Notes on reader introducing systems approaches prt 4 soda

Notes on-
Systems Approaches to Managing Change:
Part 4
Strategic Options Development & Analysis
SODA
A Practical Guide
Eds. – Martin Reynolds & Sue Holwell

Chapter 4 –
Strategic Options
Development
and Analysis –
SODA
Fran Ackermann
and Colin Eden

Abstract
SODA – a graphical representation of a problem so
as to be able to:
• explore options
• follow possible outcomes
• arrive at negotiated agreement for resolution.
Picture is created using ‘language of problem
owner, therefore accessible, encourages reflection
and learning. Graphics can be ‘rough and ready’ or
designed using ‘causal mapping’ software.
• Aimed at group learning therefore includes the
facilitation of events.
• Uncover blockages to change by engaging with
the social dimensions of the problem in a visual
way.
• Concept is derived from the fields of ‘cognitive
psychology’ and social negotiation

4.1 Summary
Problematic situations addressed by a group or individual can
be explored fully using the SODA approach. The mapping
techniques have a number of rules:
• The problem is placed in a central position
• Arrows moving away from the central concern are
‘objectives’
• Arrows pointing in toward the central problem are
constraints.
• ‘-’ signs at the head of an arrow are negative
consequences
Maps grow – unfold, as the exploration deepens. This gives a
more holistic view of the situation and because it is
participatory, those involved feel connected to the process,
see it as ‘procedurally just’ and emotionally buy-into the
actions.
• By widening the scope and gaining participation it creates
ownership of the situation and helps protect the system being
tinged with the traps of dogmatism or reductionism.
Two skills for the consultant:
1. Being confident in the facilitation process
2. Adoption of the ‘framework’ for the construction of a
model which comprises the content – those issues,
problems, strategies & options explored

4.1.1 What Does It Look Like (Basic
Characteristics / Attributes)?
Four interacting perspectives
• The individual
• The organisation, groups and negotiated enterprises
• The consulting practice
• Technology – its role and use in the construct of visual
representations
• Individual draws on the social psychology of problem solving and
the use of cognitive mapping as a means to explore the concepts and
make sense of the world. Actions then follow once meaning, which
will vary from person to person, has been established . This
individual understanding and contribution is allowed to flourish in
the SODA model.
• Organisations – consisting of teams with particular interests in
specific outcomes. Communication style and tone to negotiate and
persuade only accentuated the complexity. These coalitions can be
better understood and realised through the process.
• Consulting practice - an instrument of facilitation for the
negotiation of consensus and gaining commitment. Consultant is
accountable to the designing and negotiation of this.
• Technology and tools – causal mapping and associated software
‘Decision Explorer’ as the means for modelling and analysis

4.2 Strategic Options Development and
Analysis (SODA): A Detailed Exploration
The foundation of the work is that
of seeking multiple perspectives to
grasp the detail of a particular
situation or problem.
• Everybody brings different
experiences and wisdom to a
problem. SODA is the tool for
managing process and content.
• This is a scientific approach so
that managers experiment with
theories and apply them to real
organisational problems.
• Exploration of problems through
the use of the ‘cognitive mapping
process’ – the analysis of the map

4.2.1 Introduction to the SODA method
4.2.1.1 Where has SODA been Used?
• It is a pretty flexible tool
and is used extensively across
all sizes of organisation, public
/ private, for profit / not-for-
profit, large or small. It is used
by all layers of management
for multiple reasons.
• The process can take as
little as half a day, on an
urgent problem to a number
of days for a full exploratory
workshop.
• It is also a useful tool to
work through an individuals’
problem

4.2.1.2 Conceptual
Background
The basis of the
methodology relates to the
work of George Kelly in the
1950’s. In essence we
develop ideas and models
from how things happen
and the experiences we
gain to inform our future
actions and assumptions.
This is the Personal
Construct Theory (PCT) of
the way things work.
This is then related to
organisational behaviour
and augmented further
through the approach of
the consultant

4.2.1.3 The
Theoretical
Framework
To make sense of our world we compare
and contrast events, observations and facts
etc. to help us ‘navigate the future’ (p141).
Kelly refers to this information as a ‘body of
knowledge’ and states that it is finite and
made up of bipolar constructs. A construct is
different from a concept in that a construct
has opposites or contrasting perspectives
(http://www.centrepcp.co.uk/whatis.ht,
Accessed 04.07.17).
Good and bad perceptions of the same
event happily exist and are necessary. There
is no ‘good’ without an awareness of ‘bad’.
To understand ourselves we have to
understand why we have done what we
have done. Equally then to understand
others we have to ask the same question of
them, we have to put ourselves in their
shoes and ask. We are active beings, not
inert objects buffered from state to state,
we are therefore alive and engaged.

4.2.1.3 The Theoretical
framework (Cont.)
• The 5 corollaries (inferences) of Personal
Construct Theory PCT for use with SODA and the
problem solving framework
• Construction – a model of experience that
leads to a worldview
• Organisation – as individuals we place an
order of importance on our constructs. At
the top are our values/beliefs and lower
down issues, option and constraints. Placing
these in a hierarchy adds to our sense-
making
• Individuality – everyone has a different
interpretation of the same event. How we
engage with something can be very different
to how others see it, good or bad
• Commonality – teams develop a shared
common language through a deep
interpretation of events.
• Sociality – decision makes need to find ‘a
common path’ between all parties so that
consensus is an acceptable outcome

4.2.1.4 The Conceptual
Framework
Social and political interactions in an
organisation: rational analysis is never enough to
carry through change. We need people to buy-
into change and this does not happen in
isolation. Organisations are hotbeds of coalitions,
power plays and politics. Knowing people’s roles
and levels is an important piece of stakeholder
management.
Role of consultant/facilitator: two important
aspects;
• A consultant raises the expectation of
change
• Act of talking changes people’s minds,
reframes the problem and delivers the
solution
Incremental nature and development of strategy:
big change big resistance – gain commitment for
change through involvement and communication

