Visualization and Knowledge Creation: An Analysis of Graphic Methods For The Generation of Insights

UNIVERSITÀ DELLA SVIZZERA ITALIANA
FACOLTÀ DI SCIENZE DELLA

COMUNICAZIONE
LUGANO
Visualization and Knowledge Creation:
AN ANALYSIS OF GRAPHIC METHODS
FOR THE GENERATION OF INSIGHTS
Elaborato Finale
di
Amna Bojic
04-984-472
Relatore: prof. Martin Eppler

A.a 2007/08
Settembre 2008
Table of Contents
Abstract
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Great potentialities of creativity and creativity methods' use in teams and
organizations ……………………………………………………………… p. 06
1.2 Brief clarification of methodology and of the visualizations' selection criterias

chosen ……………………………………………………………………… p. 08
2. ANALYSIS OF SEVEN RELEVANT CREATIVITY METHODS : an introduction

to their visualization's characteristics and properties
2.1 Mind Mapping ………………………………………………………………p. 10
Description and analysis of the visualization's properties through the application of

the dimensions of the „collaborative dimensions framework“
2.2 Idea Mapping………………………………………………………...……..p. 21

2.3 Morphological Box………………………………………………………… p. 27

2.4 Dynamic Facilitation……………………………………………………… p. 34

2.5 Storyboarding……………………………………………………………….. p. 41

-2-
2.6 Hexagon Modelling ……………………………………………………..... p. 49

2.7 Lotus Blossom Technique………………………………………………… p. 60

3. CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………………………….p. 65
4. REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………. p. 72
-3-
Abstract
The main goal of this paper is to discuss and analyze the role that visualizations play in the
generation of new knowledge/ideas/solutions in the specific context of collaborative team work in
organizations, where creativity methods can be successfully used in the process of decision-making,
in the generation of new insights and sharing of knowledge. To do so, some specific creativity
methods used in groups will be chosen among the most commonly used techniques, in order to
analyze their properties and characteristics and try to understand potential general mechanisms that
lead to the generation of new insights.
First of all, the concept of creativity and the state-of-the-art of the emergent “creativity domain” will
be explained and reviewed in the introductory section of this paper, by focusing on the great
importance of creativity and learning in today‟s organizations. The methodology used to select the
creativity techniques considered, will be briefly clarified later on. In fact, the selected creativity
methods share the following common characteristics: they are graphic representations, they are used
collaboratively in groups, they are useful to generate new insights, they are already widely used in
different organization contexts and present all an own “rule-based” graphic structure/procedure.
Further, for each chosen visual representation, two sections are scheduled: an introduction to the
history, to the general characteristics and an explanation of the usual ways of use of the technique
itself, will be followed by a deeper description and analysis of the visualizations' properties, by relying
on and applying the seven dimensions outlined in the “collaborative dimensions framework”: visual
impact, clarity, perceived finishedness, directed focus, facilitating insight, modifiability and discourse
management. According to these dimensions, one/two different diagrams for each of the seven
selected creativity techniques - represented with different media - will be rated with support of the
“dimensions rating table” below. The detected results will be afterwards deepened.
It is on the basis of this analysis and on the insights risen from it that some of the most necessary
conditions for group knowledge creation will be finally discussed: in particular it will be outlined
knowledge sharing as one of the most important aspects needed for group knowledge creation.
Furthermore, the conclusive section will summarize for the reader the key basic aspects of each
creativity technique previously considered and it will discuss the relevance that team facilitation plays
for knowledge creation.
-4-
D I M EN SI O N S R AT I N G T ABLE
-5-
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Great potentialities of creativity and creativity methods' use in teams and
organizations
We are living in a global society grounded on an information and knowledge based economy and
characterized by unprecedent complex accelerating changes, increasing technological and scientific
discoveries, upgrowing competition and extreme instability of market and economic conditions (see
Idon 2000; Higgins 2006). These all requires from individuals, groups and organizations to learn
faster than the rate of change, in order to be able to adapt and respond creatively to every-day
emerging problems and rapidly evolving circumstances (Idon, 2000). We are facing today what has
been called an individual and collective “learning challenge”, the continuous need to develop further
and further our capacities and learning to master changeable environmental conditions (Idon 2000:
1).
Considering that we are living in an age of 'information explosion', our analytical methods of
thinking are no longer sufficient to take important decisions or solve critical problems1: thus, in
order to manage complex issues getting successful outcomes, it is required more than ever a deeper
level of thinking, a shift to creative and generative thinking, working both from individual perception
and shared understanding (see Idon, 1996: 9).
As outlined by Higgins (2006: 4) creativity is “the process of generating something new, something
original that has value to an individual, a group, an organization, an industry or a society”; it
represents the first necessary step to achieve innovation, which actually results from creativity. Most
creativity acts occur today in collaborative contexts2: in fact, individuals are able to find better
solutions to complex issues by collaborating together rather than trying to solve problems on their
own, since a combination/sharing of their individual knowledge and perspectives is most likely to
result in a much more deeper outcome than the simple sum of their individual contributions (see
Sonnenburg, 2007). With regards to it, as already well-known, knowledge is a key corporate asset
which is distributed and diffused in the organization among different people belonging to different
organizational functions or divisions; therefore, facilitating collaborative team work with the support
1 ''Not too many years ago, problem solving was defined largely as a rational effort (...) But in recent years we have come to realize that
a strictly rational approach misses the whole point of problem solving.'' (Higgins, 2006: 23)
2 This is the main reason why this paper is focusing entirely on the great potentialities of the use of creativity methods in groups.
-6-
of diagrams as tools for knowledge sharing between people from different areas of expertise, as well
as for creativity, is today a crucial issue in management contexts (see Bresciani, Blackwell and Eppler,
2008; Bresciani and Eppler, 2007).
Anyway it is to be remarked, as Sonnenburg (2007) itself did, that if we think back over the until
now developed creativity research, “collaborative creativity (...) has not been the focus for decades3”
and many well-founded research contributions have restricted themselves to the description of the
various creativity methods, while are still missing exaustive analysis of how collaborative creativity
can be exactly defined/conceptualized (Sonnenburg, 2007: 150). A definition attempt has been
recently provided by Sonnenburg (2007: 150), who did justice to the multidisciplinarity of creativity:
“Collaborative creativity is the potential for appropriate novelty, which emerges in performances”.
Creative generative thinking methods used to foster group creativity allow people to represent
visually their thoughts: just capturing ideas can give a new sense of clarity, because once they are
represented and retained visually in front of us, we are able to free our mind of our original content
of thinking to fully engage in thinking about the issue at hand (Idon 1996, 2000). Creativity
techniques facilitate group shared thinking to enable knowledge transfer and combination of
diverging individual perspectives; the exchange of ideas through dialogue stimulates in turn the
generation of spontaneous new insights and breakthroughs, as people tend to integrate their own
ideas, prior knowledge and thoughts with those emerged from others, allowing this way new ideas
and alternative understandings or associations to surface4. Nowadays learning and creativity are two
organizational key intrinsically linked activities which fuel one the other, interacting in circles: while
learning generates new knowledge to be used to sustain creativity5, creativity develops new
knowledge to be learnt. Continuous learning is today crucial for groups and organizations and can be
assisted by problem-solving and creative thinking techniques (see Idon 2000).
But why is creativity (and innovation) so much critical to any business? It is well-known that the
higher is the degree of differentiation of organization's products/services and the lower are its
relative costs in comparison to competitors, the more will that organization be competitive on the
market. Considering that competitiveness is the main goal of any company as it permits to increase
3 It is only from the 1990s that a more present theorization started tooking place (see Sonnenburg 2007).
4 Dewulf and Baille (1999) remarked as well, with regards to it, that in organizations continuous reoccurence of breakthroughs is
possible only when phases of knowledge sharing and new idea generating are constantly interacting with each other.
5 As remarked by Hong and Lin (2007), the so called ''Aha'' moments are necessarily based on prior knowledge which has been learnt
and internalized.
-7-
its profits by making it differentiated from any other competitor and thus unique in itself vis-a-vis
consumers, it is important to highlight the evidence that “insufficient innovation is generally
considered to be the primary cause of a lack of competitiveness in most product markets” (Higgins,
2006: 16). All that because in today's rapidly changing market conditions, product/service
differentiation and low-costs are achievable only with frequent product/service innovations and
process innovations (see Higgins 2006: 16). It results, therefore, that organization's competitiveness
is strictly linked with its capacity to innovate products and processes through an effective
employment of its human resources' creativity skills (see Higgins 2006: 7). Considering that
organizations are built on teams, departments, functions, whose members collaborate together to
achieve a common end, the benefits that group creativity methods may bring to the organizational
every day practices are easily understandable.
However, it is important to remark that creativity and innovation are not just about
products/services differentiation and/or technology improvements; creativity is needed in the every-
day business life to deal effectively and efficently with any issue, opportunity or problem that might
arise. Creativity methods can be employed, accordingly to Higgins (2006), in any phase of the
creative problem solving process: they can be integrated in environmental analysis, problems
recognition and identification, generation of alternative options, choice among alternatives, as well as
in the implementation of the choices made6.
1.2 Brief clarification of methodology and of the visualizations' selection criterias chosen
The methodology applied for the realization of this paper can be separated into the following steps:
1) a first general review of the existent creative problem-solving methods; 2) a selection - among more
than hundred different creativity methods - of seven relevant creativity techniques, with the purpose
to first review and discuss their properties according to the existent literature, and secondly analyze
them in terms of the dimensions outlined in the “collaborative dimensions framework” (Bresciani,
Blackwell and Eppler, 2008).
In particular, in the selection phase, it has been opted to choose among those visual methods that share
the following five common characteristics:
1. they are graphic visual representations
6 Numerous techniques are suitable for the generation of alternative solutions/options, while only a few are appropriate for the other
stages.
-8-
2. they are used collaboratively in groups,
3. they are useful to generate new insights and ideas (knowledge creation - creativity),
4. they are already widely used in different organizational contexts, and
5. they present all an own „rule-based“ graphic structure/procedure.
The seven hereinafter chosen creativity techniques, by satisfying all the selection criteria above, lend
themselves to be analyzed and rated according to the following collaborative dimensions: a) Visual
impact, b) Clarity, c) Perceived Finishedness, d) Directed Focus, e) Inference Support, f)
Modifiability and g) Discourse Management (Bresciani, Blackwell and Eppler, 2008) The adopted
framework has actually been developed with the objective to identify those key properties of any
visualization (dimensions or quality criterias) that need to be taken into account when determining
which visual methods best suite for specific collaborative group activities.
In other words, the framework is a tool that enables different types of visual representation to be
evaluated and described in terms of their properties7, keeping in mind that each dimension rating
“either facilitate or discourage certain kind of use” of the visualization considered. (Bresciani,
Blackwell and Eppler, 2008: 1). It is highligted, in fact, that no visualization is able to satisfy an
“absolute set of quality criteria”; each visual will rather have a specific combination of dimensions
ratings that will make it beneficial for some group tasks, while less suited for others. (Bresciani,
Blackwell and Eppler, 2008: 1) With regards to it, a future research challenge stands in matching
dimensions (properties) ratings with group collaborative activity types that could be best supported
by that visualization and its characteristics (see Bresciani, Blackwell and Eppler, 2008: 10).
In this paper the chosen creativity methods will be described and evaluated with the collaborative
dimensions framework, focusing particularly on understanding to which extent they support group
creativity and knowledge creation, before compairing the individual results obtained in the
conclusive section. But before going into this analysis phase, each method's properties will be first
introduced, its rules and procedures discussed, and the application areas outlined.
7 Namely Visual Impact, Clarity, Perceived Finishedness, Directed Focus, Inference Support, Modifiability and Discourse
Management.
-9-
2. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPERTIES OF SEVEN RELEVANT CREATIVITY
METHODS
2.1 Mind Mapping
The following section will provide an introduction to the famous Mind Mapping technique, by
discussing its main characteristics and relevant application domains, in order to come closer to its
peculiarities.
Mind Mapping, called the 'Swiss army knife for the brain', is a powerful graphic technique
developed by Tony Buzan, “based on the research findings showing that the brain works primarily in
an interrelated and integrated manner” (Higgins, 2006: 96). This means, as explained by Buzan
(2000), that each bit/item of information existent in our brain can be imagined as a 'central sphere'
from which can radiate thousands, millions of associations; each of the latter ones has in turn its
own infinite array of links and connections. Thus, ideas can be generated from and associated to a
central thought (central sphere), where each single association which has been made, can become
itself the central thought on which to generate new associations, and so on in a potentially infinite
chain. This is the logic of our brain's associative thinking process, which allows us to connect ideas
and items of information in an “integrated, radiating, organized manner”, to form mental
networks/maps of associations. (Buzan, 2000: 53) The considered visual method is actually a natural
reflection of how our brain is designed to work, it is “an [external] expression of 'radiant thinking'8
and is therefore a natural function of the human mind” (Buzan, 2000: 55). With regards to it, it is
essential not to forget that our brain is able to make an infinite number of associations; since Mind
Mapping itself is based on the logic of association9, it is considered to provide a “universal key to
unlocking the potential of the brain” (55).
Buzan's investigations and understanding of the way our brain works gave rise to his development of
Mind Mapping. He remarked, while lecturing on the psychology of learning and memory, that the
traditional linear notes he used as the basis of his lectures lack of association and emphasis, two of the
main elements that enhance recall. He also realized that linear notes in the form of lists oppose the
8 Radiant thinking, opposed to linear thinking, refers to associative thought processes and can be explained as the ''naturally and
virtually automatic way in which all human brains have always functioned''. (Buzan 2000: 54)
9 Association is a relevant element in improving creativity and memory, it is ''the integrating device our brain use to make sense of our
physical experience, the key to human memory and understanding''. (Buzan, 2000: 91)
- 10 -
natural working of the mind by preventing the brain from making associations, from organizing
effectively and clearly ideas and thoughts, and therefore counteracting creativity and memory10.
After Buzan got aware of the disadvantages of the linear system of note making or taking, he tried to
come up with new insights on how to change and improve his own lecture's notes. By asking himself
what in his notes could help him to associate and emphasize, he finally arrived at a first concept of Mind
Map in the late 1960s. His further subsequent research into the functioning of the brain confirmed
the original theories, and Mind Maps were finally born. (see Buzan, 2000: 36-37; 78)
Image 1. An example of a visually attractive hand-drawn Mind Map, outlining the possible uses of Mind
Maps. (Source: www.mindmapinspiration.co.uk)
A Mind Map is particularly useful for “identifying all the issues and subissues related to a
problem” and for the generation of new ideas. (Higgins, 2006: 97) It is particularly suited to creativity
and creative thinking, since it “utilizes all the skills commonly associated with creativity, especially
imagination, association of ideas and flexibility”. (Buzan, 2000: 133) Buzan (2000) remarks that Mind
10 This is the reason why so many linear-thinking contemporaries still today experience such ''massive problems with thinking,
creativity, problem solving, planning, memory and dealing with change'' (Buzan, 2000: 42)
- 11 -
Maps are both mnemonic and creative thinking tools, highlighting the fact that creativity and
memory are “mirror images of the same process” and that Mind Maps are useful for both these
forms of thought. (Buzan, 2000: 134). In particular, he points out that the method can be used and
applied to a wide variety of situations: he presents its most relevant application domains,
differentiating especially among business/professional (a), educational (b) and personal (or familiar)
(c) applications of the considered technique.
In particular:
a. In business context the technique reveals to be particularly useful when applied in meetings, for
oral presentation purposes, and in various management situations , all vital parts of business life.
At meetings it is advisable to have a Mind Map visible to anyone on a large board, including all
individual contributions and placing them in context, giving a more objective, clear and
integrated view of the ongoing discussion, and thus increasing enthusiasm, active participation
and co-operation, keys to a productive meeting. (Buzan, 2000: 203) For preparing (and
delivering) presentations the method is a beneficial tool as it provides a clear, organized and flexible
structure for speech, while key words and images incorporated in the visualization ensure that no
major points of the discussion are overlooked. For project management it is useful as well, being
ideal for planning, monitoring and presenting projects (see Brown and Lee Hayer 2002) Finally,
all the essential tasks for today's successful management – including individual and group creativity,
analysis, problem-definition, problem-solving, decision-making, organization of own and other
people's ideas, memory, as well as information and knowledge transfer or sharing - can be
successfully accomplished by using Mind Maps (see again Buzan, 2000)
b. In education Mind Mapping is also extensively used. (see Higgins, 2006: 98) In particular Buzan
(2000) notices educational advantages of Mind Maps in specific tasks ranging from teaching,
writing essays, projects and/or reports, preparing for examinations, to taking notes from lectures
or books. Idea Mapping speeds up the learning process and makes the data more memorable.
(Nast, 2006: 242)
c. For personal purposes the technique can be beneficial for helping to weight up the pros and
consof a decision in individual problem-solving, for planning annual, monthly or daily diary, for
reviewing past achievements or project future personal goals. (see Buzan, 2000).
Consequently, Jim Neimark seems to be right in stressing that “‟once you've got the knack of letting
your mind flow onto this visual chessboard [a Mind Map], you can apply it to anything, from
business, to relationships, to your future‟”. (Higgins, 2006: 98)
- 12 -
A Mind Map can be well defined as a “multicoloured and image centered radial diagram, that
represents semantic or other connections between portions of learned material”; it is particularly
powerful since it makes use of all those relevant elements in our overall brain function: visualization,
images, words, visual rhythm, colour, association, dimension and spatial awareness (Eppler, 2006: 2;
Buzan, 2000: 47). As already pointed out, the Mind Mapping technique is actually an external
expression of the radiant/associative thinking described above: it radiates from a central image and
can be read starting from it, outwards. Every image or word added to a Mind Map offers the
opportunity to add new ranges of associations, and this on infinitum. In fact, while Mind Mapping,
“one is constantly on the verge of new discoveries and new realizations. This encourages a
continuous and potentially endless flow of thought” (Buzan, 2000: 82).
As deeply explained by Buzan (2000) and clearly summarized by Higgins (2006), a mind mapping
individual brainstorming session starts with writing first the name of the problem/domain
investigated11, and continues by brainstorming the major facets of that central domain, identifying
ideas and key words, drawing outwards first level branches and their respective subordinate branches
to categorize ideas in first level ideas12 and in lower level ideas13. Main branches added to the central
image and the relative subbranches represent respectively the main topics (or themes) and the
subtopics of the central domain considered, and form a connected nodal structure. Thus, to put it in
other words, from the central image out radiate the main general categories in the area under
consideration14, to which are subordinated, on lower levels, topics of less importance. This use of
hierarchical order and categorization is particularly relevant to enable the mind to think in a naturally
structured way. Moreover, while 'branching out', connections between topics placed on different
branches might be noticed and highlighted by linking them. Furthermore, once that enough ideas
have been generated and added to the growing Mind Map, the Mind Mapper can, should that be
necessary, decide to order them by assigning them a number and therefore putting the items of the
method into a chronological sequence.
Having just described the way the Mind Mapping technique can be used individually as a
brainstoarming tool, and considering in meantime that in this paper we are focusing our attention on
11 The central domain correspond to the subject of attention, to the main topic under consideration.
12 Note that first level ideas are called by Buzan ''Basic Ordering Ideas (BOI)''
13 corresponding to second, third, fourth level ideas, and so forth.
14 We are referring here to the Buzan's Basic Ordering Ideas
- 13 -
the group creative thinking processes with the aid of creativity techniques, let us describe hereafter
the main stages of creating a group Mind Map.
Once that the topic of attention is clarified and the relative group objectives are set, each group
member is asked to spend some time to brainstorm individually the main topic under consideration
and to add the generated ideas in a personal Mind Map. Small groups of individuals are created then
in order to allow group members to discuss and mutually exchange their ideas, and to add the ideas
generated by others to their own Mind Maps. The next step of the process involves the creation of a
first group Mind Map, which clusters all the ideas generated by each small group during the previous
discussion phase: thus, Basic Ordering Ideas are selected as main branches and all ideas are grouped
in the first group visualization. It is important afterwards to let the members of the group internalize
the newly created group Map: this phase of further reflection and 'incubation' can lead to the
generation of further refined ideas on the topic. For this reason it could be useful to start once again
the stages of individual brainstorming, discussion and exchange of ideas in small groups, and
subsequent development of a second group Mind Map, in order to “capture the results of the newly
considered and integrated thoughts”. (Buzan, 2000: 142) It appears clear, therefore, that during the
group creative thinking process, the individuals of the group combine their own knowledge, ideas
and energy to create a 'group brain' and a 'group consensus': this means that the individual unique
perspectives and associations contribute to create a greater overall group visualization. At the same
time, however, “the Mind Map reflects the evolution of this 'multiple self' and records the
conversation within it” (see Buzan, 2000: 140).
By still referring on Buzan (2000), let us review and summarize the basic Mind Mapping laws. First
of all, emphasis, as already discussed, is one of the major essential factors in improving memory
(recall) and creativity, and should be particularly enhanced in every Mind Map. Emphasis can be
achieved by using wherever possible attractive and eye-catching images throughout the visualization,
by relying on different colours while mind mapping, by stressing/accentuating words and images
through the use of different dimensions and variations of the printing size, and by giving to words
and images the visual idea of movement. All these mnemonic techniques can be used to advantage
to stimulate our brain. Accordingly to Buzan (2000), the full power of Mind Maps is particularly
reached when using both words and images/icons to represent concepts: it is argued that a new
balance must be established between the use of images and words, since “images are more evocative
than words, more powerful in triggering a wide range of associations and in enhancing creative
- 14 -
thinking and memory” (67). The reason why it is the case stands in the fact that pictures make use of
a massive range of cortical/mental skills such as imagination, color, visual rhythm, form, line,
dimension, and therefore allow the use of a greater portion of the human mental power. Starting
from these considerations, it is evident that combining and integrating the two cortical skills of
words and images is suitable to make full use of the vaste potentialities of our brain and to multiply
the intellectual power. Secondly, keeping in mind that “external clarity encourages internal clarity of
thought”, it would also be needed to favour clarity in each Mind Map, in order to help our brain to
memorize and recall easily all items of information (Buzan, 2000: 94). This can be achieved, for
example, through an appropriate and clear organization of the Mind Map space. Finally, apart from
the laws of emphasis and clarity just described, the already treated importance of using association and
hierarchy/categorization should not be underestimated.
Once that all these basic Mind Map laws have been internalized, Mind Maps can be personalized and
created following a personal style.
Description and analysis of the visualization's properties

