In a recent post to his excellent blog, Kailash Awati writes (and I quote at length)
As regular readers of this blog will know, I am a fan of dialogue mapping, a conversation mapping technique pioneered by Jeff Conklin. Those unfamiliar with the technique will find a super-quick introduction here. Dialogue mapping uses a visual notation called issue based information system (IBIS) which I have described in detail in this post. IBIS was invented by Horst Rittel as a means to capture and clarify facets of wicked problems – problems that are hard to define, let alone solve. However, as I discuss in the paper, the technique also has utility in the much more mundane day-to-day business of managing projects.
In essence, IBIS provides a means to capture questions, responses to questions and arguments for and against those responses. This, coupled with the fact that it is easy to use, makes it eminently suited to capturing conversations in which issues are debated and resolved. Dialogue mapping is therefore a great way to surface options, debate them and reach a “best for group” decision in real-time. The technique thus has many applications in organizational settings. I have used it regularly in project meetings, particularly those in which critical decisions regarding design or approach are being discussed.
Early last year I used the technique to kick-start a data warehousing initiative within the organisation I work for. In the paper I use this experience as a case-study to illustrate some key aspects and features of dialogue mapping that make it useful in project discussions. For completeness I also discuss why other visual notations for decision and design rationale don’t work as well as IBIS for capturing conversations in real-time. However, the main rationale for the paper is to provide a short, self-contained introduction to the technique via a realistic case-study.
Most project managers would have had to confront questions such as “what approach should we take to solve this problem?” in situations where there is not enough information to make a sound decision. In such situations, the only recourse one has is to dialogue – to talk it over with the team, and thereby reach a shared understanding of the options available. More often than not, a consensus decision emerges from such dialogue. Such a decision would be based on the collective knowledge of the team, not just that of an individual. Dialogue mapping provides a means to get to such a collective decision.