Assumptions and Theory behind SODA/Cognitive Mapping Eden and Ackermann (1998) defined SODA as an approach which is designed to provide consultants with a set of skills such as skills of a facilitator and a content constructor; a framework for designing problem solving interventions; and a set of techniques and tools such as cognitive mapping and oval mapping technique (OMT) to help their client with messy problems. SODA is an acronym for Strategic Options Development and Analysis which centred on the importance of process and negotiation in strategy making and strategy delivery. The key aim of SODA is to achieve understanding and agreement among the team members regarding the problem under discussion. Its success is being measured in terms of content as well as the energy and commitment generated for delivering the agreements (Eden & Ackermann 1998). There are four theoretical perspectives behind SODA methodology which includes the individual, the nature of organisation, the consulting practice and the role of technology and technique (Eden & Ackermann 1998). Westcombe (2002) outline Pidds (1996) assumptions on SODA methodology which includes the problem definition, the nature of the organisations, the use of models and the emphasis placed on organisational and individual learning. SODA involves construction and analysis of models representing individual and group perspectives. It is based on the philosophy of Interpretivism which had been explained in Kellys Personal Construct Construct Theory. It is therefore focuses on the management of meanings. SODA methodology uses cognitive mapping as a framework for designing problem solving interventions. Cognitive mapping being defined by Downs & Stea (1973) as a process composed of a series of psychological transformations by which an individual acquires, codes, stores, recalls, and decodes information about the relative locations and attributes of phenomena in their everyday spatial environment. It is a technique designed to capture an individuals values and embedded wisdom in a diagrammatic format (Ackermann, Eden & Brown 2004), such as a series s eries of interconnected causal maps (Westcombe 2002).
Figure 1: Example of a simple cognitive map Nature
of Cognitive Mapping, Oval Mapping and Causal Mapping and its differences
Cognitive mapping is founded on the belief that language is the currency of organisational problem solving. Therefore, cognitive maps are a natural, language-based representation of understanding that an individual has a situation and its meanings attributed to concepts forming part of that situation. A cognitive map is a formal model designed to represent the way a person defines an issue (Eden & Ackermann 1998). McKay and Marshall (2005) quoted Brysons (2004) description of a typical cognitive maps as a network of ideas (nodes), linked by arrows representing relationships between ideas which are captured as chunks of text. Cognitive mapping aims to provide (1) an a n instrument to help negotiation towards best solution; (2) a way of capturing several peoples perspectives at once by setting the views of one person in the context of the ideas of others; (3) a method for providing structure to multiple and conflicting aspects of argumentation; (4) a method which is designed to suggest action to resolve issues; (5) a method for developing a consensus about a goals system; (6) a method that does not violate the natural role of discussion; (7) an efficient way of avoiding group-think and bounded vision; (8) a designed scheme for attending to both the content of issues and to the need of recognition that people change organisations; and (9) a designed environment for ensuring effective decision-making (Eden 1990). You may consider initiating the intervention using OMT in circumstances where the culture of the organisation is such that people are comfortable with group working. OMT is also useful when there is a need to obtain faster results, capturing a large number and range of alternative views from a group, albeit in less detail than would be obtained from interviews. OMT also allows for team building, individual learning and a holistic view to be gained. In any event, group workshops using OMT are likely to occur even if the overall process is started with individual interviews. (Ackermann, Eden & Brown, 2004).
It is possible to carry out cognitive mapping on the basis of documents and reports about, and by the person. Group mapping is where the map is built up in front of the group based on their contributions. This can be done either manually using what we refer to as the Oval Mapping technique (OMT), or through using computer support, namely the Decision Explorer software. Group mapping meetings or workshops have some initial similarities with more traditional brainstorming sessions however, the use of mapping powerfully extends their function. In addition, group mapping workshops have advantages and disadvantages compared with individual interviews. In principle, group mapping utilizes group dynamics and creativity and can play a role in building a team, whereas cognitive mapping in interviews deliberately subtracts the individuals from the group context, in order to allow the emergence of information that may be suppressed, influenced or contorted by group pressures. (Ackermann, Eden & Brown, 2004). The OMT workshop is the beginnings of a process of not only surfacing but also structuring the information obtained. This structuring process is designed to enable the thinking of the whole group to cohere around a set of strategic issues and their interrelationships, giving rise to an understanding of their impact and therefore priority. After interviewing and OMT exercises, the various strategic issues collected can now set fore reviewing. It is likely that these issues have, by now, been collated, possibly analysed, fed back to, confirmed and clarified by the group members. The process of identifying and structuring the goals system that is emerging from an exploration of strategic issues helps clarify what the strategic direction of the organisation will be if no deliberate actions are taken to change it. Through understanding the potential impact of the issues and opportunities facing the organisation, steps can be taken to position the organisation in such a way as to resolve or capitalise upon these. As such it provides a valuable benchmark against which to consider the strategic future. Thus, the process involves identifying the goals and understanding how they impact on one another. Causal maps have been used because they focus the attention of the group on strategic action within the context of purpose the casual arrows indicate means to ends or options to outcomes. While this consideration of the implications of statements along with reviewing options and constraints enhances the groups shared body of understanding, the maps that have been produced, edited and modified will remain somewhat cryptic to anyone other than those who participated in their creation. This is inevitable because the full subtlety of their meaning derives as much from the social negotiation that has been undertaken as it does from the content and shape of the maps. Nevertheless there is greater precision of meaning in maps than in, for example, bullet point lists because every statement is given meaning by the actions that underlie it (in arrows) and the outcomes that indicate purpose (out arrows).
