Core methods | about 50 minutes | free
Distinguish an idealised design from a forecast, then work back to feasible changes and learning.
A small rehearsal of Ackoff's interactive planning and idealised design. It is not an invitation to ignore present feasibility, affected people or implementation.
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: residents must give the same household information separately to a repairs service, an advice service and a community transport service. Staff spend time chasing missing details. Residents avoid contact after repeated frustration. Each team meets its own response target by referring complicated cases elsewhere. The organisation is considering a faster referral form. For the design exercise, the existing arrangement has disappeared overnight, but current technology, legal responsibilities and today's environment remain. No unproven technology or compulsory data-sharing may be assumed.
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: Three mutually reinforcing problems and a consequence of continuing unchanged.
Fragmented information creates repeated requests; repeated requests increase frustration and avoidance; avoidance creates incomplete information and more chasing. Local referral targets can move work without resolving need. A faster form may accelerate the same pattern. State this as a working account to investigate, not a proven history of a real organisation.
Produce: A purposeful design with three capabilities and explicit constraints.
One defensible design gives residents a supported entry route, a consent-based shared account of relevant needs, and a responsible person who coordinates agreed actions to completion. Use available technology and preserve lawful limits, refusal of sharing and alternatives to digital access. The design must remain capable of learning and changing; 'a perfect database that predicts every need' fails the exercise.
Produce: One desired result, two means and the resources or authority they require.
End: residents obtain appropriate help without unnecessary repetition. Means could include a shared consent protocol and a case-coordination role. Resources include staff time, skills, a maintainable record, lawful access and decision authority. A new role title without time and rights is not a resource plan.
Produce: A small implementation step, prediction and review rule.
With permission, trial coordinated handling of a defined set of cases using existing tools. Predict fewer repeated requests without inappropriate disclosure or delayed specialist support. Record resident effort, unresolved need and staff coordination time. Review weekly with participants, and revise or stop if harms emerge. Participation continues through design and adaptation rather than ending at consultation.
These checks test the supplied case, not your overall competence. Open answers and model variants still need your judgement.
The group writes a perfect future vision, assumes unlimited money and full consent, and labels implementation 'roll out'.
Bring present feasibility and environmental constraints back in. Specify resources, participation, implementation and ongoing learning. Preserve the ambitious redesign question while testing how action becomes possible.
Residents reject a shared database but welcome a named coordinator. Does the design fail completely?
No. Separate the desired capability from one chosen means. A coordinator may support consented case-by-case information exchange without a universal database. Redesign the means with residents, and test the resulting workload and limits.
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 source listing for a repaired attachment or use the complete original interactive-planning exercise here. The paid book route is separate.
The public listing was inspected. Its Article attachment returned 404 during the 7 September 2026 check. This link is therefore not counted as a verified working full-text exercise.
Further reading for each framework row, including the separate references associated with transposing theory.
Public sharing confirmed; approach and theory bibliography inspected. The presence of a reference does not establish that it contains self-check exercises.
Further study of interactive planning, organisational design and implementation. The original rehearsal here remains free.
Book record and publisher link inspected, not the full book or current price.
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