I'm teaching in with Michael Cheveldave in Toronto today, while Dave and Sonja do the same in South Africa. (It's been a while since we needed simultaneous sessions on different continents.)
The London workshops are coming up between 16th and 19th June. Check out the Cognitive Edge website for details and to snap up some of the remaining places.
I'll be teaching on days 1-3, while Dave Snowden will be there throughout.
There are four courses on offer, and you can take any combination of 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-day courses as appropriate. The content is excellent and I'd highly recommend them.
The breakdown is:
The excellent Cognitive Edge courses are running again soon - I'm due to be teaching with Michael in Toronto in May - details are here. (The venue isn't confirmed yet, but that's a decision depending on how many people we get turning, so go ahead and book quickly!)
There are four courses on offer, and you can take any combination of 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-day courses as appropriate. The content is excellent and I'd highly recommend them.
The breakdown is:
(Michael is teaching the first day on his own, then we're teaching day two together. I'm certainly teaching days three and four - with Michael possibly around on day three, but definitely not on day four.)
In addition to the theory and exercises, Michael and I will be sharing recent practices and applications - ranging from national economic development, IT strategy, customer understanding and cultural research.
I came across a glorious Churchill quote recently while reading Billy Bragg's The Progressive Patriot. It wasn't one I had heard before, but it sums up beautifully something that challenges many of the people I talk to - how to set direction and objectives for large numbers of people, many of whom have different perspectives on the world.
"Precise aims would be compromising, whereas vague principles would disappoint."
The context is important - this was in January 1941, where the immediate task of fighting the war was supplemented with setting a longer term direction for the world after the war. The War Cabinet were agitating for a vision of a new and better world than the pre-war status quo, in part to counter Hitler's promise of a new world order and in part to maintain commitment among the British population (to draw the parallel more explicitly with current organisations - to build their engagement)
It mirrors what I've seen in other places - the temptation to spell out the detail of a future utopia. (Ten years ago, I recall colleagues wanting workshop participants to imagine themselves in the future and spell out everything they sense.) But that is doomed to fail, because the reality always differs from the dream (assuming people don't simply dismiss the exercise and trot out what they think the facilitator/sponsor wants to hear) - and worse, if people have actually believed that their visions have a chance of coming true, the reality will discourage them. (In addition, if you are in an environment with an opponent or adversary, you will give them valuable intelligence in their fight against you.)
At the other end of the spectrum, vague principles are too abstract, too idealist and too misperceived. They're often inarguable - honesty, leadership and innovation are examples that come to mind - but mean different things to people in different environments and with different backgrounds. I'm also against abstract principles universally applied per se - while I'm all for innovation, I'd rather that the team in the salary department remain steady and innovative, while I think we are all leaders at one time or another, an organisation of all leaders all the time sounds like a nightmare scenario - chaotic in the extreme.
The alternative I'm exploring with people in different environments is setting direction (and boundaries) by using multiple diverse micro-narratives. We want "more stories like these and fewer like these" - it avoids absolute ideals and utopias while also explicitly indicating where the future does not lie. As a way of communicating to a diverse (and diversely-intelligent) audience it is more easily understood while, crucially, allowing people some leeway to exercise their judgment.
Further to yesterday's post about the upcoming courses with Cognitive Edge, diaries have worked out such that Washington DC (Details here) will be a two-handed affair with myself and Dave Snowden teaching, while London (Details here)will be a unique one - three different presenters: Dave, Michael Cheveldave and myself passing the baton at different points throughout the course.
Given the inevitable slight differences and approaches we all take to our various projects, it'll be a chance to get three perspectives on complexity, narrative and interventions. I doubt there'll be fireworks, but it could provide for some very interesting conversations...
The blogtitle comes from the simple act of Googling "The Three..." and watching what comes up. I'll let you decide which is most appropriate...
Two upcoming courses that I'd highly recommend - and not just because I'm helping teach them these days. I've recommended the Cognitive Edge courses for years, but this year has seen a major refresh of the content and approach to the material. It's a real combination of solid theory, exercises and practical examples - all spread over four days.
What's it about? Why should you come?
Never has there been a greater need to manage more things with fewer resources. To create organisations that are resilient under conditions of uncertainty requires new ways of thinking and acting. Those who stay within the safety of the old paradigm sooner or later fail.
For more detail, have a look at the brochure here.
But for those who can't take four solid days off, it's also possible to do them in 1, 2 and 3 day chunks as well, picking and choosing the most relevant elements for your specific area.
Washington DC course is next week - 4-7th November Details here
London course is 26-29th November Details here
Posted by tquinlan on Monday, 28 October 2013 at 06:06 PM in Branding, Change, Cognitive Edge, Cognitive science, Communications, Complexity, Events, Knowledge, Leadership, Narrative and storytelling, Organisational culture, Recommendations, SenseMaker | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Yesterday, the House of Commons saw some to-and-fro rhetoric between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition around counter-terrorism in the wake of the Algerian attack and its aftermath. It's important to recognise within the wide context of the news stories and the political analysis that at the personal level there are families across the globe now who have been robbed of sons/brothers/fathers/husbands - and they need support in what comes next for them in their lives.
In the Commons yesterday, there was an expected increase in rhetoric about the need to fight terrorism. The Prime Minister, towards the end of his initial comments, said:
"In sum, we must frustrate the terrorists with our security, we must beat them militarily, we must address the poisonous narrative they feed on, we must close down the ungoverned space in which they thrive, and we must deal with the grievances that they use to garner support. This is the work that our generation faces, and we must demonstrate the same resolve and sense of purpose as previous generations did with the challenges that they faced in this House and in this country."
In response, the Leader of the Opposition:
"In particular, the task is to understand the nature of the new threat, which is more decentralised and fragmented and takes advantage of the ungoverned spaces and security vacuum in parts of north Africa. At the same time, in its response the international community needs to apply the lessons of the past about the combination of diplomacy, politics and security required to help to bring about stability in the region."
"More broadly across the region, countering the emerging threat of terrorism begins with understanding it and talking about it in the right way. The work to deal with that threat will be painstaking: diplomatic and political as much as military; and collaborative and multilateral, not unilateral. Does the Prime Minister agree that we are talking about a number of distinct regional organisations, some using the banner of al-Qaeda and others not, rather than a single, centrally co-ordinated or controlled group? Each of these threats needs to be monitored and countered appropriately."
Taking the two areas of that on which I feel qualified to speak - the understanding element and the poisonous narrative. I believe one is essential and the other is a deeply misleading concept that blinds us to opportunities and threats.
Understanding the region, the people and groups within it, is crucial to undermining support. Having done some work with narrative research in Egypt the year before the Arab Spring, I can say with some confidence that underlying dispositions arise from small grievances and historical events - usually things that sit well below the radar of analysts sitting far away. It's the coalescence of common grievances and perspectives that tends to drive social movements, and these are only visible at the personal, the local level. It's why we gather experiences and narratives about day-to-day life, not grand events (although those can crop up in the material we collect).
For monitoring, it's more useful to watch for emergent clusters of narrative around common themes - letting the people on the ground tell you what is bothering them. Pre-defined categories and questions can be too directive - gaining us at best answers that fit within our previous suspicions, at worst allowing the people we're hearing the opportunity to give us the stories they think we want to hear. (cf The Hoaxing of Margaret Mead)
The poisonous narrative is a tempting but dangerous notion. It's also a simplistic one that is easier to fit into newspapers and popular discussion than a more difficult, more nuanced one. The truth - as I pointed out some time ago at a conference - is that there is no single terrorist narrative. There are many narratives - each one different in its inception - that, as people become part of the movement, is co-opted and shaped to fit a bigger motivation. It's an end-result after radicalisation, to my mind, less of an instigating motivation. In essence, one person's dissatisfaction with their life warps over time to become "the West is keeping me down".
To mistake the end-point as the motivation is deeply misleading.
There are other problems with this approach too. If we as observers approach the subject with the concept of a single narrative, we emphasis and activate our own cognitive biases - we go into the problem counting basketballs and risk not seeing guerillas. If we're looking for the early signals of rising dissatisfaction and potential radicalisation, a single narrative will blind us. We will miss the early warnings - but more crucially we may miss early opportunities, moments when small incidents addressed quickly will dampen down ill-feeling and dispositions towards violence.
