Graphic facilitators have a radically different mindset than other "artists". Rather than being oriented around "end product" artifacts, like illustrations, documents, advertising layouts and the like, Graphic Facilitators in general, and Visual Practitioners most specifically are oriented around "IN-Process" thinking. This distinction is absolutly critical because...
I tell people that "God gave us two sides
of a brain, FOR A REASON..."
As facilitators I think we all know the huge range ways to people at "reality". One important part of facilitation is bridging the differences, while realizing there are valid reasons for these differences. Some of it can be explained as local culture (you in England will think about some things differently than those in Australia or myself in America).
A bigger range of differences in thought process can be explained by the "right brain/left brain" model of perception, where "left brain" thinking is seen as an inclination toward linear, logical, analytical thought, perceiving time in linear order. "Right brain" thinking is often characterized as non-linear, conceptual, holistic and of course, visual thinking.
I'm left handed in the right handed western culture, or I would probably not be as aware of all this. But since I find my point of view, thought processes and even how I use a doorknob is "backwards" to around me do it, I can't help being forcefully made aware of the different "metal model" I hold and is held by individuals in a group.
Another way to look at this is to notice our western culture is oriented around what one of my colleagues (Bill Combs) characterizes as an "ontological/temporal" view of the world. This means we understand reality by analyzing things. We take them apart and categorize the bits in some sort of hierarchic order, to understand them. We are heavily focused on what things are, how they work (in both logical as well as time based order).
The non-western mindset would be characterized by a "functional/relational" view of reality. That would mean that non-westerners don't define "things" as pieces (necessarily) of something else, but would see them in the light of their function and their relationships, unrelated to linear time (schedule, and linear logic).
While these two "mindsets" could appear to be in opposition to each other, (possibly explaining some of the ideological differences between Western and Asian nations) I prefer to think of them as "polarities" that have a different emphasis.
Being able to live in the tension between the
ways people think and help them communicate/be understood is (my
opinion) one of the KEY notions of facilitation (graphic,
virtual, or verbal).
I don't think it's a mistake that the discipline
of Facilitation has emerged in recent decades. In my
first foray into graphic facilitation, I was asked to make a
concept of operation cartoon for a large group that was
struggling to develop a complex computing system. Until I
made a drawing no one knew it was the mindset (backed up by
language) was keeping the group from coming to a common
understanding and design.
The various participants spoke from the mindset and language of their technical discipline (a "dialect" of their skillset), which rather than increased understanding (by the use of tightly defined terms), it created wildly divergent understanding. It almost came to the point of all out war, until the drawing forced the "meaning" to hold still in a form that wasn't words shedding real "light" on what was going on.
A technique, or method of building and using large graphic displays to depict a given understanding of a system, organization or a situation with the intent of invoking group dialogue to understand it, focus it, expand on it or discover the unknowns within it.
This dialogue has the advantage of not being bounded by:
Building the graphical "maps" is an iterative process, where the more one see's, the more possibilities come to mind, relationships or connections between parts of the system come to light. The visual method helps participants think about their work differently, more creatively and generatively, while providing enough tangible results that turn into the more common and recognizable descriptions can then be applied.
It is also not a one way flow of information or ideas, but rather becomes a genderative and freeform opportunity for discovery of the situation and the individuals place in it.
This approach provides much more thorough and wholistic thinking up front at the beginning of the design or change process producing a greater level of shared understanding, and common goals, or vision of what could be. (And a lot more "bang" for the development "buck").
I've applied strategic mapping to:
Strategic mapping works at a "sub surface" level where "why" questions are answered, giving everyone a way to share what they know, discover what they don't know (or what no one has ever known) about the "thing" and to then communicate that knowledge to the rest of the "world" in some co-herent form in a way that engages or involves.
Please e-mail any comments, questions
or suggestions to