Benjamin J. Broome
Arizona State University
Overview of the Interactive Management System
Benjamin J. Broome
Arizona State University
Interactive Management (IM) is a system specifically developed to assist organizations in dealing with complex issues. IM works with organizations to design responses to situations that demand integration of contributions from individuals with diverse views, backgrounds, and perspectives. A group of participants who are knowledgable of the situation are engaged in collectively developing a deep understanding of the situation, in establishing a clear basis for thinking about the future, and in producing a framework for effective action. The IM system promotes communication, consensus, and commitment from participants involved in the design effort.
IM has been developed primarily through the work of John Warfield and his colleagues at George Mason University and elsewhere, and it is based on Warfield's Science of Generic Design. IM was established as a formal system of planning and design in 1980 after a developmental phase that started in 1974. In addition to the work at George Mason University, centers for the practice of IM exist in several locations around the world, including the following:
The Interactive Management System engages a group in moving successfully through the three phases Intelligence, Design, and Choice, as originally put forth by H. A. Simon in 1960. IM seeks to appropriately balance the behavioral demands of group work with technical assistance that maximizes use of participants' time. The system is designed to prevent groups from (a) prematurely focusing on solutions before they have adequately defined the situation, and (b) underconceptualizing design alternatives. Special methods are employed to encourage the participants' creativity, and facilitated group processes are used to effectively manage the group's communication.
IM seeks to integrate the following synergistic components of group problem solving in a manner that leads to increased efficiency and effectiveness:
The conduct of an IM session typically results in both tangible products and significant learning on the part of the participants. Group work results in logical structures that can take the form of "maps" that show how elements such as problems or goals are interrelated, "fields" that present groupings of possible options for action, and "profiles" that depict alternative plans for short or long-range efforts. The information generated by the participants is fully documented during the process, allowing for a larger diffusion of the outcomes. In addition, significant learning takes places among the participants during the discussion that leads to these structures, and it is often within the context of exchanging information and diverse points of view that the greatest benefits are derived from the sessions. The shared understanding that is required for developing the structures forms the basis for a serious commitment to the resolution of the issue and leads to a greater sense of teamwork for the future.
Interactive Management has been applied in a variety of organizations, both public and private, with a wide range of issues. At George Mason University during the past few years IM has been used with the National Marine Fisheries Service for organizational redesign, the Department of Defense for improving the acquisition process, the Virginia Nursing Alliance for mapping organizational goals and objectives, the National Science Foundation for relating the study of mathematics and computer science, several University academic and adminstrative departments for long-range planning, and several Native American Tribes for developing greater participation in Tribal governance.
Introduction to an Interactive Management Session
Benjamin J. Broome
Arizona State University
Interactive Management (IM) is a facilitated, computer-assisted approach
to group work with complex issues. An IM session is typically conducted
with a group of 8-12 participants who are knowledgable about the issue
being addressed and who represent a variety of views of the situation.
Normally, the group meets for a period of 3-5 days, often followed at a
later time by additional sessions. A work plan is carefully developed prior
to the working sessions through interaction between the workshop planner
and a representative of the organization. Specially selected and tested
methodologies are used to help participants generate, clarify and structure
ideas.
No special demands are made of participants in an IM session other than hard work and a commitment to dealing with the situation. During the session, participants do the following:
Discussion is facilitated by a team of experts in group problem solving who take responsibility for the following tasks:
Participants are usually asked to read: (1) a "white paper" that is
distributed prior to the session, providing background information that
will assist the participants in understanding the context for the group
work; and (2) introductory material on Interactive Management, usually
consisting of this handout and a short (2 page) overview paper. It is usually
not
necessary
to bring materials or data to the session.
IM sessions are dedicated to serious group work. The sessions are not
platforms
for individual presentations, nor is the group interaction a forum for
academic debate or political posturing. While individuals bring into the
group various levels of status and prestige, group dialogue is based on
respect for individual contributions and efforts to understand diverse
points of view. Variety of perspectives is encouraged, but premature evaluation
is disallowed. Participants must be willing to adopt the posture of individual
and collective learning. While it is not expected that everyone will agree
with every aspect of the final products, it has been our experience that
participants are committed to and willing to support the work of the group.
IM sessions are conducted in a specially selected and configured environment
that is designed to promote effective use of participants' time and to
enhance their comfort and ability to work long hours productively. There
is ample working space on the table and extensive display space for group
ideas and structures. Sessions are usually recorded, either on videotape
or audiotape, in order to help maintain an adequate audit trail of group
work. Lunch and refreshments are usually provided. Participants are asked
to dress casually and to come ready for hard work and meaningful discussion!