Having just introduced Mind Mapping and discussed its core properties and application areas
according to the existing literature, we will hereafter pick up two different Mind Mapping examples
and describe each of them with the support of the “collaborative dimensions framework” (Bresciani,
Blackwell and Eppler 2008). In particular, we will rate each example visualization according to the
seven dimensions of the framework itself, filling the relative dimensions rating table, and motivating
then the obtained results.
Let us deepen the chosen descriptions of the seven main collaborative dimensions and motivate why
we have found them the most plausible/appropriate/suitable ones to describe the properties of the
considered Mind Map (Example 1). The following analysis, as well as all the other ones that will
follow in this paper, are based on the works and findings of Bresciani, Blackwell and Eppler (2008)
as well as on a previous one by Bresciani and Eppler (2007).
1. Visual Impact: the Imagination Mind Map attractiveness and expressiveness can be well
defined as distinctive, considering that the visual representation is able to strongly capture
from the very first sight the attention of the viewer as well as his/her curiosity for further
exploration of its components. This powerful appeal (“visual impetus”) played on the viewer
- 15 -
Example 1. Imagination hand-drawn mind map; Source: www.mindmapinspiration.co.uk
Dimensions table taken from the „‟collaborative dimensions framework‟‟ (Bresciani et al., 2008) rating the Mind Map in
Example1.
- 16 -
can be explained with the steady use of attention grabbers such as pleasant colours,
employment of words and stimulating images, dimension, variations of printing size, as well
as with an idea of movement that the whole visualization gives. All these attention grabbers,
besides emphasizing each component of the visualization, are considered, accordingly to
Buzan (2000), to be powerful mnemonic tools that favor and stimulate “memorability”, one
of the subcomponents influencing the “visual impact” dimension. (Bresciani, Blackwell and
Eppler, 2008).
2. Clarity: The analyzed Mind Map is very clear in spite of its quite high complexity: its
components can be viewed easily (“visibility”) instead of the numerous items, as the mind
mapping space has been effectively exploited (Bresciani, Blackwell and Eppler 2008; see also
Buzan 2000). Appropriately “organized spacing”, besides increasing clarity, renders the
image aesthetically appealing and pleasant, enhancing the “visual impact” dimension as well.
(Buzan, 2000; Bresciani, Blackwell and Eppler 2008). Clarity has also been reached through
the use of an emphasized central image and thicker central lines, both pointing out a greater
importance of central ideas in confront to the outer ones and helping consequently viewers
to easily perceive/understand the hierarchical structure of the map, as well as to catch more
easily links between entities.
3. Perceived Finishedness: Perceived Finishedness of the considered Mind Map scores high as it is
realized with pen and paper. Paradoxically, as also highlighted by Bresciani, Blackwell and
Eppler (2008), people tend to wrongly perceive hand-drawn visualizations as easily
modifiable, while computer-supported visualizations tend often to be seen as rigid and
“viscous” (Bresciani and Eppler, 2007: 418).
4. Directed Focus: Although at first sight it might seem that the Mind Map is focused only on the
central image representing the core subject of attention, it can be actually stated that it
focuses on several items. This is the case as Mind Maps present many central thoughts (or
'spheres') on which new associations are generated during the mind mapping process. As
already pointed out previously, ideas are at first generated from and associated to a central
thought; then each single association which has been made becomes itself the central
thought on which further associations are developed (Buzan 2000). In other words, the
associations generated to a central thought become in turn central thoughts on which to
generate further associations, and so on in a potentially infinite chain. As outlined by
Hundhausen, “‟whatever an end user focuses on during the process of construction of a
- 17 -
visualization, tends to become the focus of subsequent discussion mediated by that
visualization‟” (Bresciani, Blackwell and Eppler 2008: 5). It follows consequently that during
the mind mapping process the attention is drawn not only on the central idea, but on all the
other ones that both radiate from it and that become themselves new central ideas to which
new thoughts are subordinated.
5. Facilitating Insight : Mind Mapping allows several insights to be generated as a result of following
the notational rules (“free rides” dimension): new insights can be developed as spontaneous
responses to aesthetically or emotionally colourful appealing objects in the map (Bresciani
and Eppler 2007; see also Buzan 2000). Thus a remarkable visual attractiveness and
expressiveness – obtainable, as already discussed, with the use, for example, of different
colours, shapes, dimension or visual rhythm - stimulate the Mind Mapper's mind to generate
spontaneously further ideas and unusual associations (or links between apparently unlinkable
concepts) to be added to the growing map15.
6. Modifiability: A modification of items is in this particular case very difficult: images and words
added to the growing map can not be moved or substituted easily onto the mind mapping
paper space. Resistance to change is particularly high as the visualization considered has been
realized with pen and paper; the medium employed does not allow, in fact, quick and easy
items' changes in response to the dynamics of group interaction and thought. Therefore
collaboration and interaction are highly discouraged. (see Bresciani, Blackwell and Eppler,
2008)
7. Discourse Management: Because of the very viscous medium employed (paper) for the
realization of the diagram, Discourse Management scores very low. It can be affirmed that
there is no guidance at all. While the medium employed allows only individuals contributions
to be captured on paper (with very low Modificability chances) and the achieved results to be
documented, it is missing any progressive control and evalutation of the group's dialogue.
Moreover, once the map has been completed, it is quite impossible to exactly re-contruct the
previous group conversation flow.
15 However, too much graphic appeal, instead of increasing attention, could have the opposite effect on the viewer, distracting him
and/or decreasing the diagram's clarity (Bresciani, Blackwell and Eppler, 2008).
- 18 -
Example 2. Mind Map developed with Mind Manager to assist in seeing re-engineering projects and other assignments from
various perspectives; Source: www.mindmappingeverywhere.blogspot.com
Dimensions table taken from the „‟collaborative dimensions framework‟‟ (Bresciani et al., 2008) rating the Mind Map in
Example 2.
- 19 -
Before passing onto the analysis of the second Mind Map chosen (see Example 2, page 19), it has to
be remarked first that - with regards to Visual impact, Clarity, Directed Focus and Facilitating Insight
– all the considerations already made for the first example of Mind Map count as well for the second
example. If we compaire the two dimensions tables rating the two example visualizations, it can be
observed, in fact, that both ratings regarding the dimensions of Visual Impact, Clarity, Directed
Focus and Facilitating Insight actually correspond. In fact, both example visualizations are visually
very appealing, eye-catching, their graphic characteristics stimulate attention, recall and invite to
further exploration and action. However the second one is slighty less expressive, incorporating
colour, words and images, while missing of dimension, variations of printing size and visual
movement, the latter ones representing additional mnemonic characteristics present in the first one.
Futher, both visuals are very clear while links between items are easily understandable: this clarity has
been reached in both cases through an appropriate space organization and emphasis on the most
important issues (central image and main branches) of the map, helping the viewer to perceive with
low cognitive effort the hierarchical structure of the diagram. Generally speaking, each Mind Map
focuses on several items and allows the generation of several insights, because of its visual structure
and rules being so close to the way the human mind thinks, as already outlined in the introductory
section to the technique and underlined during the previously done analysis (Example 1 Mind Map).
By resting upon the analysis of the second Mind Map (Example 2, pag. page 19), let us turn now to
discuss the remaining dimensions ratings/descriptions – namely Discourse Management,
Modifiability and Perceived Finishedness – differing in this case from those assigned to Example 1.
In fact, the second Mind Mapping example has been developed with the Mind Manager software,
which allows only some guidance during the Mind Mapping (or Idea Mapping) construction process.
As outlined by Nast (2006) as well, the software provides a certain flexibility as it enables users to
quickly and easily move branches whenever needed during the group's interaction/dialogue progress,
as it contains a database of images, symbols and icons prompt to be added to the growing map
without having to be drawn, as well as since it allows the generated diagrams to be documented
(saved) or transferred to other applications. However, most importantly, it does not provide much
help when it comes to evaluate the ongoing discussion, it does not enable group facilitators to
respond dynamically to the partecipants contributions, nor it allows “traceability” of individual
contributions to be obtained, unless different colours are used to distinguish between contributions
of different people (Bresciani, Blackwell and Eppler, 2008).
- 20 -
Thus, Discourse Management is quite low. On the other hand Modifiability is quite easy, especially
when it comes to move from one place to another single components of the map (branches, lines,
images, words) in response to the emerging needs of the group discussion. However, although
Modifiability is possible, Perceived Finishedness of the considered Mind Map scores high as it is
realized with software support. Paradoxically, as also highlighted by Bresciani, Blackwell and Eppler
(2008), people often tend to wrongly perceive hand-drawn visualizations as easily modifiable, while
computer-supported visualizations as rigid and “viscous” (Bresciani and Eppler, 2007: 418).
2.2 Idea Mapping
In this section we will rely entirely on the work of Jamie Nast (2006), with the purpose to
introduce the main characteristics of Idea Maps. The following discussion is to be considered a
fulfillment of the previous introduction to the Mind Mapping technique, since Idea and Mind Maps
correspond and are based actually on the same laws and principles. Idea Mapping has in fact a rich
foundation in and generated from Mind Mapping, as pointed out by Nast (2006). It is a “colourful
visual [radial] representation of a particular issue, problem, or idea”, representing connections
between different items of information, in the same way a Mind Map does (Nast 2006: 0). But,
according to Nast (2006), Idea Maps are “the practical, flexible and more usable version of Mind
Maps”. (Nast 2006: 21) Therefore, equalities between Idea and Mind Mapping methods will be easily
remarked in the following paragraphes, which will recover in a slightly different way almost the same
points already discussed in the Mind Mapping section.
- 21 -
Image 2. An example of an Idea Map, highlighting the essence of a creative organization.
(Source: http://ideamapping.ideamappingsuccess.com/IdeaMappingBlogs; for a complete description go to
22.7.2007)
The creation of the idea map starts from the centre: the central image represents the main topic or
theme considered in the visualization itself: it is from the central image that radiate the main
branches, touching the central image and corresponding to the major subject areas. Idea Maps, as
well as Mind Maps, have a radiant and hierarchical structure that build ideas from inside out, and
that concentrate the most relevant ideas in the central image and in the main branches, leaving the
less important ones in the lower levels of hierarchy. The following basic steps are fundamental in
order to create an Idea Map:
1. Essential words to be included in the Idea Map have to be selected. The visual method,
as well as a Mind Map, is in fact constructed with key words and images, using only one single
word or image per each branch/line.
2. Main branches versus subordinated branches should be identified. To do so, once that
an essential word has been brainstormed, it is necessary to decide whether it should be added
- 22 -
to the map as a main branch or as a subbranch, keeping in mind that the main branches should
be those words that generate more subideas16 (Nast 2006: 74).
3. Finally, in order to enhance recall, it should not be forgotten to add to the map attractive
pictures, icons, images, besides the simple use of words.
In the Mind Mapping descriptive section the process of creating a group Mind Map has already been
explained. In this section the Idea Team Mapping method will be hereafter reviewed once again, as
explained by Nast (2000).
First, to the success of this process, Nast (2006) highlights the importance of having a clear and
shared understanding of the central subject of attention: once that the purpose, the issue and the
topic have been clearly defined for the team, each group member developes on his own an Idea
Map, incorporating all the personal ideas brainstormed around the defined topic. The following step
requires a group break down, in order to form smaller groups of three-four members, in which each
team member is asked to exchange and share his/her individual idea maps and ideas with the others
of his/her group. During this stage an Idea Map will be created from every small group, containing
all the information from each member's map. Subsequently, each small team will share its map with
all the other participants: this exchange will finally result in a group Idea Map. Once that a mega-
team Map has been developed around the topic or problem considered, it is important to define,
among all the ideas generated, those elements of the map that are most critical and that should be
prioritized by the whole group.
The numerous possible applications of Mind Maps, already discussed in the previous Mind
Mapping section, are to be considered related to Idea Mapping as well; the two visual methods have
proved in fact to be valuable tools in helping to “collect, sort, clarify, consolidate, and present large amounts
of information” in professional or private sphere. (Nast, 2006: 115) Idea And Mind Maps are an
ideal tool for collecting and organizing thoughts before writing any king of document (Nast, 2006:
241). However, some technique's business applications are stressed by the author, who has
experienced successful uses by business professionals in reviewing past achievements, setting new
goals and objectives17, explaining and clarifying thoughts to others, presenting and teaching,
16 Note, with regards to this last point, that different people have an entirely different way of categorizing ideas (namely words or
images).
17 Note that a goal map is a visual reminder of priorities.
- 23 -
summarizing big amounts of information, creating a vision for the organization, organizing and
structuring projects, as well as showing progress in unfinished projects. These examples can open
the eyes to some of the possible uses of the method, and come up with new creative applications on
its own.
Accordingly to Nast (2006), the real challenge for Idea and Mind Mapping practitioners is to
become able to take notes in an Idea Map while the information is coming. We are referring here to
'real-time' mapping situations, where many challenges are present at the same time: in particular,
because of a high speed of delivery it becomes difficult to determine main branches and key words
in a short period of time, especially if the linear speech is lacking of an agenda or is disorganized.

