Appendix 1 — The “Formalities” of Mapping
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135
136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146
This Support section includes the following:
• Getting the wording of statements right
• Getting the direction of the arrow (causality) right
o Being clear about options and outcomes, means and ends, etc.
o Dealing with generic statements appropriately
o Dealing with assertions and facts
o Dealing with feedback loops (see also support 1)
• Goals, negative goals and constraints
• Doing mapping in interviews
• An overview of the mapping hierarchy (encompassing goals, issues, competencies,
options/actions) when used for strategic thinking
Wording Statements (nodes)
• Make statements action-oriented by including a verb — without doing violence to
what was said where possible
• Aim for six to eight words as this will ensure that each statement is discrete and yet
descriptive
• If there is likely to be ambiguity then consider including “who,” “what,” “where,”
and “when” in the statement (although this requirement can make the statement too
long)
• Exclude words such as “should,” “ought,” “need,” etc. (as this makes it more
option-like)
o E.g., “we ought to hire more salesmen” becomes “hire more salesmen”
• Avoid using “in order to,” “due to,” “may lead to,” “as a result of,” “through,”
“caused by,” etc., as these imply two statements linked together by an arrow
• When a statement includes several considerations, as for example: “postpone
writing mapping book, several articles and book chapters, and other books,” then
it is important to decide whether the statement should become several statements
o Ask whether:
• They each have different consequences
• They each have the same importance
• They each might involve different types of actions/explanations in order to create
the outcome
o Thus, in the example:
• Writing articles may be more important than books or chapters, in
which case the statement should be separated into two parts
• Postponing the mapping book may have different consequences
because it involves other colleagues, in which case it should be
separated
• Writing other books may require large chunks of time whereas others
can be done using small intervals, in which case it should be a separate
statement
o Therefore, watch the use of “and” as this might suggest two options rather
than one
• e.g., split “increase and improve services” into “increase services” and
“improve services” as these might lead to different outcomes and have
different explanations
Using Contrasting Poles in a Statement (node)
• The meaning of a statement is often best discovered by listening for the contrast
o For example, the meaning of “warm rather than hot weather” is different from
“warm rather than cold weather,” “buy two computers rather than six
computers” is different from “buy two computers rather than hire more staff,”
etc.
o Difficulties arise when each contrast is an option in its own right, and there
might be several options. When the contrast illustrates meaning by suggesting
a possible alternative outcome, circumstance, etc., (often contrasting
past with now, past with future, now with future) then use the contrast as a
part of the statement; when the contrast is a clear option then make it a
separate statement (sometimes linked without an arrowhead to other options)
Getting the Link Right: Causality
• The direction of arrow should indicate direction of causality and influence: means
to ends, options/actions to outcomes.
• One person’s means can be another person’s ends
o E.g., A→B might be correct for one person but B→A might be for another
• For example: “turning things around means we have to win every battle
in the next five years” may be coded with “winning every battle” as the
desired outcome from “turning things around,” or alternatively “winning
every battle” is required in order to “turn things around,”
depending on the desired ends of the interviewee.
• But, bear in mind some “objective” truths might be subject to debate
o E.g., “putting more policemen on the beat will reduce crime” may be an
objective truth to one person, nevertheless another person might argue the
objective truth to be that more crime leads to more policemen on the beat.
• Sometimes A→B can be treated as so consensual that it need not be debated, e.g.,
“obvious” arithmetical relationships.
o More sales causes more sales revenue
• Means to ends are most difficult to judge when considering a hierarchy of criteria,
values and goals
o E.g., is “be unhappy and upset much of the time” more disastrous than “crawl
into my shell and give up”? That is, does “be unhappy” lead to “into shell”
or vice versa? This can only be judged by the person being mapped, or this
choice must be open to consideration.
• It sometimes helps to work with a hierarchy of goals, such as “objectives”
lead to “goals” which lead to “ideals or values.” So, objectives
are shorter term and more easily measurable; whereas goals are
expressions of desirable longer term outcomes; whereas ideals or
values are unlikely ever to be attained but guide purposeful behaviour9.
• Avoid mapping time sequences that are not causal relationships (as this will
produce flow diagrams or process maps that are not amenable to the same sort of
analysis or meaning as cause maps).
• Avoid duplicate and double-headed arrows
o Ensure that the map does not contain duplication of links
• For example, where the map shows A→B→C→D along with A→C and C→D and
A→D — ensure that the latter three links show different causal chains (through
additional material)
o Avoid double-headed arrows as these are implicit feedback loops suggesting
either:
• Muddled thinking that can be resolved by determining means and ends
• A legitimate feedback loop consisting of additional statements that
might provide more intervention options
Dealing with Generic Statements
• It is best to ensure that all members of a category are subordinate to the statement
expressing the generic category
o For example: “buy more saucepans” should in most circumstances lead to
“buy more kitchen equipment” — that is, the specific leads to the generic
• When a sub-category has different consequences from those of other members of
the category, then it will need its own out-arrow to other consequences (along with
the link to the generic).
• Sometimes the generic statement may not be necessary because there are no
specific consequences that follow from it, rather they all follow from specific subcategory
statements.