Assumptions and Theory behind SODA/Cognitive Mapping

Eden and Ackermann (1998) defined SODA as an approach which is designed to provide
consultants with a set of skills such as skills of a facilitator and a content constructor; a
framework for designing problem solving interventions; and a set of techniques and tools such
as cognitive mapping and oval mapping technique (OMT) to help their client with messy
problems.

SODA is an acronym for Strategic Options Development and Analysis which centred on the
importance of process and negotiation in strategy making and strategy delivery. The key aim of
SODA is to achieve understanding and agreement among the team members regarding the
problem under discussion. Its success is being measured in terms of content as well as the
energy and commitment generated for delivering the agreements (Eden & Ackermann 1998).

There are four theoretical perspectives behind SODA methodology which includes the
individual, the nature of organisation, the consulting practice and the role of technology and
technique (Eden & Ackermann 1998). Westcombe (2002) outline Pidd’s (1996) assumptions on
SODA methodology which includes the problem definition, the nature of the organisations, the
use of models and the emphasis placed on organisational and individual learning.

SODA involves construction and analysis of models representing individual and group
perspectives. It is based on the philosophy of Interpretivism which had been explained in Kelly’s
Personal Construct Theory. It is therefore focuses on the management of meanings.

SODA methodology uses cognitive mapping as a framework for “designing problem solving
interventions”. Cognitive mapping being defined by Downs & Stea (1973) as “a process
composed of a series of psychological transformations by which an individual acquires, codes,
stores, recalls, and decodes information about the relative locations and attributes of
phenomena in their everyday spatial environment”. It is a technique designed to capture an
individual’s values and embedded wisdom in a diagrammatic format (Ackermann, Eden &
Brown 2004), such as a series of interconnected causal maps (Westcombe 2002).
 Figure 1: Example of a simple cognitive map

Nature of Cognitive Mapping, Oval Mapping and Causal Mapping and its
differences

Cognitive mapping is founded on the belief that language is the currency of organisational
problem solving. Therefore, cognitive maps are a natural, language-based representation of
understanding that an individual has a situation and its meanings attributed to concepts
forming part of that situation. A cognitive map is a formal model designed to represent the way
a person defines an issue (Eden & Ackermann 1998). McKay and Marshall (2005) quoted
Bryson’s (2004) description of a typical cognitive maps as a network of ideas (nodes), linked by
arrows representing relationships between ideas which are captured as chunks of text.

Cognitive mapping aims to provide (1) an instrument to help negotiation towards best solution;
(2) a way of capturing several people’s perspectives at once by setting the views of one person
in the context of the ideas of others; (3) a method for providing structure to multiple and
conflicting aspects of argumentation; (4) a method which is designed to suggest action to
resolve issues; (5) a method for developing a consensus about a goal’s system; (6) a method
that does not violate the natural role of discussion; (7) an efficient way of avoiding ‘group-think’
and ‘bounded vision’; (8) a designed scheme for attending to both the content of issues and to
the need of recognition that people change organisations; and (9) a designed environment for
ensuring effective decision-making (Eden 1990).

You may consider initiating the intervention using OMT in circumstances where the culture of the
organisation is such that people are comfortable with group working. OMT is also useful when there is a
need to obtain faster results, capturing a large number and range of alternative views from a group,
albeit in less detail than would be obtained from interviews. OMT also allows for team building,
individual learning and a holistic view to be gained. In any event, group workshops using OMT are likely
to occur even if the overall process is started with individual interviews. (Ackermann, Eden & Brown,
2004).
It is possible to carry out cognitive mapping on the basis of documents and reports about, and by the
person. Group mapping is where the map is built up in front of the group based on their contributions.
This can be done either manually using what we refer to as the Oval Mapping technique (OMT), or
through using computer support, namely the Decision Explorer software. Group mapping meetings or
workshops have some initial similarities with more traditional brainstorming sessions – however, the use
of mapping powerfully extends their function. In addition, group mapping workshops have advantages
and disadvantages compared with individual interviews. In principle, group mapping utilizes group
dynamics and creativity and can play a role in building a team, whereas cognitive mapping in interviews
deliberately subtracts the individuals from the group context, in order to allow the emergence of
information that may be suppressed, influenced or contorted by group pressures. (Ackermann, Eden &
Brown, 2004).