As already done for Mind Mapping, we will hereafter pick up two different Idea Mapping examples
and describe each of them with the support of the “collaborative dimensions framework”. In
particular, we will rate each example visualization according to the seven dimensions of the
framework, filling the relative dimensions rating table, and discussing then the obtained results.
Example 1. An example of hand-drawn Idea Map, highlighting the essence of a creative organization.
(Source: http://ideamapping.ideamappingsuccess.com/IdeaMappingBlogs; for a complete description go to
22.7.2007)
- 24 -
Dimensions table taken from the „‟collaborative dimensions framework‟‟ (Bresciani et al., 2008) rating the Idea Map in
Example 1.
Before describing the properties of the hand-drawn Idea Map just presented above (Example 1), we
have compared its dimensions ratings with those previously made for the hand-drawn Mind Map
(see Mind Map Example 1) discussed earlier. In fact, a comparison between the two dimensions
tables rating the two visualizations shows that both ratings regarding all the seven dimensions of
Visual Impact, Clarity, Perceived Finishedness, Directed Focus, Facilitating Insight, Modifiability and
Discourse Management actually correspond; in fact the considerations already made for the hand-
drawn Mind Map (Example 1) can be employed as well for the description of the above presented
Idea Map. The parallelism between the two diagrams can be interpreted as a consequence of the
same medium used, as well as of the same main rules and similar stylistic sophistication employed in
both diagrams.
- 25 -
Example 2. Idea Map developed with Mind Manager, incorporating considerations about cat food marketing
positioning. (Nast, 2006: 129)
Dimensions table taken from the „‟collaborative dimensions framework‟‟ (Bresciani et al., 2008) rating the Idea Map in
Example 2.
- 26 -
The ratings' similarity just found between the Idea Map in Example 1 and the Mind Map in Example
1, has been detected as well between the above presented Idea Map (Example 2) and the Mind Map
(Example 2) showed and discussed earlier. Once again the equality between the two visualizations in
terms of their dimensions' descriptions, can be understood as results of the same medium employed
to realize both of them18 (Mind Manager software), as well of the same core construction principles
and a similar graphic structure adopted. It have to be said that compairing the chosen example Mind
Maps and Idea Maps has not lead us to remark consistent differences between the two method's
properties. Generally speaking, Directed Focus (focus on several items) and Facilitating Insight (the
diagram facilitates several insights to be developed) remain the same in each Mind or Idea Map, as both
dimensions' ratings depend on the basic rules needed to construct them. On the other hand, the
medium employed reflects itself upon Modifiability's and Discourse Management's ratings: therefore,
different example diagrams realized with the same medium will most likely have the same ratings in
terms of Modifiability and Discourse Management. Moreover, in each Idea and Mind Map, Visual
Impact and Clarity dimensions have been rated in the same way; by relying only onto the results of
the taken examples, it is not possible to conclude – with regards to Visual Impact and Clarity -
potential similar or equal trends that Idea Maps could have in comparison to Mind Maps. Many
further examples of both techniques should be taken, rated and compaired, in order to be able to
verify with certainty potential different nuances between the two methods.
2.3 Morphological Box (Zwicky Box, Morphological Field)
In the following section the morphological approach19 and in particular one of its most effective
procedures/methods, namely the Morphological Box20, will be presented and explained, by resting
especially upon Ritchey (2002) and Fritz Zwicky (1969), who proposed in 1942 the morphological
18 The use of Mind Manager software for both diagrams reflects itself upon equal Modifiability's and Discourse Management's ratings
in both cases.
19 The terms „morphological approach‟, „morphological research‟ and „morphological analysis‟ are interchangeable synonyms.
20 As it will be deepened hereafter, the method involves the construction of a matrix in which all the possible aspects of a problem and
all the relative solutions of it are added. It then requires, once that all the possible solutions have been found, an evaluation of each
one of them in order to choose the most appropriate one(s). (Zwicky, 1969; Savransky, 2000)
Moreover, note that many methods and procedures have been conceived through the morphological approach: the Morphological
Box, basing itself on the essential aspects of the morphological approach, is one of them.
- 27 -
analysis, “based on the works of famous mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm”.
(Savransky, 2000)
By the way, let us note that the term morphology has long been used to designate “research on
structural interrelations” in different fields of science21, regarding the study of the shapes of material
(physical) or mental objects, and how arrangement of parts of an object conform to create a Gestalt
whole. (see Ritchey, 2002: 3) Zwicky suggested in the late 1940s to “generalize and systematize the
concept of morphological research”, considering with it not only the study of forms of material
structures, but also that one of “the more abstract structural interrelations among phenomena,
concepts, and ideas” (Ritchey, 2002: 3; Zwicky, 1969)
Fritz (1969) highlights the fact that the history of the world has always been characterized by waste
and degradations of human lives, material and spiritual tresures: as he claims, these and others 'basic
ills of the world' must be due to specific causes. Since, according to him, no relevant improvements
in the situation of the world have been achieved yet thanks to research, the causes that are at the
basis of the sickness of our world hasn't been yet either consistently discovered nor eliminated.
Thus, it is in the “endeavour to develop sure means for the discovery of the causes that are at the
root of the basic ills of the world” that Zwicky created the morphological approach, which use, as he
argues, can enable us to create a stable and unified world, by avoiding it to end in chaos and
disintegration. (Zwicky, 1969: 2) The morphological analysis, as remarked by Zwicky (1969) and
Ritchey (2002), is a highly structured approach which enables us to make whole classes of discoveries
and inventions simultaniously and in a systematic way: it may help to discover relationships which
might be, with other less structured methods, overlooked.
After proposing the general morphological analysis, Zwicky applied it, for example, to the
classification of astrophysical objects and for the development of different propulsion systems
(Ritchey 2002). From 1960s to 1990s, still without computer-support possibilities, the morphological
approach has been especially used for structuring complex engineering problems, studying policy
options, as well as for creating scenarios. From 1995 up to now, the development of scenario and
strategy models, the analysis of organizational and stakeholders structures, the structuring of policy
and planning issues, have been supported by computer-aided morphological analysis which, in
21 E.g. anatomy, geology, zoology, biology, linguistics and all those disciplines where „formal structure is a central issue‟ (Ritchey 2002:
3)
- 28 -
comparison to hand-carried morphological studies, does not limit the wide range of parameters that
can be considered and treated. (see Ritchey 2005: 2)
Generally speaking, morphological analysis presents highly complex relationships in the form of
clear visual models and can be successfully employed for risks analysis, policy analysis, stakeholder
analysis, evaluation of organizational structures, as well as for the development of scenarios and/or
strategy alternatives. In particular, with regards to the last point, it is known that writing scenarios is
often used in preparing alternative strategies for the most important envisioned future conditions
(see Higgins, 2006). It is actually about making forecasts about an organization's, a company's, a
product's potential future, by analyzing and studying many different internal and external
organizational environmental key factors. As pointed out, creating scenarios can be successfully
achieved by using morphological analysis; the same counts for strategy planning. In fact,
morphological analysis is particularly appropriate for placing strategy models against scenarios
(namely future projections), with the purpose to establish which strategies would be most suitable
and effective for different ranges of future projections22. (Ritchey, 2005: 4).
Moreover, sometimes organizations compete with complex, messy and strongly stakeholder-
dependent problems ('wicked problems'), composed of interacting issues, evolving and mutating
continually in a dynamic societal context. These are difficult-to-define problems which cannot be
fully resolved, being highly reactive to any implemented solution and generating new forms of
wicked problems (Ritchey 2005a). Generally speaking, this kind of complex societal and/or
organizational planning problems - regarding wide questions such as, for example, “How should we
fight the war on terrorism'?”or “How should our organization develop in the face of an increasingly
uncertain future?” - can be successfully treated with morphological analysis, considering that it is
particularly powerful in dealing with seemingly non-reducible complexity, as will be outlined in the
following paragraph.
22 To do so, a scenario field/box, generating different possible scenario configurations, and a strategy field, generating different possible
strategy configurations, are developed and linked by cross-consistency assesments.
- 29 -
Image 3. A 3-parameter Zwicky box containing 75
cells (75 "configurations“). Image 4. An example of a 3 parameter
(Zwicky 1969: 118) morphological matrix, involving 5x5x5 (=125)
different configurations; a possible one is marked in
blue. Note that this matrix is a simple
transformation of the 3-dimensional Zwicky box in
Image 3. (Source: Ritchey, 2002)
As Zwicky (1969) teaches, the morphological approach is equivalent to totality research which
implies thinking in universal terms, vast perspectives and seeing parts in terms of a whole (0; 3; 30).
This approach investigates and identifies “the totality of relationships23 [or configurations] contained
in multi-dimensional, usually non-quantifiable problem complexes”, and is particularly powerful in
dealing with seemingly non-reducible complexity, as it “breaks down a system, product or process
into its essential sub-concepts, each concept representing a dimension in a multi-dimensional
matrix” (Ritchey 2002: 1; Zwicky, 1969). Thus, the Morphological analysis concerns itself with “the
totality of all of the possible aspects and solutions of any given problem”: namely, it essays/tries to
derive, in an unbiased way, all the solutions of any considered problem, or all the possible actions to
be taken in any given situation, by structuring in the Morphological Box the “internal properties of
inherently non-quantifiable problem complexes” (Zwicky, 1969: 30; Ritchey, 2002: 2). As a process,
“morphological analysis goes through a number of iterative steps or phases which represent cycles of
analysis and synthesis” (Ritchey, 2005a: 4). It starts actually with determining and properly defining
23 This totality of relationships involved is actually contained in the Morphological Box, which will be treated more deeply hereinafter.
- 30 -
all the dimensions (parameters or issues involved) that could be important for the solution of the
given problem complex24, subsequent to which each parameter is assigned a spectrum of relevant
'values': these represent “the possible, relevant conditions that each issue can assume” (Ritchey,
2002: 6). At this point all the dimensions identified, as well as their relative values, are placed against
each other in an n-dimensional25 morphological box, in order to examine all the possible
relationships/configurations between the values/conditions belonging to the various parameters
and, therefore, to create new ideas. In fact, each cell of the Zwicky Box “containes one particular
'value' or condition from each of the parameters” involved, and consequently “marks out a particular
state or configuration of the problem complex” (Ritchey, 2002: 4). Therefore, as already seen so far,
morphological analysis can be defined as a way of ordering all the possible variants for the search of
solutions of a given problem26 (Savransky, 2002). However, once that all the possible solutions, or
various forms of a solution, have been found, an evaluation of each one of them is needed to
establish which configurations are consistent, possible, practical, etc., and which are not: all this with
the purpose to choose the most appropriate one(s) and therefore reduce the solutions' range27
(Zwicky 1969; Savransky 2000; Ritchey 2005) .
Thus, it is easily understandable that the morphological approach enables the generation of
numerous ideas28 and “provides a time advantage when a person is seeking various forms of a
solution” (Higgins 2006; Savransky 2000). But morphological analysis is also disadvantageous when
it comes to evaluate the numerous versions obtained. Thus, the difficulty in using it consists in the
fact that the hundreds or thousands of solution versions which can be found, require long time
(sometimes several years) to be exaustively analyzed and evaluated (see Savransky, 2002).