If we see a single poisonous narrative, the temptation is to find a cure or a counter-narrative. And as Dave and I have both commented on in the past, this is a Bad Idea. There won't be a counter-narrative - but there may be multiple local narratives and thousands of micro-narratives. Countering and curing are both approaches that define something as negative and look for that which will eradicate it. Instead, by looking at all those different narratives, the better approach is to amplify some - through action, through diplomacy, through aid and, yes, through military options where necessary - and dampen others.
The approach instead is an ecological one - how do you encourage the plants you want in your garden, weeding out those you don't want early and while they are small. Wait until they've coalesced into something large and its roots are too deep to remove easily.
[At some point, I need to write that article on Gardening and Narratives - I've only been contemplating it for 20 months now. Elephants have shorter gestation periods...]
I'm teaching on behalf of Cognitive Edge this week in Boston - the Practitioners Foundation course that I was recommending to all and sundry years before CE asked me to start teaching it myself. It's still a great course:
"exceeded my expectations, re-kindled a lot of ideas and opened me up to possibilities ... stimulating on so many levels"
One of the difficulties is defining who will benefit from the course - truth is everyone will, as its underpinning is around techniques to address complex situations, "wicked" problems and uncertainty in organisations. It's a mixture of theory, with practical approaches that embed the theory and give participants tools to use as soon as they return to the office.
Last time in London, we had communicators from the financial sector, consultants to large corporates, evaluators from development and health sectors, developers from telecoms and more. Diverse people, diverse issues...
Early bird registrations are available until 31st December, so don't loiter. (It's possible to take over €1200 off the combined price of the two courses, if you get the right combination of people together in time...)
I had a blast last week in the Docklands, teaching first the Cognitive Edge Foundations course then teaching with Dave Snowden the Cognitive Edge Advanced course. There's one final chance to catch both courses in 2012. (And before any possible revamps of course materials.)
11th-12th December in Boston, MA - I'll be teaching the Foundations course
13th-14th December - Dave'll be teaching the Advanced course
There are a few spots available on both courses, but better be quick - last week in London, the room was at capacity...
I'm packing to leave for Hong Kong in about half an hour - looking forward to some of the discussions that will ensue around Strategy, Leadership and Innovation next week, then off to Sydney for the Cognitive Edge Foundations course. For the UK-based, however, I've just had details of a talk I'm giving with a colleague on my return. Details below:
Measuring marketing activities and expenditure is one of the hot topics in marketing. That is why the Cranfield Marketing Club together with the Cranfield School of Management Alumni organises an event where we will discuss this issue. You don’t need to be member of the club to come to the event.
Please find more info and the registration for our Cranfield Marketing Club event about “Measuring Marketing” here:
Date: Tuesday 9th October
Time: 18.30 – 20.30 (+ after-work drinks in a nearby pub)
Venue: Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace London SW1Y 5AG
Agenda (Find talk abstracts and speaker bios at bottom of email):
18:30 – Arrival & networking activities
19:00 – Welcome & Introduction (Manfred Bortenschlager/Paul Baines)
19:10 – Meaning in numbers: a narrative approach to marketing measurement (Claire Spencer and Tony Quinlan)
19:50 – Measuring Marketing Effectiveness for Success (Paul Lee)
20:20 – Q&A
20:30 – Close and informal drinks in nearby pub for those who want to continue the conversation
Abstract: “Meaning in numbers: a narrative approach to marketing measurement”
Collecting stories around customers’ experiences of a brand offers a real alternative to traditional market research. Seeing how customers’ lives are affected by a brand offering can illuminate opportunities to enhance the brand or resolve underlying issues before they become problematic. For many of us in research, we have an innate - and appropriate - skepticism around “anecdotal evidence” but this latest approach supercedes that to provide real, actionable data based on fast analysis of thousands of narratives. This then helps marketers to better assess the ‘keep doing’, ‘stop doing’ and ‘start doing’ for their marketing communication.
Abstract: “Measuring Marketing Effectiveness for Success"
The evolution of buyer behaviour now requires marketers to think and act differently to effectively influence the different stages of the sales funnel (for engagement and revenue creation).
Claire Spencer, FCIPR Visiting Fellow, Marketing, Cranfield University
Claire is Chief Executive and founder of i to i research, a research consultancy specialising in insights and measurement around how people interact with brand communications. Previous to this, Claire worked in advertising and ran her own Public Relations consultancy. Over her 25 year career, Claire has been involved in some of the most high profile communication campaigns including the privatisation of British Telecom and London’s bid to hold the 2012 Olympics.
