|Opening statement: Conflicting statements:
- A We do need functionality to draw simple non-causal diagrams such as mind maps. (Argument colours refer to this statement.)
- B We do need functionality only to upload images.
- C We do not need a functionality in the scoping diagram tool to create other charts than causal diagrams
Closing statement: Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)
(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
- ⇤--1: . The scoping diagram tool sees the assessment from the perspective of the generic causal chain. I do not see a possiblity nor a need to provide a functionality for creating a flow chart as well. How to integrate the scoping diagram and the flow chart? --Alexandra Kuhn 11:22, 22 June 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- ←--3: . Mind maps, flow charts and system diagrams / issue framing: The aim of these diagrams is to help scoping. Of course a mind map might be useful. But we have several arguments against providing such a tool - First of all we would have to use very advanced web techniques to provide such a dynamic system as a mind map program (which would therefore be very time consuming). Might it not be better if the user constructed the mind map on his PC (using a special program) and then used the ideas he got to create a scoping diagram/causal diagram? - The structure of a mind map is like a tree. This structure does not fit with the causal diagram structure which is more like a net or chain. So we so not see how a mind map leads so a causal diagram. - The scoping diagram tool IS something like a pre-structured mind map so-to-speak. It helps you in sorting out you thoughts and helps you define the issue. The causal chain and Intarese approach is inherent to the scoping diagram - in contrast to a mind map tool which is not constructed along these lines. - The scoping diagram tool has certain functionalities, among others that the scoping diagram can be turned into a causal chain diagram. There would be not support of this kind for any of the other graphical representation. - How to handle a diverse set of several graphical representations if they all should end in the causal diagram?? We therefore do not recommend providing a mind map / flow chart / system diagram tool. --Alexandra Kuhn 27 June 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
- ←--2: . In terms of issue-framing (in your table) I strongly believe graphical as well as textual methods are important here: i.e. I would see a much more natural link between issue-framing and scoping. In both cases the toolbox should thus provide graphical methods (not just text). Ultimately, as you indicate, this should take the form of a 'causal diagram', but on the way to that it is often helpful to develop mind-maps or systems diagrams (neither are the same as causal diagrams) to help in the process of agreeing what the issue is and how to define it. --David Briggs 26 June 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
- ←--4: . Causal diagram: for me this is a very specific beast, with very explicit rules. As such it is very useful to represent ideas once they are thought out. The difficulty is in using it to do the initial thinking, both because it may limit people's way of thinking about the problem and, because causal diagrams are very technical things if applied rigorously, may limit people's ability to be involved and unbalance their powers of expression. That is why in the early phases of the process, it is vital to have available more flexible and intuitive tools. Mind maps (and other 'social science' methods) are likely to be important in this context.
On the basis of these principles, my argument is simply that we should (if we can) provide help and guidance in the more informal part of the process of issue-framing. No doubt in many cases, this could be done on the stakeholder's own pc (more often, it's likely to be done on a flip-chart or blackboard!) in a group context. But I could imagine that a simple window, where people could draw up mindmaps by inserting elements and defining what relates to what in a very loose way, would be helpful. --David Briggs 27 June 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
- ⇤--5: . I see David's point (4) here in offering tools for unformal contributions. This is important. However, I also agree with Alex (3) that we should encourage people to use causal diagram tools to help them gear their thinking into the right direction. Mind maps are problematic in this sense: I have tried to make causal diagrams out of them, and basically you have to start from scratch. My suggestion is that in addition to causal diagram tools, we offer only a very simple tool for the users: a possibility to upload images (graphs, mindmaps, digiphotos of flipcharts or whatever they have produced with their own tools). This way, we don't limit contributions, but the only real tool is based on causal diagrams. I'll vote for statement B. --Jouni 01:05, 29 June 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)