We will hereafter pick up an example of Morphological Box and describe it with the support of the
“collaborative dimensions framework”. In particular, we will rate the example visualization according
to the seven dimensions of the framework and discuss then the obtained results.
24 It corresponds to the 'analysis phase'.

25 The morphological box is a multidimensional matrix. It can be, for example, two-dimensional (n=2), three-dimensional (n=3), and
so forth. Anyway, „‟n‟‟ represents the number of dimensions (or parameters) on which the box is constructed.
26 Note that determining the possible solutions is the most difficult step, as it requires divergent thinking and creativity.
27 We are referring here to the 'synthesis phase', where the 'solution space' is synthesized.
28 Numerous ideas can be generated thanks to morphological analysis. For example, even a simple two-dimensional 10x10 matrix yields
100 ideas, corresponding to 100 variants of possible solutions. (see Higgins 2006; Savransky 2000).
- 31 -
Example 1. Morphological Box Example. Taken from:
http://www.knowledge-
communication.org/ConceptualMngtToolMEP.pdf
Dimensions table taken from the „‟collaborative dimensions framework‟‟ (Bresciani et al., 2008) rating the
Morphological Box in Example 1.
- 32 -
Let us deepen the just above chosen descriptions of the seven main collaborative dimensions and
motivate why we have found them the most appropriate ones to describe the properties of the
considered Morphological Box example:
1. Visual Impact and Clarity: The considered visualization is in its components particularly clear
to the viewer: links between parameters and the main problem, as well as connections
between each parameter and its relative values are quickly understandable. Moreover the
purpose of each component can be easily inferred: it is quite evident, in fact, that the
visualization aims at considering alternative combinations of values. On the other hand,
however, the diagram is scarcely appealing to the viewer, missing of any eye-catching and
stimulating elements.
2. Perceived Finishedness: The diagram resembles to the viewer a final piece of work which is not
subject to changes of any tipe: at first sight it certainly does not seem to be a group
discussion tool.
3. Directed Focus: Each Morphological Box is polarised on the parameters (or dimensions)
important for the solution of the considered problem, as well as on those values assigned to
each parameter, and combined automatically among them into new configurations.
Therefore, the diagram focuses on several items. However, accordingly to the number of
parameters and relative values chosen, the focus of any Morphological Box can vary from
several items to many items.
4. Facilitating Insight: Numerous insights and new ideas are generated 'automatically' with the
support of a Morphological Box, as values belonging to different parameters are
systematically combined between them, so as to realize any possible combination between
parameters' conditions. It is by coming up with different combinations of the parameters'
values that new ideas are created: in fact, once that all possible connections have been
realized, people need to use imagination and creativity to make sense of each newly
generated configuration/relationship. Therefore, Morphological Box forces to find not only
new connections but also new meanings (see Michalko, 2006). As already pointed out
previously, many ideas can be generated thanks to morphological analysis; a simple small
Morphological Box such as that one considered in Example 1, yields to 4x3x4x2 ideas,
corresponding to 96 possible alternatives.
- 33 -
5. Modifiability: Modifiability seems to be difficult as the above presented Morphological Box has
not been realized with a specific software (such as MA/Casper) that supports morphological
analysis and its analysis-synthesis cycles. In the above considered Zwicky Box, although it is
realized with computer support, it is most likely difficult to effectively deal with potential
values' or parameters' changes needs (such as further adds), as well as with the evaluation of
the numerous alternatives.
6. Discourse Management: keeping in mind that the considered visualization has not been realized
with a specific software supporting the Morphological Analysis' phases, and considering that
without a specific software support is particularly difficult to effectively manage the
generation of the numerous alternatives as well as to evaluate them, it is possible to assume
that Discourse Management scores very low. However, in this particular case it is not
possible to evaluate in depth the Discourse Management dimension, as it is not known
exactly which kind of software has been employed.
2.4 Dynamic Facilitation
By relying on the relevant work of Zubizarreta (2006) and on Rough, we will hereafter explore the
Dynamic Facilitation method, developed by Jim Rough in the early 1980's while working as a quality
consultant with teams of employees at a sawmill, in order to help teams apply creativity to
“impossible to solve” practical issues. The method was originally used by production teams in
industrial contexts/settings, helping them to find, through collective breakthroughs29, creative
answers to practical and logistical problems they were facing. But when Jim began to teach the
Dynamic Facilitation process, its additional effectiveness in dealing with a variety of human
concerns, including “community and social issues” became apparent: considering that participants
attending Jim's seminars didn't have common settings, as they were coming from various different
cultural contexts, the only issues they shared in common were the broad global social issues. For this
reason Jim's students were asked to work in groups on problems such as the AIDS crises,
homelessness, and other large global topics (see Zubizarreta 2006: 1, 5). The technique is actually a
way by which one person, a facilitator, can assure in a small group a high quality of thinking, which
enables the partecipants to achieve creatively and collaboratively a real consensus on difficult issues.
Today, a social invention called “Wisdom Council” extends the range of Dynamic Facilitation,
29 Dynamic Facilitation is ''a way of helping people maximize the possibility for breakthroughs of different kinds'' (Rough 2004: 1)
- 34 -
enabling not only single groups, but also large systems such as organizations and communities, to
reach real agreement on difficult problems. Dynamic Facilitation opens, thus, new doors of
possibility for community- dialogue, organizational transformation, and large systems change
(Rough, 2004, 2008).
The method can be successfully employed for:
- Innovation / addressing big impossible-seeming problems: the Dynamic Facilitation

transformational dialogue process allows groups to redefine and look into complex issues in
new ways, by spontaneously stimulating people to leave behind old feelings and patterns of
thought and thus laying the ground for unforeseeable breakthroughs (of people minds and
hearts) to occur (see Rough, 1991, 1992).
- Conflict Resolution: Dynamic Facilitation can be very useful in situations where the purpose of
the dialogue is to increase understanding among different groups, particularly in situations of
high-conflict, considering that it builds a sense of community, trust and commitment thanks
to a high-level quality of dialogue called choice-creating30 (Zubizarreta 2006: 27). Here the
facilitator has an active role in protecting and valuing each single contribution, in order to
allow an atmosphere of mutual trust and appreciation, and help people work out their
difficulties.
- Consensus building: by eliciting the fullness of each participant's diversity, Dynamic Facilitation
allows a group to creatively “co-sense” an issue in all its complexity and to reach spontaneosly
and naturally a felt non-negotiated agreement, without managing anyhow the whole process
(Zubizarreta, 2006).
The technique itself is a powerful “transformational approach to the practice of group facilitation”
that can help groups “to arrive together at creative, practical and elegant solutions to challenging
issues” (Zubizarreta, 2006: 1). Like other forms of facilitation, the emphasis of Jim's method is on
“reflective listening”: people ideas and contributions are deeply heard and valued by the facilitator
(see Bressen). But, unlike most other approaches that are designed to help teams to deal with
practical problems, the Dynamic Facilitation approach utilizes an “emergent [self organizing]
process” where the team process of arriving at new and creative solutions does not rely either on
“pre-determined sequences of steps”, nor it is anyhow directed or guided. On the contrary, by
avoiding any attempt to manage it, a spontaneous dialogue flow is allowed, while discoveries and
breakthroughs are enabled to occur in a “non-directive manner”, thanks to a high-level quality of
thinking called “choice-creating” (Zubizarreta, 2006: 7; Rough, 1991, 1992, 1999, 2002, 2004).
30 Note that the Dynamic Facilitation method supports people to do choice-creating; the latter will be explained deeper afterwards.
- 35 -
It is thus evident that the Dynamic Facilitation method supports the “natural unfolding of the
group's [generative] dialogue”, helping teams to experience its transformational power (Zubizarreta,
2006: 8, 4). The method itself engenders a tranformational form of talking and thinking, known as
choice-creating, which is similar to but richer from what is generally meant by 'decision-making',
'problem-solving' and 'creative problem solving': it is actually transformational to both individuals
and the situation, allowing group progress to happen through breakthroughs of both people minds
(ideas) and hearts (Rough, 1999; Rough, 2004). With regards to it, as argued by Rough (1991), most
creativity problem solving approaches aimed at solving difficult issues do not address the emotional
components of the problem, taking not into account people's feelings about the treated issue. But as
claimed by him, when it comes to address real practical problems, people's strong feelings about
them should not be ignored: considering that, according to him, the creative breakthrough process is
both emotional and mental, in order to reach ideas' breakthroughs, it is important to stimulate first
emotional breakthroughs. In other words, in order to make possible a change of people's minds and
ideas it is needed first a change of people's hearts and feelings. Choice-creating, by transforming our
feelings about the problems involved, allows us to change our frame of mind: in fact, when
emotional 'shifts' happen, we are able to redefine, reframe the problem and see the situation in a new
way (see Rough, 1991). Therefore, the choice-creating process “changes the problem, empowers the
person [itself], and can transform the organization, as well” (Rough 1991: 7).
Let us turn to the basic elements and stages of Dynamic Facilitation, as acknowledged by
Zubizarreta (2006) and Rough (2002). First, the method certainly requires someone to hold actively
the role of facilitator, involved in listening deeply to the verbal contributions of the participants, in
creating an atmosphere where everyone will be carefully and in detail heard, as well as in valuing,
capturing all the emerging contributions on blank flip charts and classifying them in four simple lists:
'Solutions' (options), 'Concerns' (criteria) or „Worries‟, 'Data' (symptoms) and 'Problems' (problem
statements)31 (see Rough 1999, Bressen). The main role of a facilitator is actually to create an
environment where divergent perspectives, opposing views, as well as “convergences that occur
naturally as part of the creative process”, will be welcomed and valued with openess and receptivity,
in order to support and encourage people's creativity (Zubizarreta, 2006: 11). All this without
attempting to 'move' the group dialogue on any particular direction or towards any 'forced'
31 These include respectively all the suggested solutions statements, any relative disagreements which are reframed as concerns, any
useful statistical or personal data in ownership, and the finally defined problem statements.
- 36 -
agreement32 (see Zubizarreta, 2006: 11; Rough, 2002). While Dynamic Facilitation does not lead
teams through pre-determined steps, groups actually move on 'naturally' through several stages,
explored hereafter.
The Dynamic Facilitation meeting starts with encouraging the participants to empty themselves of
their first ideas with regards to the possible solutions to the problem under consideration 33. Keeping
in mind that people tend to hold their ideas and insights back if they don't feel comfortable with
sharing their own perspectives, the facilitator's role is to draw each person out, help him/her to
explicit fully and openly his/her points of view about the issue, and record all the partecipants
contributions on the appropriate list. This is a mutual „trust-bulding“ and „perception-building“
stage, as people share fully their current perspectives speaking authentically from the heart about
what they really know, and exploring the issue together (Rough, 1992, 1999, 2004). As Zubizarreta
(2006) pointed out, all of the various initial solutions explicited will “serve as a valuable source of raw
material for the much more comprehensive solutions that [will] emerge later” in the group dialogue
process (15).
When the various divergent perspectives of the group have been individually expressed in detail and
recorded on the walls on flip charts visible to anyone, participants face a second intermediary stage,
where the group tends to move towards a level of convergence. At this point, in fact, the group
attempts to reconcile all the numerous, divergent and overwhelming insights which came up during
the previous stage: it is actually a moment to pause and help the group to acknowledge the progess
made. Stopping for a moment in order to reflect upon the initially suggested solutions can, in fact,
help the group to realize that “there is a more fundamental question or problem that what they
started with”, and thus address its energy to the exploration of new set of questions (Rough, 2002:
11). In this third “mission-building” stage the issue often gets redefined and the 'real' problem is
discovered and recorded on the 'Problems' list (Rough 1992, 1999, 2004). It follows then an
“innovation-building” stage, in which various problem solving techniques might be suggested by the
32 Note that, as showed by Zubizarreta (2006), many other facilitation approaches include a variety of techniques to help stimulate
divergence. But, unlike Dynamic Facilitation, conventional facilitation approaches attempts to manage the process to reach
convergence, namely formal agreement or consensus. Most importantly, with regards to it, in Dynamic Facilitation „‟we are not
interested in false consensus or in groupthink‟‟, „‟what we don‟t want to do is to jump on convergences just as they are beginning to
emerge (…) if we do so we will only short-circuit the creative process and shortchange the group‟‟. (Zubizarreta, 2006: 19, 21) As
Zubizarreta (2006) noted, the real purpose of the Dynamic Facilitation process is to explore creatively an issue, rather than any kind
of formal decision-making that groups usually struggle to make.
33 Note that in Dynamic Facilitation „‟solutions are usually considered before the problem is defined‟‟; a better understanding and
definition of what the „real‟ problem is, is reached as the group dialogue progresses. (Rough, 2004: 6) On the contrary, common
problem solving avoids looking for solutions until the problem has been clearly defined. (see Bressen)
- 37 -
facilitator and employed in order to explore the possible solutions to the just identified issue (Rough,
1992, 1999, 2004).
Therefore, as seen so far, the group surely experiences an ongoing flow of consecutive convergences
and divergences as a “natural cycling of the creative process”, both needed to come to a real
consensus: the facilitator on his side helps the group to generate many new ideas (divergence), and
then encourages it to narrow the list (convergence) to just a few ones, continuing alternatively this
way until a real agreement is reached (Zubizarreta, 2006: 18; Rough, 2002).