Major Differences from "Normal" meetings
1. The focus of the sessions is on complex issues: The typical meeting often becomes bogged down in small issues and details and the group loses sight of the larger picture. The IM process keeps the group focused on the system of issues that characterize the situation.
2. Sessions are part of an overall design for problem solving: In normal meetings, there is a significant amount of "jumping back and forth" between seemingly unrelated issues. IM sessions are conducted as part of an integrated plan for dealing with the situation, and each session builds on what came before and lays the foundation for what will come after.
3. Special methodologies are used to handle information overload: Participants in the normal meeting are frequently asked to deal with too many pieces of information simultaneously. The methodologies in IM help participants work with ideas systematically while building up a holistic view of the situation.
4. Discussion is managed by an expert in group process: In the typical meeting the chair of the meeting attempts to both manage the process and contribute to the content of the discussion. IM sessions are guided by an experienced facilitator who manages the flow of communication and encourages meaningful dialogue but does not contribute content information.
5. Meaningful documentation is provided: Normal meetings usually go to one of two extremes -they either provide sketchy minutes or they try to capture every word uttered by participants. IM sessions go to neither extreme; they do provide an "audit trail" that captures the products produced by the group and the rationales behind those products.
Interactive Management Methodologies
Benjamin J. Broome
Arizona State University
The IM approach assigns to participants all responsibility for contributing ideas, and the group sessions are managed by a trained facilitator. Methodologies for generating, clarifying, structuring, interpreting and amending ideas are selected to match the phase of group interaction and the requirements of the situation.
Four of the group methodologies typically used with IM are: Nominal Group Technique (NGT) (Delbeq, Van De Ven, & Gustafson, 1975) Ideawriting (Warfield, 1990), Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) (Warfield, 1995), and Field and Profile Representations (Warfield, 1995).
Nominal Group Technique (NGT) allows individual ideas to be pooled effectively and is used in situations in which uncertainty and disagreements exist about the nature of possible ideas. NGT involves five steps: (1) presentation of a stimulus question to the participants; (2) silent generation of ideas in writing by each participant working alone; (3) recording of ideas by the facilitator on butcher-block paper in front of the group, with posting of the filled butcher-block paper on walls surrounding the group; (4) serial discussion of the listed ideas by the participants for clarification of their meaning; and (5) selection by the participants of the more important items through a voting process.
Ideawriting is a group method for developing ideas in a small group and allowing the group to explore the meaning of these ideas through open discussion. Ideawriting involves six steps: (1) formation of several small groups of 3-6 persons each; (2) presentation of a stimulus question to the participants; (3) silent generation of ideas in writing by each participant working alone; (4) exchange of written sheets of ideas among group members, with opportunity for individuals to add ideas as they read others' papers; (5) group discussion and clarification of unique ideas; and (6) a report by each small group that explains the ideas generated in the group.
Interpretive
Structural Modeling is a computer-assisted methodology that helps a
group identify the relationships among ideas and impose structure on the
complexity of the issue. The ISM software utilizes mathematical algorithms
that minimize the number of queries necessary for exploring relationships
among a set of ideas (see Warfield, 1976). ISM can be used to develop several
types of structures, including influence structures (e.g., "supports,"
or "aggravates"), priority structures (e.g., "is more important
than," or "should be learned before") and categorizations of ideas
(e.g., "belongs in the same category with"). The five steps of ISM include:
(1) identification and clarification of a list of ideas (using a method
such as NGT); (2) identification and clarification of a "relational question"
for exploring relationships among ideas (e.g., "Does idea A support idea
B," "Is idea A of higher priority than B," or "Does idea A belong in the
same category with idea B"); (3) development of a structural map by using
the relational question to explore connections between pairs of ideas (see
below); (4) display and discussion of the map by the group; and (5) amendment
to the map by the group, if needed. In step 3 group participants view questions
generated by the ISM software. The questions take the following form:
| "Does:
A relate in X manner to: B ?" |
"A" and "B" are pairs of ideas from the
list developed by the participants in step 1 of ISM and the relationship
"X" is the statement identified in step 2. The group engages in a discussion,
managed by the facilitator, about this relational question, and a vote
is taken to determine the group's judgment about the relationship. A "yes"
vote is entered in the ISM software by the computer operator if a majority
of the participants see a significant relation between the pairs of ideas;
otherwise a "no" vote is entered. Another pair of ideas is then projected
to the participants, and another discussion is held and a vote is taken.
