Core methods | about 50 minutes | free
Use a precise relation, a small adjacency matrix and transitive reasoning to structure a set of enabling conditions.
This rehearses one modelling component of Interactive Management. It does not reproduce its full facilitated group process or establish group agreement. The external handbook's free-download availability is uncertain, so the complete case is supplied here.
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 partnership is opening a shared referral service. Five conditions are proposed: A agreed decision authority; B permission to access required records; C a workable triage protocol; D an allocation process; E a follow-up review. For this exercise the group has explicitly agreed these immediate prerequisites: A before C, B before C, C before D, and D before E. There are no other immediate prerequisite links. The relation being modelled is 'must be in place before', not 'causes better outcomes'.
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: Five rows of five binary values, with a legend.
With rows as prerequisites and columns as dependent conditions, and zero diagonal for immediate links: A=00100; B=00100; C=00010; D=00001; E=00000. An entry 1 means the row condition must precede the column condition. Reversing the convention is acceptable only if the whole matrix and interpretation are reversed consistently.
Produce: A reachability matrix and one explained inferred link.
Reachability including each condition itself is: A=10111; B=01111; C=00111; D=00011; E=00001. A reaches E through C and D, even without an immediate A-to-E link. A does not reach B and B does not reach A. Transitivity is appropriate to the stipulated prerequisite relation; it is not a licence to infer causation from arbitrary associations.
Produce: A dependency diagram with a stated direction.
A and B form the initial foundation; both lead to C, then D, then E. With arrows drawn upward from prerequisites, E is the top-level dependent condition. Some diagrams reverse the visual layout: assess the meaning and arrows, not whether the page looks identical. Retain direct versus inferred links in the audit record.
Produce: Two questions that could change it.
Ask whether the triage protocol can be designed before access permission but cannot be operated before it; that distinction could split C. Ask whether decision authority is needed for the whole allocation process or only disputed cases. A correct matrix can faithfully represent an oversimplified or disputed judgement. Record dissent and revise the elements or relation when necessary.
Tick a cell when the row condition reaches the column condition. Include the identity diagonal. A missing tick means zero, not an unanswered cell.
These checks test the supplied case, not your overall competence. Open answers and model variants still need your judgement.
A matrix mixes 'must precede', 'is preferred to' and 'is funded by' without labelling the difference, then applies transitive closure.
Choose one explicit relation for a matrix, check whether transitive inference makes sense for it, and record the source judgements. Use separate representations for other relation types. Otherwise the calculation produces precise-looking nonsense.
The group adds E before C: learning from review is needed to revise triage. What should you do rather than pretending the original acyclic sequence still holds?
C, D and E now form a cycle. Ask whether the model has mixed initial establishment with later operation. You might separate 'initial triage design' from 'triage revision', or represent an iterative subsystem explicitly. A cycle is a finding to interpret, not an error to delete for a prettier diagram.
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.
Try the access route, but rely on the original mini-ISM exercise here when access fails. Check seller stock and rights yourself.
SCiO lists a free PDF route and second-hand availability. The trust's record differs; full download availability is therefore not guaranteed here.
Locate the handbook or ask about access. It distinguishes proper Interactive Management from loosely structured group discussion.
The author's trust lists the handbook but says a digital download is not available there. Do not label this particular link a free full text.
Follow the relationship between Interactive Management and Structured Dialogic Design. A five-element structural model rehearses only part of the group process.
SCiO presentation description and attachment listing inspected.
Ask for practice with feedback in the named approach, rather than assuming every recording includes assessment.
The page lists coverage including CONAN, INFORMED and multi-methodology. Availability and individual tutor feedback require an enquiry.
Choose another practice area · Task-only version · Worked-answer version