I’m always amazed when people choose to pay for things which are free, but if you have gained value in sharing my thinking openly, I guess I wouldn’t object to you helping me offset the course fees.
In a previous post I gave an overview and introduction to Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA). This approach uses cognitive maps, as distinct from causal-loop diagrams. In this post, I’m going to outline the differences between them.
Differences between causal-loop diagrams and cognitive maps
Causal-loop diagrams model the causal interconnections within a situation. This kind of diagramming tool for illustrating how different elements of a system influence each other. The primary questions it addresses are “what is happening?” and “how does it happen?” You can see an example of this kind of diagram in this post about my situation of interest.
Cognitive maps focus on capturing how individuals or groups think about an issue. While causal-loop diagrams are, of course, subjective they are presented in an objective way. This is not the case with cognitive mapping, which clearly represent thoughts and perspectives of the people involved, laying them out in a structured way.
Cognitive mapping is less constrained in the use of text than causal-loop diagrams, with the aim (as much as possible) to capture the actual words of participants. These kinds of maps aim to answer “what do we think is happening?” and “how might we make this happen?” Cognitive maps capture subjective perspectives, often facilitated by an external person who helps articulate the thoughts of others. They are used to explore possible scenarios rather than model actual situations.
Creating Cognitive Maps with SODA
The SODA approach offers a structured method for constructing cognitive maps. My system of interest is “a system to promote lifelong learning” in a library context. Here’s how we might approach that, remembering that the ellipses (three dots) connect the construct with its opposite:
Identify a key decision: begin by identifying a critical decision, such as Enhancing lifelong learning opportunities.
Seed construct: develop a seed construct like “increase access to lifelong learning resources … maintain current resource levels.”
Hierarchy of planning: organise the constructs into three levels: goals (ideals), strategic directions (objectives), and potential options (tasks), placing the seed construct towards the top of the strategic options.
Develop constructs: generate related constructs such as:
“expand digital resource collections … maintain existing collections”
“offer more educational programmes … keep current programme offerings”
“improve user support services … maintain current support levels”
Link constructs: draw connections between constructs using arrows to show relationships — e.g. “expand digital resource collections” might link to “increase access to lifelong learning resources” with a positive arrow, while “limited funding … secure additional funding” might link negatively.
Iterative refinement: refine the map continuously by:
adding new constructs and links as the understanding of the problem evolves
grouping related constructs
removing less useful ones to maintain clarity
SODA map of my system of interest
I’ve had a go at creating a SODA map below. Bearing in mind that the following is the first of these I’ve ever created, I think it’s turned out OK:
Further thoughts
I can imagine this being useful in a user research setting, as it allows you to take a central concept and then ‘ladder down’ to potential options and then ‘ladder up’ towards broader goals. Allowing the user research participant to see the map could help them explore the conversation more visually, going back to concepts and see dependencies.
I’ve seen this kind of thing in action in a different context when working with Bryan Mathers when we’ve done thinkathons together. He would draw out conversations, for example using a Defining the Cast activity and we’d all be able to refer to things that were said earlier in our time together.
Phenomenology is a philosophical approach focusing on subjective experience and perception. It’s one of those long, impressive-sounding words that actually means something reasonably straightforward:
[Phenomenology] seeks to investigate the universal features of consciousness while avoiding assumptions about the external world, aiming to describe phenomena as they appear to the subject, and to explore the meaning and significance of the lived experiences
(Wikipedia)
As such, phenomenology plays a significant role in systems thinking. In what follows, I want to explore how phenomenology contributes to a deeper grasp and more effective practice of systems thinking.
Systems thinking involves understanding and addressing complex problems by viewing them as interconnected wholes rather than isolated parts. Phenomenology complements systems thinking by providing a method to capture and analyse human experiences and perspectives within these systems.
One practical application of phenomenology in systems thinking is cognitive mapping. This tool captures an individual’s reasoning about a situation, helping to weave together multiple perspectives into a comprehensive cause map. By reflecting on the cognitive processes and subjective experiences of stakeholders, systems practitioners can gain valuable insights into the dynamics of the systems they are analysing.
The MSc module I am studying (TB871) provides detailed guidance on using cognitive mapping to analyse reasoning and develop strategic options. As the module materials note, recognising the significance of multiple perspectives is crucial in organisational problem-solving and collaborative decision-making (The Open University, 2020).
SODA is an approach that exemplifies the integration of phenomenology in systems thinking. It involves creating cognitive maps to capture the reasoning and perceptions of individuals involved in a situation. These individual maps are then combined to form a collective understanding, which helps in identifying strategic options and making informed decisions.
The approach taken when using the SODA approach recognises that different stakeholders have different perspectives and experiences, and these are critical to understanding the full scope of a problem. By using cognitive mapping, SODA captures these diverse viewpoints, facilitating a richer and more comprehensive analysis of the situation. This method supports collaborative decision-making by ensuring that all voices are heard and considered.
Integrating phenomenology into systems thinking offers several benefits:
Enhanced understanding: by focusing on subjective experiences, phenomenology helps to uncover deeper insights into complex systems.
Improved decision-making: considering diverse perspectives leads to more informed and effective decisions.
Collaborative problem-solving: a phenomenological approach fosters mutual understanding and collaboration among stakeholders, which is essential for addressing complex issues.
While phenomenology offers significant benefits, integrating it with systems thinking can also present challenges. Balancing subjective insights with objective analysis requires careful consideration, and practitioners must be skilled in both phenomenological methods and systems thinking tools to effectively combine these approaches.
In conclusion, then, phenomenology enriches systems thinking by bringing in human experiences and subjective realities. This integration enhances our grasp of complex systems, leading to better decision-making and collaborative problem-solving.