Tony is Chief Storyteller and founder of Narrate, a unique organisation that has been developing tools for working with narrative since its formation in 2000. Tony himself has 25 years experience in communications, having started in the Press Office of the Internatiaonal Stock Exchange just weeks before the 1987 crash. Since then, he’s driven public relations for Hewlett-Packard, IBM, UNICEF and many others, both as in-house client and external consultant. He has been a regular speaker on aspects of communications, chairing conferences and giving keynotes for many years. Until recently, he was also a leading member of The Medinge Group, an international branding thinktank.
Paul Lee is Regional Sales Director for Eloqua, the leader in marketing automation and revenue performance management technology. Paul’s 20-year sales career has been spent within the high tech, media & publishing industries. Today he supports customers with improving demand generation, sales & marketing alignment, enhancing marketing effectiveness and efficiencies alongside Eloqua best practice methodologies.
I'm going to be in Hong Kong on 24th-26th September, running a Cognitive Edge introductory course to using SenseMaker® - highly recommended. If you're interested (and you should be) you can get details and book on the Cognitive Edge website.
I'm then flying down to Sydney to run the Practitioners' Foundation course the following week - it's already very full, but there may be one or two places left for 2nd-4th October. Details again at the Cognitive Edge website. The Practitioners' Foundation course is outstanding - the content and exercises are what I've recommended to anyone interested in narrative and complex facilitation for the past five years. (Long before I started giving the course myself)
I'm not going to have any spare time in Singapore, but have some free time on Friday 28th and Friday 5th October in Sydney, if anyone fancies a coffee and conversation...
An excellent series of lectures and workshop-type studies last week prompted a bunch of thoughts - some of which I'll pick up in the coming weeks. One in particular that was raised again today was while looking at a particular case of an area where there were a wide variety of conflicting groups of people. Some in particular were causing greater problems to people outside of the area and so programmes were put in place to deal with them.
At which point, groups that had hitherto been in conflict with the target group suddenly came to their defence. There was a degree of surprise about this - after all, hadn't these other groups been arguing and in some cases actually fighting only a short time earlier?
I can understand the surprise, but it's easy to forget that the arrival of a common enemy can overcome all sorts of differences. Witness, for instance, in the UK the sudden support of the Olympic games by skeptics like myself - all in response to criticism from Mitt Romney, US presidential candidate. He may have said nothing that hadn't already been said by others in the UK - but we can say that about each other because we're family. An outsider saying that produces a very different dynamic.
Now clearly, some outsiders can criticise without uniting opposing factions, but I'd suggest they need to have high degrees of credibility or trust first. And for most organisations wading into a tricky area, the more likely outcome is going to be focusing the conflict on themselves.
I've just seen another article about how social media caused change in Egypt. (I'm not going to link to it - or any of the others - as I don't want to encourage the causal thinking behind it.) The other element I've seen mentioned as important in the Egypt changes earlier this year is that "everyone stayed on message."
Now, the former element had a role to play - but it's too tempting to assign it too much importance in the piece. The second - staying on message - is just wishful thinking on the part of someone who wants to convince their salary-payer to stick to the script - which is a dangerous and seriously wrong interpretation that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny of the facts.
There are two important elements here that intertwine:
While this doesn't apply everywhere - bounded applicability after all - I do think that if you're facing a dynamic, fast-moving complex environment, planning can only show you roughly what not to do and broadly what might be worth saying. More specific than that, I don't believe that analysis and planning can take you.
Instead, I think a better, faster and more effective route is to take an evolutionary approach - diverse (but coherent) vehicles and messages, fast feedback loops to show what effect is being had and then rapid adaptation. Not with the goal of finding a single message or a best practice, but to develop a constantly evolving, more resilient approach.
*Which I would disagree with at the most basic level - the appearance of a clear message is more down to misinterpretation from a non-Egyptian cultural perspective, missing nuances and differences in varying communications.
One of the great truisms in communications and development work (these days, I seem to be having conversations in both areas and am aware of their similarities) is that "we want to hear from everyone, give everyone a voice". The principled, idealistic side of us believes that, but the pragmatic side veers away from it - if everyone had a voice, the result would be nothing more than noise. Single voices would be drowned out, and all that anyone listening would hear would be the general hum of thousands of conversations - with the occasional howl of outrage emerging from the sonic ocean.
