Notes

• “this book is about meetings”
• “about building collective intelligence”

• a natural property of socially shared cognition
• natural enabler of collaboration

• a condition in which the people involved see themselves as more separate than united
• in which information and knowledge are chaotic and scattered
• when all stakeholders are convinced that their understanding is the correct one
• common elements
  • wicked problems
  • social complexity
  • design polarity - what is needed, and what can be done
• antidote: shared understanding and shared commitment → coherence

• people don't work through problems linearly, but skip back and forth to different levels (overview, requirements, implementation etc)
• problem with a group - different people are at different places at the same time - communication breakdown

“wickedness is a property of the problem/solution space, social complexity is a property of the social network that is engaging with the problem”

• individual diversity
• disciplinary diversity (engineers and marketers)
• organizational diversity (within the same company)

• “From another perspective, the jagged line of opportunity-driven problem solving is a picture of learning. The more novel the problem, the more the problem-solving process involves learning about the problem domain. […] In the current business environment, problem solving and learning are tightly intertwined, and the flow of this learning process is opportunity driven.” (p12)

• Coined by Horst Rittel

• you don't understand the problem until you've developed a solution
  • no definitive statement of 'the problem'
  • different stakeholders have different understandings of the problem
• wicked problems have no stopping rule
  • no definitive 'the solution'
  • problem-solving process ends when you run out of resources, satisficing
• solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong
  • better or worse, good enough or not
• every wicked problem is essentially unique and novel
• every solution to a wicked problem is a 'one-shot operation'
  • cannot build a freeway to see how it works
• wicked problems have no given alternative solutions

• well-defined and stable problem statement
• definite stopping point, when solution is reached
• has solution that can be objectively evaluated as right or wrong
• belongs to class of similar problems, all solved the same way
• has solutions that can easily be tried and abandoned
• comes with limited set of alternative solutions

many questions have tame and wicked components

• lock down problem definition
• assert that the problem is solved
• specify objective parameters by which to measure solution's success
• cast the problem as “just like” a previously solved problem
• give up trying to get a good solution to problem
• declare that there are just a few options, and focus on selecting from among these

• Created by Horst Rittel to support political decision processes in '60s and '70s
• graph IBIS without computer
• computer-supported, Compendium (and maybe others)
• “a structure for rational dialogue among a diverse set of stakeholders”

• offers structural coherence to record of design or problem-solving conversation, organized by questions arranged from high level (most general) to low level
• reinforces discipline of making substantive, rational cases in favor or against the main options on any decisions → providing more consistent, transparent, democratic environment for collaborative work
• simple and intuitive to learn
• has enough representational power to capture any design or problem-solving interaction

• questions
  • maps starts with these
  • anything in the map can be questioned
• answers/ideas
  • neutral, any idea valid as long as it is a possible answer to the question - ie. relevant
• pros
• cons

Initially dialogue mapping came from product designed to be used asynchronously, users began using it synchronously - surprise to designers.

• shared display
  • functions as a “boundary object” mediating flow of conversation in the meeting (Bowker & Star, 2000Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. The MIT Press. )
  • as abstract concepts are reified in the display they become stable building blocks in the conversation, encouraging conversational moves that refer to and build on previous moves
  • components
    • display
    • notation (IBIS - just rich enough, and simple enough to work)
    • mapping (facilitator)
• argumentation scheme (notation)
• active listening
  • role of facilitator
    • actively listening to conversation
    • summarizing conversational moves in collaborative display using IBIS
    • incrementally validating the map so groups members accept and own the map as a faithful representation of their thinking

• memory system augments group's collective short-term memory
• groups dealing with complex problems come to “trust” that the relevant bits are in the display, even if they don't know how it fits together yet
• contributes to long-term memory of group, replacing meeting minutes, with group validation
• changes mood of meeting, communication becomes production (DeKoven, 1990DeKoven, B. (1990). Connected executives: a strategic communications plan. In ., p. 109). People change their focus form 'meeting together' to 'producing together'
• IBIS can expose elegant order underlying chaotic and contentious discussion
• shared display provides single focus for the group's attention, everyone facing the same way, mood of collaboration (Palus & Drath, 2001Palus, C. J., & Drath, W. H. (2001). Putting something in the middle: An approach to dialogue. Reflections, 3(2), 28--39.)
• powerful listening tool, like talking stick - clear who has the floor (the person the dialogue mapper is listening to and capturing). Makes the dialogue mapper the designated listener for the group.
• Levels playing field, creating a very democratic environment in the group - everyone is listened to, their ideas acknowledged equally
• Separates ideas from people - once an idea has been uttered, it's captured independent of who uttered it, and can be criticized without directly criticizing another person
• Acts as a mirror, disruptive patterns show up clearly in the geometry of the map

Always addresses individuals, capturing their individual thoughts perfectly, doesn't ask “what does the room think of this”

Active listening - start typing, validate with person speaking, summarize (guessing and validating)

“augmenting the “container” for meetings - vastly increasing the capacity for dealing with massive amounts of information, strongly held opinions, factual incongruities, difficult personalities, and divergent goals and priorities.” p. 42

shared space (Michael Schrage 1995, p. 94)

• deontic questions
  • “what should we do?”
• instrumental questions
  • “how should we do it?”
• criterial questions
  • “what are the criteria for this decision?”
  • “what are the goals on this project?”
• meaning or conceptual questions
  • “what does sticky web page mean?”
• factual questions
  • “what is the company policy on X?”
• background questions
  • “what is the problem?”
  • “what is our context?”
• stakeholder questions
  • “who are the stakeholders?”

• open, not closed
• without assumptions
• not bundling several ideas into one

Notice when someone mentions a general criteria (that applies to all ideas) in objection/support of one idea - move it into a top-level criteria node

When someone does this - use a “left-hand move”, add an even broader question, of which the current question (and his/her objections) are both sub-nodes. Ie. if meeting is about cutting costs, and someone interjects “We should be discussing how to sell more cookies”, do this:

• how to make profit
  • sell more cookies
  • cut costs
    • …

A typical mature meta-map has three top-level questions:

• What is the background?
• Who are the stakeholders?
• What should we do?”
  • What are the criteria?
  • Various suggestions, with pros and cons, further questions, etc

Just come up with decisions that have shared commitment, with a mature dialogue map that shows all ideas have been well considered etc.

Checklist

• ask all the key questions
• case making for key ideas
• case making against key ideas
• endorsements
• validation of criteria
• making the decision