Satir workshops

• Any problem solving begins with carefully, precisely and thoroughly describing what we observe.
• We seek patterns in the data by investigating the data, sometimes using sophisticated statistical models.
• And when we do see a (new) pattern we can seek out what is causing it.

While observations are the ultimate foundation of high integrity communication, they are not enough. Our human world and our organizations -almost any given part of it- are (boundlessly) complex and diverse. In and of themselves descriptions of these systems can overwhelm :-), as many early OOT projects have shown us by the mere volumes of use cases produced. (If management would not have stopped them I have no doubt they would still be at it).

The very concept of root causes discourages us from seeing the feedback loops of systems theory:

• Positive feedback loops: vicious circles or virtuous circles that amplify.
• Negative feedback loops: stabilize to avoid run-away chain reactions.
• Choices: where we can influence either way.

While theorizing, we make assumptions about how things work. We make these assumptions by abstracting features according to what we think is (contemporary) essential. --Fred Brooks's Essence & Accident 

Deducing consequences of the assumptions and comparing these with observed data is one way of looking for patterns in the vast ocean of data. Root cause analysis and contemplating underlying causes can please our desire to understand and may suggest new kinds of patterns to hunt for in the data.

We can argue that the only way to effect organizational change while maintaining high integrity is by studying body language, because only that language is close enough to human hardware that one can be reasonably sure about what is happening and because the 3D world is the source for grounding our theories.

Higher level human languages using visual images and words are complex and poorly defined. Their involved and ambiguous semantics make it impossible to be sure what is happening or anticipate what might happen. So it seems impossible for one to know, with our usual documentation, how it can be translated to a design on the operational level; in some cases, working on the frontline of new technologies, the only way to find out is by "trial and error", by experience and by frustration.

Each human involved is a complex system and bound to make meaning and assign value differently. Even if it was possible to have some idea about The True Meaning of an gestalt, it seems impossible to simply feel confident that an individual correctly implements the intended meaning of an organisation.

Let's get with reality; sole use of body language for organisational purposes is infeasible and higher-level languages like visual languages and verbal languages are essential for creating and communicating different perspectives.

From any such set of seemingly conflicting communication pressures, the lingo of security and reliability can provide neat goals to aspire to for communicating the different perspectives in a gestalt: