Systemic intervention | about 40 minutes | free
Turn supplied statements into contrasting constructs and a traceable means-ends map.
A basic cognitive-mapping rehearsal. It is not a full negotiated SODA intervention and does not turn participants' causal beliefs into established facts.
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 service leader says 'Give advisers more discretion so people receive help without repeated approval.' A finance lead says 'Keep approval for unusual spending so the service remains within its budget.' An adviser says 'Waiting for approval means people call again, which leaves less time to resolve cases.' A resident says 'I need a clear answer, not another referral.' None has agreed that eliminating all approval is desirable.
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 bipolar or contrast-explicit concepts, retaining the speaker's meaning.
Examples: greater bounded adviser discretion / repeated approval; help resolved / further referral; budget kept within agreed limits / uncontrolled spending; clear answer / uncertain next step. The contrasts should clarify this case, not mechanically negate a word. Mark these as provisional formulations to check with speakers.
Produce: A directed map plus a statement explaining every arrow.
One proposed chain is bounded discretion -> fewer approval waits -> fewer repeat calls -> more time for resolution. Another is appropriate spending control -> budget viability. A tension appears if the same control creates unnecessary waits. Keep the finance concern visible rather than deleting it as anti-change. These links represent supplied or inferred reasoning, with inference labelled.
Produce: One option and a question for negotiation.
Delegated spending within agreed limits, with rapid exception handling and review, could support resolution and budget control. Ask the parties what limits, information and review would make it workable. The analyst has generated an option, not obtained agreement.
These checks test the supplied case, not your overall competence. Open answers and model variants still need your judgement.
The facilitator merges 'financial control' and 'bureaucracy' into one negative concept and reports consensus.
Recover the different meanings and the legitimate concern each expresses. Preserve tensions and return formulations to participants. Agreement must be negotiated, not created through the analyst's labels.
The adviser says most delays occur after approval, while waiting for a specialist. What changes?
Revise the causal chain. Approval may not be the dominant source of delay. Add specialist availability or routing where evidence supports it, and reconsider whether delegated spending addresses the important blockage.
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 chapter to inspect means-ends mapping and negotiated action. Compare with the original SODA rehearsal here; do not confuse this with older repository records that have no full text.
University record, abstract and accepted-manuscript download listing inspected. The 2020 chapter is available from this record; it is not represented here as a self-marking online course.
Follow Publisher for the book; use the accepted manuscript on the same page as the free route for this chapter.
The university record provides a Publisher link for the complete book. Current price and institutional entitlement were not checked.
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