Having problems with message search?
When making an intellectual case for the benefits of Dialog Mapping
with Compendium, it seems easy to get people agreeing with this as a
good idea to address difficulties that often occur in meetings.
However, when I then speak about their specific meetings and Dialog
Mapping with Compendium, I generally get responses such as "this sounds
like it would make our meetings longer," or "trying something new like
this seems like it might be a good idea, but we are on such a tight
timeline I don't want to introduce anything else now."
Does anyone have experiences or know of stories where these types of
objections have been dealt with?
Here is the response I posted there:
Hi John,
I've found these objections to be a chronic problem with almost any kind of process improvement. I've gotten the two responses you mentioned many times over the years. Each of one points to a different kind of challenge in engaging a new client in the dialogue mapping process.
"This sounds like it would make our meetings longer", or "... our discussions go slower." Very common concern. In my experience this is the easier one to deal with. This concern boils down to a tension between quantity (of points made) versus quality (of dialogue). The clients who are willing to invest in using the dialogue mapping process understand that sometimes you have to "go slow to go fast". They understand that there's a false efficiency in having a shorter, faster meeting discussion where everyone gets to state their point of view -- but there's no capture and no real listening. Inevitably, such meetings need to be repeated ("rehearsed") several times for the group to cope with the inherent lack of careful communication and group memory that goes with an unmapped dialogue. Especially if the problem is "wicked" -- complex, ill-structured, and with strongly held points of view by opposing camps. My approach to these clients is to say, "Yes, the discussion feels like it's moving more slowly with dialogue mapping, because we are taking the time to really hear and capture the participants' contributions. You have to decide if you think your meeting (or project) can achieve its objectives if you hold the necessary discussions in the traditional unmapped mode." At the end of the day, the clients who choose to use dialogue mapping know that they can't afford to have meetings that just cycle endlessly without producing a result.
"We are on such a tight timeline I don't want to introduce anything else now." I'd probably agree with this client's assessment -- if that's the mood in their project, this would not be a great time to introduce dialogue mapping, or any other tools to enhance sense making and shared understanding. But operating in a state of crisis can become an addiction. In many projects the team is chronically too busy cutting down trees to sharpen the saws. It takes sophistication and experience for leadership to see the need for process improvements, and to be willing to invest in them when circumstances allow. I don't have to deal with this concern too often because groups in this situation don't even approach me. The unstated assumption in the background of this concern is, "We have to stick to our schedule, even if it means the project fails."
In both of these cases, it is very powerful to educate the client about the "physics" of fragmentation that comes with wicked problems and social complexity (see my paper on wicked problems, or the first chapter of my book). Not all problems are wicked ... but most confronting organizations these days are. I draw that "jagged line diagram" for them and point out that the linear approaches they are used to using don't work, and don't match the reality of human cognition. And once clients understand that they are dealing with an inherently ill-structured problem, they understand that they need to incorporate more resilient tools for sense making and shared understanding, like dialogue mapping, into their collaboration process.
This is a great question. I'm interested to hear how others have addressed these concerns as well.
Jeff
At 10:55 AM 2/12/2006, you wrote:
When making an intellectual case for the benefits of Dialog Mapping
with Compendium, it seems easy to get people agreeing with this as a
good idea to address difficulties that often occur in meetings.
However, when I then speak about their specific meetings and Dialog
Mapping with Compendium, I generally get responses such as "this sounds
like it would make our meetings longer," or "trying something new like
this seems like it might be a good idea, but we are on such a tight
timeline I don't want to introduce anything else now."
Does anyone have experiences or know of stories where these types of
objections have been dealt with?
Thanks,
John Barrett
SPONSORED LINKS
Computer internet security Computer internet business Computer internet access
Computer internet privacy securities Computer internet help Computer internet connection
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group " compendiuminstitute" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
- compendiuminstitute-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
CogNexus Institute ... Collaborative Display, Collective Intelligence
http://cognexus.org
1037 Juarez St., Napa, CA 94559 USA
Offline 
Send Email