Posted by Tim van Gelder on September 23rd, 2008 — Posted in bCisive, decision, deliberative, public policy
I spent a few hours piecing together a top-level map of what might be called the mother of all business decisions, the US Treasury (i.e., Paulson) plan to bailout financial firms by buying “toxic” mortgage-related securities.
Have uploaded it to the Hive.
The map is obviously far from complete, and in this matter things are changing almost every hour. But the exercise is interesting all the same. Some quick observations:
- I wasn’t able to find with quick google searching, anywhere in the serious media (NY Times, WSJ, etc.) any developed version of the case *for* the bailout plan. It basically boiled down to “we need to do this to avert probable global financial catastrophe.”
- The map does give, at a glance, what appear to be the main lines of argument circulating around. It presents these arguments much more accessibly than the various media pieces floating around.
- A great virtue of a BD map is that you can see at a glance what you *don’t* (yet) have. It is, simply put, where boxes “aren’t” - e.g., if you have a box with nothing underneath it.
- BDM good practice asks us to phrase the top level question as an open question, i.e., not “Should we support the Treasury bailout plan?” but “How should the US Govt deal with the present crisis?” This way of putting it immediately makes obvious that the “we need to do this to avert probable global financial catastrophe” is a classic example of what logicians call the false dilemma. Creating a BD map with an open question at the top and options at the next level invites, almost demands that we consider other options. It was difficult to find other options in the media, but in one piece Paul Krugman did suggest that we may be better off with an approach like that used in the Savings and Loan crisis in which the govt doesn’t buy the junk but rather takes ownership, or at least a chunk of ownership, of the firms themselves.
Update: I’m now aware that there is another plan, the Dodd proposal.
Popularity: 59% [?]
No Comments »
Posted by Paul Monk on August 27th, 2008 — Posted in Austhink, Rationale, bCisive, public policy
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: 80% [?]
No Comments »
