Week 2: Goal Tree
|
UPDATE: It’s happened again. I’ve made another version. Find the next iteration here: “One Step Closer To The Goal Tree”. (Fragmentary) Goal Tree
Working on the Goal Map at the same time as the actor table. This is a work in progress, because the ideas are flowing fast and quick. It’s difficult to sort them properly (see previous Goal Map as a network graph..)
After watching lecture 01-04 again, I was running through too many of the common mistakes in goal tree above. I abstracted the errors into two classes. The first class of error are causation relations & verbs. These error types ‘interfere with future steps’ and ‘undermine credibility’. In other words these are system errors. The second class of errors are quality errors, such as specificity. Thus, the the actor I most relate to, the employee, has only a few broad goal errors. The employer actor on the other hand, whose hiring goals and practices are exactly the dilemma, are only broadly known to me. These errors (black boxes) dominate the top of the page. Overly specific errors are placed on the bottom.
Before going back over the videos I was already thinking along similar lines. I named these goals not as errors but simply overly ideal objectives. I imagined a possible future role as criteria for boosting a lower scoring job opportunity–how close to the fact I was, but as Elianne points out in the video these highly specific criteria invalidate your model. They lead to over-scoring the solutions which are so closely associated with them. Although, since the principal dilemma is missing feedback, and these specific criteria are part of a later negotiation phase, they wouldn’t pass editing anyway. Nevertheless, I’ve pushed them to the bottom for now. 
I can’t seem to keep away from extra illustrations. Here are a few sketches comparing the ideas I have about some quantifiers of the basic criteria.
|
