Core methods | about 50 minutes | free
Design a short inquiry in which each method answers a different question and its output is translated carefully into the next.
A basic methodological design exercise. There is no universal correct sequence. The checks concern fit, assumptions and transitions, not allegiance to one classification of methods.
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 regional advice partnership faces rising waits. The sponsor calls this a capacity problem. Residents say they are referred repeatedly without help. Charities argue that eligibility rules exclude the people most in need. Service leads disagree about who can change the rules. Reliable arrival and completion counts exist for two services, but not for the whole partnership. The sponsor wants a recommendation in four weeks.
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: Four questions, each with a needed output.
Whose purpose and experience count? A boundary and perspective account. What purposeful activity is relevant? Alternative activity models and comparison questions. How do queues behave under stated rules? A bounded stock-flow model with tested data. Who can coordinate, allocate resources and adapt? A governance-function diagnosis. A single diagram need not answer all four.
Produce: Method, question, output and limitation for each stage.
One defensible sequence is CSH to expose beneficiary and evidence boundaries; SSM to explore competing purposeful activities; then SD to test a particular queue mechanism where data support it. Another defensible design might use CSH, VSM and SD if governance failure is central. The order depends on what is learned. State what your choice omits and why that is tolerable for this inquiry.
Produce: One translation rule and one thing that must not be translated automatically.
Use an agreed operational definition of a case, entry, completion and time period before constructing flows. An SSM activity named 'support a resident to obtain help' is not automatically a measured outflow. Normative CSH claims are not parameter estimates. Keep excluded people and disputed purposes visible beside the quantitative boundary.
Produce: A revision trigger and a stopping rule.
If case tracing shows that apparent completions are referrals that return elsewhere, revise the SD boundary and data plan. If no legitimate decision-maker can act on a proposed change, investigate governance and authority rather than producing more forecasts. Stop adding methods when they no longer change the decision or inquiry; document residual uncertainty.
These checks test the supplied case, not your overall competence. Open answers and model variants still need your judgement.
'We will do SSM, VSM, SD and CSH, then combine the diagrams into one master model.'
State the distinct question each approach serves, how its result informs the next, what assumptions change in translation, and how disagreement will survive. A pile of methods is not an integrated inquiry.
The sponsor withdraws access to residents but still asks for a whole-system recommendation. What changes?
The participation and evidence boundary has materially narrowed. State the limitation, challenge it constructively and seek a workable alternative such as supported independent input. A staff-only exercise can continue with a narrower claim; it cannot honestly become the residents' validated account.
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 for orientation and source discovery. It is not a free self-check workbook; use the original exercises here.
Method descriptions and linked talks/books inspected. Provider claims about success rates are not adopted by this pack.
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.
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