Preparation for week 14 seminars
In the seminar this week we tried out rich picturing to have the opportunity to see how it could help as a 'thinking tool' for both team discussion and exploration of ideas; and also as device to communicate views to a wider group — what worked what wasn't so clear???
The idea now is to use the rich picture of the Catatech case, with some consideration of problem-owners and problem-solvers, and develop a range of I—T—O + W models : I'd like to discuss what is difficult or problematic about doing this in the seminar next week.
20 Jan 2005 15:50
| 
Tags: Nmor
| 
Comments (5)
| 
Report a problem
Loading…
Robert
I'm finding it difficult to cope with the word count. Getting as far as stage one and two I have written 500 words. This is even more disturbing when you consider 70% is on stages six and seven.
Appendices are not coming naturally; they ruin the flow of the report. I'm also unsure what (and not) to put in them.
Any suggestions?
26 Jan 2005, 18:17
I've written a follow up entry on 'word count'. I am still hoping someone might put up a few I-T-O W models here sometime:
I:need to pare down significant account into 1000 words——T:evaluating key concepts——O:need met by developing criteria of ' intellectually valuable' to eliminate less valuable content.
W: Abstracting key points into a concise account is a worthwhile 'skill'.
26 Jan 2005, 20:01
As regards doing the CATWOE analysis for the project, for each "Root Definition" analysed, should there be only one entry in the T section (ie: only one transformation), or could there be more. By the definition of a "Root Definition", I don't think there should be, but sometimes it seems necessary.
02 Feb 2005, 13:07
This experience is not uncommon – we only need to look at the IKEA example to see that 'offering' and 'selling' are two Transformations (apparently inseparable). However it is best to use an 'umbrella' term and define a single T in the definition and CATWOE which agree with each other , and which corresponds to the activities in the activity model.
This (conceptually) requires you to abstract and focus on a 'clarified' new concept. Hopefully. The systems property is that of 'emergence' , i.e all the parts (activities together) would display an emergent property at the level of the system's Transformation.
An example I referred to was that of collective hunting with dogs: as an activity system the 'parts' such as beating the undergrowth, sending dogs into the field (I imagine), people shooting animals . Take away separate parts and the 'hunting' of this form does not happen. Collectively individual objectives ( sub-system activities) produce the emergent property of 'x kind of hunting'. ( I'm sure there are special names given to different styles of hunting, which would label these emergent properties).
The worldview that supports carrying out 'hunting' might not be a popular worldview – so defining a contrasting Worldview and activity system would not be difficult in many rural contexts! Likewise in organisational contexts it is useful to understand and represent via this modelling key conflicting views related to practices.
02 Feb 2005, 14:01
Werner Baumker
Regarding the 500 word limit for the appendix, does this include the comparison tables of model activities and activity links?
04 Feb 2005, 13:27
Add a comment
You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.