Blog Post 2, Object Process Methodology and Dialogue Mapping using CCSAV

Last Wednesday, January,17, 2018, we explored 2 different methodologies: Object Process Methodology (OPM) and Dialogue Mapping Methodology, called: Collaborative Computer Supported Argument Visualization (CCSAV).

OPM was developed based on the general system theory – this theory suggests that everyone should be able to describe any system, no matter how complicated it is, using conventional concepts and principles. OPM was designed to create ‘universal’ visual symbols and verbal concepts that, ideally, enable its users to describe any system and will be understood by others, no matter what their personal or professional background is. It is a language for describing and discussing systems. I was pleasantly surprised by the practical nature of the model, and the ‘hands on’ experience in class was very useful. I spent some time at home reading relevant articles and thinking about them before class, yet, I got the real feel for the methodology, its advantages and disadvantages, only during the presentation. My general impression regarding this methodology is, that it is a good formal yet intuitive methodology for describing certain systems.

During the presentation in class I felt that it is a relatively ’easy to use’ methodology. It is true that one needs to gain some knowledge and experience to properly use it, but that can be said about almost every methodology.

I found the group exercise to use OPM methodology to describe the process of building a snowman very interesting: I was really surprised to see how a simple system/process like this one led to a deep and somewhat philosophic group discussion. Using OPM, in this case, required initial agreement by the group about the object, its states, and process. The exercise showed me how complex reality is, and those models, who attempt to describe reality may never fully achieve this goal. It also got me to wonder: is building a snowman considered a system? Or just a process? I think it is the process. And if so, what is the system involved in this case? I suppose the system is the combination of the object, the process and the different states undergone throughout the process. Our group in class focused on this synthesis but with attention to the snow collection and stacking elements.  One could argue that we should have contemplated additional elements, like changes in weather, design features, location, etc. Interestingly, I was able to fine-tune my understanding of OPM by learning about the second methodology, CCSAV.

The second presentation was about Dialogue Mapping, using a technique called:  Collaborative Computer Supported Argument Visualization (CCSAV). CCSAV is a representation – centric platform that helps users in the identification and structuring of complex issues through the collaborative construction of argument maps. It is meant to be used for public debate, online large-scale conversation situations etc. Like the OPM methodology, it offers a symbol language, to map the content generated by the group and create an argument map. An argument map is meant to help recognize the different arguments, the underlying reasons for different opinions, and keep track of the whole argument system. It could also help in policy planning: in making an informed -policy decision (and keeping records of why was that decision made). Again, I feel I benefitted from the fact that the presentation was practical and included a ‘hands on’ experience. The CCSAV language itself seems easy to use and a good technique for public and collaborative online debate circumstances. It does seem to be helpful in dialogue mapping, though research suggests that it introduces some disruption in the way people communicate. This research indicates that there may be a lack of transparency and social visibility that can negatively influence users’ collaborative experience and performance.

The outcome of using this dialogue mapping technique is essentially the synthesis of a specific public/ online debate. Similarly to OPM methodology, CCSAV requires interpretation regarding the system in question, its parts (comments, reasonings) by the user.

A substantial difference between OPM and CCSAV is that the first one attempts to offer a universal methodology for all existing systems while the second one limits itself only to certain systems. I tried to imagine how I would use OPM for a public debate (or specific dialogue mapping) and I couldn’t think of a way to do so. Accordingly, I would argue that OPM is a good tool for certain systems, but not for all. I can see the benefit of using OPM for systems with a clear function, structure and predicted behavior. But, for example, I do not think I could use OPM to describe a system for public argument, or, more generally speaking, a more abstract system, with no certain outcome.

I will finish this post by saying, that comparing between the two methodologies was useful in better understanding each one of them. Another lesson might be that it may be beneficial to look at a system from different angles and to try to describe it using a few different methodologies. This may result a better-shared understanding of the system in question.

References:

• Dori, Dov. 2006. “Modeling Knowledge with Graphics and Text Using Object-Process Methodology.” In Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management, 683–93.
• Lavi, R., D. Dori, and Y. J. Dori. 2016. “Implementing an International Standard for Manufacturing System Lifecycle Management Using Object-Process Methodology.” In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Science, Technology and Engineering (SWSTE), 71–76.
• Iandoli, Luca, Ivana Quinto, Anna De Liddo, and Simon Buckingham Shum. 2016. “On Online Collaboration and Construction of Shared Knowledge: Assessing Mediation Capability in Computer Supported Argument Visualization Tools.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67 (5):1052–1067
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_Process_Methodology