4.2.1.5 The Method
Process, content, context and outcomes:
Process is about;
• Power, politics, people and personalities
Content is about;
• Operational research skills used in the capture, structuring of and analysing
of problem statements
Process informs content and content will inform process in a loop.
E.g.. Certain data is at the heart of an issue so it is the appropriate place to start
the SODA. Therefore content is informing process design.
Alternatively, a particularly thorny issues is identified so that starting here is not
the option because of motional fragility. Here process is informing content.
Context is also central. Decision maker should consider
a) If sufficient resources exist to manage the change
b) If buy-in for the change is across the board
Context is elaborated through discussion of the problem, it is made more
tangible through the beliefs and the values driving the change
Outcomes – explore the aims and objectives of the intervention to assess SODA
suitability.
Process
Management
Content
Management
informs
informs

4.2.1.6 The
Technique
• Cognitive mapping and causal
mapping:
• The representation of an issue and
the way that the individual perceives,
interprets and the world around them
are the primary outputs of the mapping
process. It is wholly subjective and
creates insights into a particular
persons actions and behaviours.
• Maps are the networks that show
multiple facets including concerns,
themes, dilemmas and contradictions.
Cognitive maps are the focus on an
individual.
• Causal maps are the amalgamation
of cognitive maps. Group cognition is a
problem since the amalgamation of
individual perceptions even if they are
all the same, do not sum to a single
piece of cognition but are rather
“fragments of a number of different
cognitions”.

4.2.1.7 The Tool
• Use ‘Decision Explorer’ to
manage ideas:
• Piece of software designed
for the purpose of creating
and managing maps.
• Rapid search functionality
and working as a relational
database
• Helps to manage
complexity rather than just
simplify it

4.2.2 SODA and
Cognitive / Cause
Mapping
4.2.1.1
Mapping: What is it?
• Structures thinking by capturing thoughts, arguments and
issues – turns messes into more defined areas to work on
• It presents ideas, which can be messy, in a graphical way
avoiding linear lists
• It allows for a rough analysis to be done - an overview to
seen and the focus identified.
• It can be shared more easily than an A4 sheet of words
• You get the sense of distance from the problem, an
objective overview
• Everything is at different levels, so you can drill down into
the map or work at a higher level. You gain ‘wisdom’ and
insight as well as capture tacit knowledge
• It promotes active listening especially when conducting
interviews. You have to capture points in such a way that
they have immediate meaning and impact
• It gives you clarity and allows you to move on

4.2.2.2 Building a Map: How a
Map is Constructed
• Kelly’s Personal Construct Theory states
that each construct has two poles which
sit at the extremes (bipolar), we need to
have clarity over both the content and
context of the construct.
• Attribute Maps help in visualising this
process. In the example in the book the
central tenet is what makes a teacher
‘good rather than other teachers’ . This
debate sits at the heart of the map.
Surrounding this issue are the attributes
expressed as traits and always with the
‘rather than’ view.
• ‘Rather than’ expressed as ‘…’
• Each contrast adds depth to
understanding
• The attributes surrounding the
statement is the ‘context’ or someone’s
perspective
Good…other
teachers
Excited by her / his subject
rather than just do it for a job
Organised rather than
chaotic
Informal rather
than severe
Articulate … poor
communicator

4.2.2.2 Building a Map: How a
Map is Constructed (Cont.)
• Now consider the
relationship. Maps tell a
story and the arrows have
causality. So ‘A may lead to
B’, or Option A may lead to
outcome B’ or this ‘Means
A might lead to B’.
• The ‘negative’ sign at
the arrow head turns the
‘leads to’ into ‘may NOT
lead to’ as such we capture
positive and negative
statements which indicate
a ‘dilemma’

4.2.2.3 Guidelines
for Mapping
• The map opposite (lifted from the text) deals with
the implementation of a new information system in a
university. Shaded and unshaded denote input from
different perspectives. In this case the shaded entries
are from the IT staff and italics from academics. The
numbers only represent simple ‘tags’ to allow
statements to be shifted around. For the arrows read ‘
may lead to’ so in 62,63,68 and 37 read the following
argument; being able to archive old data would lead to
avoiding clogging up the system which would enable
faster and easier access to the information and
therefore lecturers would be able to access student
records during counselling sessions.
• The dotted arrows with numbers on them indicate
that on the ‘whole’ map there are links that add to this
point. You can therefore show as much or as little of
the information at this level as you want
• The hierarchy of the map places goals and values in
boxes at the top and assertions at the bottom in
dotted boxes

4.2.2.3 Guidelines for
Mapping (Cont.)
Guideline one:
Separate sentences into distinct phrases:
• Example “We need to expand our business into
new areas and, therefore we must focus on building
strategic alliances, and tapping and developing our
skills base”
• Four linked statements
• Expand our business into new areas
• Build strategic alliances
• Tap into our skills
• Develop our skills
The reason why we split the “tapping and developing”
into two is that both activities have different
ramifications in respect of outcomes.
Other paired phrases including “improve and increase’

4.2.2.3
Guidelines for
Mapping
(Cont.)
Guideline Two:
Build up the hierarchy:
Laddering up and down
the flow of the
argument. Think of this
as expanding and
focusing in the enquiry.
“How might this be
done” is laddering down
whilst “why do you want
to increase activity’ is
laddering up. Expansive
thinking an narrowing
thinking to bring focus

4.2.2.3 Guidelines for Mapping
(Cont.)
Guideline three:
Identify the option and outcome (means
and ends) within each pair of ideas.
• What is the ‘direction of the link’? The direction is
linked to the action and outcome so ‘do you do x to
lead to y’ or ‘do y to lead to x’. Consider ‘quench your
thirst’ and ‘buy a bottle of Coke’ – for most buying a
bottle of Coke is just one option of many. Therefore do
you buy the Coke to quench your thirst? Or have thirst
to buy a bottle of Coke. Clearly the arrow would go
from the ‘Have a thirst’ to ‘buy a bottle of Coke’ with
other arrows showing possible alternative solutions
The text says this is relative to a belief system – and a
chain of argument but it is not yet clear to me how
this works

