Decision Making / 2 / 2.2 / 2.2.2

2.2.2 Concept Mapping Of Factors Contributing To The Accident

The concept mapping technique was introduced at Chapter 1. Mapping techniques have been developed by systems thinkers to map causality and interrelationships. These techniques are not new. They have been used in various forms for decades. The utility of mapping as an analytical tool is demonstrated as is the scope for mapping as part of problem-solving approach.

The main technique used here is concept mapping. An important benefit of concept mapping is that factors relevant to a particular viewpoint can be graphically depicted on a single piece of paper. This helps us cut through the sheer volume of detail contained in reports such as those which present the findings of boards of inquiry, coronial inquests and royal commissions. It helps put many factors and interrelationships into context. It also allows us to quickly see where boundaries are already set or might be set.

Concept mapping concentrates information. Concept mapping makes it both possible and practical to extract relevant concepts and causal relationships from various parts of the 17 volumes of the Black Hawk helicopter crash Board of Inquiry Report, and depict them in a few pages. Concept maps are invaluable also as aids to detecting logical errors in arguments, and omissions. It was considered most appropriate to analyse the key findings of the Black Hawk helicopter crash Board of Inquiry by mapping concepts. That is demonstrated below.

These maps will be referred to as concept maps rather than cause maps, influence diagrams, causal-loop diagrams, or directed graphs that are found in the literature. Indeed, the term concept map is both appropriate and correct. There are differences between these maps, diagrams and graphs. This is further explained in Chapter 6.

At this point, it is necessary to take a slight procedural diversion to explain some differences. Mapping is used to bring various concepts into view, and to understand their interrelationships. When dealing with hard physical problems we seek to define relationships between parameters using algebraic expressions. In concept mapping we are dealing neither with parameters nor relationships, which are easily expressed in algebraic terms. Jacobsen and Bronson (1987) make the following observation about this:

‘In their guidelines for causal-loop diagramming, Richardson and Pugh (1981: 28) recommend that one "think of variables in causal-loop diagrams as quantities that can rise or fall, grow or decline, or be up or down. But do not worry if you can not readily think of existing measures for them." This is misusing the term variable. A quantity without measurable units is not a variable; it is a concept or a nominal definition of a concept (Jacobsen and Bronson, 1987: 4).’