The OMT workshop is the beginnings of a process of not only surfacing but also structuring the
information obtained. This structuring process is designed to enable the thinking of the whole group to
cohere around a set of strategic issues and their interrelationships, giving rise to an understanding of
their impact and therefore priority. After interviewing and OMT exercises, the various strategic issues
collected can now set fore reviewing. It is likely that these issues have, by now, been collated, possibly
analysed, fed back to, confirmed and clarified by the group members.

The process of identifying and structuring the goals system that is emerging from an exploration of
strategic issues helps clarify what the strategic direction of the organisation will be if no deliberate
actions are taken to change it. Through understanding the potential impact of the issues and
opportunities facing the organisation, steps can be taken to position the organisation in such a way as to
resolve or capitalise upon these. As such it provides a valuable benchmark against which to consider the
strategic future. Thus, the process involves identifying the goals and understanding how they impact on
one another.

Causal maps have been used because they focus the attention of the group on strategic action within
the context of purpose – the casual arrows indicate means to ends or options to outcomes. While this
consideration of the implications of statements along with reviewing options and constraints enhances
the group’s shared body of understanding, the maps that have been produced, edited and modified will
remain somewhat cryptic to anyone other than those who participated in their creation. This is
inevitable because the full subtlety of their meaning derives as much from the social negotiation that
has been undertaken as it does from the content and shape of the maps. Nevertheless there is greater
precision of meaning in maps than in, for example, bullet point lists because every statement is given
meaning by the actions that underlie it (in arrows) and the outcomes that indicate purpose (out arrows).

Advantages, disadvantages, problems and issues with Cognitive Mapping,

Causal Mapping and Oval Mapping
The cognitive mapping technique is one route to beginning the process of uncovering what the group’s
emergent strategy is. Cognitive mapping is used as a small part of a group process approach to strategy
making. Cognitive mapping is introduced because it can be the most effective method of surfacing the
real strategic issues that the organisation will expect to address, and so it is usually the best way of
detecting the emergent strategy of the organisation. However, it is inevitably more time consuming than
starting with a group workshop. Cognitive mapping links ideas and issues together in a logical and
dynamic way, in a structure resembling a spider’s web. Thus it has the major advantage of generating a
relatively simple visual representation of the interrelationships of the statements. (Ackermann, Eden &
Brown, 2004).

Recently, the value of a causal map in its own right is rapidly gaining ground. The causal map can be built
with less time and efforts than a simulation model and it can give important insights and understanding
that clients demand. On the other hand, cognitive map has been used widely to represent mind maps of
decision-makers without using computer simulation. However the causal map and cognitive map have
fundamental limits in understanding behavioural implications (Kim 2000).

However, one cannot simulate the causal map without introducing additional assumptions on structures
and parameters. Abstract simulation environment is supposed to provide these assumptions
automatically. At least, one can have opportunity to systematically experiment with additional
assumptions introduced to simulate the causal map (Kim 2000).

Abstract simulation will help in preserving generic nature of causal map. Sometimes causal map is built
with highly abstract variables to maintain its generic nature. Abstract simulation is required to preserve
the purity of cognitive maps. If one introduces additional assumptions into the cognitive map for
simulation purpose, the purity of cognitive map will be destroyed. Abstract simulation of cognitive map
will help in minimising the number of additional assumptions and will make it clear what additional
assumptions are introduced (Kim 2000).

Some additional advantages for employing cognitive mapping include (Jonassen et al., 1993):

 Effective for assessment of employees’ understanding of higher-level knowledge.

