Thought this discussion thread (below)would be of interest. (01)
... the dialog mapping approach toward addressing wicked problems is
what Jack Park and I are working on, bringing in Jeff Conklin, Simon
Buckingham-Shum et al. as one of the upcoming features in the OKMDS
On Dec 1, 2007 7:30 AM PST, Eric Armstrong <Eric.Armstrong@xxxxxxx> wrote: (04)
> Peter P. Jones wrote 30 Nov 2007 20:05:03 +0000:
> > http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2007/wickedproblems.html
> > <quote>
> > "In this day and age of email and the internet, our expectations were
> > that computer-mediated group brainstorming, i.e. across the web with no
> > face-to face contact, was going to have the best results," Davidson
> > says. "What we found, however, was that people working as individuals
> > were at least as effective and possibly more so than those brainstorming
> > in a group over the web when trying to solve 'wicked,' tangled problems,
> > both in terms of quality and quantity."
> > </quote> (05)
> At the end:
> "Despite our findings, it still seems reasonable that there may be modes
> of [as yet, untested] web-based interactions and strategies that would
> allow the larger group to have superior performance...
> He expects that in coming years "better software, including threaded
> discussions with moderators to focus the work and prediction markets to
> evaluate quality, will become tools that large organizations will use to
> solve wicked problems."
> I'm glad he said that. Because the press release summary made
> no mention of Jeff Conklin's paradigms for taming such problems,
> despite using the term he and/or Horst Ritter popularized.
> The question is not, DO groups perform better with current tools.
> The question is, COULD they perform better with decent tools.
> It's been going on two decades since Jeff found that:
> a) Online discussion of such problems doesn't work at all
> b) In person discussions only work with an experienced and
> highly trained moderator
> In a creative head, ideas bounce up and are shot down for one
> reason or another. The partial solutions mix and mingle with
> the growing list of potential objections that are elicited by
> the exploration of the solution space. Eventually, there is an
> "aha" moment, when a solution occurs that satisfies all known
> objections. I believe that Jeff's dialogue mapping methodology
> is a pretty decent attempt to map that process of problem
> investigation, multi-dimensional understanding, and solution
> exploration, in a way that both records the process while
> also making the solution clear.
> I continue to believe that we can make such a system work
> online, if we follow Doug Engelbart's dictum of making the
> users smarter, as well. (It's like structured authoring.
> You have to learn the structure restrictions to work with
> them effectively. It takes a month or two before you stop
> feeling restricted, but eventually you get there.)
> This message is archived at:
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/okmds-org/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OKMDS/
To Post: mailto:okmds-org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)