Advertisement

Picturing Problems

  • Mike Metcalfe
Conference paper

Abstract

This paper is about designing collaborative problem-picturing; the act of drawing pictures to aid thinking. The author’s concern is that a picturing process needs to be designed to ensure a problem domain, such as a system development, is well analysed and well synthesised. Specifically this paper will argue that problem picturing can be improved by explicitly incorporating Dewey’s (1910) concept of synthesis. The evidence provided to support this argument includes a summary of the problem picturing literature and a summation of the systems thinking literature on problem solving. The two are then draw together in an example of a picturing process that learns from these two literatures.

Keywords

Wicked Problem Soft System Methodology Conceptual Frame Rich Picture Collaborative Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Argyris C., 1996, Actionable Knowledge, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol 32 (4), 390–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyris, C. and Schon, D. A., 1996, Organisational Learning II, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  3. Bronte-Stewart, M, 1999, Regarding Rich Pictures as Tools for Communication in Information Systems Development, Computing and Information Systems,Vol 6, 83–102Google Scholar
  4. Checkland, P., 2000, Soft Systems Methodology: A Thirty Year Retrospective, Systems Research and Behavioural Science, Vol 17 Number 1, S11 - S58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Churchman, C. W., 1979, Systems Thinking and Its Enemies, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  6. Churchman, C. W., 1971, The Design of Inquiring Systems, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Crosswhite, J., 1996, The Rhetoric of Reason,University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dewey J., 1910, How We Think, Lexington Mass: DC Heath.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. East, C., 2002, Structuring Rich Picturing: A Case Study, IFIP 8.6, Sydney, August.Google Scholar
  10. Eden, C. and Ackermann, F., 1998, The Journey of Strategic Change, Chichester: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Gelder, van T., 2002, Argument Mapping, http://www.austhink.org/
  12. Guindon, R., 1990, Designing the Design Process, Human Computer Interaction, Vol 5, 305–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haynes, J., 2000, Perspectival Thinking, NZ: Oneldea Company.Google Scholar
  14. Hughes, J., 1998, Selection and Evaluation of IS, IEE Proceedings Software, Vol 145 (4), 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kogut, B., 1998, The Network as Knowledge, University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School Working Paper.Google Scholar
  16. Kuhn, T. S., 1970, The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd Ed., University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lanzing, 1997, Conceptual Mapping, http://users.edte.utwente.nl/lanzing/cm_home.htm also see Analytic Technology, 2002, Socio-mctric networks http://analytictech.com/
  18. Linstone, H. A., 1999, Decision Making for Technology Executives: Using Multiple Perspectives, Artech House Publishing: Boston.Google Scholar
  19. List, D., 2001, The Consensus Group Method, Working paper: University of South Australia, 2001.Google Scholar
  20. McFadzean E., 1988, Developing and Supporting Creative Problem Solving Teams, Management Decision, Vol 40 (5), 463–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mason, R. O. and Mitroff, I. I., 1981, Challenging Strategic Planning Assumption, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  22. Mason, R. O., 1969, A Dialectical Approach to Strategic Planning, Management Science, Vol 15, B403 - B414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Metcalfe, M., 2002, The Argumentative Systems For IS Design, IT and People Vol 15 (1), 60–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Monk, A. and Howard, S., 1998, The Rich Picture: A tool for reasoning about work context, Interactions, March/April.Google Scholar
  25. Morgan, G., 1986, Images of Organisations, Calif.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Nielsen, R. P., 1996, Varieties of Dialectic Change Processes, Journal of Management Enquiry, vol 5, issue 3.Google Scholar
  27. Nossiter, V. and Biberm’n, G., 1988, Projective Drawings and Metaphor, Journal of Managerial Psychology Vol 5 (3), 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Phillips, D. C., 1969, Systems Theory, a Discredited Philosophy, 5th Canberra Seminar on Administrative Studies, ANU May.Google Scholar
  29. Popper, K., 1963, Conjectures and Refutations, London: Paul Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Questmap, 2002, http://www.touchstone.com/tr/wp/IBIS.html
  31. Sowell, T., 1985, Marxism, London: Unwin.Google Scholar
  32. Ulrich, W., 1983, Critical Heuristics of Social Planning, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Williams, M. C., 2002, Application of Soft Systems To Reveal Management Problems in a Computing Company, Journal of Applied Systems Studies. (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  34. Weber, S., 1986, Systems To Think With, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol II (4), 85–97.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mike Metcalfe
    • 1
  1. 1.University of South AustraliaAustralia

Personalised recommendations