Having just introduced Dynamic Facilitation, we will hereafter pick up one example of a typical
visual representation realized during a Dynamic Facilitation meeting, describe its properties with the
support of the „collaborative dimensions framework“ (Bresciani, Blackwell and Eppler 2008) and
clarify the obtained results.
Example 1. Dynamic Facilitation example, developed with Let‟s Focus software.
- 38 -
Dimensions table taken from the „‟collaborative dimensions framework‟‟ (Bresciani et al., 2008) rating the
Dynamic Facilitation lists in Example 1.
Let us explain hereafter the just above chosen descriptions of the seven main collaborative
dimensions and motivate why we have found them the most suitable ones to describe the properties
of the considered Dynamic Facilitation example:
1. Visual Impact and Clarity: First of all the visualization considered is quite simple with regards
to its graphic characteristics: it is not particularly attractive, being structured in simple lists of
items and missing of eye-catching multi-coloured images besides those few icons clarifying
visually each header. All items, being placed in the form of simple linear notes, are visually
quite boring and are most likely to prevent the brain from making associations (see Buzan
2000). However, generally speaking, the diagram is pleasant in its clear and simple
arrangement of notations placed next to colourful bullet points, while its reduced complexity
is particularly helpful in perceiving its components‟ meanings immediately and without too
much cognitive effort. On the other hand, the organization of items in simple lists hides to
the viewer important links between them (see Bresciani and Eppler, 2007).
- 39 -
2. Perceived Finishedness: The considered visual representation is most likely perceived as quite
changeable by the general public, because of its clear and simple organization. Generally
speaking, the more the visualization is complex, particularly expressive, appealing or visually
sophisticated, the more it is likely to be perceived as a finished work. On the other hand, the
more a visual representation is simple and clear with regards to the components it employs,
the more it is likely to be perceived as in progress, or changeable (see Bresciani, Blackwell
and Eppler, 2008).
3. Directed Focus: In Dynamic Facilitation there tend to be no focus at all, as the system does not
push group ideas on any direction (see Bresciani and Eppler, 2007). This is due to the fact
that the whole Dynamic Facilitation process does not guide anyhow the group's dialogue
towards any end or forced agreement, but on the contrary it encourages a spontaneous
dialogue flow to occur in order to naturally stimulate individual breakthrough ideas. Thus,
the group dialogue moves on spontaneously, covering in depth those topics that the group
finds as most important for it, and shifting from one topic to the other according to the free
will of participants. The facilitator's role, as already outlined, is to allow such kind of
environment, where people are deeply heard and encouraged to share freely their views and
ideas, and to express themselves as they really are. Divergences are strongly encouraged, as
well as those convergences that occur spontaneously as part of the process. This way the
team becomes able to reach a deep and wide understanding about a starting non-defined and
wide issue, succeeding – thanks to heartfelt and detailed externalizations of individual
perspectives, ideas and experiences - to understand, what the real problem(s) is and to reach a
felt consensus.
4. Facilitating Insight: first of all it has to be highlighted that we strongly think that the many
breakthrough insights the Dynamic Facilitation process is able to stimulate, are not
predominantly a result of the visualization form used by the group during the interaction,
but a consequence of the high quality of dialogue and thinking performed by the group 34.
We find that the above visualization, in the form of lists of items, does not stimulate in itself
creativity and recall; for this reason Facilitated Insight scores quite low. We strictly agree with
Buzan's (2000) remarks stressing the tendence of linear notes in the form of lists to oppose
the natural working of the mind, by preventing the brain from making associations and from
effectively organizing ideas and thoughts, therefore counteracting creativity.
34 We are referring here to choice-creating, already explained earlier.
- 40 -
5. Modifiability: The considered visualization can be easily and fastly modified, as it is realized
with a very flexible software (Let's Focus), developed to support group interactive
collaboration. Notations can be easily and flexibly moved, arranged, deleted or substituted
whenever needed in response to the evolving group conversation, thus facilitating
interaction.
6. Discourse Management: Let's Focus software, employed for the realization of the above
visualization, allows strong guidance and tracking by enabling group facilitators to dynamically
interact with the audience, the individual contributions and the achieved results to be
captured and documented, the conversation flow to be re-constructed as well as step-by-step
structures, organizing group interaction, to be employed (see Bresciani and Eppler, 2007)
Instead of many features and opportunities it provides for team knowledge work, many of
its functionalities are not strictly necessary to the Dynamic Facilitation process: while it needs
a tool which enables tracking and documentation of the various contributions, fast
modifiability opportunities, as well as “traceability”, a step-by-step structure does not most
probably fit the main Dynamic Facilitation principles - being it a successful self-organized
process based not on pre-determined sequences of steps - and would therefore inhibit
spontaneous breakthrough insights to occur (Bresciani and Eppler, 2007).
2.5 Storyboarding
By relying on Higgins (1996, 2006) and Denison (1995), the storyboarding technique will be
hereafter summarized.
In its roughest form, storyboarding was first used by Leonardo da Vinci, who attached on his wall
some of his works, in order to study them better (Denison, 2005). Afterwards, Walt Disney “devised
a forerunner of the storyboard technique”, by designing what he called the “Infinite Wall”, where its
cartoonists could attach their drawings in sequence (Higgins, 2006: 178; Denison, 1995: 3). In 1928
Disney aimed, in fact, at producing high-quality cartoon features to achieve competitive edge: to
reach its goal it needed to use for cartoon's production much more frames per second and therefore
developed thousands more drawings that required until then. Being such a pile of sketches hardly
manageable, Disney opted finally for pinning them in sequence on wallboard of the studio: hence
the name storyboard. This way anyone could know at a glance the state of the art of any given
project and watch the storyline develop.
- 41 -
In the 1960s, when Mike Vance was head of Disney University, he realized that the storyboarding
technique could be employed in the business world as a problem-solving technique, by substituting
words for the pictures in the storyboard. It is thus from Vance's concept and further refinements by
Jerry McNellis and James Higgins, that the storyboarding process, as described afterwards, evolved
(see Higgins, 1996, 2006).
As outlined by Higgins (1996, 2006) and Denison (1995) storyboarding is actually a creativity
process for team project planning based on brainstorming, requiring a leader, a secretary and a group
of 8-12 people collaborating together and following its main rules35. A storyboard is the visual
display on which ideas, written on index cards or post-it notes, are spread out as participants work
on a project or solve a problem: this way anyone can see connections among ideas and how they
relate one to another. The method requires both a creative thinking and a critical thinking session to
take place: while the creative thinking session is aimed at coming up with as many ideas and/or
solutions as possible by permitting a free flow of ideas from all team members, the critical thinking
one is a moment to judge and evaluate the validity of the numerous ideas brainstormed, in order to
retain only the most valuable ones (Higgins, 1996, 2006).
When performed entirely, the storyboarding process consists in the realization, one after the other,
of four stages: the development of a planning storyboard, of an ideas storyboard, followed eventually by
the creation of an organization and a communication storyboards, each stage following the same basic steps
and requiring both a creative and a critical thinking session. As explicited by Higgins (1996, 2006) the
general sequential steps needed to create any of the above mentioned four types of storyboards are
six-fold:
1. The topic header, representing a problem statement or a description of the issue examined, is
defined and pinned on a topic (index) card on the top of the storyboard.
2. A purpose header, conceived for containing beneath all the purposes for pursuing the topic, and a
miscellaneous header, scheduled to contain all those items/subbers “which do not seem to fit
under any other header”, are pinned on header (index) cards and placed as column titles at
opposite ends, underneath the topic header (Higgins, 1996) .
35 The latter ones demand any criticism and judgment to be avoided, the initial focus to be on quantity of ideas generated rather than
on quality (the more ideas are brainstormed, the better is), and encourage ideas to be combined and piggy-backed. (see Higgins 1996)
- 42 -
3. Then, all reasons for pursuing the topic are brainstormed and added under the purpose header36.
4. Further column headers are identified, each of them containing a statement of one of the
major subdivisions of the main topic. This means, for example, that the major issues involved
in solving the problem or the major solutions to the problem are brainstormed.
5. Later on, each header's subtopics, known as subbers, are brainstormed. At this moment the
creative session gets over.
6. The group begins finally with the critical session, where all the ideas generated thanks to steps
1-5 are criticized and evaluated. At this point each idea on the board is examined critically in
order to decide which ideas will work best and which ones should be discarded (Denison,
1995).
Tipically, a planning board contains all the major brainstormed ideas related to the problem
considered: besides being the first step of the whole process, it is “the blueprint for the actions that
follow” (Higgins, 2006: 186). It is succeeded by an ideas board, which “adds more detail to the major
topical areas of the [previously developed] planning board”, generally by clustering the solutions
identified to the issues raised in the planning board (Denison, 1995: 1). It is anyway “an expansion of
some of the ideas contained in the planning board” and can be created by taking one column from it
and turning respectively its column header into topic header, and its column items (subbers) into
column headers37 (Higgins, 2006: 186). Planning and ideas boards are surely “the core of the
storyboard system”, and can be used in any creative-thinking project as they help the group to
structure visually in them the main group's brainstormed aspects involved in a problem, as well as to
expand its main ideas, usually by providing in the ideas board its relative solutions (Higgins, 2006:
187). The organization board, on the other hand, contains those brainstormed tasks that need to be
done in order to implement the ideas/solutions identified in the ideas board, as well as information
about when they need to be done and who will be responsible for doing them. A communication
board defines finally whom and how the previous relevant information about the project will be
conveyed. However, the extent to which the organization and communication boards are needed
36 Higgins (2006), however, bypassed the purpose header, as he found that „‟partecipants get so focused on trying to match their
thoughts to the purposes listed (….) that their creativity is inhibited‟‟ (180).
37 Considering that a planning board is organized in many columns, there are likely to be a number of ideas boards resulting from it (see
Denison, 1995: 7).
With regards to the transition from a Planning Board to an Ideas Board, please see a concrete example on Images 4 and 5. In particular
the column marked in green on Image 4 has been expanded in an ideas board represented on image 5.
- 43 -
depends on the number of people outside the project team who would need to know about it, and
the number of them who would be involved in implementing it (see Higgins, 2006: 187).
As underlined by Denison (1995) and Higgins (1996, 2006), storyboarding as a planning and
problem-solving technique has already been used to good advantage by hospitals, health services,
and hundreds of organizations such as McDonalds, Ford Motor Company, General Electic, Frito-
Lay and Xerox. Being highly flexible it seems to be, accordingly to Higgins (1996, 2006), the best
technique for identifying complex issues and problems, solving them, as well as for determining
ways to implement solutions. The method is valuable for the quick generation of many alternative
solutions to a problem, in a similar way a Mind Map does38. Besides the benefits it brought to movie
and multimedia design, the process has already been employed for complex issues ranging, for
example, from solving quality problems in hospitals, designing new products or softwares,
developing new management structures to planning events. Futhermore, the method seems
particularly effective for strategic planning and can be used by organizations at planning retreats or
periodic strategic planning meetings; any group of strategists belonging to whatever organization's
departments can actually benefit from it (Higgins, 1996).
38 Note that both methods starts from a central thought or problem and look for relative issues or solutions to the starting idea: but
while storyboarding categorize concepts and subconcepts in rows and columns, a Mind Map structures higher-level and lower-level
concepts radiating from the central image out. (Higgins, 1996: 372)
- 44 -
Topic Header
Transition from High School to Real World
Column Headers
Purpose Finding a job * Transportation What to wear Where to live Miscellaneous
Subbers
Get a job – Fill out Get my own Uniform? Get an Telephone
make money applications car apartment
Freedom Newspapers Use parents‟ Get new Live at home Cable TV with
want ads car clothes MTV Movie
Channel
Get away Ask at gas Ride the bus Rent a place Play sports
from home station with friends
Find my own Do a resume Use bike Buy a trailer Buy a

place computer
Make new Walk

friends
Image 5. A Planning Storyboard sample, redrawn from Denison‟s (1955) examples of storyboards,
developed by a group of students to aid in transition from high school to the adult world.
Finding a Job *
Purpose Fill out Newspaper ads Agency Miscellaneous