Advantages, disadvantages, problems and issues with Cognitive Mapping, Causal Mapping and Oval Mapping The cognitive mapping technique is one route to beginning the process of uncovering what the groups emergent strategy is. Cognitive mapping is used as a small part of a group process approach to strategy making. Cognitive mapping is introduced because it can be the most effective method of surfacing the real strategic issues that the organisation will expect to address, and so it is usually the best way of detecting the emergent strategy strateg y of the organisation. However, it is inevitably more time consuming than starting with a group workshop. Cognitive mapping links ideas and issues together in a logical and dynamic way, in a structure resembling a spiders web. Thus it has the major advantage of generating a
relatively simple visual representation of the interrelationships of the statements. (Ackermann, Eden & Brown, 2004).
Recently, the value of a causal map i n its own right is r apidly gaining ground. The causal map can be built with less time and efforts than a simulation model and it can give important insights and understanding that clients demand. On the other hand, cognitive map has been used widely to represent mind maps of decision-makers without using computer simulation. However the causal map and cognitive map have fundamental limits in understanding behavioural implications (Kim 2000). However, one cannot simulate the causal map without introducing additional assumptions on structures and parameters. Abstract simulation environment is supposed to provide these assumptions automatically. At least, one can have opportunity to systematically experiment with additional assumptions introduced to simulate the causal map (Kim 2000). Abstract simulation will help in preserving generic nature of causal map. Sometimes causal map is built with highly abstract variables to maintain its generic nature. Abstract simulation is required to preserve the purity of cognitive maps. If one introduces additional assumptions into the cognitive map for simulation purpose, the purity of cognitive map will be destroyed. Abstract simulation of cognitive map will help in minimising the number of additional assumptions and will make it clear what additional assumptions are introduced (Kim 2000). Some additional advantages for employing cognitive mapping include (Jonassen et al., 1993): y
Effective for assessment of employees understanding of higher-level knowledge.
y
Can measure knowledge structures for a group of people, such as employees in a department for performance assessment and feedback.
Although the interview process using cognitive mapping is crucial in a real exercise (it provides the means of eliciting in-depth and relatively open data which can then be merged with that from others and used as the focus), this is difficult to simulate and so is excluded from the tasks. However, using strategy mapping for direct work with a group (the oval mapping technique (OMT)) cannot be undertaken effectively unless the interviews and mapping character are well understood hence it s inclusion (Ackermann, Eden & Brown, 2004). The cognitive maps captures, in a mostly hierarchical format, how a person explains why they see things in a particular way, and why situations (strategic issues) might matter for the strategic future of the organisation (eliciting goals, objectives, values). (Ackermann, Eden & Brown, 2004). The key issue with both forms of the group mapping (computer based or OMT) is to surface the issues, and subsequently create a structure by reviewing, structuring and clustering the material as it emerges from the participants. This may present practical difficulties on the day, particularly if the numbers of participants taking part are relatively large and very large numbers of contributions are generated. Time outside of the workshop may be needed to complete the map (along with help from participants if available). But the fact that running a successful workshop task is a challenge is by no means the whole story. The advantages of group mapping over brainstorming are considerable, because participants are able to crystallise useful outcomes as the workshop sessions progress. As group mapping is goal-
oriented to a degree that brainstorming is not it provides a powerful means of starting the strategymaking process. (Ackermann, Eden & Brown, 2004). As with cognitive mapping, beginning to understand how the different issues relate to one another will provide not only a means of managing the complexity and increasing a shared understanding, but will also trigger new thinking as different understandings are surfaced.
Advantages, disadvantages, problems and issues with the SODA methodology Application of SODA/Cognitive Mapping to both strategy formulation and organisational problem solving Range of applicability of SODA/Cognitive Mapping Group mapping can be seen as similar to brainstorming and seeks to surface contributions from all those attending. However, group mapping used ofr strategy making has a number of important differences from brainstorming. To begin with the focus is on surfacing strategic issues and concerns usually those activities or events that are potentially attacking or supporting organisational aspirations rather than on creativity as an aim in its own right. The aim is to surface current wisdom and experie nce rather than off-the-wall ideas. Starting with issues enables managers to put on the table all the events, activities and concerns that they expect will demand their attention and time and will have an impact on the strategic future of the organisation. This not only gets at what is driving the organisation- as these issues are the focus of managerial attention but also allows managers to experience some relief as they bring them out into the open and can begin to explore and understand them. Until these issues are openly presented and discussed, attention on the rest of the strategy-making processes will be clouded by their continual presence, as managers seek to find ways of making coherent links between their day-to-day concerns and the future. Realistic strategy making thus starts with issue surfacing. Group mapping encompasses the surfacing of assumptions, concerns, facts, assertions and constraints along with their relationships. This enables the material to be structured by reflecting causality. Structuring gives the meaning of each statement by setting it within a context: why it matters (consequences), and what needs to be done to change it (explanations). Instead of interpreting the statement by reference to a dictionary, meaning is determined by action and purpose. Encouraging participants to avoid arguing over the precision of the words and concentrating on the action context of a statement helps with the development of a shared understanding. It provides some clarity in terms of answering the so what? question. The process of detecting how issues impact upon one another is found by most managers to be an activity that they can relate to easily this is because we all can use causality in order to make sense of our world. Group mapping thus aims to release deep knowledge and wisdom to get beyond the apparently similar descriptions of situations and into the subtle, but important, differences of what has to be done and why. The process raises alternative formulations and therefore opens up new options. The strategic issues an organisation may face might encompass members concern about possible threats to the organisations as well as the realisation of potential opportunities. Regardless of which complexion they tale, these issues are the focus of the group members attention and therefore the appropriate place to start. The discovery of these issues involved learning to use sophisticated communications and analysis techniques (mapping) and required the deployment of leadership skills by
the consultant/facilitator responsible. The overall emphasis therefore has been on enabling issues to emerge with the intention of building a strategic future based on these realities rather than some abstraction of the future. Grounding the strategic future in the context of the issues facing managers not only will ensure that organisational members are able to determine how the strategic intent supports the concerns they are currently wrestling with, but will also ensure a more robust strategic future. (Ackermann, Eden & Brown, 2004).
References st
Kim, DH 2000 µA Simulation Method of Cognitive Maps¶, 1 International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management , School of Public Affairs, Chung-Ang University, Korea, pp. pp. 294-299 Pallant,
A,
Timmer,
P
&
McRae,
S
µCognitive
Mapping
as
a
Tool
for
Requirements
Capture¶
Westcombe, M 2002, Problem Structuring: The Process of SODA Modelling, ACM Hypertext2002 Conference, University of Maryland, MD, USA, pp. 1-5
Pidd, M 1996, Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science, John Wiley & Sons, Chicester. Downs, RM & Stea, D 1973, Cognitive Maps and Spatial Behaviour , Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago. Banxia Software 2010, Cognitive Mapping: Getting Started with Cognitive Mapping , Banxia Software, viewed 21 March 2010, < http://www.banxia.com/dexplore/how-to-make-cognitive-maps.html http://www.banxia.com/dexplore/how-to-make-cognitive-maps.html> > School of Computing & Information System 2010, KXI 222 Business and Information Analysis: Lecture 7 Univer sity of Tasmania, Hobart. SODA & Cognitive Mapping, Lecture Notes, University Eden, C 1990, Using Cognitive Mapping for Strategic Options Development Development and Analysis, in J.Rosenhead (Ed), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World, Wiley, Chichester.
Executive
Report on SODA/Cognitive Mapping Methodology for Strategy Formulation and Organisational Problem Solving Cognitive mapping is a technique designed to capture the persons values and embedded wisdom in a diagrammatic format. Based on a well-established body of psychology theory, it is designed to capture the rich thinking about strategic issues their causes and consequences of each key person within an organisation. It seeks to map out how each person makes sense of their organisational world. With cognitive mapping, statements are not only captured but are linked together using arrows that represent a cause and effect relationship (Ackermann, Eden & Brown, 2004). Techniques for eliciting and representing cognitive structure are based upon the assumption that similarity data describing the relationships between a set of stimuli provides an index of the organisation of these concepts in human memory (e.g. Fillenbaum and Rapoport, 1971). The validity of the representations generated by these techniques or cognitive maps is however, compromised by several methodological limitations. These limitations must be overcome if cognitive mapping techniques
are to provide a useful tool for informing design. The methodological problems associated with the application of cognitive mapping techniques, together with the steps adopted in the present study to resolve them are outlined below: y
Stimulus selection previous research has generally failed to provide explicit a priori criteria for the selection of a comprehensive and repre sentative stimulus set.
y
Contextual effects since similarity judgements are likely to be sensitive to contextual variables, different cognitive maps may be elicited in different situations.
y
Choice of representational model different statistical models for representing similarity data are based upon different assumptions, tend to reveal different aspects of cognitive structure, and may have Procrustean properties which may impose inappropriate structure upon similarity data (Fillenbaum and Rapoport, 1971).
y
Interpretation although elicitation techniques are associated with formal analytic tools which generate visual representations of similarity data, the process of interpreting cognitive maps remains largely subjective.
y
Adam Pallant, Peter Trimmer and Scoot McRae
