The problem with the affinity diagram method can be summed up to one point: âIt is difficult to conceptualize the higher level. (Abbreviation.) This can be solved by ânot making up words on your own. The difficulty comes from trying to conceptualize it poorly, so we can just borrow words from lower-level data.
- [You canât come up with a good idea - Tokyo Institute of Technology Engineering Design Project - Medium https://medium.com/titech-eng-and-design/%E3%81%84%E3% 81%84%E3%82%A2%E3%82%A4%E3%83%87%E3%82%A2%E3%81%AA%E3%82%93%E3%81%8B%E6%80%9D%E3%81%84%E3%81%A4%E3%81%8F%E3%81%AF%E3%81%9A%E3%81%8 C%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84-150d649d6082]
This appears to be a plot evil if you only look at the letter of the law.
- The method is focused on lowering the hurdle so as not to hinder ideas, but by introducing a âno-go ruleâ you are raising the hurdle.
- Limiting sampling to âthe first thing that comes to mind and is written on a sticky noteâ precludes the adoption of what comes to mind later
But if you read the rest of this blog post, the impression you get from the first half of the post is the opposite: that itâs a bit of a âno-brainerâ.
You may be thinking, âWhat the heck, I canât abstract it at all,â but product/service development (unlike ethnography, etc.) is not about analyzing data itself, but about creating new value through analysis. Therefore, it is OK to chop up the words of data and combine them to create a new story without any abstraction. I agree with the idea that âcreating a new storyâ in this part is important and âabstractionâ is not necessary. I think you are raising the bar by using the âdonât make up words on your ownâ rule to âcreate a new story.â
If âcreating new storiesâ is important to you, then this is the wrong place to start.
The problem with the affinity diagram method can be summed up to one point: âIt is difficult to conceptualize the higher level. Do these âhigher conceptualizationâ and âabstractionâ mean the same or different things? If they mean the same thing, it is a situation of âtrying to do something that is not necessary and saying it is difficult,â and if they mean different things, there seems to be a confusion in the speakerâs understanding when he explains by invoking the unfamiliar terms âhigher conceptualizationâ and âabstraction.
I use the term ânameplate makingâ in the KJ method to describe this process, and I instruct by saying, âPlease make a nameplate that explains the contents of this group. If the participants have not yet mastered the skills of nameplate making, they naturally cannot make nameplates when I ask them to do so, so I ask them to verbally say, âPlease explain,â and assist them in making sticky notes. This creates a âstory of why these stickies are here.
I wrote an actual example in Draft addition to âGroup Formation Requires a Change of Mindsetâ of The Engineerâs Guide to Intellectual Production.
I asked about each group, âWhat is this group like?â and listened to the explanation. If the explanation was too long, I would shorten it by asking, âIn a word?â If the explanation was one word, I asked, âWhat is one more word? If the explanation was one word, the group asked, âWhat would you add to it? If this does not work, i.e., the group cannot be easily explained, then the original group is not appropriate to begin with and should be broken down and rearranged. Jiro Kawakita also says to verify if it can be explained well.
- way of thinking p.74
After a considerable gathering, I picked up a piece of paper from one of the teams and took a closer look⊠Read more⊠âWhy did I collect the five pieces of paper here?â is the rational counter-question⊠Once in a while, I realize I made a mistake collecting them in one place⊠In most cases, the contents of the five pieces of paper tell us the reason why we should collect these five pieces of paper.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/ćæă«èšèăäœăăȘăă«ăŒă« using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. Iâm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.