selves notice. Our models tell us what is important, what counts, what to look for. Peter Senge wrote, “Models [are] so powerful in affecting what we do... because they affect what we see. Two people with different mental models can observe the same event and describe it differently, because they’ve looked at different details” [ 5]. Under this frame, models also lead to evidence.

suggest

observations

models

frame + filter

When Judging (Mental)
Models, Consider Four
Basic Criteria:
1) FIT

How does the model fit the evidence?

• Is our evidence relevant?

• Is it reliable?

• Is it sufficiently granular? (Depth.)

• Do we have enough evidence to draw meaningful conclusions? (Breadth.)

• Are the elements of the model necessary and sufficient?

• Are the elements of the model “MECE”— mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive?

2) LEAST MEANS

Is there a simpler way to explain the evidence?

• Given two models explaining the same evidence, Ockham told us to prefer the simpler.

3) CONSISTENCY

Is the model internally consistent?

• Is it free from contradiction?

4) PREDICTIVE VALUE

What predictions does the model make?

• Are our model’s predictions consistent with later observations?

• Do the model’s predictions help us make decisions that might have been more difficult without them?

[ 5] Senge, P. M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday, 1990.

Our models affect what we see.

In a similar way, models already shared within an organization may limit its ability to see new evidence, understand changing situations, or act in its own interest. Old models often resist new ones and inhibit learning. That’s why organizations need to expose the fundamental models that guide them and periodically challenge those models.

Creating or revising a model is meta-activity, taking us outside the primary activity in which we were engaged. It requires attention, energy, and time. But a new or improved model may pay dividends; it may reduce accidents or other unexpected outcomes, or it may make an individual or group more competitive. In this way, forming and reforming models may “pay for itself.” Sharing models may reduce group costs and thus create value. But the cost of adopting new models can also inhibit their spread. Adoption requires value that clearly outweighs cost.

are explained by models and stories are tools models stories for discussion

create

[ 6] Star, S. L. and J. R. Griesemer. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations,’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907 - 1939.” Social Studies of Science 19, no. 3 (1989): 387-420.

Agreement and Understanding

Models are closely tied to stories. We explain models by telling stories, and when we tell stories, listeners form models—mental pictures of the actors, how they are related, and how they behave.

Shared models support discussions. They are examples of what Susan Star called “boundary objects,” artifacts that enable discourse at the boundaries between communities of practice [ 6]. By sharing our models, we may be able to confirm where we agree—and discover where we disagree.

models and stories are tools for thinking

Models are explained by stories; stories build models.

Models provide a basis for shared understanding, agreement, and group action. They also build trust and enable collaboration.

Agreement begins with individual understanding—forming our own models. Through conversation, we begin to understand each other’s models—