Austhink’s free one-hour webinar Introduction to Business Decision Mapping is to run regularly, in timeslots suitable for participants in different time zones.
Austhink founder Dr Tim van Gelder explains the basics of business decision mapping (BDM), and works through a simple business decision, discussing key principles along the way.
View the schedule and register for a webinar at a time that suits you.
Popularity: 5% [?]
Friday September 5, 2008 – 9am Australian EST
(USA: Thurs 4 Sept – 4pm PDT; 7pm EDT)
Join us for a free webinar and learn the basics of business decision mapping (BDM) with cognitive scientist and Austhink founder Dr Tim van Gelder. Using bCisive we will work through a simple business decision, discussing key principles along the way.
Other topics to be covered briefly include:
Please contact us to register for this free event.
Popularity: 7% [?]
In 2007 Austhink Consulting produced a report for the Australian Army on the debate over the acquisition of 59 Abrams M1A1 tanks in 2004. The debate was argument mapped. The report showed what the debate was all about. It set out the case made for the acquisition, exposed some weak points in that case, highlighted the full range of objections that had been lodged against the decision and demonstrated their weaknesses.
An Abrams M1A1 tank
The report observed that such an exercise might have saved a great deal of time and vexation had it been undertaken before the decision was made. The report was well received. A summary of it was published recently under my name in the journal of the Australia Defence Association. In the current issue of the journal the following letter appeared from a reader in Queensland:
Sir: Paul Monk’s analysis of the arguments for and against the recent updating (but downsizing) of the Army’s tank force (Defender, Spring 2007) was an admirable exercise in objectivity. The argument mapping concept involved and the provisional conclusions of the study will hopefully mean future exchanges on this matter can be a proper debate between two schools of opposing thought.
All we have had so far is largely inaccurate sniping from those against the decision and impatient, barely suppressed anger from many of its uniformed defenders. This latter reaction seems to result from frustration that their professional judgement should be questioned by those they regard as amateurs or biased (or both) and an outraged belief that their critics do not seem to care about the operational risks that might be faced by soldiers in combat without tank support.
Dr Monk is to be congratulated for his efforts to defuse such confrontations. There is obviously much to be gained from using argument mapping in the many other vexatious disputes that plague strategic policy and capability development in the Department of Defence.
The argument mapping in question was done in Rationale 1.0, before bCisive or Rationale 2.0 had come off the production line. Both these newer tools are now being used in public policy to map contentious debates. Our hope is that the kind of appreciation expressed by the writer of the above letter will rapidly spread and that the time will soon come when those seeking clarity about public policy will say to decision-makers: “Show us the argument map!”
With the new software tools now available and the different, complementary strengths they have, we designate maps using Rationale as aMaps (where the ‘a’ denotes the ‘advanced reasoning’ function of articulating co-premises or assumptions) and those using bCisive as bMaps (where the ‘b’ denotes the ‘business decision’ function of the software). This new category of blogs will provide commentary on the use of both in the public policy arena.
Popularity: 30% [?]
Chandler is an attempt to re-invent the “personal information manager” (think: Outlook). Dreaming in Code is a fascinating book about the Chandler journey.
The Chandler developers had to think long and hard about the nature of knowledge work. On their website, on a page called Chandler Project Vision, they describe their Target Users:
They work closely with every member of their team, acting as a communication hub. They know how to ask the right questions to gather input and feedback. They identify problem areas, figure out when meetings need to happen, who needs to be there, what needs to be discussed, and then they facilitate the discussion to define concrete next actions and ultimately drive their team towards informed decisions. They take on the responsibility of defining realistic goals for their team and getting everyone pointed in the same direction to reach those goals.
On this description, Chandler’s target users are very closely related to the target users of bCisive, i.e. “business decision makers.”
Alongside the description of their target users, the page has a graphic:
This graphic of course is a direct play on the 19th century phrenological diagram:
The Chandler graphic both pays homage to, and satirizes, those early attempts to relate mental function to cerebral locations.
As with the phrenological diagrams, the Chandler graphic’s assignment of functions to locations is almost completely fanciful. However there is one thing that is worth saving in it, albeit in a metaphorical interpretation - the locating of Decide! in the center, almost like the hub around which all other higher mental functions revolve. (Note also that it is the only activity which gets an exclamation mark!)
Something similar is true of decision in knowledge work - it is the pivotal task. Every other type of task can be seen as leading up to a decision, or following on from the making of a decision.
This central place is reflected in the structure of organisations - generally speaking, the higher one is in an organisation, the more one’s job is about making important decisions.
[Cross-posted to Rationale Thoughts]
Popularity: 19% [?]
