Saving the experience with drama: 3 — SenseMapping the Drama
This article is part of a series ‘Saving the Experience… with Drama’.
Recap from the previous episodes…
Personas, archetypes or personalities describe what people like on a general level. But they are not very usable for the granular stages of task completion. This is because we have different ways of thinking, called Mindstates, as we go through a task.
There are other issues with profiles; rigidity, bias and scope creep are well known. They are also too human-centred!
Drop the Mask and pick up the Map
The word, Persona means mask (as in an actor’s) or role in Latin. Masks are great for taking on a different character. I attended a mask workshop recently. The loss of self and an alternative perspective is liberating. It allows one to explore the space and improvise the possibilities.
Using a mask as a metaphor has its drawbacks. If we lean into it too much, a profile can become fixed, anachronistic and loaded with implicit bias. It is much more dynamic and exploratory to put on different masks, as we go through a journey. We could even use de Bono’s 6 thinking hats. These are both best done in groups, which points to the other issue.
The main problem with profiling is the inherent scope creep. The profile ends up becoming a map that the persona occupies. What we end up with, is a world stamped with a face.
Human-centred design is so anthropocentric. It forgets that the profile is about the space the person occupies. All the constraints and possibilities. The values and traits of the persons and other entities. They all interact in that space. Rarely do we do things in isolation. If we do it’s normally part of something bigger.
We often use tools and software that have their own attributes. Think of the values (or governance), traits (or affordances), constraints and possibilities. For example, Cogito advises a call centre operator how to interact with the customer. Increasingly, we are interacting with Artificial Intelligence from Alexa to ChatGPT. Even straightforward tools, such as a pen, will have their own values (old school) and traits (handy). We need to move beyond person-centred to something more holistic.
We need a map; that marks out the territory. One that includes all the entities/agents/objects, which can change from scene to scene. We also need to understand the climatic variables of this territory.
Landscape
The image below is from the previous article. It frames the space where all the action occurs.
The image captures the physical elements of the event. But what about the drivers that motivate or limit the way that event unfolds? What about the climate?
Climate
Climate comes from the Greek for inclination or slope. It can imply a physical effect or an attitude. A climate of fear in an organisation. The atmosphere at an event. Climate needs a terrain to exist.
The image below captures some of the influences that impact an event. They include societal values, actor’s traits, real constraints, and virtual possibilities. This is where systems thinking lives. These are the levers that operate on the system. These are the vectors that act on the landscape.
Traits — These are patterns, behaviours and tendencies that show how we approach a situation. Traits are often a mix of past behaviours, habits and needs. For example mobile consumption, doom scrolling and distraction. Cognitive biases are tendencies we have less control over and may be born with. My personal favourite is apophenia; our tendency to find meaning in seemingly irrelevant things. And for those of you that might dispute whether a need can be a trait, then check out whether you have a need for drama.
Values — These are attitudes, beliefs, and norms that are often based on the culture we belong to. Many of our personal attitudes and beliefs are guided by our environment.
You can take the girl out of Kansas, but you can never take Kansas out of the girl.
There is an interrelationship between values and traits. Values are often based on societal norms. Traits are patterns of thought and behaviour. They are affected by our values, situations and own predispositions. Take for example the cross-cultural differences in our perception of time and space due to the language we speak.
Possibilities — These can be anything from goals and visions to affordances. Affordances indicate the function of an object — the ‘sittability’ of a chair. Affordances also apply to the spaces these objects exist in. For example a chair has many uses (see Pina Bausch —Café Müller). Possibilities are often dictated by Constraints.
Constraints — These are the boundaries and limits to any context. They are often referred to in systems thinking and complexity. They apply to anything from pain points to resources such as energy, finance and time.
There is an overlap between constraints and values in rules for example. Constraints are often situational and action centred. It is surprising what we can be bound by.
Notice when you are in a transport system, a shopping centre, a place of worship or the great outdoors. See how the space, design and values of these settings rub off on you and the beings around you. Note how the time of day, and number of beings, affect your perception of these spaces.
SenseMapping
The following diagram is a conceptual framework of a profile, which I have called a sensemap. Think of it as a mental representation of an entity or an event. Like a landscape, it maps out the components of the real world. It also includes concepts which are both tangible and intangible. These include the vectors mentioned above, as well as the context.
Context — This frames the purpose of the sensemap. Is it about a person, an organisation, an event, or a project? It’s useful to state other factors like the era, and whether it is fact or fiction.
A SenseMap takes a big picture perspective. It provides equal weight to all entities, agents and objects within an ecosystem. This provides a macroscopic backdrop that is not human-centred, but entity-centred. This is the world of assemblages, hyperobjects, and entanglements. ‘We are co-constituted, co-acted and co-dependent on others’ as Mercedes Valmisa writes, connecting these modern concepts with ‘classic period’ Chinese process metaphysics. TL;DR SenseMaps make great profiles.
The beauty of a SenseMap is that it can apply to a person, an entity, an organisation, an event or a project.
You might say, ‘What about a rock then?’ Well, which particular rock? Cue context. The Rosetta stone evokes a very different sensemap to Uluru.
Constraints and Possibilities occupy the external space. Values and Traits exist in the internal world. Furthermore, these vectors have natural pairings with landscape attributes.
- Actions and constraints.
- Tools and possibilities.
- Roles and traits.
- Settings and norms.
This is because we are looking at two layers which could superimpose on themselves. However, it’s easier to lay this out flat. These layers echo the 5 work models in Contextual Design by Karen Holtzblatt and Hugh Beyer. It shares a lot of commonality with Keneth Burke’s theory of Dramatism, which focusses on identity and relationship.
Another way to look at it is as a classification system which can categorise insights and ideas. This makes them interoperable for other work. The Minimum Viable Taxonomy (MVT) level 1, from the ResearchOps community, is useful for giving context. It is used to index research publications and artefacts. A sensemap could be used as level 2 for indexing observations, insights and ideas. It is similar to the categorisation used in atomic research and design.
Applications of a SenseMap.
Below is a SenseMap based on the Wizard of Oz. Hopefully, you can guess what the images are and how they relate to the framework above.
I’ve recently used this to categorise insights and ideas, for a council and a university. It works well as a sense making tool. Each section can be broken down further (a SenseMap template will follow).
Conclusion
This is a conceptual framework that maps a context for an entity, an organisation, an event, and a project. It will be interesting to see how it develops. It is essential to recognise the tensions and pairings of these attributes, within any given context. They often drive the next opportunity.
Remember most of our most memorable experiences were not planned, they were discovered. Admittedly within certain optimal constraints. Regardless of our best laid plans, it’s the serendipities we stumble on that redirect us.
You might be wondering about the relationship between Mindstates and SenseMaps? Have a go yourself if you like. [Hint — there are a series of repeating patterns throughout the series.]
In the next article, we’ll explore how these elements stack up and apply them to the problem and solution spaces. Trust me, the drama will be real.
How do I find out more?
If you’d like to find out more, you can:
- Learn about the Mindstates Framework with this 5 minute overview.
- Read the series “Saving the Experience… with Drama”
Special thanks to Philip Clark for wrestling the SenseMap. And Gianlucca Gambatessa for benignly trolling time and space.