(Cont.) Guideline Four:
Watch out for values / beliefs /
goals and strategic / key issues
and mark them.
• Values and goals are statements
and seen as good
• Strategic are key issues that will
have a lot of activity around
them – carry emotions
• No prescribed way of marking up
‘key issues’ but you can use an *
to highlight their importance. In
interviews subjects body
language is a good indicator for
stresses and points of inflection
• Values/beliefs/goals – circle them
Make sure our
customers leave the
centre with a smile
on their faces
Capture through film the
dogs at play; fun moments
to share and keep *
Increase likelihood of customer
being relaxed and ready for a
good evening
Goal
Strategic issue

(Cont.) Guideline Five:
Add meaning by working
the statement in imperative
form
• Make statements action
orientated
• Helps make sure the correct
links are captured
• Where they don’t have verbs
associated to them they are
likely facts or assertions
• Place at the base of the
diagram as they can appear as
explanations for a particular
action

4.2.2.3 Guidelines
for Mapping
(Cont.)
Guideline Six:
Use a person’s own
language
• Avoid the temptation to
paraphrase
• Capture exactly what was said
by the subject
• Map must be recognisable to
the interviewee
• Paraphrasing might place a
different emphasis or
meaning to the key points

4.2.2.3 Guidelines
for Mapping (Cont.)
Guideline Seven:
• Capture contrasting poles
• Not all statements will be bipolar
from the onset
• Statements may well be followed
with an elaboration of the point rather
than a statement of the opposite
• Be alert to this situation – ask the
‘rather than…’ question
• In the case of the Pet Centre ‘We
need to be seen as the “guardians” of
our client’s pets
• Now ask – ‘rather than…’ – reply
could be ‘simply than the keepers’

4.2.2.3 Guidelines
for Mapping
(Cont.)
Guideline Eight:
Tidy up the map – look for isolated
statements and examining the heads and
tails
Orphan statements, those without
connections may indicate something not
thought about. Follow up with interviewee –
“I noticed that you mentioned ‘X’ – can you
elaborate?” leads to greater understanding of
the position on the map as well as increases
‘surfacing’.
Check the end-points – the head with no links
leaving from them, are goals/values – if not
more questioning may be needed
Check tails – those statements with no links
going into them, to see if they can be further
developed. Are there any other options

4.2.2.3 Guidelines for
Mapping (Cont.)
Guideline Nine:
Consider the following tips
• Use a blank sheet of paper
• Keep it portrait rather than landscape
• Start two thirds up the page
• Write in rectangular blocks of text
• Use a self-propelling pencil

4.2.2.4 Have a
Go!
First attempt
The areas which I found difficult related to the objective
of the map, what was I trying to communicate and was I
trying to follow a particular path?
There were areas of confusion, the primary goal could
have been seen as two but separate goals, but as the
author of the piece did not make that distinction –
neither should I. Second, the area of developing and
delivering were not sequential they were separate, so the
needs to develop a strategy should have had different
actions leading into it as should the ‘delivery’.
Overall it is hard to do this because you are stepping into
the text and have no means to question the relationships.
During an interview this would not be the case.
Two personal goals:
1. To use mapping as the ‘first tool’ of analysis in any
situation
2. To practice ‘on-the-hoof’ mapping at very
opportunity

4.2.2.7 Getting the wording right
• Use between 6-8 words for
each statement
• Avoid duality of meaning by
looking for phrases such as; “in
order to”, “due to”, “through”
as they imply a link
• Follow the who/what/when
trail
• Avoid ‘perspective’ giving
words like ‘should’, ‘ought’,
‘must’, etc.
• Adopt ‘action’ orientation
words
• Reflect and mirror the
language of the person, group
or piece
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA
Curtesy of Bryson et al, Visible Thinking

4.2.2.8 Direction of the Arrows
• Links should be causal; ‘means to an end’, ‘options to
outcomes’
• Link a specific into a generic statement e.g. The
generic ‘Privatise prison services’ leads to options;
‘Privatise catering’, ‘Privatise cleaning’ and ‘Privatise
maintenance’
• Assertions or facts appear at the bottom of a map.
The imply ‘action is necessary’ – and action appears
higher
• AVOID double headed arrows as these imply the
dynamic situation of ‘feedback’
• How to manage feedback loops
• How does A lead to B by adding in a statement
between the two.
• How does B lead to A – again add a statement between
the two
• The fours statements need to make sense
The goal of a map is to pull ‘a mess into a system of
interacting issues’ P155

4.2.2.9 Developing Practice
• Map another piece of text, a newspaper piece or
such like which has clear area of concern, and
captures the values and options.
• Focus on a personal area of practice, capture
the main issue using an action word, and let the
links and connections fly. From connections
extended ideas may well emerge, note these down.
Ask “why are these issues and are they supportive
or resistant to the desired outcome?” – laddering
up. “What are the options and constraints you
face?” – laddering down. Goal is to understand
some of the consequences of our options. Use the
guidance to help bring focus to the approach.
• Find a subject and interview them about a
concern or issues that they face. Make sure this is a
current issue and not a past one as a past issue the
subject will present solutions. Build a map,
remember use their words, and from the map and,
discuss the connections and options that emerge.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC

4.2.3 Reflections
on Mapping:
Some Hints and
Tips
• Don’t worry about the appearance
of the map. Chances are that the
map is a representation, at first, of a
messy situation.
• Capture their language. If the map is
shown to someone with their
language, their phrases and a clear
idea of issues, options, constraints
and catalysts, then it can validate the
discussion points and show that you
have actively listened to them. At
worst they will have a starting point
for exploration and , at best, gain
real insight and a solution.
• Sit at right-angles to the interviewee.
This way they can witness the
mapping process but you do not
invade their space.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND

