Wikileaks is a Contradiction

As result of Wikileaks currently releasing more than 250,000 classified US diplomatic cables, The White House is reportedly telling agencies to create 'insider threat' programmes to ferret out disgruntled workers who may leak state secrets.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12117113

US Agency officials are being urged to find ways to "detect behavioural changes" among those employees who might have access to secret documents. The memo suggests the use of psychiatrists and sociologists to measure the "relative happiness" of workers or their "despondence and grumpiness" as a way to assess their trustworthiness. It also asks whether agencies are using lie-detector tests or are trying to identify "unusually high occurrences of foreign travel, contacts or foreign preference" by members of staff. Clearly, Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, and the US Government, have very different 'perspectives' on Wikileaks.

In this Southbeach model, these differences of opinion are illustrated. What is useful to the US Government - additional secrecy and monitoring, would be regarded as harmful by Assange. Clearly this counteracts the goals of his company as illustrated in the second model.

Wikileaks cannot be good and bad at the same time. Everything is useful and harmful. It is useful because it helps create an open and just society. It is harmful because, inevitably, secrecy will increase as a result of its existence. Taken to extremes, the effects of Wikileaks in the world may have unforeseen, and highly undesirable consequences. An analogy:  suppose that all members of a family, or a business, had the ability to read each other's thoughts? Would the family or business survive for long? This contradiction at the heart of Wikileaks raises the issue of what Assange's goals may be?

This powerful use of Southbeach could be further developed, based on analysis of his and US Government statements and news coverage. Is there a hidden truth behind this?

Snow, Parked Cars and a Creative Solution

Is this a viable solution? When there is heavy snow, in a country that is not prepared for it, roads become unpassable and traffic flow is impeded. As a result, people stay at home, or abandon cars, restricting the width of the road. This further impedes traffic flow. As a result, snow ploughs either cannot gain access to the road (Prevented), or can only clear the center of the road of snow (Counteracted). There is a physical contradiction at the heart of this situation. Cars will be parked in the road. The road clears to be clear of cars to clear it of snow. Both cannot be true at the same time. What is the solution? How about this? Separate in Time. Park on one side of the road on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and the other side of the road on Tuesday and Thursday. The snow plough could then clear both sides of the roads by the end of the week.

My Problem - Elaborated

Models such as the one below are useful in thinking through problems. In this case, the model was generated automatically from a central block "My problem", using a series of 'transforms' that intelligently add blocks to the diagram, such as:

Missing enablers
Harmful side effects
Additional benefits
Compromised solutions
Improving factors
Necessary evils
Etc.

Such a model is useful to exploring abstract problems, or by changing the text, actual situations.

What is a contradiction?

There are many ways of creating a contradiction. In Southbeach, there are four simple types, well known to practitioners of TRIZ. They are:

1. Something useful produces something harmful
2. Something useful counteracts something useful
3. Something harmful produces something useful
4. Something harmful counteracts something harmful

In cases 1 and 2, when you try to increase the useful element, there is a harmful side effect. In cases 3 and 4, when you try to reduce the harmful element, there is another harmful side effect. In case 3, less of something useful and in case 4, less ability to counteract something also harmful in the situation. It is sometimes hard to spot contradictions. Take a look at case 3. Something useful is being created, so the color of the effect line is green. However, we want to reduce the harmful element or remove it altogether. We therefore are minimising the useful production.

These four simple contradictions are the basic situations that must be solved, if a situation is to improve. Revealing the contradictions in a situation is central to problem solving.

Adding Agents - Elaboration Patterns

There are many ways to add a new agent to a Southbeach diagram, so as to gain additional insight into the situation represented. A common one is to insert an agent between two others, thereby clarifying the effect between them. Here, we illustrate how to expand a model from an existing useful function, and from an existing harmful function. The eight possibilities are:

* Adding a harmful side effect (a complication)
* Adding a silver lining (useful output of a harmful function)
* Adding a 'necessary evil' - a harmful function which nevertheless counteracts the existing harmful function
* Adding a solution, an improving factor
* Adding a worsening factor - another problem
* Adding a contradiction - a useful function that also increases the harmful function
* Adding in a solution, which is unfortunately compromised by the harmful function
* Adding in a problem which is counteracted by the existing harmful function

A similar model  could be drawn around a useful function. It would share some of the patterns as before, but the language would change because of the change of perspective. For example, what was called an improving factor and a worsening factor in the context of a harmful function, could now be called barriers and enablers. Note also how the effects, and their color, are different between the two diagrams. For example, the contradiction above is an additional useful function which increases the central harmful function. Whereas in the diagram below, the additional useful function counteracts the central useful function. We want more of both, but one is decreasing the other.

Voice of the Customer - Part 2

In part 1 of Voice of the Customer we looked at how responding to a need far up the change of requirement, can lead to the wrong solution being proposed. In this model, we expand that picture with the problems that led to the client stated needs, and the solutions that emerge from the unstated requirements. You can see that, reading across from left (problems) to right (solutions), is consistent with the way the voice of the customer conversation could develop. We wonder which consultants, working with their client, could make the conceptual leap from "I need a drill" to "Here are recruitment services"? Everyone has something to sell. Knowing how to position the idea or solution in the chain of stated and unstated needs and wants, is the clue to uncovering the voice of the customer.

Take care with the Voice of the Customer - Part 1

This model illustrates how easy it can be to make a mistake about a customer's underlying needs or intentions. They say they want a drill, but they really mean they want a hole. Etc. Reading down the left column illustrates how requirements can expand. Reading down the right hand column illustrates the forward implications of  need.

When working with customers, make sure you understand the difference between stated and unstated requirements. The cross links in the model below illustrate how easy it is to make a mistake. The customer asks for X, do they really need Y? Good 'listening' consultants will look several blocks ahead. When a customer says they need X, question them carefully. Find out why.

@stated "What problem led you to say {this}?"
@stated "What are you hoping to achieve when you say {this}?"
@stated "What could we give you that would make the need for {this} irrelevant?"
@stated "If we had an alternative to {this} which achieved the end result by other means, would that be of interest?"
@stated "What was the original motivation that led to {this}?"
* "Etc."

(The questions are expressed in the MyCreativity language)

In Part 2 of this article we add more details

Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics

The American Geophysical Union plans to announce that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. Other scientists plan a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. The model below is based on the following news media:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-climate-scientists-20101108,0,3784003.story
(click on image once, and again, for full resolution in your browser)

Why it's hard to solve problems

Southbeach, being a notation for problem solving, can also be used to document problem-solving processes. Here is one such example. Templates like this can be developed to clarify the approach to a project for a team. The template can also be used as a starting point for the development of a specific model for a specific situational improvement effort. In other words: copy taken, words replaced with specifics, and other details added.

The best Southbeach consultants will develop many such templates to support the work they are doing with clients. In the Modeller tool, the Explorer view (left panel) lets you browse into your growing library of best practices, with no need to open each model file. Elements or models can be dragged onto the canvas to create new models for specific projects.

Use of 'Historical' for Lifecycle Mgt of Southbeach diagrams

Southbeach Notation supports the idea of an element being 'historical', for example, a risk we no longer face, a goal we no longer need to achieve, a useful function that is no longer needed, etc. Historical is shown in a Southbeach diagram using a cross. This can be applied to any object type. Consulting firms and individual consultants use this to manage the lifecycle of a model, for example, things done, things yet to do, etc. See image below.

Synonyms for 'historical' include: in the past, no longer exists, former, prior, retired, obsolete, strike-out, old news, noncurrent, not in play, completed, concluded, ended, terminated, defunct, dead, extinct, heritage, missing, lost ...