Resume
applications
Make Money What info do I How are jobs What info to Where to find Ask at gas
need? classified include them station
Be on my own Know Social How to How to How to How to dress

Security # choose arrange interview – for interview
information what to say
Buy a car Choose How to How to type

references contact the or do on
company computer
Feel good How to list How to print

about myself experience it
Where to get Where to send

application
Image 6. An Ideas Storyboard sample, redrawn from Denison‟s (1955) examples of storyboards,
- 45 -
We will hereafter pick up a Planning Storyboard example and describe it with the support of the
„collaborative dimensions framework“. In particular, we will rate it according to the seven
dimensions of the framework, filling the relative dimensions rating table, and discussing then the
obtained results.
Transition from High School to Real World
Purpose Finding a job Transportation What to wear Where to live Miscellaneous
Get a job – Fill out Get my own Uniform? Get an Telephone

make money applications car apartment
Freedom Newspapers Use parents Get new Live at home Cable TV with
want ads car clothes MTV Movie
Channel
Get away from Ask at gas Ride the bus Rent a place Play sports
home station with friends
Find my own Do a resume Use bike Buy a trailer Buy a

place computer
Make new Walk

friends
Example 1. A Planning Storyboard example, redrawn from Denison‟s (1955) examples of storyboards,
Let us deepen hereafter the below chosen descriptions of the seven main collaborative dimensions
and motivate why we have found them the suitable ones to describe the properties of the considered
Planning Storyboard example:
- 46 -
Dimensions table taken from the „‟collaborative dimensions framework‟‟ (Bresciani et al., 2008) rating the Planning
Storyboard in Example 1.
1. Visual Impact and Clarity: The above considered visualization is not particularly appealing
with regards to its graphic characteristics and visual structure, although it makes use of
different colours for different cards' sizes. In fact it presents a simple structure, obtained
with the organization of rectangular post-it notes in rows and columns. However, the
storyboard's simple and linear organization in higher-level and lower-level concepts is
immediately clear to the viewer, thanks to the use of three different cards' colours helping
users to distinguish at a glance the three levels of ideas (see Denison, 1995). In fact, it is
evident from the very first sight a clustering of concepts (subbers) under the most
appropriate column headers, as well as perceivable the visualization's hierarchical structure.
Therefore, it is clear that in this particular case, the use of colour is meant especially to
increase clarity, affecting only to a limited extent the visualization's attractiveness and impact.
- 47 -
2. Perceived Finishedness: As the method employs temporary index cards or post-it notes flexibly
pinned on a board for display and continually rearranged as a group plan develops, the visual
representation is most likely perceived as in progress.
3. Directed Focus: the method focuses on several items, in a similar way Mind Maps do: as already
outlined, while Mind Mapping radiate from the centre outwards in order to structure
hierarchically concepts and subconcepts, storyboarding categorizes higher-level and lower-
level ideas into columns and rows. Moreover, while Mind Mapping polarizes on central
thoughts (or 'spheres') to which new ones are subordinated, Storyboarding focuses on all
those concepts from which new subconcepts are generated. This means that the attention is
directed to topic header, column headers as well as to subbers, before the latter ones get
converted (prima che questi ultimi venissero eventualmente convertiti), eventually, into
column headers of the Board which follows immediately after in the storyboarding process39.
4. Facilitating Insight: it can be said that the storyboarding method allows several insights to be
generated. This happens especially when it comes to brainstorm all the headers' subtopics:
while individual ideas are brainstormed and placed under the relative topic headers, group
members – besides sharing visually their individual perspectives - generate spontaneously
new insights by relying on the ideas offered by others and by intergating them in their own
knowledgebase. Thus the visual support enables individual ideas to be shared by the whole
group: knowledge sharing, facilitated by representing visually individual ideas, is the
necessary first step in order to generate new insights.
5. Modifiability: Modifiability is very easy and fast, as index cards or post-it notes, on which
single notations/ideas are written, are quickly movable from one place to the other on the
board. Thus, with concern to modifiability, Storyboarding is highly flexible, strongly
supporting group interaction and adapting itself easily to the changing group conversation
flow.
6. Discourse Management: Although a flexible medium has been employed (a board on which
index cards or post-it notes can be easily moved), it is possible to affirm that there is only
some guidance over the discussion flow. This is the case as the obtained results are hardly
documented because of the medium (board) employed, as well as “traceability” (the
possibility to re-construct the whole interaction and its flow of ideas) is very difficult, since
39 To understand this point, it has to be remembered the whole storyboarding process, consisting of the development of a Planning
Board, followed first by an Ideas Board, then by an Organization Board and/or a Communication Board.
- 48 -
post-it notes are costantly moved on the board as group thoughts and dialogue evolve,
without having the possibility to track each group dialogue's move during the interaction. On
the other hand “referencability” (the possibility for participants to refer to elements of the
visual representation) and “coordination” (a step-by-step structure in order to organize
collaboration and interaction) are satisfied (see Bresciani and Eppler, 2007).
2.6 Hexagon Modelling
The hereafter discussion of the Hexagon Method is based on the work of Hodgson (1992) and
Vision Works LLC (2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2003d, 2003e).
Being a new approach to systems thinking, the technique uses magnetic coloured movable idons40,
mutually combinable on a board surface and realised in the simple form of hexagons. Idons are
considered to be an effective and flexible new dynamic medium for thinking, significantly better than
conventional brainstorming as they permit single ideas to be easily moved around, combined and
arranged in order to explore new meanings. (see Hodgson, 1992, Vision Works, 2003) As remarked
by Hodgson (1992), the method concerns itself with “semantic unit[s]”, “atomic object[s] of
meaning”, where unconnected and fragmented odd thoughts are stated in isolated hexagons without
any pre-set order: it is actually from this initial chaos of isolated and apparently unconnected
thoughts that creativity is likely to spring. (Hodgson, 1992: 10, 11; Nonaka, 1988)
The basic Thinking with Hexagons Technique is quite simple. First, with regards to a certain area
of challenge a group is facing, a designed facilitator presents the purpose of the session, as well as the
focus question on which the group's energy and dialogue will be focused on in order to achieve the
desired outcome. The team is then asked to explore and reflect upon the considered issue and
discuss individual ideas in response to the main focus question. As the statements come out in
conversation, each distinct idea is captured and marked down by the facilitator as a headline on a
sequentially numbered hexagon, and placed on a board visible to anyone (image 6, p. 53) (Vision
Works, 2003a, 2003b) The purpose here is to generate many significant ideas/hexagons;
incorporating as well a process of “issue conceptualization”, this first phase enables partecipants to
40 Consider that an Idon is a combination of an idea and an icon. (Hodgson 1992) Idon Thinking Resources Ltd is the originator of
Hexagon Modelling and of various Idon visual thinking tools.
- 49 -
elicit and share visually their individual mental models about the considered arena of discussion41
(Hodgson, 1992: 2). Whenever participants should face a creative block or the group should realize
that the ideas already generated are not appropriate enough, it could benefit from an advanced
unblocking device called '1+1=3' method (image 10, p. 55), an effective tool for stimulating the
generation of new ideas (Hodgson, 1992). This technique “uses random association of what seems
to be unconnected ideas to evoke the mind's rich store of associations and new ideas”: once that the
first two ideas/hexagons are selected from the existing ones, participants are encouraged to generate
a third thought which “embodies qualities from both source ideas” (Hodgson, 1992: 5, 6). If needed,
a 'four-fold' generator (image 11, p. 55) can be afterwards used to generate a synthesis core idea from
the results of the previously performed '1+1=3' exercise .(Hodgson, 1992: 6) However, once that
many ideas have been generated and arrayed randomly on the board, the group is invited to try to
introduce some kind of order by starting clustering hexagons which seem to belong together. It is
aimed to try out alternative groupings in order to explore similarities and differences among single
ideas and understand how concepts could relate one to another. (see Hodgson, 1992) In this
arrangement activity, “many hexagons will change places, from one cluster to another, as relationship
themes are explored and challenged”. (Vision Works, 2003b: 4) When the group reaches agreement
on the most appropriate clustering (image 7, p. 54), each completed group is labeled with a higher
order concept or phrase which embraces the common thread that links all the ideas contained by
that set of hexagons (image 8, p. 54): this synthesis ideas in the form of cluster labels represent those
critical issues and opportunities that need to be dealt with (Vision Works 2003a; Vision Works
2003b; Hodgson 1992) The group might point then to analyze the interconnectedness between
cluster labels42, by seeking to establish which ones might influence other ones and how they do so:
thus, links between them are represented by using one-direction arrows (image 9, p. 55). (see Vision
Works, 2003a; Vision Works, 2003b; Hodgson 1992) Finally the group assesses “how well it met the
session's purpose, describes next steps, and designs, if appropriate, the next focus question” to be
addressed (Vision Works, 2003: 1). In fact, it is probable that the modelling session just performed
has surfaced some new questions to be explored in depth once again.
Having just described the basic Thinking with Hexagons Method, it is worthwhile to present which
additional advanced features Hexagon Modelling may involve. As an example of Advanced Thinking
41 Note that, most importantly, working with hexagons enables us to express our mental models and at the same time to experiment
with restructuring them (Idon, 2000).
42 Note that cluster labels are put on new hexagons, before interconnectedness is analyzed.
- 50 -
with Hexagons technique, the H.A.T.S43 method, clearly explained by Vision Works (2003d), is
hereafter taken. Additionally to the basic thinking with hexagons method, H.A.T.S technique
captures and arrange brainstormed ideas on different colour hexagons44 and “breaks a meeting into
several distinct thinking sessions, each with its own specific focus question” (Vision Works, 2003: 1)
In the first six thinking sessions participants are asked to share their ideas in response to the main
focus question from six different specific points of view. In particular:
1. Blue View asks participants to think what are the most appropriate “methods, tools, sequence
and structure for thinking” that will enable them to reach the desired outcome of the session.
(Vision Works, 2003d: 4) Relative responses are written on blue hexagons;
2. Red View asks members to express their personal feelings and emotions about the issue at
hand: individual feelings or impressions are then written down on red hexagons.
3. White View requires to offer “objective facts, figures or other information that are relevant to
the focus question”: thus, objective data and information is put down on white hexagons
(Vision Works, 2003d: 4);
4. Yellow View requests from members to suggest constructive and positive views that make the
case for the main focus question (see Vision Works, 2003d: 4, 5) Relative ideas are placed on
yellow hexagons;
5. Black View inquires to indicate what objective and “negative assessments suggest real or
potential problems, risks, (...) or reasons why 'it won't work' based on prior experience of the
participants”: related contributions are written on black hexagons (Vision Works, 2003d: 4);
6. Green View asks people to free their mind and offer creative ideas or solutions to the issue at
hand. The arisen innovative options are finally recorded on green hexagons.
Once that the above six prescribed viewpoints have been considered and completed, there will be
numerous ideas captured on multi-colour isolated hexagons. At this point, further thinking sessions -
corresponding to the same steps required in the basic Thinking with Hexagons technique described
earlier - remain to be performed. Thus, ideas/hexagons are first grouped according to their
similarities and each created cluster is labeled with a common associative concept which describes
the 'glue' that holds it together. Secondly, a causal drivers diagram or a causal feedback loop diagram
43 H.A.T.S stands for ''Hexagons Assisted Thinking Session''
44 Note that the way colours are assigned to ideas/hexagons can vary, depending on the group performing Hexagon Modelling.
- 51 -
connecting cluster labels is constructed. With regards to it, the H.A.T.S method does not restrict
itself to the detection of causal relationships between cluster labels: it looks at the issue from a
systemic perspective and seeks to identify drivers and drivens among cluster labels in order to
“prioritize actions or decisions based on drivers working in feedback loops” (Vision Works 2003d:
4). Later on a conclusive session follows: as the group has most likely identified the core issues and
those important factors that need to be taken into account in order to achieve the desired results, it
is ready to make a decision and take concrete action to implement the ideas matured during the
process. (see Vision Works, 2003b, 2003d)
Instead, when the geometry of hexagons is intergrated with the Five-Whys technique and employed
to look for higher-level causes and 'root' causes of a problem, the group is first asked to brainstorm
possible causes, issues and symptoms of the problem, which are written on hegaxons and placed on
the group board, as in image 6. (Vision Works, 2003c). Symptoms are then discarded, while causes
discovered are clustered as in the above Thinking with hexagons technique (image 7, p. 54), labeling
each group with a synthesis idea (image 8, p. 54), that in this case represents a first level cause of the
problem. Starting from each first level cause, the next challenge for the group is to identify as many
higher-level causes as possible: when the whole chain of casuality has been traced (image 12, p. 56),
root causes are most likely to be those ones that appear many times in the diagram.
As already seen, hexagon Modelling can help groups deal with complex issues, allowing them to
capture their fragmented thoughts and ideas about the considered problem into single hexagons,
which can be placed initially at random on a whiteboard visible to the whole group, before being
moved, ordered and grouped according to their similarities and before their interconnectedness is
analyzed. (Hodgson, 1992)
The technique can be especially employed in areas including (Vision Works *):
- Problem Solving: the stimulating geometry of hexagons can be integrated with the Five-Whys
technique and employed to look for higher-level causes and 'root' causes of a problem, as outlined
by Vision Works (2003c): the resolution of a problem happens, in fact, through the elimination (or
mitigation) of its main causes. (Vision Works *)
- Decision-Making: it implies considering many different options, in order to be able to decide which
one, if any, to adopt. The Basic Thinking with Hexagons and the H.A.T.S technique fit particularly
well for the discovery of many new possible options for the achievement of desired results (Vision
Works *): Thinking with Hexagons enables in fact an issue to be thoroughly explored, while “the
results are aligned decisions and actions that minimize the risk of unexpected consequences and
maximize the opportunities to create or preserve value“ (Vision Work, 2003d)
- 52 -
Generally speaking Hexagon Modelling enables the exploration of very different issues and topics:
the method, allowing group focused thinking through the formulation of a specific Focus Question
on which the group is polarized, can direct group's energy to the exaustive exploration of a wide
range of issues from different perspectives: these could include, for example, group visioning
(describing which future events or conditions would be desirable), formulation of strategies needed
to implement a desired vision, project development and management, strategic planning, and so
forth (Vision Works *).
Image 6. First phase of theThinking with Hexagons Technique: Random placement on the board of the
brainstormed ideas in response to the Focus Question “In pursuing my career what do I need to take into
account?”. Example taken from: www.creativethinkersoftware.com
- 53 -
Image 7. Second phase of the Thinking with Hexagons Technique: Clustering of the ideas generated in
the previous phase. Example taken from: www.creativethinkersoftware.com
Image 8. Third phase of the Thinking with Hexagons Technique: An Issue Map showing synthesis concepts
for each generated cluster. Example taken from: www.creativethinkersoftware.com
- 54 -
Image 9. Forth phase of theThinking with Hexagons Technique: illustration of causal influences between cluster
labels. Example taken from: www.creativethinkersoftware.com
Image 10. An example of the „1+1=3‟ exercise, which Image 11. An example of a „four-fold generator‟,
allows to generate a third idea starting from two source which generates a core idea starting from the results of
ideas. (Hodgson 1992: 5) two „1+1=3‟ exercises (Hodgson 1992: 6)
- 55 -
Image 12. Five-Whys Diagram structure. (www.vis-it.com)