4.2.3 Reflections
on Mapping:
Some Hints and
Tips (Cont.)
Capture the constructs/statement first. It is
easier to map from the constructs / statements
relating to the issue because you gain clarity
before drawing in links. If it statements are very
obviously linked then draw the arrows earlier.
Use natural breaks productively. Build rapport,
review and reflect on the work so far, validate
where things are going. Use this information by
writing down feedback before it is forgotten.
Build in review time. Allow at least five minutes
at the end of an interview t g through the map.
Start by recounting the primary issues – lots of
links in and out; check for ‘orphans’ – isolated
links; review the goals (statements that are
‘good in their own right’) – those with no arrows
leaving them. Are they accurate goals or do they
need further ‘laddering-up’? By going through
the map you gain additional validation and
demonstrate how the mapping works.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

4.2.3 Reflections on Mapping:
Some Hints and Tips (Cont.)
• Consider the shape of the map. Is it broad but shallow?
This suggests a wide set of issues but with no length chains
of argument. Is it narrow and deep? In which case could
suggest in-depth knowledge of the subject but a focused
part of the business
• Be inclusive and capture the interviewees key issues not
yours. If you are interviewing a selection of people excluding
a recurring issue because it has appeared before could
create anxiety from the interviewees expectations but you
could be denigrating the importance of this issue to the
group.
• Start with broad, open questions. Such as ‘How could you
move yourself forward in your career in the next three
years?’ Focus on the concerns, constraints and opportunities
which then lead to a series of follow up questions. How
might this issue be resolved? – laddering in. Don’t prepare a
load of questions as these will emerge from the process.
• Carefully introduce the process. Don’t get lost in
confusion explaining the process to the interviewee. Avoid
the term ‘cognitive mapping’ because that comes with a
connotations that lead to anxiety. Once they see you taking
notes in this way they may ask what you are doing? Simply
explain it is a way of collecting information that beats a list.
Cocreation of the map is the goal.
• Manage multiple opposite poles. This is when it emerges
that there are a number of possible outcomes and solutions
to a repeating issue. Make sure you note each outcome and
the separateness of them

4.2.3 Reflections on Mapping:
Some Hints and Tips (Cont.)
A few final pointers:
• Do not learn ALL of the guidelines at once
• Follow a process that simplifies; statements,
links, causality, action orientation
• Statements should not be two words – the
more complete the better the
understanding
• Use lower case handwriting rather than
capitals
• You ae producing a map that belongs to the
interviewee, therefore you are looking to
create meaning for them not for you. Go for
richness and depth as much as you can.

4.2.3.1 How Does Mapping Compare
with Other Graphical Processes ?
Cause Mapping Mind Maps Influence Diagrams
Nodes Formal guidelines for
capturing material:
Action orientated 6-8
words
No formality: Normally 1
word
Formal guidelines:
variables
Links Formal guidelines for
linking: i.e. hierarchy in
causality
No formality Formal guidelines for
linking: flows of single
unit of analysis
Size Aims to build up a rich
and detailed picture.
Links to maps outside
current map and inside
new maps
Usually small Focuses on stocks, flows
and intervening variables
Analysis Open to analysis –
detects feedback and
identifies central
statements
No analysis usually
carried out
Analysis crucial
Format Graphical format – easier
to remember, understand
underlying structure and
engage with ideas
Graphical format – easy
to remember and
understand structure
Graphical format – easy
to remember and
understand structure

4.2.4 Where Has Causal Mapping Been Used?
4.2.4.1 To Elicit Representations of Individual Thinking
Mapping is extremely useful in
many situations:
• When seeking to clarify and
prioritise as well as identify
synergies for competing goals
• As a consultative tool to help
explain models and
demonstrate added value and
the skills of the consultant
• At the start of a project as a
scoping tool to help clarify the
situation and set boundaries,
set objectives of a particular
project

4.2.4.2 To
Support Group
Working
Firstly, since organisations are social and political animals the
norm for tackling ‘messy’ problems is to consider the wider group.
The idea is to facilitate the change through buy-in. People who
‘take ownership’ of the change and vested in its success.
Viable change is change that is ‘politically feasible’.
Niccolò Machiavelli, the Renaissance philosopher, suggested that
to plan and deliver change in a system is fraught with danger since
those who would lose from the new will fight harder than those
whose potential gain is yet to be realised.
Change requires emotional commitment, people having their say
and influencing outcomes. Cocreation and through the mapping
process provides this.
Secondly, getting input and perspective from the many and
incorporating this into the change makes the outcome more
‘robust’.
Processes are ‘procedurally rational’ – that is they are collectively
understood and validated by all. If one department can negotiate
with another in a commonly understood language then
successfully shared outcomes becomes the norm.
Niccolò Machiavelli
1469 - 1527

4.2.4.3 To
Analyse Models
Models can grow into complex
representations with over 1,000
nodes of information and
statements. Computer based
analysis can help in delving into
such levels of complexity, offer
intuitive and at times,
counterintuitive outcomes and
can be a stimulant to the creative
process.

4.2.5 Analysis for SODA
• SODA when combined with
an analytical approach is a
powerful means of exploring a
causal model’s structure.
• Analysis ranges from the
simple to the more complex,
from tidying up a map to
examining the underlying
structure
• The goal is to maximise the
clarity of thinking, taking a
‘messy complex’ issue or
problem and resolve it.
• Three stage process

4.2.5.1 Identifying Goals
• A goal, in SODA terms is “something
good in its own right”. To understand the
goals is to understand the greater purpose
of the individual and allow for exploration.
• In this world a ‘head’ is a term with no
other term or statement linking from it.
• Statements in their raw form can
become goals. Whilst they are in the stage
of ‘to be evaluated by the cohort’ the are
called ‘candidate goals’ and identified in
such a way (change of font, bolding etc.) to
make that clear.
• Those that are ‘heads’ but not goals will
need to have links ascribed to them. A
process that must be done when creating a
cause map.