This process is continued until the relationships between all necessary
pairs of ideas have been explored. The ISM software then displays a structural
map showing the result of the group's judgments. The length of time required
to complete discussion of all necessary pairs of ideas depends on the total
number of ideas in the set, but generally the process requires between
5 to 8 hours of group deliberation. The number of necessary queries also
depends on the total number of ideas in the set, but the ISM software is
able to infer, on the average, approximately 75-80% of the judgments involved
in relating the complete set of ideas.
Field and Profile Representations
A Field Representation organizes ideas in a way that allows a large amount of information to be worked with effectively. Different types of Field are useful for different types of applications. The Field Representation typically portrays a significant amount of information organized in a form that is suitable for (a) use in decision-making and (b) maintaining an ongoing, visible record of intermediate decision-making en route to a final portrayal of the total set of choices that has been made. A Field Representation shows a set of categories and the members of each of those sets. The members of a given category are all contained within that category.
The ongoing and terminal portrayal of choices constitutes a Profile Representation. In constructing a Profile, a group will examine the first dimension of the Field (as determined by sequence structuring) and make some choices of elements from that category. Each choice that is made is represented graphically by drawing a line from the bullet in front of a selected element down to a "Tie Line." The Tie Line is a continuous line that is drawn at the base of the graphic. After all choices are made, all selected elements will be connected to the Tie Line. All elements that have not been selected will remain unconnected.
The most frequent type of Field and Profile Representations are called Options Field/Options Profile. There are two characteristics of the Options Field that are important to point out. First, it allows full participation and creativity in the development of action plans. Since every idea in the field represents only a proposed option, it is not necessary to evaluate any of them at this stage for their feasibility or their acceptance by the total group. Any individual in the group is allowed to propose an idea for inclusion in the field. Thus, there are no limits placed on the creativity of the participants. Second, the field is open and dynamic. At any point, even after the sessions are finished, additional items can be added to the field. There are no limits placed on the capacity of the field to grow as new ideas are contributed. This gives it flexibility to meet differing demands as the situation changes and as more people become involved in the process.
There are two characteristics of the Options Profile that are important to note. First, the options selected by the group represents an integrated set of activities and initiatives. Participants selected the set of options by considering all the proposed ideas from an organized and sequenced field that has been built on several prior products, including a problematique and a vision statement. Second, the profile represents a single alternative plan of action. Additional alternatives could be developed by the same group meeting at different time or by another group.
Broome, B. J. (1997). Designing a Collective Approach to Peace: Interactive Design and Problem-Solving Workshops with Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot Communities in Cyprus. International Negotiation, Volume 2, 381-407.
Broome, B. J. (1995). Collective Design of the Future: Structural Analysis of Tribal Vision Statements. American Indian Quarterly, Vol.19, No. 2, 205-228.
Broome, B. J., & Fulbright, L. (1995). A Multi-Stage Influence Model of Barriers to Group Problem Solving, Small Group Research, Vol. 26, No. 1, 25-55.
Broome, B. J. (1993). Managing differences in conflict resolution. In D. J. Sandole and H. van der Merwe (Eds.), Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application, pp. 95-111. Manchester University Press.
Broome, B. J., & Chen, M. (1992). Guidelines for computer-assisted group problem-solving: Meeting the challenges of complex issues, Small Group Research, 23, 216-236.
Broome, B. J., & Cromer, I. L. (1991). Strategic planning for Tribal economic development: A culturally appropriate model for consensus building. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 217-234.
Broome, B. J., & Keever, D. B. (1989). Next generation group facilitation: Proposed principles. Management Communication Quarterly, 3, 107-127.
Broome, B. J., & Christakis, A. N. (1988). A culturally-sensitive approach to Tribal governance issue management. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 107-123.
Delbeq, A. L., Van De Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to Nominal Group and DELPHI processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Janes, F. R. (1988). Interpretive structural modeling: A methodology for structuring complex issues. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, 10(3), 145-154.
Moore, C. M. (1987). Group techniques for idea building. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Warfield, J. N. (1976). Societal systems: Planning, policy and complexity. New York: Wiley (reprinted by Intersystems, Salinas, CA: 1989).
Warfield, J. N. (1995). A science of generic design: Managing complexity through systems design. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Warfield, J. N. & Cardenas, A. R. (1995).
A
Handbook of Interactive Management. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
For Additional Information:
Benjamin J. Broome
Department of Communication
College of Public Programs
Arizona State University
PO Box 871205
Tempe, Arizona 85287-1205
Tel: 480-965-0394 (direct line)
Tel: 480-965-5095 (main office)
Fax: 480-965-4291
E-mail: bbroome@asu.edu