One of the benefits of using SenseMaker™ - as was shown last week in an interesting environment - is that it allows for lots of voices (over a hundred in this case, thousands in another current project) but allows for patterns of meaning to emerge, without getting trapped in the individual words.
While the voice that is collected is personal, contextual and authentic - allowing people to say what really matters and why - the next step is all-important. They then then put tell us what that story, that narrative, actually means - by simply putting it into a simple framework. Often, as last week, it's a simple mark on a triangle. And it's then the accretion of marks from hundreds or thousands of stories that produces the emergent patterns - the overall voice of the population.
(With some judicious demographics collection it's then possible to see how different groups' voices tell different stories too.)
And from the patterns, it's then easy to drill back down to the individual voices - meaning that everyone's voice is heard and recorded, that everyone's voice has equal weight in the emergent patterns, but we can hear the overall voice of the people rather than just a cacophony.
It's opening up some truly interesting projects - more on which in due course...
At some recent conferences, the issue of identity has cropped up a few times - usually with the underlying assumption that each individual has a core identity. It's a seductive idea - and one that I've seen permeate organisational human resources, the self-help movement and research fields.
The inference taken from that assumption is that our identities are independent of our location or context, that work done to change an identity in one environment will "stick", transferring to other environments.
But it's not true. Our identities shift all the time - and our behaviours along with them. They change by location, by environment, by role we're playing.
Harry Eyres' recent FT article after a meeting with Amartya Sen hints at this here: "Many hats, not just one".
To give an example of how plural such affiliations can be, Sen writes that “the same person can be, without any contradiction, a South African citizen, of Asian origin, with Indian ancestry, a Christian, a socialist, a woman, a vegetarian, a jazz musician, a doctor”, and so on.
(My daughters know that my nationality depends on the shape and size of the ball being used on the screen and whether the sticks on the pitch are 100 metres apart and very tall, or 22 yards apart and waist-high. My patterns of behaviour and attitude will change depending on whether I see myself as being sibling/consultant/facilitator/mentor/offspring or parent.)
That shift between identities can be subtle - but I've often thought that, when we want to stress or un-stress a particular behaviour, one of the ways to do so is to look at the roles that generate it - and use that understanding to develop new approaches or interventions.
I love Sen's phrase in the article "viciousness of single identity politics" that boils someone down to a single role on which a group focuses. By looking farther afield at their other roles, we give them more humanity in our own eyes as well as giving us and them more choices to look at.
It's been a busy couple of months - with a number of things that I'll be putting up here in the coming weeks. Including, excitingly, the next pilots for the Children of the World project...
In the meantime, however, some apposite quotes around ways of making changes and the work we've been - and are - doing at the moment.
"[He] started in the wrong place. He didn't look around, and watch and learn, and then say, 'This is how people are, how do we deal with it?' No, he sat and thought, 'This is the people ought to be, how do we change them?'
Night Watch, Terry Pratchett
"'A healthy galaxy is forever poised on the edge of chaos, transixed between the sterile wasteland of order and the mad wilderness of rampant entropy.' ... [The organisation] was structured to thrive on diversity, multiplex thinking, multicultural societies.
"Nice trick. Starting is easy.
"It's keeping it going that's so hard."
Heaven, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen
"In a world where everything is connected, advance signs of change, of turbulence, are likely to appear only when we look in unexpected places."
The Age of the Unthinkable, Joshua Cooper Ramo
"Narrow-gazing not only leads to kinds of misfires, it also fatally constrains the ability to imagine good ideas or policies. The chance for real brilliance or flair is usually best seen out of the corner of the eye."
The Age of the Unthinkable, Joshua Cooper Ramo
"[Chinese students instinctively knew] the environment contained clues to what was about to happen. If you stared at a single spot in the world around you, that incipient sensibility would be dulled to the point of uselessness."
The Age of the Unthinkable, Joshua Cooper Ramo
Yup, as I've said before, Joshua Cooper Ramo's book is great - my copy has pages and pages of underlined phrases. Read it. Just read it.
