Core methods | about 60 minutes | free
Build an is/ought boundary critique and show how a change in boundary alters a judgement.
This exercise checks the completeness and consistency of boundary reasoning. It does not supply a morally unique answer or pretend that the practitioner represents every affected person.
This is original learning material, not a reproduced official course. Mechanical checks have determinate answers within the stated case. Worked comparisons for open judgements show defensible reasoning, not the only possible model. Specialist pedagogical review is not recorded.
Fictional case: a council proposes replacing its assisted benefits-application desk with a digital service. The finance director sponsors the proposal and counts annual administrative cost as success. A vendor controls the software design. The council controls staffing and opening hours. An analyst advises using completion rates from current online users. People unable to start online are absent from that dataset. A tenants' group has asked to be heard but has no place in the decision meetings. The project document says 'digital by default is modern and fair'. No replacement assistance or appeal route has been agreed.
Use paper, your own drawing tool or the notes below. Attempt each step before opening its comparison. Describe a diagram in words when that is more accessible.
Produce: Twelve labelled entries, separating case evidence from unknowns.
Motivation: beneficiary, purpose, measure. The sponsor prioritises administrative savings; whether all applicants benefit is unestablished. Control: decision-maker, controlled resources, decision environment. Council staffing decisions and vendor software control differ; applicants' internet access is not simply a project-controlled resource. Knowledge: expert, relevant expertise, guarantor of success. Analyst/vendor knowledge dominates; current online completion is treated as assurance, but excludes non-starters. Legitimacy: witness for affected people, emancipation or opportunity to challenge, and worldview. The tenants' group is not yet represented; an appeal route is absent; 'modern and fair' is a contested framing. Use 'unknown' where the case does not specify a fact.
Produce: Twelve proposals with the person or group whose judgement they express.
One defensible account includes all eligible applicants as intended beneficiaries; successful access to entitlement as purpose; cost, completion, exclusion and effort as measures; explicit council accountability and vendor constraints; assisted access resources; knowledge from applicants and frontline staff; assurance through disaggregated evidence and challenge; an independent voice for affected non-participants; accessible contest and redress; and a worldview in which access is not conditional on digital confidence. These are proposals to discuss, not automatically legitimate claims made on others' behalf.
Produce: A before-and-after judgement with a changed evidence requirement.
If the beneficiary boundary expands from current online users to all eligible applicants, the online completion rate is no longer sufficient. Count failed starts and people using or needing assistance, and ask about effort and exclusion. An apparently cheaper process may transfer cost or prevent access. The new judgement requires evidence; it is not proof that digital service is necessarily bad.
Produce: One route to contest the proposal without accepting its framing.
Invite independently supported evidence from people unable to use the digital route, permit oral or assisted submissions, explain how challenges affect the decision, and provide a route to disagree after a meeting. Do not require a person to complete an online consultation to prove that online access is a barrier. Representation and practical ability to challenge are different questions.
These checks test the supplied case, not your overall competence. Open answers and model variants still need your judgement.
A stakeholder list has twelve names and is labelled 'the twelve CSH questions answered'.
People are not boundary categories. Examine motivation, control, knowledge and legitimacy in both descriptive and normative modes. A single actor may occupy several roles; a crucial role may have no credible representative.
The tenants' group gets one seat but cannot alter the agenda or challenge the savings target. Which part of the critique remains open?
Witness or representation may have improved, but emancipation and worldview remain contested. Attendance is not sufficient opportunity to question the terms of the decision. Ask whether dissent can alter evidence, criteria or the decision itself.
A different model can be defensible when its purpose, assumptions and reasoning are explicit. A contradiction, incorrect unit, invented fact or unacknowledged change of purpose needs repair. Keep both your first attempt and revision.
No sign-in or submission is required. Notes are not sent by this practice tool. Use fictional information, not identifiable client or learner data. Saving stores this page's attempt only in this browser; clearing browser data can remove it. Export a copy to keep it elsewhere.
The complete original case above is free. Links below distinguish exercises from explanations, recordings, software and paid study. Reading a page or drawing in a tool is not itself a model check.
Use the twelve categories to challenge your is/ought table and your treatment of affected people. Follow the linked primer for depth.
Author's HTML guide and linked introduction inspected. It supplies boundary critique, not a unique correct policy answer.
Study the operational use of CSH in evaluation and compare its boundary judgements with your own. No automated marking.
Repository abstract and download listing inspected; the accepted manuscript is linked there.
Choose the named introduction or core module matching your method. Check current price, access arrangements and feedback provision before paying.
Public listings inspected for VSM, SSM, CSH, SD, Patterns of Strategy, Mosaic and systems laws. Paid exercises and marking were not accessed.
Choose another practice area · Task-only version · Worked-answer version