As described in ‘Visualization and how we tick’:
Mengis and Eppler [Seeing versus arguing, the moderating role of collaborative visualization in team knowledge integration, 2006, J. Mengis, M.J. Eppler] state that ‘conversers who interact without an interactive visual support … do not manage to deal constructively with conflict’. They quote Bregman and Haythornthwaite [A. Breman C. Haythornthwaite, Radicals of presentation in persistent conversation, 2001] that concersations are ephemeral, concluding that ‘the major reasons and motivations behind the decisions taken stay often poorly documented’. Mengis and Eppler conclude that thier visualization tool improves decision making, with (a) an increased weight of the constructs ‘Big picture’ and ‘Common ground’ and (b) a decreased weight of the constructs ‘Balanced participation’, ‘Task conflict’ and ‘Relationship conflict’:
… we can say that without an interactive visual support {they} struggle more to integrate their knowledge: they lack common ground and the big picture in the conversation and therefore give more importance to equal participation and conflict.
They also state that interactive, realtime visualization makes conversers taking content criticism less personally.
There are two differences. First, the research of Mengis and Eppler focusses on visualizing content, and not visualizing behavior (like DiMicco and myself). My hypothesis concerns the use of visualization to make (individuals in) groups more assertive, minimizing misdirected energy and maximizing the effectiveness. With a focus on cognitive reframing and multiple attitudes.
The linking pin is a set of recommendations by Amason and Schweiger (1997), as quoted by Kurtz and Snowden in a context of openness and mutuality:
Kurtz and Snowden: … {the} observation that groups which maximise cognitive conflict and minimise affective conflict create an atmosphere of openness and mutuality. Each of these qualities is well known to be supported by narrative exchange, and as such can be augmented using narrative techniques.
Amason and Schweiger: … to the extent that cognitive conflict can be encouraged while affective conflict is restrained, top management teams may be able to “gain the benefits of conflict without the costs” (Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992: 34)
The question is how we can use visualization to overcome our nature: multiple attidutes and rationalization as part of cognitive bias. Here’s an explanation by Amason and Sapienzea (2011):
Cognitive conflict is task-oriented disagreement arising from differences in perspective.
Affective conflict is individual-oriented disagreement arising from personal disaffection.
Bresciani, Tan and Eppler (2011) add the following, in a way suggesting more bling without graphical disturbance:
We propose a model … where visualization has a positive effect on the emotional response of the user that in turn has a positive impact on the cognitive response.
Instead of the more or less temptational approach of Brescani, Tan and Eppler, I suggest to use visualization with an approach of Operant conditioning.
Second, instead of using one context (a company that needs decisions on her project portfolio), I propose a multiple context (many companies that need to find out potential matches towards a not yet shared portfolio of activities). In this case the question ‘why and what’s in it for me and my organizational backbone’ is very much present. It is a more behavioral approach focussing on cognitive reframing and multiple attitudes. And less about transfer of the knowledge.
I am impressed with the unique work of Eppler et al. I’m xpecting to see and learn more, driven by questions as: why exactly do Epplers visualizions do what they need to do? There is more to study regarding regarding visual sallency and best practices.