 Can measure knowledge structures for a group of people, such as employees in a department
for performance assessment and feedback.

Although the interview process using cognitive mapping is crucial in a real exercise (it provides the
means of eliciting in-depth and relatively open data which can then be merged with that from others
and used as the focus), this is difficult to simulate and so is excluded from the tasks. However, using
strategy mapping for direct work with a group (the oval mapping technique (OMT)) cannot be
undertaken effectively unless the interviews and mapping character are well understood – hence it s
inclusion (Ackermann, Eden & Brown, 2004).

The cognitive maps captures, in a mostly hierarchical format, how a person explains why they see things
in a particular way, and why situations (strategic issues) might matter for the strategic future of the
organisation (eliciting goals, objectives, values). (Ackermann, Eden & Brown, 2004).

The key issue with both forms of the group mapping (computer based or OMT) is to surface the issues,
and subsequently create a structure by reviewing, structuring and clustering the material as it emerges
from the participants. This may present practical difficulties ‘on the day’, particularly if the numbers of
participants taking part are relatively large and very large numbers of contributions are generated. Time
outside of the workshop may be needed to complete the map (along with help from participants if
available). But the fact that running a successful workshop task is a challenge is by no means the whole
story. The advantages of group mapping over brainstorming are considerable, because participants are
able to crystallise useful outcomes as the workshop sessions progress. As group mapping is goal-
oriented to a degree that brainstorming is not it provides a powerful means of starting the strategy-
making process. (Ackermann, Eden & Brown, 2004).

As with cognitive mapping, beginning to understand how the different issues relate to one another will
provide not only a means of managing the complexity and increasing a shared understanding, but will
also trigger new thinking as different understandings are surfaced.

Advantages, disadvantages, problems and issues with the SODA methodology

Application of SODA/Cognitive Mapping to both strategy formulation and

organisational problem solving

Range of applicability of SODA/Cognitive Mapping

Group mapping can be seen as similar to brainstorming and seeks to surface contributions from all those
attending. However, group mapping used ofr strategy making has a number of important differences
from brainstorming. To begin with the focus is on surfacing strategic issues and concerns – usually those
activities or events that are potentially attacking or supporting organisational aspirations – rather than
on creativity as an aim in its own right. The aim is to surface current wisdom and experience rather than
off-the-wall ideas.

Starting with issues enables managers to put on the table all the events, activities and concerns that
they expect will demand their attention and time and will have an impact on the strategic future of the
organisation. This not only gets at what is driving the organisation- as these issues are the focus of
managerial attention – but also allows managers to experience some relief as they bring them out into
the open and can begin to explore and understand them. Until these issues are openly presented and
discussed, attention on the rest of the strategy-making processes will be clouded by their continual
presence, as managers seek to find ways of making coherent links between their day-to-day concerns
and the future. Realistic strategy making thus starts with issue surfacing.

Group mapping encompasses the surfacing of assumptions, concerns, facts, assertions and constraints
along with their relationships. This enables the material to be structured by reflecting causality.
Structuring gives the meaning of each statement by setting it within a context: why it matters
(consequences), and what needs to be done to change it (explanations). Instead of interpreting the
statement by reference to a dictionary, meaning is determined by action and purpose. Encouraging
participants to avoid arguing over the precision of the words and concentrating on the action context of
a statement helps with the development of a shared understanding. It provides some clarity in terms of
answering the ‘so what?’ question. The process of detecting how issues impact upon one another is
found by most managers to be an activity that they can relate to easily – this is because we all can use
causality in order to make sense of our world. Group mapping thus aims to release deep knowledge and
wisdom to get beyond the apparently similar descriptions of situations and into the subtle, but
important, differences of what has to be done and why. The process raises alternative formulations and
therefore opens up new options.