We will hereafter pick up a Hexagon Modelling example and describe it with the support of the
“collaborative dimensions framework”. In particular, we will rate it according to the seven
obtained results. The following example, taken from Idons (2000), follows the general basic rules of
Hexagon Modelling explained above, but it employs, unlike (a differenza di) H.A.T.S method, a
different colour convention: in this case ten different hexagon's colours are used to differentiate
among ten specific points of view (or modes of thinking): 1) white hexagons express 2) grey
hexagons convey factual information, 3) yellow hexagons represent opportunities 4) black hexagons
incorporate inhibiting factors or problems, 5) green hexagons contain creative ideas or solutions to the
issue at hand, 6) brown hexagons convey logical conclusions based on objective facts, 7) blue hexagons
express external factors affecting the business, 8) orange hexagons show details on the situation, 9) violet
hexagons are composed of desired future objectives and aims, while 10) red hexagons expose feelings and
emotions (Idon, 2000).
- 56 -
Example 1. Hexagon Modelling Example, developed with Idons for Thinking
software. (Idon, 2000: 91)
Dimensions table taken from the „‟collaborative dimensions framework‟‟ (Bresciani et al., 2008) rating the Planning
Storyboard in Example 1.
- 57 -
Let us deepen hereafter the just above chosen descriptions of the seven main collaborative
dimensions and motivate why we have found them the most plausible ones to describe the
properties of the considered Lotus Blossom technique's example:
1. Visual Impact: The visualization is particularly appealing and inviting to further exploration,
as it is very eye-catching and sophisticated with regards to its graphic form. It employs
atomic objects of meaning - that is, single concepts incorporated in single hexagons - which
can be arranged, assembled and clustered in order to create wider meanings. This 'fitted-in'
structure is appealing and intrigues the viewer to explore the visualization more in detail.
Additionally, the use of a system of colour conventions stimulates and facilitates attention,
conferring to the visualization much more expressiveness and wider levels of meaning.
2. Clarity: Thinking with hexagons allows individual contributions to be presented clearly,
incorporating in each hexagon a single idea. However, when numerous hexagons are
clustered together on the board, the level of achievable complexity can be very high. This is
also the case in the considered concrete visualization example, where clarity scores very low:
links and relationships between hexagons are in fact hard to grasp, the causal drivers diagram
constructed with the generated hexagons' clusters is hardly understandable, while wording
alone can be deceptive to a viewer outside the group who most likely cannot catch in depth
the exact meaning summarized on hexagons (see Hodgson, 1992).
3. Perceived Finishedness: Because of the high complexity of the visualization on its whole, the
considered hexagon modelling example is most likely to be perceived as a finished work, or
even as a polished visualization, as pointed out by Blackwell, Bresciani and Eppler (2008).
4. Directed Focus: Hexagon Modelling focuses on one main item, that is on one main area of
concern that needs thinking about: when “colour thinking” is performed, the method
polarizes on one main Focus Question upon which the group is asked to reflect from
different points of view or levels of thinking45 (Idon, 2000).
5. Facilitated Insight: Hexagon Mapping is an extremely powerful tool for provoking lateral
thinking. By thinking with hexagons, several new insights can be generated as a result of
following the main steps of the process; in particular hexagons' clustering is an important
45 The ten different points of view on which the attention of the group had been directed in the above taken example, has already been
explained at the beginning of this section.
- 58 -
phase which helps generating many new insights on the considered issue. During the latter
phase different grouping alternatives are in fact explored: clustering and re-clustering several
times yields new group insights as it permits to explore the issue in new ways and discover
interesting, unexpected or unusual new relationships and meanings. As outlined by Idon
(2000), sometimes group can be in agreement over the brainstormed ideas, but it is only
when they get to clustering them that they begin to realize how many different perspectives
they have: these differences of viewpoint are a source of new insights. Furthermore, using
colours to represent different modes/ways of thinking allows us to recognize vivid
categories of thinking. Actually, our mind naturally and implicitly shifts from one mode of
thinking to another: for example a same piece of information can be treated as a problem to
be solved, or as an opportunity, or even more as “a provocation to questioning and
learning”, asking what it has thought us about the overall situation (Idon, 2000). These are
some different modes of thinking; at Idon ten basic ways of thinking, already introduced at
the beginning of this section, have been identified. Coulour hexagons thinking forces us to
try out several different modes of thinking together (to think not in a single mode, but in
different modes), stimulating our brain to experience a multi-lateral thinking power (see
Idon, 2000: 66-67). Thus, Hexagon Modelling “develops new ways of seeing the issue, and
evokes deeper thought and understanding than previously available” to group members
(Idon, 2000: 36).
6. Modifiability: Modifiability is easy and quick: hexagons can in fact be moved at any time
during the process to accomodate new or updated group thinking, just as they can be added,
subtracted and revised whenever needed (see Idon, 2000). Idons for Thinking Software,
employed in the considered example to support Hexagon Modelling, allows the form of
representational objects to be easily and promptly altered or rearranged (Idon, 1996).
7. Discourse Management: The Idons for Thinking software, is a powerful tool for group
collaboration, allowing strong guidance and tracking. As remarked by Idon (1996; 37), it allows
the entire process to be captured with visual and verbal documentation for review, tracking
and update, while it's fluidity of representation and speed of operation makes it an ideal tool
for supporting and facilitating various kinds of group meetings. It allows the whole sequence
of group dialogue to be captured, represented and tracked on-line, enabling teams to explore
various options without losing the main direction. A group memory of the contributions and
mutual creations is automatically kept to enable later re-contruction of the interaction as well
- 59 -
as an audit trail is possible by saving the progress at each stage (see Idon, 1996: 37-39). It is
clear therefore that Idons for Thinking software helps keeping the group discussion on the
right track.
2.7 Lotus Blossom Technique
Decades ago, most Japanese innovations were simple refinements and improvements of those ideas
developed in the West: Japanese were particularly expert in refining already existant products,
generally without being 'in the mood' to produce rivolutionary breakthroughs leading to completely
new industries (Tatsuno, 1990: 103) Afterwards japanese organizations began to seek new
breakthrough techniques: many methods were introduced from the United States in the 1950s-
1960s, while others were directly developed in Japan. (Tatsuno, 1990: 103, 104) Among the latter
ones it is to be included The Lotus Blossom Technique, a little-known-and-employed method in the
Western world, unfortunately poorly documented. This method, however, fits Japanese culture and
its core skills, especially “when it comes to generating new applications of existing technologies or
products, something that Japanese excel at” (Higgins, 2006: 157). Moreover, Higgins (2006)
experienced the suitability of the method for general problem solving and for the development of
future scenarios (158). Considering that the Lotus Blossom Technique has outstanding similiarities
with the Mind Mapping technique, it is assumable that it could be likely employed for all those Mind
Mapping application areas already discussed earlier. However, this hypothesis should be concretely
verified.
The technique has been generated and patented by Yasuo Matsumura, president of Clover
Management Research in Chiba City, “drawing upon the metaphor of the Lotus Blossom” (Higgins
2006: 156; Tatsuno 1990). It actually begins with an idea, problem or technology placed in the centre
of the lotus blossom, surrounded by eight boxes (A-H) metaphorically representing petals of the
flower, each one filled by the group with a related idea, solution or application of the central thought
(Higgins, 2006; Tatsuno, 1990). Each of these brainstormed ideas (A-H) become then in turn the
center of a new lotus blossom, stimulating participants to generate further related thoughts, placed
once again in the surrounding cells to the central theme. (Higgins 2006, Tatsuno 1990) Thus, the
- 60 -
exercise works outwards: a central theme leads to ideas that become themselves central themes, and
so forth, potentially in an infinite chain46.
Image 12. A screenshot of the Lotus Blossom Technique.

Figure taken from:
http://www.diegm.uniud.it/create/Handbook/techniques/List/Lotus.php

