Date: September 21, 2021
Author: Dan Klyn
Reading Time: 2 min 13 sec
Misalignment from stakeholders creates not only differing ideas about structure but also the languages within them. Without proper alignment from the beginning of a project, it’s destined to fail. Understanding must precede action. Clarity at the beginning of a project is attained through stakeholder alignment, strategy, and roadmapping. In/Tension Modeling is one tool that we’ve created and use so that we can discover both the business intent and tensions that exist regarding the website, product, intranet, app, etc. We have developed and effectively used this tool over the years to gain the alignment our client’s need and architect a digital strategy that works.
A project of any scale involves trade-offs and tensions that must be managed. These trade-offs are often positioned as either/or propositions, which sets up a win/lose situation almost guaranteeing tension among stakeholders. TUG has perfected a process for aligning stakeholders that we call In/Tension Modeling, inspired by the urban planning work of Richard Saul Wurman in the 1970s, who noted that many important decisions are not binary but rather involve striking the balance between a continuum of two good things. Do we make it easy for power users to get where they need to go? Yes! Do we make it easy for new people to figure out where to go? Yes! Doing both equally well may be challenging, and maybe today it makes sense to emphasize one over the other … BUT… the decision where to strike the balance is a business decision, not a design decision
Figure 1. An In/Tension model of the desire for more transactions versus greater user engagement.
Figure 1 shows a tension in action. We start with each participant indicating where the organization strikes the balance of a tension today (green chiclets). This lays the groundwork for important discussions around strategy, why opinions vary, and highlights areas where important words mean different things to different people (which is universally the case). Then, voting on where to strike the balance in the future (blue chiclets) establishes a clear sense of direction going forward, and a measure of how much change will be involved in getting there.
Figure 2. Consent derives from determining tolerance for a given decision.
An important aspect of In/Tension modeling is that the goal is not to achieve consensus, that elusive state of everyone being in agreement that rarely, if ever, actually happens despite what people say. Instead, borrowing from the principles of sociocracy the goal is to achieve consent (Figure 2) from the participants that the overall decision may not be their preference, but having been heard, the decision is tolerable and they can align with the group and consent to the strategy.
Figure 3. A set of Intention Model continuums showing varying degrees of change.
At the end of the exercise, the team will have a set of continuums (Figure 3), each calling for varying degrees of change in how priorities are balanced. Some large, some not at all. By identifying large shifts early and aligning on their importance, the organization is better equipped to implement any necessary change management processes to facilitate the transition. In/Tension modeling has helped us discover the business intent from the stakeholders and the tensions that existed therein. It has been a vital tool in gaining alignment in many projects over the years.
We’ve come to trust this methodology after seeing it deliver consistently-actionable results with groups of deciders numbering from just a handful to nearly 50. Contact us today if you have more questions on how this process works and how it make help your team or organization.