4.2.5.2 Identifying
Issues
• Exploration of issues to
determine strategies. An issue
can de defined as something of
concern that to resolve will take
resources, both time and
financial.
• Issues can be both positive
and negative
• The analytical approaches
suggested by Ackermann and
Eden are the ‘Domain’ or
‘Central’ approaches

4.2.5.3 Carrying out a Domain
Analysis
Domain analysis starts calculating the number of
links each statement has coming in and out of it.
In essence how busy the links are.
• In a larger map of say 200 statements this
may produce very discrete outcomes, for small
maps it may be less evident.
• Also maps have to be consistent in respect of
the rules for causality.
• Any statements with high numbers of arrows
in and out are highlighted in some way, as
‘candidate key issues’
• Domain analysis can be influenced by a
participant or group spending a lot of time on a
single issue. This issue may be relevant as an
issue now but be peripheral to the whole.

4.2.5.4 Carrying out Central
Analysis
Central Analysis is additive to
the Domain analysis as it takes
those statements which are
‘busy’ but also now looks for
how ‘central’ they are to the
model.
• Picture a molecule –
elements are central and
connected to the core and
some are peripheral
• It is almost impossible to do
this analysis without the
software – but the results are
more accurate overview of
which issues are central to the
model.

4.2.5.5 Carrying Out a Cluster
Analysis
• Cluster Analysis is based off an algorithm and
therefore only really suitable to be run through the
software.
The following is a description of the methodology.
• Two statements are similar if they share multiple links
which are in common. So if Diana knows five people then
the most similar would be John because he knows 4.
Therefore the cluster would put these two together.
• If you have a number of statements that share many
links between them but are primarily disconnected from
each other, then these are clusters.
• Each cluster will have a theme, and each theme should
have a key issue. If no key issue exists then the cluster
could be indicative of ‘candidate key issues’
• To do this mapping requires good mapping disciplines
and the absence of redundant links.
• Feed back loops can distort the analysis since they
create large cluster based on causality NOT topic based
ones
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

4.2.5.6 Carrying out a Hierarchical
Set Analysis
• Hierarchical sets work by taking
the key issue and then drilling down
into the chain of argument. Each
statement is linked into the seed.
• Anything above 40 statements
look for new key issues
• Examine one Cluster (Hieset in
software) at a time
• If set is very small (<10) – ask if
the issue is a key issue?
• Useful analysis to provide
feedback to participants
• The goal is to show all the
options that will influence a chosen
outcome whether that be an issue
or goal

4.2.5.7 Finding Options
• Identifying Potent
Concepts
• Potent options are
those that have a wider
consequences for a lot of
key issues or goals.
• Use this information to
prioritise options

• Identifying Composite Tails
• A composite tails is a concept
that has multiple out-bound arrows
out of it.
• Analysis starts at the bottom,
works it way up and looks for
branch points.
• A means to refine the potent
analysis further – asking if a
composite tail is also part of a
potent option? If it is it then it is the
greatest point of leverage within the
system.
• Top concept within a potent
option with branches greatest point
of leverage
Branching Point

Detecting Feedback Loops
• Finding loops in the model can
create a wealth of new insight. It can
also help tidy up the structure of the
model. Clusters (Hieset) can appear
when using the software and it is
advisable to check they are
legitimate loops. If they are real –
categorise them into, controlling or
virtuous or vicious cycles.
• If they exist then any group can
see the dynamic nature of the model
and also a useful means to explore
through system dynamics.
• Finding feedback loops without
the system is very difficulty but once
found they are enlightening

Producing an Overview of the
Model’s Content
• Before facilitating a group
analysis of the model it is
advisable that participant gain
some additional help.
• This is done as a ‘road map’ –
in the form of a road atlas. A
higher view, perspective that
draws some higher level links to
connections.
• This helps participants
understand what we are looking
to uncover

4.2.5.8 Summary
• The purpose of this analysis is so that
we can make the thinking more robust by
uncovering any ambiguities and
assumptions that may make the links
tenuous or at least uncertain.
• All analysis is based off the structure of
the model
• Analysis is not easy and at times is just
overwhelming – keep in mind the
mapping guidelines and the underlying
purpose of the analysis
• Gain a clarity of thinking for all involved

4.2.6 SODA for Group
Problem Structuring
and Resolution4.2.6.1 Introduction
SODA is predominately group tool for addressing issues and gaining buy-in. But a number
of different considerations need to be understood before a process for delivery is agreed.
• Openness – how open is the group to participation, to disconformity and the
embracing of a contradictory standpoint?
• Being out on a limb – individuals need to believe that points of view, no matter how
outlandish will not be ridiculed
• Existing relationships – are the participants fighting for the same piece of a pie? Are
there trading relationships in place that may be put at jeopardy by an opposing view?
• How strong is the team? Does dissent damage cohesiveness?
• Time availability – is there enough time to cover the process? Does it require an
immediate or rapid response?
• Resource availability – does the consultant have the time to see the process through,
is the room and equipment bookable?
• What are the primary and secondary objectives? Problem solving yes, but also team
cohesion?
• Skills of the facilitator – are they a novice or seasoned practioner? Is it a slow burn or
straight in?
• The context – what is the culture of the organisation? Have we had wider
stakeholder views taken?
• The participants – personality types, ability to come out of their shells and feel a part
of it? This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

4.2.6 SODA for Group
Problem Structuring
and Resolution
4.2.6.1 Introduction (Cont.)
Combinations of these modes or considerations is likely and a
composite ay of working will appear. This is why the pre-
workshop phase, the analysis is crucial to the facilitation.
Technology can and will likely play a crucial part in the
process. One particular strategy might be:
• Interviewing each participant using cognitive mapping
performed manually
• Weave together views using ‘Oval Mapping Techniques (yet
to be discussed) or computer modelling
• Create a focus group and take the workings to them to gain
feedback
• Perform analysis on Decision Explorer
• Bring the results back to the wider group, using Decision
Explorer through a projector, involve them, get them to
interact with the process
• Control and review findings before sharing

