6.7.3 Validation Of Concept Maps
Each map produced must be validated. It is preferable that validation be conducted within the subgroup because the validation process will draw even further on the assumptions of individuals and their particular perspectives of the problem. It is wise not to make these assumptions public if a likely consequence is embarrassment to the individual. If a nominal group process is used to support the subgroups then concepts from subgroup maps are progressively incorporated into the nominal group map. In this case, the subgroup workshops are used as vehicles to generate ideas, even though a product of such activities is a separate subgroup map. Validation of the nominal group map is critical activity. To enable validation to proceed, questions will need to be posed to each of the subgroups to seek clarification of how they saw the relevant concepts to be linked. On completion of the nominal group map, validation of this map, in turn, will be needed to ensure that it faithfully represents the views of the members of the nominal group. This validated map then forms a set of hypotheses, which form the basis for further investigation. Only then can the map be analysed in detail3.
The validation process involves pair-wise consideration of causality, as shown in Table 6-1. This template can also be used for validating causal linkages in any type of casual directed graph, including casual loop diagrams and influence diagrams.
Table 6-1 Template for Validating Causal Linkages
Focal Concept | Direction and Type of Link | Linked Concept | Polarity of Link | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
generating positive staff attitude (motivation) | ← (causal - influence on focal concept) | having to work unpredictable and often long hours | - ve | Drivers are concerned that when rush orders arise they are the last to go home. They always have to deliver today. They often miss lunch and afternoon tea breaks as a result. They are tired of the unpredictability. |
generating positive staff attitude (motivation) | ← | continuing poor communicatio ns | - ve | Drivers are concerned that they are always the last to be told of rush orders because they are often on the road when the orders come in. Further, because they are frequently away from the plant there are many things that they are simply not told about. |
generating positive staff attitude (motivation) | → (causal - influence by focal concept) | reliably responding to variations in orders | + ve | Everybody feels the same, if they were better motivated and felt happier about their treatment by ThreeTwoOne, they would be more inclined to ‘pitch in’ when it gets busy. |
generating positive staff attitude (motivation) | ← | (creating) threat of union split | - ve | Continual talk of a change in union allegiances is worrying. |
In this example, focus is brought to bear on the concept generating positive staff attitude (motivation) in Figure 6-4, which is clearly a node (concept) both with influence upon and which, in turn, is influenced by several other nodes (concepts). Each of the concept maps is validated by using the template shown at Table 6-1. This can be a tedious task but is an essential one. The first step is to ensure each concept is written as a call for action. If an abbreviated statement has been used in the concept map, it is necessary to fully re-state the concept as a call for action. For example, threat of union split in the fifth row should be restated as (creating) threat of union split. It is essential to make this type of change to obviate ambiguity and confusion in subsequent interpretation.
The next step is to validate the causal direction and type. Most frequently this activity reveals links where the direction of causality has been incorrectly interpreted. Less frequently this activity reveals where the type of causality is incorrectly recorded. In every case, the explanation in the ‘Comment’ column is most useful for recording the rationale used for determining, for example, the direction of causality to be shown in the final version of the map. These ‘Comments’ will also be valuable later, after strategy implementation, to gauge what has changed and how effective the management intervention has been, that is, the ‘Comments’ can be used as a checklist of things that should have been corrected by implementation of the chosen strategy.
Footnotes
- [3] Techniques for development and analysis of cause maps are also addressed by Eden et al., 1992. The use of causal mapping as a precursor to system dynamics modelling is also explained by Eden, 1994. See Eden and Ackermann (1998b) for details of analysing and comparing cause maps. back