The strategic issues an organisation may face might encompass members’ concern about possible
threats to the organisations as well as the realisation of potential opportunities. Regardless of which
complexion they tale, these issues are the focus of the group members’ attention and therefore the
appropriate place to start. The discovery of these issues involved learning to use sophisticated
communications and analysis techniques (mapping) and required the deployment of leadership skills by
the consultant/facilitator responsible. The overall emphasis therefore has been on enabling issues to
emerge with the intention of building a strategic future based on these realities rather than some
abstraction of the future. ‘Grounding’ the strategic future in the context of the issues facing managers
not only will ensure that organisational members are able to determine how the strategic intent
supports the concerns they are currently wrestling with, but will also ensure a more robust strategic
future.

(Ackermann, Eden & Brown, 2004).

References
Kim, DH 2000 ‘A Simulation Method of Cognitive Maps’, 1st International Conference on Systems Thinking in
Management, School of Public Affairs, Chung-Ang University, Korea, pp. 294-299

Pallant, A, Timmer, P & McRae, S ‘Cognitive Mapping as a Tool for Requirements Capture’
<http://www.userface.net/papers/Cognitive_Mapping.pdf>

Westcombe, M 2002, ‘Problem Structuring: The Process of SODA Modelling’, ACM Hypertext2002
Conference, University of Maryland, MD, USA, pp. 1-5

Pidd, M 1996, Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science, John Wiley & Sons, Chicester.

Downs, RM & Stea, D 1973, Cognitive Maps and Spatial Behaviour, Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.

Banxia Software 2010, Cognitive Mapping: Getting Started with Cognitive Mapping, Banxia Software,
viewed 21 March 2010, < http://www.banxia.com/dexplore/how-to-make-cognitive-maps.html>

School of Computing & Information System 2010, KXI 222 Business and Information Analysis: Lecture 7
SODA & Cognitive Mapping, Lecture Notes, University of Tasmania, Hobart.

Eden, C 1990, Using Cognitive Mapping for Strategic Options Development and Analysis, in J.Rosenhead
(Ed), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World, Wiley, Chichester.

Executive Report on SODA/Cognitive Mapping Methodology for Strategy

Formulation and Organisational Problem Solving

Cognitive mapping is a technique designed to capture the person’s values and embedded wisdom in a
diagrammatic format. Based on a well-established body of psychology theory, it is designed to capture
the rich thinking about strategic issues – their causes and consequences – of each key person within an
organisation. It seeks to map out how each person ‘makes sense of their organisational world’. With
cognitive mapping, statements are not only captured but are linked together using arrows that
represent a cause and effect relationship (Ackermann, Eden & Brown, 2004).

Techniques for eliciting and representing cognitive structure are based upon the assumption that
‘similarity data’ – describing the relationships between a set of stimuli – provides an index of the
organisation of these concepts in human memory (e.g. Fillenbaum and Rapoport, 1971). The validity of
the representations generated by these techniques – or cognitive maps – is however, compromised by
several methodological limitations. These limitations must be overcome if cognitive mapping techniques
are to provide a useful tool for informing design. The methodological problems associated with the
application of cognitive mapping techniques, together with the steps adopted in the present study to
resolve them are outlined below:

 Stimulus selection – previous research has generally failed to provide explicit a priori criteria for
the selection of a comprehensive and representative stimulus set.
 Contextual effects – since similarity judgements are likely to be sensitive to contextual variables,
different cognitive maps may be elicited in different situations.
 Choice of representational model – different statistical models for representing similarity data
are based upon different assumptions, tend to reveal different aspects of cognitive structure,
and may have ‘Procrustean properties’ which may impose inappropriate structure upon
similarity data (Fillenbaum and Rapoport, 1971).
 Interpretation – although elicitation techniques are associated with formal analytic tools which
generate visual representations of similarity data, the process of interpreting cognitive maps
remains largely subjective.
 Adam Pallant, Peter Trimmer and Scoot McRae