Home Decision Explorer® Frequent questions Best use

Decision Explorer® FAQs - Best Use

Q: Pasting concepts all ends up in a pile

I have been trying to copy and paste groups of concepts and their respective links from one map and
paste them into the same view. The result is a pile of overlaid concepts and links randomly placed
within the view. All the concepts are pasted but they are not organised according to the layout I
intended to copy. Could you please tell me if there is any effective way of
doing copy and paste within the same view?

A:

First, consider carefully why you are copying the concepts into the same model. This is unusual, but a lot of people use the software in unusual ways and that's fine. But you need to be sure you are really wanting to do this as if what you are wanting to do is have another view on the same concepts, then copying the view is a better way as the idea itself does not get duplicated. The View menu Copy item provides the ability to copy a view without duplicating the concepts themselves. Alternatively, the View menu Bring Layout From item allows you to copy a layout from another view to an existing view.

However, if copying the actual concepts is what you want, then there are ways of improving the results. First, the concepts all appear on top of each other if the Model to Model copy options are set to fast mode. (The Control menu Model to Model Copy Options items shows the dialog to control this.) Without fast mode, the concepts are put into free space, but the layout is not expected to be good. Typically you will be pasting a number of concepts from one model to another, and you would then use the FIND and MERGE commands to merge into the existing model, so the layout is not so important at this point. If you are pasting only a few, and want to get them arranged, then the command "MAP ONMAP" will map the concepts currently on the map view. You can then tidy it manually. If you were pasting to a new model and the concepts are not renumbered, you can also copy a layout by saving a view to disk and then loading it into the new model. The disk file stores only concept positions, not content, so edits are safe.

Q: Decision Explorer® model quality

I've been asked how people can validate the quality of their Decision Explorer® models. An ideal question for the list! How do you know that a model is "good". If you base a major decision on the model, how do you know that the linkages that support it are correct?
Is a Decision Explorer® model like a word-processed document, which is static text arranged in concepts/paragraphs, or like a spreadsheet which has links/formulae creating a "programmed" model?
How can you build a model that would pass an audit from something like ISO9000? Do you need to?

Back to index page

A: Answers from the email list

Opinion 1:

This is a question that I am always asked about models: "how do I know that they are right?"

First: such a model is a "programmed model", because the meaning is contained in both the concepts and the linkages, and because one concept can influence a number of others.

Second: it is a "negotiated" model, because it will usually have been constructed by more than one person inputting concepts and links, and there will have been the opportunity to challenge and change anything that seemed unreasonable or incorrect. A good model will represent some kind of consensus, even if it is about agreeing to disagree!

Even when using Decision Explorer® "off-line", e.g. to analyse a document, it is wise to seek a second opinion on the reality and accuracy of the model.

I would have thought that the "quality" people are more concerned with the process and its documentation than they are with the outcomes. How, for example, would you audit a strategic planning process? A great advantage of using Decision Explorer® is that a record is kept of the inputs to and the arguments within any debate. The file can be archived along with any other relevant records. TK.

Back to index page

Opinion 2:

I don't have neat solutions to the validity problem, but your request has echoes of a discussion I was having with a research student yesterday.

A) In the classic "soda"-type situation, where the model relates to a specific problem mess with a specific problem owner(s) and a defined time scale, then the bottom line surely has to be "a satisfied customer". I.E. does the customer who generated the map feel that the mapping process has given them a clearer mental model of what is going on, and considers that the map resonates with their own intuitive understanding of the situation. We are assuming that perhaps 90% of the "knowledge" of the situation is **implicit** knowledge (hard to externalise) held by those in the situation who generated the map and who will take the resulting actions. Therefore the consultant has no access to most of the information that would be needed to validate the "truth" of the map in any objective sense and is merely the cook stirring the pot. Hence the clients' sense of "aha" must be the litmus test used to see whether the 5% added by the model is useful or not (note: "useful" not "true") and the consultant has to accept that objective tests of "truth" are not an option. In ethical terms, the clients remain the responsible agents. They are the ones who felt they needed help, they are the ones who felt that the SODA process might help them, and they are the ones who retain full responsibility for deciding what to do in the end. If I decide that I want to eat a cream bun and am sick afterwards because it is too rich, that is my fault, not the fault of the person who sold it to me (assuming it was of merchantable quality!).

B) But the student I was talking to was thinking about producing maps of people's perceptions of rural hedgerows as part of a programme that might end up with some kind of metric or descriptive framework that would help discussions about hedgerows by people like farmers, environmentalists, ramblers, etc. I.E. the particular users on a particular occasion are **not** likely to be the particular people whose maps were captured. The original map generator may have said "aha" but the eventual user might just say "rubbish" so the subjective litmus test becomes irrelevant, unless, perhaps, the map has been tried out on large populations of people, and they have all tended to say "aha!" - but even that doesn't strictly speaking prevent someone else saying legitimately: "You lemmings can jump over the cliff if you want to, but the other direction seems better to me!". What has changed from the SODA case is the pattern of responsibility. The map maker is no longer just a cream-bun salesperson serving the clients' responsibility, but is trying to take over responsibility. Instead of saying: "If you are confused about these hedgerow issues, you might find this process helps your thinking" the consultant is taking responsibility for defining the nature of how people think about hedgerows (and hence the parameters of debate) for other people.

I guess that logically what you ought to do in situation (B) is simply to offer a range of models: "This example shows how Farmer X saw his hedgerow", "This is example shows how Rambler Y saw her hedgerow". In that way, there would be no claim to general validity - merely a claim to the subjective validity for the originator, and a suggestion that seeing how others have thought about it might enrich your own thinking. JM.

Opinion 3:

As I am building large maps from data gathered from individuals about their perceptions of a complex area of management, the question of validation of the resultant cog. map is crucial. I have attempted a number of ways, ranging from the production of hard copy maps which take up a whole table, through to the attempted explanation of how the map was built. The size of the task makes it impossible to build the map in conjunction with the interviewee and hence there is a state of confusion and bewilderment when faced with the final product! My research is currently based on the multi stage analysis of the maps, using clusters as the core tool. The results are filtered through two stages with the result being a summary map contained easily on one A4 page. This map represents the 'process flow' of the subject. It is then discussed with the interviewee. This has proved to be enlightening and provides the validation. My results of this approach at the moment (which are still being carried out) suggest that this is a useful approach which provide the necessary surety and confidence in the mapping methodology. AE.

Back to index page