Even moderately complex decisions involve trade-offs. Using bCisive to make a business decision helps you to visually map out the options and depict the pros, cons, evidence and arguments, without getting lost in the detail. Then you choose the best option. The winning option will usually have some obvious negatives associated with it, and these are typically accepted as the price you pay, or some ameliorating action is planned in.
But none of us have perfect foresight. What to do if a serious negative is missed in the planning process?
Continue reading “Decide. Act. Ameliorate.”
Popularity: 33% [?]
[This post first appeared in the Aug 7 bMail.]
We often get asked how decision mapping with bCisive relates to other kinds of mapping.
The short answer is that decision mapping, unlike any other kind of mapping, is specifically designed to help with general business decisions. Other kinds of mapping are more general techniques which could be used to map business decisions, but are not particularly helpful in that regard.
Here is a quick summary of the most common kinds of mapping:
Mind Mapping is organizing ideas in a hierarchical, circular structure looking somewhat like a starfish or a neuron. Although there is an ‘official’ way to mind map, as defined by Buzan, with a specific set of principles, the method has become more loosely defined as the technique has become more widely utilized.
Concept Mapping is creating a network of concepts connected by relations, e.g. ROSE — is a — FLOWER. Unlike mind maps, concept maps are not limited to hierarchies. A distinctive visual feature of concept maps is the labeling of the links between concepts to indicate the type of relation between them (e.g. ‘is a’)
Dialog Mapping is producing a map based on the ‘IBIS’ framework, whose key concepts are Questions, Ideas, Pros and Cons. The IBIS framework was developed in the 1970s primarily to help people handle so-called ‘wicked problems’.
Argument Mapping is producing a ‘box and arrow’ diagram of arguments, or more generally, reasoning. Since reasoning is a matter of relationships among propositions, argument maps have propositions (claims, statements, sentences) in the boxes, and the relationships between them are logical or evidential. Argument maps are typically hierarchical, like mind maps, though they need not be; indeed advanced argument mapping (see ‘Advanced Reasoning’ in Rationale) requires a structure which is more elaborate than a simple hierarchy.
Business Decision Mapping (BDM) lays out the considerations involved in a deliberative business decision, i.e. a decision that is made (typically within some organization) by assessing the arguments bearing on various possible courses of action. The classic BDM structure is the Question-Options-Pros & Cons framework found in the Basic Decision Map template in bCisive. BDM incorporates elements of both Dialog Mapping and Argument Mapping, but provides a richer conceptual framework than either of those. Read more about Business Decision Mapping.
Popularity: 36% [?]
Looking for shortcuts and ways to extend your use of bCisive?
Read the new Tips and Tricks section on the bCisive website - and feel free to contribute your own favorite trick.
Popularity: 36% [?]
Have you noticed the little + and - symbols in the bottom right corner of your bCisive map boxes?
Click on them and you can hide or reveal that box’s descendants: great if you want to focus your thinking or your collaborators’ attention on just one area of your map.
Hide and Show just got more powerful
You don’t have to show your whole hand at once any more. bCisive 1.0.5 introduced new options in the right-click menu’s Hide/Show area, letting you choose how many levels you’d like to reveal.
Streamline the process even further by choosing Fold Up Children. This sets the + symbol in the corner of each box to reveal only the next level of the branch, instead of all the box’s descendants.
This new control is particularly handy when you’re presenting a recommendation or explaining the rationale behind a decision. You can display the options considered…
… and then walk your audience through your thinking, revealing levels as you go… (click on thumbnails to see full-size maps)
…until you reach your recommendation or decision.
Popularity: 49% [?]
bCisive has not been out for long, but word is getting around. Here’s what three savvy bloggers have to say:
Steve Rothwell, a mind-mapper and consultant, is starting to catch the buzz:
I’ve just downloaded a trial of bCisive - a business decision making and diagramming tool. First impressions are very good.
When you run bCisive you are presented with a typical workspace in which to model the decision. However the way the workspace is designed has real impact and yet is fresh and clean.
Building a decision tree is quick and easy and I will experiment more with this. I see great potential for using this interactively in business meetings, workshops and group consultations.
Michael Sampson visited Austhink Software at our Fortress of Lucidity, and has blogged about his visit and about bCisive:
Continue reading “What the bloggers are saying”
Popularity: 47% [?]
It is well known that employee retention is closely linked to employee satisfaction, and that satisfaction is consistently linked to more than just remuneration. It includes things like flexible working hours, the people you work with, variety and content of work, career development, quality of management and feeling appreciated.
Continue reading “Thoughts on employee retention and bCisive”
Popularity: 100% [?]