We will hereafter pick up a Lotus Blossom example and describe it with the support of the
“collaborative dimensions framework”. In particular, we will rate it according to the seven
obtained results.
46 Strong analogies with the Mind Mapping technique are recognizable.
- 61 -
Example 1. Integrating Ideas with the Lotus Blossom Technique.
Source: http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/iacs/coniac/240703/2407033a.pdf
Dimensions table taken from the „‟collaborative dimensions framework‟‟ (Bresciani et al., 2008) rating the Lotus
Blossom in Example 1.
- 62 -
Let us deepen hereafter the just above chosen descriptions of the seven main collaborative
dimensions and motivate why we have found them the most appropriate ones to describe the
properties of the considered Lotus Blossom technique's example:
1. Visual Impact: The visualization in its whole is pleasant to see and quite appealing and
stimulating for further exploration, although it does not employ particular attention grabbers
besides the use of colour and a clearly arranged geometrical structure.
2. Clarity: In the above considered example, the meaning of the whole visual representation is
quite hard to grasp and requires a certain cognitive effort from the viewer. In this particular
case connections between the central lotus blossom and the eight peripheral ones are
difficult to recognize due to the fact that the core topic 'Designers as Persuaders add Value'
written in the central Lotus Blossom has not been surrounded with its relative ideas in the
eight boxes encircling it. It follows that the link between the central Lotus Blossom and the
central ideas of each of the eight peripheral Lotus Blossoms has not been made fully explicit,
rendering the whole visualization much less easily understandable in its whole structure and
organization. Moreover, although the central box of each Lotus Blossom has been realized
with a different colour from the boxes surrounding it, it is not immediately understandable
to the user that the outer ideas of each “flower” are actually associations to the idea placed in
the centre. Therefore, clarity has not been effectively reached, partly because of the
visualization's complexity, partly due to a non completely clear use of colours which, instead
of clarifying relationships and structure of the diagram, tend to confuse at first, especially
whenever the basic construction rules of the method are not well-known by the viewer. The
fact that the core theme (namely 'Designers as Persuaders add Value') is pursued into ever-
widening circles is the most difficultly recognizable element of that diagram.
3. Perceived Finishedness: The above considered diagram does not seem at all to be a tool for
discussion or interaction: it is rather perceived as a finished work by the general public.
4. Directed Focus: The focus is directed on several items: it is the case as any (qualsiasi) Lotus
Blossom technique's example presents, on its whole, several central thoughts from which
new related ones are generated and placed in boxes around it. Similarly to Mind Mapping,
the associations generated to a central thought become themselves central thoughts on
which to generate new related ideas. But unlike Mind Mapping, any brainstormed idea does
not radiate outwards: it is first placed in boxes surrounding the central idea (metaphorically
- 63 -
representing the petals of the flower), before becoming in turn the centre of a new Lotus
Blossom.
5. Facilitating Insight: Lotus Blossom technique allows several insights to be developed, as a result
of following the notational rules (“free rides” dimension). (Bresciani and Eppler, 2007). The
generation of new insights is stimulated by the visualization's structure which forsees each
central thought in each Lotus Blossom to be surrounded by eight boxes: this fix number of
empty boxes foces the mind to find insights relative to the central idea and encourages it to
fill all the empty spaces. We are forced then to turn each of the brainstormed ideas into new
core ideas from which, once again, new ones have to be generated. Therefore it appears clear
that the generation of many new insights is not a consequence of appealing or stimulating
attention grabbers, but it is a result of the method's rule-based step-by-step structure which
stimulates the mind to go ahead following a specific direction.
6. Modifiability: if we consider that a previously realized large template has been employed
without having to re-construct each session the basic rectangular structure of the
visualization, we can affirm that modifiabilty is easy with computer aid, as written ideas can
be easily moved from one box to the other, changed or deleted. The 'physical' structure of
the visualization would in this case stay unaltered, while only the notations would be added
to boxes, changed in place or deleted.
7. Discourse Management: It is most likely to score quite low; however, it is quite difficult to judge
the dimension in this particular case, considering that we don‟t know with certainty which
software has been employed for the development of the Example 1 diagram. However,
whatever software could have been used, it would anyway enable the “documentation” and
“accountability” dimensions to be satisfied (Bresciani and Eppler, 2007).
- 64 -
3. CONCLUSIONS
“To move beyond the level of average thinking, you must think about thinking”
Karl Albrecht, Brain Power
Having introduced in previous sections seven relevant creativity methods and discussed their own
properties and characteristics, we will conclude this paper by summarizing in Table 1 the most
relevant characteristics of each creativity technique addressed, by outlining knowledge sharing as one
of the most important aspects needed for group knowledge creation - as detected during the study of
the seven methods involved - and discussing the relevance that team facilitation plays for knowledge
creation.
First of all, we find particularly useful to conclude this paper by providing a summary Table in order
to highlight some of the basic aspects of any of the seven creativity methods discussed, and
therefore help the reader to review once again some of the properties and basic characteristics of
each method deepened so far. Table 1 is actually provided on pages 68-71; it incorporates for each
of the methods involved a thumbnail graphic representation, a brief definition, an outline of one of
the main benefits it offers, as well as general dimensions rating according to the “collaborative
dimensions framework”.
Let us turn hereafter to discuss the role that knowledge sharing and group facilitation play for
knowledge creation.
Considering that organizational systems are becoming nowadays more complex, there is a
growing need for team creative answers and “new levels of collaboration”; thus a transformational
level of thinking, needed for successful group knowledge work, has to be effectively facilitated by
leadership, which should be actually responsible for improving knowledge management within teams
(Rough, 1999, Let‟s Focus).
As remarked by Idon (2000), facilitation is the “art of helping teams to achieve high performance in
their thinking and decision-making”, through the employment of visual methods for supporting
knowledge transfer and sharing among team members (46). It is performed by a designed facilitator
who acts as a catalyst: without intervening in or influencing anyhow group decision-making, his role
consists in helping the team to surface and voice the issues so as to achieve mutual improvement of
understanding and knowledge sharing, while remaining in meantime detached enough to guide the
group thinking process (Idon, 2000).
- 65 -
In the facilitation of shared thinking, individual ideas are captured visually as they are suggested by
participants: these contributions, worked through by the team, sparks then off new ideas, captured
(and shared) visually again and again as they surface (Idon, 2000). The process actually continues this
way: while individual ideas and knowledge are offered, they are captured on the visual tool employed
in order to be mutually shared; in turn, group knowledge sharing with the support of the visual
representation used prepares the ground for further generation of new insights, recorded themselves
as they surface on the visual support employed. This mechanism has been detected to happen
generally for all the creativity methods analyzed so far; in fact, in each of them visual knowledge
sharing reveals to be the preparatory step to the subsequent generation of new ideas. Starting from
this fact it has been deduced that sharing knowledge with others is one of the fundamental steps that
prepares the way to the generation of new insights in teams, considering that it improves
understanding of an issue on its whole from different individual perspectives, and helps us to
develop new frames of mind, consequently leading us to leave apart old mental models. Knowledge
sharing actually prepares the way for creative shifts to happen, but it does not directly get there:
starting from it, any creative step requires some kind of shift in our mind, a change in the way we
see, perceive or understand a certain situation, which is actually reached through “thinking about our
own thinking”, as it will be explained afterwards (see Idon, 2000).
Therefore the relationship between knowledge sharing and knowledge creation appears clear: sharing
knowledge with support of graphic methods help people to see the big picture of an issue in a clear,
organized and stimulating way, to consider and integrate other perspectives in their own frame of
mind, and consequently to „generate something new‟, namely to begin seeing something in a
different way than it was done before. Creative insights happen actually contemporarily to the
“change in the mind‟s pattern of understanding and perceiving” (Idon, 2000).
From these considerations it follows that the visual methods employed as “transitional objects”
should structure information in a similar way our mind is used to do, in order to support and
facilitate organized thinking and stimulate knowledge creation. This way our brain gets able to
process much more easily relationships between items of information, increasing understanding of
the topic considered, and consequently being much more predisposed for the spontaneous
generation of new insights.
It is possible to understand the power of visual representations for the generation of new insights if
we reflect upon the „dialogue‟ that occurs between a person or group and the transitional object they
„interact with‟. First of all individual mental models are expressed and represented in a visual form.
By representing our thoughts visually, we don‟t need anymore to carry our ideas in the forefront of
- 66 -
our mind as “we relieve our mind of the burden of memory” and therefore have much more
concentration capacity to reflect upon our own externalized ideas (Idon, 2000: 13). Thus
visualizations support us by functioning as an extended short term memory, enabling us to make our
patterns of thinking explicit, as well as to concentrate on those ideas just being captured (see Idon,
2000). Reflecting upon our own existent mental models is in fact a key necessary step to the
generation of new insights: once that our own mental models have been externalized, visual methods
enable us to reflect upon these visually represented ideas. They do so – to do some examples – by
stimulating our attention and inviting to further reflections (exploration) through the use of
stimulating words and images, by enabling us to reconstruct and challenge our own ideas (mental
models) through items‟ modification and remodelling possibilities47, by permitting to rework our
patterns of thought and experiment in changing them through the rearrangement or clustering of
concepts and ideas, by forcing us to connect apparently unlinkable concepts in order to stimulate our
mind to generate new meanings.
All these are some of the detected ways in which creativity methods stimulate creativity, lateral
thinking and the generation of unbelievable new insights.
47 With regards to it, it is to be remembered, for example, Hexagon Modelling or Storyboarding methods.
- 67 -
4. REFERENCES
Bressen, Tree. Dynamic Facilitation for Group Transformation. (http://tobe.net/jim/articles.html)
Brown, Daren A., Lee Hyer Nancy (2002). Whole-Brain Thinking for Project Management, Business
Horizons (May-June), pp. 47-53
Bresciani, S., Eppler, M.J. (2007). Usability of Diagrams for Group Knowledge Work: Toward an
Analytic Description.Conference Proceeding I-KNOW 07, Graz, Austria, pp.416-423.
Bresciani S., Blackwell A.F., Eppler M. (2008). A Collaborative Dimensions Framework:

Understanding the Mediating Role of Conceptual Visualizations in Collaborative Knowledge Work.
Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008)
Buzan, Tony and Barry (2000). The Mind Map Book. BBC: London.
Denison, Grace L. (1995) Storyboarding: A Brief Description of the Process. Paper presented at the
Annual International Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Indianapolis (April 1995)
Dewulf, S. & Baill, C. (1999). Creating is science and engineering. EACI the 6th Conference 1999,
Dec. 12-15. Lattrop, Netherlands.
Eppler, Martin J. (2006). A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams,
and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. In: Information
Visualization
Hong, J-C and Lin, C-L (2007). The Contingency and Inevitability of Organizational Innovation –
Case Analysis of Ten Innovative Enterprises. In: Jöstigmeier, B. and Boeddrich, H-J (eds). Cross-
Cultural Innovation: New Thoughts, Empirical Research, Practical Reports, Second Edition.
Oldenbourg.
Higgins, James M. (1996). Innovate or Evaporate: Creative Techniques for Strategists. Long Range
Planning, Vol 29.
- 68 -
Higgins, James M. (2006). 101 Creative Problem Solving Techniques: the Handbook of New Ideas
for Business, New Management Publishing Company: Florida.
Hodgson, Anthony M. (1992). Hexagons for Systems Thinking. European Journal of Systems Dynamics,
Vol. 59, No 1.
Idon (1996). Idons-For-Thinking; User's Guide. Idon Software Ltd.
Idon (2000). Thinking with Hexagons, User Manual. Idon Thinking Resources Ltd.
Let's Focus. Managing Team Knowledge with Let's Focus: Core Processes, Tools and Enabling
Factors. (http://en.lets-focus.com/images/stories/downloads/managingteamknowledge.pdf)
Michalko, Michael (2006). Thinkertoys: A Handbook of Creative Thinking Techniques, 2nd Edition.
Ten Speed Press.
Nast, Jamie (2006). Idea Mapping. Wiley: New Jersey.
Nonaka, I. (1988). Creating Organizational Order Out of Chaos: Self-Renewal in Japanese Firms.
California Management Review, Spring.
Ritchey, Tom (2002). General Morphological Analysis: A general method for non-quantified
modelling. Adapted from a paper presented at the 16th Euro Conference on Operational Analysis.
In: Swedish Morphological Analysis (www.swemorph.com)
Ritchey, Tom (2005). Future Studies using Morphological Analysis. In: Swedish Morphological
Analysis (www.swemorph.com)
Ritchey, Tom (2005a). Wicked Problems: Structuring Social Messes with Morphological Analysis. In:
Swedish Morphological Analysis (www.swemorph.com)
Rough, Jim (1991). Choice-creating: How to solve impossible problems. Journal of Quality and
Participation (September)
Rough, Jim (1992). Creative Choices: Breakthroughs in Thinking. Revised from Quality Digest,
December 1992. (http://tobe.net/jim/articles.html)
- 69 -
Rough, Jim (1999). Choice-creating Overview. Adapted from the following book-in-process:
Society's Breakthroughs: Releasing Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People.
Rough, Jim (2002). Choice-creating and Dynamic Facilitation. In: Society's Breakthrough: Releasing
Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People. 1st Books Library
Rough, Jim (2004). Workshop Description: Dynamic Facilitation and Choice-creating. From the
annual meeting of the International Association of Facilitators, Scottsdale (USA)
Rough, Jim (2008). The circle organization: structuring for collective wisdom. In. Collective
Intelligence: Creating a prosperous world at peace. Earth Intelligence Network
(http://www.tobe.net/papers/CircleOrg.pdf)
Savransky, Seymon D. (2000). Engineering of creativity, Introduction to TRIZ Methodology of

Inventive Problem Solving. CRC Press
Sonnenburg, S. (2007). Creative Complexes: A Theoretical Framework for Collaborative Creativity.

In: Jöstigmeier, B. and Boeddrich, H-J (eds). Cross-Cultural Innovation: New Thoughts, Empirical
Research, Practical Reports, Second Edition. Oldenbourg.
Tatsuno, Sheridan M. (1990). Created in Japan: From Imitators to World-Class Innovators. New
York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Vision Works LLC (2003). Thinking with Hexagons Technique Overview. Available at: www.vis-
it.com
Vision Works LLC (2003a). The Six Steps in the Basic Thinking with Hexagons Technique.
Available at: www.vis-it.com
Vision Works LLC (2003b). Your First Meeting with Vis-It Hexagons. Available at: www.vis-it.com
Vision Works LLC (2003c). Problem Solving. The Five-Whys Technique. Available at: www.vis-
it.com
Vision Works LLC (2003d). H.A.T.S Hexagon Assisted Thinking Sessions. Available at:
http://www.vis-it.com/ThinkingwithHex_hats.pdf
- 70 -
Vision Works (*). Applications for Vis-It Tools and Techniques. Available at: http://www.vis-
it.com/application.ASP
Zubizarreta, Rosa (2006). Manual for Jim Rough's Dynamic Facilitation Method ( http://www.co-
intelligence.org/DFManual.html)
Zwicky, Fritz (1969). Discovery, Invention, Research, Through the Morphological Approach.
McMillan: Toronto
- 71 -

Visualization and Knowledge Creation: An Analysis of Graphic Methods For The Generation of Insights

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Visualization and Knowledge Creation: An Analysis of Graphic Methods For The Generation of Insights

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

UNIVERSITÀ DELLA SVIZZERA ITALIANA

FACOLTÀ DI SCIENZE DELLA

Visualization and Knowledge Creation:

AN ANALYSIS OF GRAPHIC METHODS

FOR THE GENERATION OF INSIGHTS

Relatore: prof. Martin Eppler

1.2 Brief clarification of methodology and of the visualizations' selection criterias

2. ANALYSIS OF SEVEN RELEVANT CREATIVITY METHODS : an introduction

2.1 Mind Mapping ………………………………………………………………p. 10

Description and analysis of the visualization's properties through the application of

2.2 Idea Mapping………………………………………………………...……..p. 21

Description and analysis of the visualization's properties through the application of

2.3 Morphological Box………………………………………………………… p. 27

Description and analysis of the visualization's properties through the application of

2.4 Dynamic Facilitation……………………………………………………… p. 34

Description and analysis of the visualization's properties through the application of

Description and analysis of the visualization's properties through the application of

Description and analysis of the visualization's properties through the application of

2.7 Lotus Blossom Technique………………………………………………… p. 60

Description and analysis of the visualization's properties through the application of

1. they are graphic visual representations

4. they are already widely used in different organizational contexts, and

5. they present all an own „rule-based“ graphic structure/procedure.

2.1 Mind Mapping

Description and analysis of the visualization's properties

2.2 Idea Mapping

Description and analysis of the visualization's properties

2.3 Morphological Box (Zwicky Box, Morphological Field)

Description and analysis of the visualization's properties

24 It corresponds to the 'analysis phase'.

2.4 Dynamic Facilitation

The method can be successfully employed for:

- Innovation / addressing big impossible-seeming problems: the Dynamic Facilitation

Description and analysis of the visualization's properties

Example 1. Dynamic Facilitation example, developed with Let‟s Focus software.

34 We are referring here to choice-creating, already explained earlier.

Find my own Do a resume Use bike Buy a trailer Buy a

Make new Walk

Purpose Fill out Newspaper ads Agency Miscellaneous

Be on my own Know Social How to How to How to How to dress

Buy a car Choose How to How to type

Feel good How to list How to print

Where to get Where to send

Transition from High School to Real World

Purpose Finding a job Transportation What to wear Where to live Miscellaneous

Get a job – Fill out Get my own Uniform? Get an Telephone

Find my own Do a resume Use bike Buy a trailer Buy a

Make new Walk

2.6 Hexagon Modelling

Description and analysis of the visualization's properties

2.7 Lotus Blossom Technique

Image 12. A screenshot of the Lotus Blossom Technique.

Description and analysis of the visualization's properties

46 Strong analogies with the Mind Mapping technique are recognizable.

Bressen, Tree. Dynamic Facilitation for Group Transformation. (http://tobe.net/jim/articles.html)

Bresciani S., Blackwell A.F., Eppler M. (2008). A Collaborative Dimensions Framework:

Idon (1996). Idons-For-Thinking; User's Guide. Idon Software Ltd.

Nast, Jamie (2006). Idea Mapping. Wiley: New Jersey.

Savransky, Seymon D. (2000). Engineering of creativity, Introduction to TRIZ Methodology of

Sonnenburg, S. (2007). Creative Complexes: A Theoretical Framework for Collaborative Creativity.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi