How Uniteam Has Been Validated

Uniteam has been validated in two separate ways; first the basic approach or system has been verified to be effective; secondly, industry experts have reviewed Uniteam, at first skeptically (and appropriately so), and then with eagerness. This page provides more insights into both of these validation processes.

Verification of the Uniteam Approach

The underlying methods, principles, and system at the heart of the UIC programs have been in use since 1964.  Use of this, acceptance, and even the embracing of it, the certifying that it is in tune with individual and organizational beliefs and practices has been accomplished by people who are strongly liberal and people who are strongly conservative, people of various ethnicities and genders, young and old, rich and poor, PhDs and high school drop-outs, people whose thinking is based in logic and those whose thinking is based in emotion, people fast to learn and those slow to learn, people expert in the mental health profession-and in many other professions, artists, people whose job is to cook or sew or run a hotel.  People in the corporate world, in small business, in government at all levels, in educational institutions, in families, and in other groupings have found it suitable for their environment. 

For your comfort, you should know that management and labor have found it useful; atheists, humanists, and believers of diverse faiths, from Jewish to Buddhist and many sects of Christianity have found it useful.  Examples of clerics who have studied it and applied it include: Ministers from Catholic, Methodist, Pentecostal, and Unitarian Churches, an Islamic Imam, and a Hindu Swami, among others.  All found it in line with their core beliefs and found comfort in using it. 

The new program is designed and built to serve all people, be helpful to each, work on behalf of each.  It has no bias toward or against any of the multitude of differences among those people who use it.  It seeks to encourage thoughts that rise above those differences.  It provides a way to bring all those thoughts to bear on any subject important to an individual or a group.  Its special tools provide a way of making use of the sum total of all those thoughts.

Validation of the New Program Version

Mr. Peter Jessen, respected author, business consultant, teacher, and top-flight facilitator of business meetings during the past three or four decades, studied the program and personally tested it.  Understandably skeptical that the program could lead meetings, he expected little or no substantial results.  At the end he became quite convinced of its worth, having chosen to hold a test meeting that lasted beyond the allocated one hour to an amazing 8 hours.  His comment at the time was, “Fascinating”.  The extra 7 hours made clear his sincerity. 

From his report:
“This program is a ‘Killer App’, meaning that almost all computer users will see it as a ‘must have’ piece of software.” 

“This program/process really does effectively and successfully lead meetings of people, in personal, business, school, or community settings, without the need of a human facilitator or note-taker.” 

“It does what it says, and it says what it does.  The applications of this are just enormous . . . universal . . . cross-cultural.  I would recommend it, without fear of contradiction, that it will indeed do as it says.” 

“In my opinion, it could be applied successfully in: 

• corporate work places—teams, departments, divisions, cost centers—individuals and groups; 
• homes—individuals and the whole family; 
• schools—teachers, students, parents, administration, PTAs, boards; 
• governments—federal, state, city, county, agency; 
• churches / synagogues / mosques / temples; 
• communities, hospitals, public meetings, unions; 
• non-profits—non-government, philanthropic, charity.” 

“The time that would be saved in generating paths to productivity increases suggests not just good cost reduction actions, but incredible cost reduction actions, as well as turning around and shortening the time it takes to both get a product or service ready for market, and in terms of the time to successfully test and launch a particular product or service.” 

“It would also clearly help focus conflicting viewpoints on those planning communication campaigns, be they for political office, local or national, or for products and services sold for profit, or for the delivery of services done by governments, foundations, and other non-profit agencies.”

The strongest statement of Mr. Jessen’s commitment to his findings in this regard is that he has now made these methods available within his own business.  He can no longer be considered un-biased.  But he has proven his findings to his own satisfaction.