Example Reflection – Visualization

Challenge & Selection    Visualization is one of the tools that I use the most in the different improvement projects  in which I have participated as a public policy consultant.  Both in team meetings and in follow-up presentations with the client, we usually use  different visual resources to illustrate, describe, simplify, synthesize and, especially,  capture the most important elements within complex problems.  In particular, I would like to highlight 3 visualization techniques that have been especially  valuable for me to define key problems, the scope and limitations of the project to be  developed, as well as the delimitation of relevant actors and their interests. These are  the problem tree, the objectives tree and the actor’s map.    Application     A problem tree is a technique that consists of establishing a model that seeks to explain  the causes and consequences of a given problem. When it is my turn to lead meetings  in this initial exploratory stage of the project, I begin by writing on the whiteboard a set  of preliminary statements about the various possible problems facing our client that  prompted our engagement. However, I do not unveil them until the end of the meeting.  In fact, I first suggest to each member of the multidisciplinary team to come up with  new hypotheses based on a series of triggers. This process is repeated as many times as  necessary until the ideas contributed saturate the content obtained.   From here, the aim is to put these statements in order and structure them in a cause- and-effect relationship, so as to determine the central problem to be tackled.  Similar to  a tree, the main problem represents the trunk, the roots are the causes, and the  branches are the effects, reflecting an interrelation between the whole. Thus, the  possible central problem is placed in the centre and the direct and indirect causes are  derived towards the roots whereas the direct and indirect effects and the final effect  are derived towards the branches.   This allows us to clearly establish a relationship of causality and assessment that helps  to consolidate one of the main turning points for the success of any improvement  project: the correct definition of the problem.   The objectives tree is the positive counterpart of the problem tree. In effect, it is a  matter of converting each of the problem ideas that were grouped as causes, central  problem or effects into affirmative sentences. (the "to be").  For example, if the central  problem which we had identified is "Education department officials have not been  adequately trained in the use of a new data processing system", we replace it by the  following sentence: "Education department officials have been adequately trained in  the use of a new data processing system". In this way, the latter becomes our central  objective.   The same is done with the different ideas in the problem tree and, depending on their  location, direct and indirect causes are transformed into goals and effects into results.   The final step in this process is to decide what activities will be proposed to achieve the  central objective of the project. For this purpose, the results obtained from the objective  tree are taken as a reference.

At this point, team meetings are set up, as well as meetings with the client and the  different alternatives for action are presented. In this type of meeting, the aim is to  identify possible barriers and impediments that may not have been considered and that  may hinder the implementation of a particular solution.     Insight & Approach    What I have learned from my experience with the use of this type of visualisation  technique is that it allows the establishment of references and guidelines that help to  clarify the underlying problem, prioritise and measure the impact of each of the conflicts  identified and specify the guidelines for action. This graphic resource, which can be  condensed into a single diagram, allows us to visualise the challenge as a whole,  facilitating multiple instances of feedback, while ensuring that both the team and the  client are talking about the same thing.   Likewise, the integral vision provided by this technique allows us to delve into other  aspects of the project, such as the analysis of stakeholders linked to each of the  problems identified, as well as the identification of who will be the officials or people in  charge of acting as catalysts and managers of the proposed changes.  In the future, I intend to better integrate other tools that contribute to the generation  of innovative ideas based on design thinking, especially when it comes to projects where  we have the possibility to iterate and test small-scale but real-world models of action.

