3645732
Description
Mind Map by Brian Castillo S, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Brian Castillo S
over 8 years ago
|
|
Critical Systems Heuristics
- MOTIVATION
- Who is (ought to be) the client or
beneficiary? That is, whose interests are
(should be) served?
- What is (ought to be) the purpose? That is,
what are (should be) the consequences?
- What is (ought to be) the measure
of improvement or measure of
success? That is, how can (should)
we determine that the
consequences, taken together,
constitute an improvement?
- Who is (ought to be) the client or
beneficiary? That is, whose interests are
(should be) served?
- POWER
- Who is (ought to be) the decision-maker?
That is, who is (should be) in a position to
change the measure of improvement?
- What resources and other conditions of
success are (ought to be) controlled by the
decision-maker? That is, what conditions
of success can (should) those involved
control?
- What conditions of success are
(ought to be) part of the decision
environment? That is, what
conditions can (should) the
decision-maker not control (e.g.
from the viewpoint of those not
involved)?
- Who is (ought to be) the decision-maker?
That is, who is (should be) in a position to
change the measure of improvement?
- KNOWLEDGE
- Who is (ought to be) considered a
professional or further expert? That is,
who is (should be) involved as
competent provider of experience and
expertise?
- What kind expertise is (ought to be)
consulted? That is, what counts
(should count) as relevant
knowledge?
- What or who is (ought to be) assumed
to be the guarantor of success? That is,
where do (should) those involved seek
some guarantee that improvement will
be achieved – for example, consensus
among experts, the involvement of
stakeholders, the experience and
intuition of those involved, political
support?
- Who is (ought to be) considered a
professional or further expert? That is,
who is (should be) involved as
competent provider of experience and
expertise?
- LEGITIMATION
- Who is (ought to be) witness to the
interests of those affected but not
involved? That is, who is (should be)
treated as a legitimate stakeholder, and
who argues (should argue) the case of
those stakeholders who cannot speak for
themselves, including future generations
and non-human nature?
- What secures (ought to secure)
the emancipation of those
affected from the premises and
promises of those involved?
That is, where does (should)
legitimacy lie?
- What worldview is (ought
to be) determining? That is,
what different visions of
‘improvement’ are (should
be) considered, and how are
they (should they be)
reconciled?
- Who is (ought to be) witness to the
interests of those affected but not
involved? That is, who is (should be)
treated as a legitimate stakeholder, and
who argues (should argue) the case of
those stakeholders who cannot speak for
themselves, including future generations
and non-human nature?
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.