.

Rank the hybrid models. Then select all non-negotiable principles you want in the policy. In comments: share constraints (time zones, customer schedules) and propose 2–3 simple KPIs (onboarding time, perceived productivity, meeting effectiveness).

<h2 data-id="650eb860">Context</h2><p data-id="947754ff">In 2026 we want to formalise a hybrid work policy that reduces ambiguity (who is onsite, when, and for what) while improving collaboration without losing flexibility. Common friction points include poorly planned hybrid meetings, “empty office days,” and perceived fairness differences between roles.</p><p data-id="1cd6a88d">The right model depends on how work gets done: some functions benefit more from in-person time (onboarding, complex reviews, customer-facing sessions), while others can operate more remotely. To demonstrate Concorder’s mixed-option flexibility, each model includes an explicit pilot date range, optional attachments (policy references), and pros/cons to capture operational trade-offs.</p><h2 data-id="eb8605fa">What we’re deciding</h2><ul data-id="b8605fa8"><li data-id="8605fa87">Which hybrid model to adopt (cadence-based, role-based, or activity-based)</li><li data-id="605fa87b">How long the pilot should run and what success looks like</li><li data-id="05fa87b8">Which minimum rules must apply (right to disconnect, meeting norms, space booking)</li></ul><h2 data-id="5fa87b81">How to participate</h2><p data-id="3d83f371">Rank the hybrid models. Then select all non-negotiable principles you want in the policy. In comments: share constraints (time zones, customer schedules) and propose 2–3 simple KPIs (onboarding time, perceived productivity, meeting effectiveness).</p>

Hybrid work policy 2026: model choice and pilot period

Choosing a platform must come with a realistic migration plan: data import, integrations (SSO, CRM, knowledge base), training, and staged go-live. This proposal showcases Concorder by combining ranked approval of platform approaches, a multi-select vote for mandatory requirements, and a date-range vote for migration windows to visualise timeline impact.

Rank the platform options, select required capabilities, and choose all migration windows that are feasible. In comments: list must-have integrations (SSO, Slack/Teams, email, CRM) and top current pain points (prioritisation, escalations, reporting).

In 2026 we want to standardise a ticketing tool for internal support (IT/HR/Facilities) and/or customer support. Today we have fragmentation: email queues, spreadsheets, and different tools by team—slowing response times, weakening SLA measurement, and increasing manual work.

Which ticketing platform approach to adopt (fit + governance)

Which requirements are non-negotiable (SLA, reporting, integrations)

Which migration window minimises operational risk

<h2 data-id="c59fe4e0">Context</h2><p data-id="35305ec4">In 2026 we want to standardise a ticketing tool for internal support (IT/HR/Facilities) and/or customer support. Today we have fragmentation: email queues, spreadsheets, and different tools by team—slowing response times, weakening SLA measurement, and increasing manual work.</p><p data-id="e4a8690b">Choosing a platform must come with a realistic migration plan: data import, integrations (SSO, CRM, knowledge base), training, and staged go-live. This proposal showcases Concorder by combining ranked approval of platform approaches, a multi-select vote for mandatory requirements, and a date-range vote for migration windows to visualise timeline impact.</p><h2 data-id="fe4e0193">What we’re deciding</h2><ul data-id="e4e0193a"><li data-id="4e0193a4">Which ticketing platform approach to adopt (fit + governance)</li><li data-id="e0193a4f">Which requirements are non-negotiable (SLA, reporting, integrations)</li><li data-id="0193a4f5">Which migration window minimises operational risk</li></ul><h2 data-id="193a4f51">How to participate</h2><p data-id="4eaf883e">Rank the platform options, select required capabilities, and choose all migration windows that are feasible. In comments: list must-have integrations (SSO, Slack/Teams, email, CRM) and top current pain points (prioritisation, escalations, reporting).</p>

Ticketing tool 2026: platform choice and migration window

Andrij

Carmelo

Flavia

Aliona

Alona

Test 

Roberto

Valentine Dorsey

Aldo

Andrii

Adriano

Walter

Anna

Luciano

Caporale

Graziano

Teresa

giancarlo

Emanuele

luigi

Tagliento

Mario

Emilio

Giuseppe

Veronica Elena 

Андрій

Margaret

Карина

Valentina

Lino

Paolo

mariangela

Erzebet 

Giovanna 

Giovanni 

giovanni

Giorgio

Alessandro Romano Remo 

ROBERTO

Francesco

Liccardi

Gianrico

Alberto 

Liana

TaShya Daniels

Charlie

Leonardo

Stefano

For more than a decade, I’ve been exploring one fundamental question:
"how can people make better decisions, together?"

In 2012 I founded Airesis, one of the first digital democracy platforms in Italy.
It anticipated themes that are now mainstream: online participation, collaborative deliberation, transparent voting. It became an extraordinary school of community-driven innovation, built with almost no resources.

Over the years I have deepened my work in data, governance, digital facilitation, decision-making systems and collective intelligence, which has grown into a true personal calling.

From this long journey I created Concorder.

Concorder is a civic-tech platform designed to support and improve collective decision-making.
It currently offers:

• creation of public and private proposals
• structured collaborative contributions (paragraph-based)
• a consensus-oriented decision model
• multiple voting methods (single choice, multiple choice, approve / reject / abstain)
• a digital space where groups can build documented and legitimate decisions

It is an independent and self-funded project driven by strong civic values.
I am building an editorial ecosystem, a growing civic community, and real participatory cases through public proposals.

I am currently evaluating the possibility of releasing Concorder as open source, especially in relation to institutional collaborations and the need for maximum transparency in decision-making and voting processes.

My mission is simple:
bring useful decision-making tools into real life — more inclusive, transparent and intelligent.

Ways you can collaborate or support the project:

• Participating in public proposals on Concorder
• Sharing feedback on decision-making flows and features
• Collaborating as a developer, researcher or civic innovator
• Exploring institutional or academic partnerships
• Suggesting real participatory or community cases
• Simply reaching out to exchange ideas

Concorder Enterprise Hub

Proposals

Hybrid work policy 2026: model choice and pilot period

Ticketing tool 2026: platform choice and migration window

Members

Hybrid work policy 2026: model choice and pilot period

Ticketing tool 2026: platform choice and migration window