4.2.6.2 Working
Manually: Using the
Oval Mapping
Technique
What it is? A group piece of work, facilitated which is superficially looks like
brainstorming but is not lateral thinking and requires participant to ‘surface’ the
problem. They do this by placing their views directly on an oval-shaped adhesive
and posting them publicly on a wall. Benefits include:
• Building teams - participatory, interactive and informative. Client’s may
well have covert desire to enhance team spirit
• Providing social context – group learning, contributing to outcomes and
participating in the ‘fun’
• Sense of purpose – roles clearly understood
• Flexibility – easy to set up, works for people with limited resources and
requires no technology
• Holistic perspective – group sees bigger picture perhaps that effect
different departments, teams etc.
• Capture all – participants contributions caught and recognised.
• Transparent – participants easily can identify the strength of different
views, se the process unfolding and gain from ‘procedural rationality’ More
likely to buy into the outcomes

4.2.6.2 Working
Manually: Using the
Oval Mapping
Technique
Starting an Oval Mapping Session
• Pre-meeting activity
• Guest list – make sure it is
representative of the range of
views – aim for 7 to 9
participants
• Get buy-in from the power
holders who can make
outcomes happen
• Chose suitable location – clean
walls for hanging paper and
writing on walls
• Gather materials – flipchart (14-
16 sheets), Pens – all the same,
• Set aside 3 hours preferably
morning
• Send out an agenda covering
primary issues, objectives and
ground rules
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-ND

4.2.6.2 Working
Manually: Using the
Oval Mapping
Technique
Nine steps to a successful OMT Session
1. Encourage participation and settle concerns
2. Explain they are the experts and the process is designed to get the
information out of them. Anything not raised in the forum cannot
then be used
3. Stress one statement per oval. This ensures no duality in the
statement, allows linkage and is easier to read
4. Recommend a maximum of 6-10 words, to be ab action
orientated statement, avoid single words and questions
5. Once on the wall it stays on the wall – if they agree or disagree
they need to write it up. It forms the basis of the argument
6. Encourage participants to piggyback off statements – creating
new lines of thinking. As a facilitator pose questions about where
this thinking might lead
7. Two facilitators – one to capture ideas and enter them into
Decision Explorer – the other to move around the material,
identify clusters and make sense of ideas
8. Pens (the same) and ovals should be distributed
9. Participants should be asked to explore some statements and
write them on the ovals and put them on the wall

4.2.6.2 Working
Manually: Using the
Oval Mapping
Technique
Running an OMT Workshop – Stage 1
• Goals of workshop are to gain clarity around the issue and
identify actions. Covertly to establish team working.
• Initial stage – 30 mins, ask for contributions to be written up
and then put on wall.
• If you reach a quiet stage – ask ‘ participants to review material
already up, consider consequences, explanations and constraints.
• Make sure any new ideas / material is collected and captured
• Create clusters, i.e. HR issues, operational processes,
competition, funding, IT etc.
• Get group to review clustering – get them to confirm or
change. Try moving an oval into a cluster to confirm its place. This
will prompt additional insights.
• Very large clusters (30+) – see if they can be broken down.
• Once the ideas have been exhausted – try arranging the ovals
within the clusters into a hierarchy

4.2.6.2 Working
Manually: Using the
Oval Mapping
Technique
Running an OMT Workshop – Stage 2
• Move away from apparent brainstorming to ‘structuring process’
• By reviewing the material in each cluster reconfirm the position of the
statements
• Start, led by the participants, to link the ovals into ‘chains of arguments’. To
facilitate this write a sequential number on each oval so large extended lines are not
needed, shortened truncated arrows with numbers on them will work.
• Capture new material emphasise the learning that the new focus brings on the
meaning of each cluster
• Look for ‘aha’ moments where people see different interpretations from what
others do – do not side with rights or wrongs instead capture both chains or views.
We are moving the group from divergent thinking to a shared vision which in itself
can reveal new insights. This is an important stage and one that requires
documenting from the participants perspective. Write up new ovals (I would bring
some additional documentation in via recordings of discussions, points of views,
new learning).
• Use this stage of the workshop to make sure each oval, if a single word or two
worded statement, has action orientated phrases on them. ‘How do we
convert this to an action?’
This stage will take time at the start but will gather pace later

4.2.6.2 Working
Manually: Using the Oval
Mapping Technique
Finishing an OMT Workshop – Part 1
• Exploring the material and reviewing each of the clusters to
confirm relevance and accuracy is the climax of the session.
• Identify the head (top point) of the cluster – ask the group if
it constitutes a good title?
• Use the analysis tools to find key issues and potent options.
Take the participants through the principles and goals of the
analysis:
• To identify busy ovals (ins/outs)
• Look for options that hit many clusters
• Collect all the cluster heads and assess them for
possible goals
• Look for feedback loops
• Each of these provides deeper understanding around the
nature of the problem. The analysis does not replace the
judgement of the group it informs the group. This information
can help set priorities around action and look for resolution to
the problem
• Statements that have different status’s should be
differentiated using different colours.

4.2.6.2 Working
Manually: Using the Oval
Mapping Technique
Finishing an OMT Workshop – Part 2
• Identify those statements that can be rewritten as ‘options’ or are
potentially options
• Give the participants packs of self-adhesive coloured spots
• Attach them to the options most important. Don’t be tempted to
score these as it will work against the qualitative nature of the maps
• Use different colours to determine if they are short or long-term
options
• This delivers a degree of consensus over which option is the priority
for resources and focus
• One colour to indicate the degree of leverage this option may offer
• One colour to differentiate how practical it would be to follow this
option
• Finally, offer one colour to act as a ‘veto’ dot – providing people
with an option to veto this choice provides a aspect of procedural
justice and validation
• Conclusions ideally should provide a consensus on the next stage or
actions that follow.
• Take photos of the wall – I would also add in another means of
capturing the learning from the event
Short term
Long term
Most important
Key leverage point
Practicality

