(University of Toronto) then its good enough to practically apply to I.T.!

Roger Martin’s excellent, recently published book “The Opposable Mind” is all about integrative thinking and how this capability fosters successful leadership. His argument revolves around the concept of our different mental models and how differences in interpretation lead to varied outcomes. By being able to appreciate your own mental model but also others - new ideas and innovative solutions become more possible. There is a different but strong parallel here for IT. In the research we have done to date with Ivey on developing a Common Computing Framework - we are building the argument around the same premise as Martin.

Martin gives an interesting example where two managers go on a client call - and interpret one single sentence from the client completely differently. My argument is - what then happens when two or more IT specialists are analysing a complicated IT system? A great deal of research shows that technical specialists have an innate tendency to develop their own polarized mental models of problems. [think for instance developer]. In some cases not even realizing that their own version of reality is widely different from say another’s perspectives.

Arguably it is this that makes IT projects so difficult. It is this behaviour that needs to be managed. Another polarizing problem is specialized methodologies - ie the developer’s approach (AGILE) vs Operations (ITIL) vs Architecture (TOGAF) plus potentially whatever methodology an outside supplier brings forward.

The crucial point about differing mental models is that this poses a significant risk for productivity - and it increases management effort to correct. To counteract this tendency a Common Computing Framework is proposed that is less about method and more about what the system is and does. Now you can have a look at my proposed framework (see previous posts and my home page to download details) or you can create your own. It is important however to create one and use it - however it is designed.

This framework should be used as the foundation to align participant’s mental models. In the early stages for a project - it is actually a good idea to expose all the project member’s different mental models to understand what potential opportunities exist in terms of design. Once however a target design is agreed - a high degree of specificity is needed in a common representation - with generally agreed upon definitions. Aligning participant’s mental models constantly is the true challenge. Simple pictures, “What Does What” modelling, explanatory text, all play a critical role in this kind of approach.

So read Roger Martin’s book - and remember the flipside - few people can hold more than one mental model of a problem at any one time. It is because they don’t that in very complicated environments they need very clear and unambiguous maps for navigation.

Using their own methods can simply make the problem worse!