SDP Case Study

In Alexander Christakis' text, on 'How People Harness their Collective Wisdom and Power to Construct the Future in Co-Laboratories of Democracy', he uses the Structured Design Process (SDP) approach to present many different case studies. One particular case study addresses the use of RootCause Mapping (RCM) software. First, however, a brief summary on the Structured Design Process will be provided to bring the reader up to speed.

According to Christakis (2006), true dialogue is difficult in the Information Age because "complexity demands that we address issues collaboratively, systematically, and systemically" and requires a science of dialogic design.

There are three Axioms found in this design approach:
1. No single observer has a complete picture of all complex problems;
2. Everyone has limits in the volume of information they can process at any given time, and
3. In order to make good judgments, we need to compare things that are similar.

As presented above, collaboration is the key to success. The milestones in the Evolution of the Science of Dialogic Design found specifically for supportive technology are the use of collaborative space and collaborative software.

Simply put, without the collaboration of many individuals, nothing can be completely and effectively evaluated. The saying "knowledge cannot grow in a vacuum" is particularly true here. There are six Dialogue Laws that are used to successfully evaluate an concept:

We have to exchange dialog in order to progress through a complex design and exhaust every possible idea regarding a topic to come up with some form of consensus by a community of stakeholders. Each of the stakeholders possesses a diverse perspective but there must be a structured form in the dialogue process. Observations will avail themselves and become readily understood through the means of their relative importance. When the observers search for relationships and they can establish a priority through the evaluation of the influence of those relationships, all-the-while keeping autonomy and authenticity of the observers, learning will occur as a result of this dialogue.

In other words, the desired end result should be an effective action put into place by starting as a meaningful idea brought into light by the use of a structured dialogue, the use of autonomy, through learning, through maintaining an appreciation of diversity, and assigning an understanding of the importance of meaning through wisdom.

For example, using the wisdom of the stakeholders in a case study for the RootCause Mapping (RCM) software, the technological benefits of this approach are the use of an Influence Tree to build and develop a Collaborative Action Plan. This tool provides the means to manage complexity and will give a development team a financial edge by not only managing that complexity but also giving the team preferred action options through use of the most leveraged Factors. In turn, these Factors will lead the dialogue towards problem resolution.