4.2.7 Working in Facilitator
Supported (Single User)
Visual Interactive Mode
4.2.7.1 Introduction to Facilitator Supported Modelling
Using Decision Explorer software in facilitator supported mode provides four
different options.
1. Follow on from the cognitive interviews and subsequent causal mapping
analysis
2. Follow on from an OMT workshop
3. Follow on from the analysis of documents
4. Starting point for modelling exercise =- although this option places the
greatest workload on the facilitator
Facilitated workshops have the advantage of:
• Allowing for group development of ideas
• Develop common language and understanding
• Visualise theirs and others ideas in an interconnected and dynamic way –
supporting learning from different perspectives and judging ideas on merit
• The physical act of projecting or placing ideas and links on a wall has the effect
of distancing them idea from the individual giving it an objective perspective
• Participants go from a highly reactive state to a more thoughtful one
• Model starts to act as a powerful negotiation tool – actively listening to and
digesting different views, gently acquiescing toward agreement

4.2.7.2 Why Use
the Software
Supported Mode?
• Participants focus on issue
rather than being distracted by
the manual process
• Mapping guidelines adhered to
– essential for edification of
ideas and linking statement
• Greater concentration on the
unfolding process – avoids long
debates over uncontextualized
issues
• Participation increases as
facilitators absorb the physical
work

4.2.7.3 Running
a Single User
Workshop Create
Develop
Agree
Digest
Generate
• Seat participants in a semi-circle around
the screen an in comfortable seating
• Run this as an off-site – limit distractions
• At start be clear on what the focal point
of the intervention is. Put it on the
screen.
• Assuming model is in existence – provide
overview of model, goals, central issue
• Have pre-worked up views depicting the
supportive material for each key issue
• Create a set of predetermined text styles
for goals, key issues, potent options,
agreed strategies and agreed actions
(Green for Go)
• Design work shop to work in a cycle of 20
mins
This Photo by
Unknown Author is
licensed under CC
BY-NC-SA
20 mins

4.2.7.3 Running a
Single User
Workshop (Cont.)
Decision Explorer Hints and Tips
• Set up styles in advance do not use borders around selected concepts
• Keep it simple at the start – don’t clutter the screen with multiple
statements, start small and build
• Turn off menus – they are distracting! – learn the ‘Hot-Keys’
• Work in ‘Fit to View Mode’ – participants see the whole map, keeps the
context in place and help to dynamically engage
• Capture as much of the dialogue as possible – statements for review with
the group
• Stick to the 20-minute cycle, material fresh in minds, ensures facilitator has
captured all the links
• Use ‘views’ to explore hidden depths of issues and loops
• Avoid analysis during the workshop – allow coffee breaks and lunch to
open up thinking through the analysis tools
• Have hard copies of starter-maps as points of reference – give participants
copies might be useful
• Save your work regularly

4.2.7.4 Summary
Some final points
• Time for reflection – progress made
and clarify next step
• Review agreements and actions
• Make sure message is in a format
that can be taken back to wider
group
• Provide a set of rough and ready
printouts
• Follow up with ‘tidied-up’ notes later

4.2.8 Reflections
on the Method
The benefits of SODA
• Problem structuring through effective collection and
analysis of causal maps
• Adaptability and agility of participants to change their
minds. Giving them time to think, act more cognitively
and avoid rush gut reactions
• Gain consensus and negotiate a group view. Get shared
ownership and a commitment to deliver
• Creativity in the generation of ideas and options through
the social construct that the workshops provide.
• Gain real-time interaction with the model. Play, explore
and amend in a dynamic forum. Gain buy-in and
ownership of the ideas
• On-line documentation in the form of an action plan and
reference t the decision choices available
• Through collaborative working we remove the impact of
dysfunctional interpersonal dynamics.
• Gain commitment in getting things right. Become
familiar with handling complexity as groups share the
burden of learning and delivery This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

4.3
Developments in
the Uses of SODA
• The effectiveness of SODA in delivering
group problem solving means that further
applications and development reside here.
• Key areas also include ‘negotiation’ and
conflict resolution, higher group
productivity – solving problems quickly,
exploring the future along with stakeholder
management. SODA has also been of use in
operational research specifically the
modelling of system dynamics. The final
part of the development is about
overcoming the risks of first time delivery of
problem solving through the management
of expectations

4.3.1 Managing
Social Processes
4.3.1.1 Increasing Social and Psychological
Negotiation
• Organisations as negotiated enterprises – this relates to how
everyone has a perspective of a problem. Accordingly each brings
their own experiences, skills, education etc. to the table where
everyone knows that these subjective views need to coexist if a
problem is to be collectively solved.
• One aspect of SODA is that it must lead to better organisational
negotiations. Because negotiation requires the gradual softening
and repositioning of positions identifying causal relationships
through a causal map is an important part of the process.
• Changing the causal relationships as positioned are softened or
modified means that the SODA process needs to embrace the
dynamic nature of the understanding. Inevitably, due to time
pressure this dynamic nature is missed and the links, statements
and options take on a static presence.
• In the group SODA sessions these changing shifts ned to be
recognised as the means of establishing increased buy-in that
things change based off discussions.
• Additionally important to negotiations is often the respect of
anonymity

4.3.1.2 Group Productivity Issues
For the last few decades organisations have been
handling more complexity than previously the
case. Group problem solving productivity, the
speed at which the group solves or addresses a
particularly complex problem is therefore a key
requirement.
The problem of productivity has been expressed
in two approaches:
• The creation of a workshop that can provide
a deliverable in the form of an actionable
next step every hour.
• The use of a Group Decision Support System
(GDSS) to support SODA.
The speed at which the workshop can deliver
‘the next stage or problem solving’ is crucial
whilst the second is the means by which,
alongside the people interactions, we can apply
computer enhanced analytics and record the
learning

4.3.1.3 Negotiation and
Productivity: Using a
Group Decision Support
System GDSS
The first Group Decision Support System (GDSS) were
developed n the 1990’s and worked by providing each
participant the access to the causal mapping software,
through which they could express a preference for the
given option. The same as placing multiple dots on the
idea/option of choice.
The development of Group Explorer achieved number
of productivity enhancing objectives:
• A causal map that was dynamic, statements could
be added freely and links created and modified
• Contributions were anonymous
• All the attributes offered by Decision Explorer,
styles to indicate statement type, and parallel
processing and analysis
The use of this type of software (I used this at the
University i-Labs in a group approach to address local
transport issues) replicates the Oval Mapping
Technique without the need for cognitive interviews. It
does, though, have the drawback of being less rich
than SODA with 1:1 interviews.

4.3.1.4 New and
Better Researched
Applications
4.3.1.5 Strategy Making
All strategic plans mean nothing if those in a senior role chose not to action them. SODA
with its group facilitation process creates buy-in and ownership of strategy. SODA was
now being used to extend that function by being the catalyst for the development of
strategy itself by:
• Paying attention to the existing emergent strategy
• Developing new strategic plans
 The creation of a casual map is enlightening to an organisation, it highlights and focuses
upon areas of uniqueness and differentiation that creates the competitive advantage
so many organisations need. Often this competence would be identifiable in the self-
sustaining feedback loops.
 Strategic management of key stakeholders was an additional output of the SODA
approach, the types of relationships that exist and perhaps should exist in the future,
informal or formal, added to the depth of organisational understanding.
 The concept of strategy making as a journey added to the envisioning process of a new
future. Scenario building and the exploration of different futures is a crucial to
understand the systemic nature or organisational goals, strengths and weakness as well
as the stakeholders who are needed.
 The ‘journey of using SODA’ was now becoming as important as the outcome as a
means to stimulate organisational learning so much so that journey became an
acronym:
 JoURNeY – ‘Jointly Understanding, Reflecting upon and Negotiating strategy
 SODA helped to create ‘procedural justice’ in the process, built consensus and
ownership of both the problem and solution.
 This concept of strategy and journey was further developed in The Practice of Making
Strategy (Ackermann et al, 2005) where the ‘statement of strategic intent’ was the final
task in a series of tasks that led to incremental improvement in every bite-sized step of
strategic development.

4.3.1.6 Informing Strategy
Through the Development
of Scenarios: One Specific
Strategy Example
 Taking the present and predicting the future as an extension
of the underlying trend is both obvious in application and
statistically probable in the future it predicts. This of course
depends on environmental stability, those drivers of today being
unaltered tomorrow which clearly is not as statistically likely. So
futures are determined by critical events that break trends.
 Envisioning different futures based off ‘black swan’ events as
part of scenario building can be linked to the causal mapping
process used by SODA. Using OMT and asking participants to
contribute an event, the map unfolds with a series of links and
includes a number of future stories.
 Developing different scenarios in this way is not about making
judgements regarding their likelihood – it is to open people’s
minds and become more perceptive about the future. The
possible implications and impacts of shifts in the environment on
the organisational viability.
“The process of exploring alternative futures means that
managers are more likely to see futures unfolding earlier’ (P186)
– a major source of competitive advantage

4.3.1.7 Multimethod
Models: SD and
Project Management
• Understanding the structure of a problem through
cognitive and causal mapping requires that we look for
self-sustaining feedback loops. If the system displays the
dynamic behaviour associated to feedback loops then
we need to know how to control them as a part of the
problem solving aspect.
• SODA can help identify those aspects of Systems
Dynamics (SD), traps and cures through points of
intervention so that simulation models can be built
using the software.
• The project management design process can identify
crucial intervention points along the journey where
different analytical tools can best be introduced as well
as the most appropriate questions t be asked.

4.3.1.8 Cognitive
Change/Negotiation
 Causal maps facilitate negotiation across an
organisation.
 A number of studies in the field of social
psychology demonstrate that groups generally
ignore contradictory views of those within that
group. The creation of causal maps based upon
the principles of SODA can address this issue.
 Gradual shifts in mindset as the meaning of
statements on a causal map are explored,
statements added and clarification gained,
facilitates a shift in mindset. Rather than seeing
information as immoveable objects, it is seen as
dynamic and potentially multi-meaning
(equivocal) in nature. Seeing something from a
different perspective potentially allows shifts in
position to take place and negotiation to occur.
 Overt conflicts and conflict management
seems to be a beneficiary of SODA

4.3.1.9 Small Steps in Application:
Low Risk projects
 First-time facilitators of SODA are facing a daunting
task. Practice in the form of cognitive mapping of
inert mediums, papers, documentaries get you so far
in skills development but eventually you have to deal
with a real-life situation.
 Keeping risks down is about managing the
expectations of the group. Breaking up the process
into shorter steps with clear smaller but more
frequent milestones as targets is one way.
 So causal map construction can be chunked into the
primary stage of initial capture, to identification of
clusters providing an overview, looking for busy
nodes that bring focus on the ‘nub’ of that problem.
This can be done using OMT or Decision Explorer
software. If this is seen as being of use – additional
deeper exploration can be encouraged.
 Reverse engineering the unpublished goals of an
organisation into a causal map is a useful and
potentially revealing process. Goals that are not seen
as supportive of each other become easily
identifiable, they are seen as independent of each
other. Using this approach can help open up group
discussions about change as the aim becomes a
‘more carefully worded goal system’. Low risk
because it is exploratory and not seen as an
aggressive stance against the status-quo.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND

Concluding thoughts on SODA
 At Relocon-East we are looking to extend
our armoury of quality tools that further the
aims and aspirations of our clients.
 Within our valued proposition and to help
develop strategy and promote healthy
change, SODA will play a crucial part.
 Workshops will be organised and facilitated
by our consultants to help organisations gain
the buy-in and ownership that a process like
this can develop.
 Years of facilitation and workshop
development will be accessible to our clients
as we move their business models forward
and take their teams with them.

End of Part 4
Notes by James
Cracknell BA (Hons.)
As part of TU811 OU
Course Systems
Tools for Managing
Change
Reynolds, M. and Holwell, S. (2010) Introducing Systems Approaches, in
Martin Reynolds, Sue Holwell (Eds.) Approaches to managing Change: A
Practical Guide. London: Springer in association with The Open University

Notes on reader introducing systems approaches prt 4 soda

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Notes on reader introducing systems approaches prt 4 soda

Semelhante a Notes on reader introducing systems approaches prt 4 soda (20)

Mais de James Cracknell

Mais de James Cracknell (20)

Último

Último (20)

Notes on reader introducing systems approaches prt 4 soda