Yesterday afternoon was another interesting presentation - this time to the CASE group of internal communicators from Higher Education. Smart people, fun afternoon and just to add to the mix, I got to speak with Ghassan Kharian of Kharian and Box, who I haven't seen in a while. Following his presentation was a challenge...
I promised to post a number of things here:
My presentation slides: Capturing an organisation's narrative.pdf (3573.9K)
For people starting to explore using story in communications, this post might be a good place to start.
Here's an interesting question - are you assuming that because people tell you the right answer that they believe in it?
I ask, because I'm looking at some interesting employee responses to a recent survey. With a colleague, we changed the usual response format from 1-7 Likert scales of "How engaged do you feel on a scale of 1-7?" to a combinations of triads and polarities going from one extreme to another. (See this previous post for the background.)
What's been interesting is the comments coming back from people appended to the end of the survey. A fair number of people have come back saying "I wasn't sure what the right answer was in this format, I hope I've got it right." It raises some interesting issues:
Why were employees looking for the right answer in an employee survey?It's a natural thing to spot the answer people are looking for in surveys - we do it pretty much unconsciously. You know if you're given a range of answers for a number that you discount numbers that don't fit the majority pattern and that you tend to go for the mid-point of a range. You know if you're given a standard scale of Bad-to-Good, people are looking for answers at the Good end of the scale. And the human instinct (unless you're a maverick or in a bad mood) is to "gift" the answer within your comfort zone. (So, you'll tend to the Good end of the scale, but you may not be comfortable giving 10, so you'll go 8 or 9.)
But to find people concerned about finding - and giving - the right answer seems to indicate a culture where it is more important to understand and replay the language - conforming to what they think the organisation expects. It's evident, too, in the actual answers - particularly because there is one triad where the "right" answer is evident, but people who have developed a pattern of putting there mark in the centre of a triangle (i.e. not being willing to commit to any particular strength, but taking the non-commital approach) put their mark in the centre because they've got used to that.*
It does, however, make me wonder about all the standard employee surveys - are they actually testing for compliance and the ability to feedback what the company has said to them? I have a horrible feeling that that's increasingly the case.
*The upshot is that this putting-it-in-the-centre-all-the-time could be useful. By possibly including one triangle where the answer is evident (and where the centre is inappropriate in most cases), we'll be able to check and filter out sets of responses where that easy default option has been taken.
This time last week I was in Brussels, talking about internal communications - and made the point I always do about the problem with corporate values. They don't work. There's no context, they're generally meaningless (who's ever going to argue with them) and they're too easy to twist around.
This week, Dave picks up on the topic coincidentally - and offers more structure to my comments last week. Stories - parables even - and archetypes is a better route. (It's a topic I'm picking up at the moment with some colleagues working on a global culture change project - instead of going for the standard approach of "The Future is Blue and Round, so let's give everyone paint brushes, pots of paint and sandpaper and measure their progress towards Blue and Round" they're going with "Let's look for where there are some brilliant success stories, share them and have people work out how to come up with ways to create stories like that where they are. Blue and Round is our general intention, but along the way we may find out that Indigo has more going for it and that Ovoid is more flexible.")
[That metaphor needs work. Lots of it.]
Pithy comments from Dave's post as he sowed, some fell by the wayside are here:
Aside from the fact that I have yet to see a set of organisational values that were not a set of well meaning platitudes, all you are really doing is teaching the politically manipulative the language of power.
...it doesn't follow that I don't think we shouldn't articulate values, but we need to do so in a way that carries with it necessary ambiguity so that the statements can adapt to context, and also so that their form allows for verification of actions, not just linguistic form.
The point here is that a story carries context with it, as well as the ability to create resonance. Critically it allows for ethical validation; saying that action X was consistent with a mission statement is easy, matching it against a story is far more difficult.
So what form could this take? Lets summarise a few:
- Parables are the basic method in the New Testament to convey complex ethical principles
- Fables are a long standing type of parable, but using animal proxies.
- Archetypal stories and characters represent complex learning and cultural statements in most societies. Anthropologies use the archetypes present in traditional stories to understand the culture of the society from which they have emerged; and they do emerge over time they are not created. One of the most used methods I ever created was archetype extraction, something we teach on the accreditation courses and which is more fully described here. The method also provides something more substantial than persona for software design by the way.