Challenge

I was assigned to a working group that represented a three main functions within the Company.   The company was struggling with how to address the issues created by new technologies that  spanned those functions.  Representatives were subject matter experts in their functions, but  collectively the working group could not move forward because there was no consensus on the  problems that had to be solved.  Working group meetings devolved into unguided discussions,  and there was not any progress.  The prompt for my work came from one of the senior  executives who chartered the working group by asking how all of the functions worked together.   Since I represented the senior executive in the working group, the task came to me.

Selection

The challenges that I had were many.  First, I was only an expert in one of the functions and  knew far less about the other fields.  To be successful, it was important to work with the other  experts to gain their inputs and create consensus.  Second, I could not ask the senior executive to  read a lengthy report, or even an executive summary of one, due to restrictions on his time.

I selected the tool of visualization, similar to the idea of journey mapping presented in the video,  “Good Kitchen Story.”  To be a success, the visualization would have to be generalized (i.e., no  specific examples) but detailed enough across the functions to create understanding.

Application

Using the representatives’ statements gained from one-on-one and group conversations, I created  a visualization that showed the functions and the challenges at the boundaries between functions  and inside of the functions.  The first several drafts were wrong, of course, but I continued to  iterate until there was general agreement that the overall system was correctly depicted.  Overall,  the visualization was an effective technique in meeting my executive’s information requirements,  but it turned out to also be an effective technique generating consensus within the working  group.

Insights

I learned several things by using this approach.  The first was that changing the overall system  required some level of empathy and trust with the subject matter experts.  Rather than relying on  my go-to technique of examining documentation, I had to create an overall picture of the system  using the subject matter experts’ verbal and written descriptions.

Second, this approach itself also posed a problem; while these individuals were doubtlessly  experts in their own fields, they also didn’t hesitate to attribute problems to other functions  which I could not accept unconditionally.  Rather than dismiss these statements, I attempted to  confirm or deny them with the functional experts.  In cases where the statements were denied, I  highlighted the dissonance for the group so that the experts could discuss the issue and gain  consensus.  In almost all of the cases, the problems that were attributed by others were caused by  simple misunderstandings of each other.

Third, this approach actually helped achieve working group consensus on the problems that we  were facing, which was not my original goal.  My executive appreciated the visualization and it  created the understanding that he needed.  However, the process of creating the visualization and  presenting the final product to the working group created consensus and mutual understanding!

Instead of politely listening to each other before asserting our own problems, we could now see  each other’s problems and how those problems were interrelated.

Approach

The visualization approach worked well in this situation by helping to form a mutual  understanding of a very ambiguous problem.  While the main purpose was to demonstrate how  the three functions were interrelated, visualization also helped us draw boundaries around the  overall system which helped keep the group focused.  Additionally, the level of abstraction was  effective in identifying the major problems without getting bogged down in the details of each  individual function.

I have continued to use these types of visualizations, mostly in situations where there is some  ambiguity about system definitions or processes.  In my current job as a data scientist, I  occasionally have to work with customers whose processes are not well-defined.  In order to  work with them effectively, visualizations are critical to achieving mutual understanding.

This approach could be less effective in other situations.  In systems or processes that are already  well understood by all stakeholders, there’s no need to use resources to create a visualization.   The level of abstraction used in this case may also be ineffective elsewhere.  A rule of thumb that  I try to use (from the system modeling world) is to use a level of abstraction that can describe the  phenomenon of interest and not lower.


Challenge I was assigned to a working group that represented a three main functions within the Company . The company was struggling with how to address the issues created by new technologies that spanned those functions . Representatives were subject matter experts in their functions , but collectively the working group could not move forward because there was no consensus on the problems that had to be solved . Working group meetings devolved into unguided discussions , and there was not any progress . The prompt for my work came from one of the senior executives who chartered the working group by asking how all of the functions worked together . Since I represented the senior executive in the working group , the task came to me . Selection The challenges that I had were many . First , I was only an expert in one of the functions and knew far less about the other fields . To be successful , it was important to work with the other experts to gain their inputs and create consensus . Second , I could not ask the senior executive to read a lengthy report , or even an executive summary of one , due to restrictions on his time . I selected the tool of visualization , similar to the idea of journey mapping presented in the video , “ Good Kitchen Story . ” To be a success , the visualization would have to be generalized ( i.e. , no specific examples ) but detailed enough across the functions to create understanding . Application Using the representatives ’ statements gained from one - on - one and group conversations , I created a visualization that showed the functions and the challenges at the boundaries between functions and inside of the functions . The first several drafts were wrong , of course , but I continued to iterate until there was general agreement that the overall system was correctly depicted . Overall , the visualization was an effective technique in meeting my executive ’s information requirements , but it turned out to also be an effective technique generating consensus within the working group . Insights I learned several things by using this approach . The first was that changing the overall system required some level of empathy and trust with the subject matter experts . Rather than relying on my go - to technique of examining documentation , I had to create an overall picture of the system using the subject matter experts ’ verbal and written descriptions . Second , this approach itself also posed a problem ; while these individuals were doubtlessly experts in their own fields , they also did n’t hesitate to attribute problems to other functions which I could not accept unconditionally . Rather than dismiss these statements , I attempted to confirm or deny them with the functional experts . In cases where the statements were denied , I highlighted the dissonance for the group so that the experts could discuss the issue and gain consensus . In almost all of the cases , the problems that were attributed by others were caused by simple misunderstandings of each other . Third , this approach actually helped achieve working group consensus on the problems that we were facing , which was not my original goal . My executive appreciated the visualization and it created the understanding that he needed . However , the process of creating the visualization and presenting the final product to the working group created consensus and mutual understanding ! Instead of politely listening to each other before asserting our own problems , we could now see each other ’s problems and how those problems were interrelated . Approach The visualization approach worked well in this situation by helping to form a mutual understanding of a very ambiguous problem . While the main purpose was to demonstrate how the three functions were interrelated , visualization also helped us draw boundaries around the overall system which helped keep the group focused . Additionally , the level of abstraction was effective in identifying the major problems without getting bogged down in the details of each individual function . I have continued to use these types of visualizations , mostly in situations where there is some ambiguity about system definitions or processes . In my current job as a data scientist , I occasionally have to work with customers whose processes are not well - defined . In order to work with them effectively , visualizations are critical to achieving mutual understanding . This approach could be less effective in other situations . In systems or processes that are already well understood by all stakeholders , there ’s no need to use resources to create a visualization . The level of abstraction used in this case may also be ineffective elsewhere . A rule of thumb that I try to use ( from the system modeling world ) is to use a level of abstraction that can describe the phenomenon of interest and not lower .