Affinity Diagrams (was Re: Card sorting!!!)

I have a lot of experience doing affinity diagrams and while I agree with
your statement that it "attempts to achieve consensus in a group", I
strongly disagree with your notion that strong characters can lead the grou=
p
and create an individual bias.

I'm not sure what process you are using to create your affinity diagrams,
but we use the Contextual Design process, which makes it very difficult for
one person to bias the affinity. (I realize that this may be getting a
little off topic, but I thought it might be useful to describe a little of
the process and show how you can build affinities without individual bias.)

At the beginning of the process, we read the notes out loud, so that
everyone can get a sense of where notes are being placed. But after enough
notes are up, talking is discouraged and people place notes wherever they
think they should go on the wall. While people are putting notes up on the
wall, anyone can move any note to another part of the wall=8Bwithout having=
 to
explain or justify why they think it should be moved.

During the process of adding labels to the notes that have been placed (we
use a 3 tier hierarchy of green>pink>blue>notes), we have many people each
working on different sections of the affinity to clean up and label the
chunks.=20

This ensures that you get an affinity that truly represents the group mind.
You could argue that it is still a group bias, but it isn't an individual
bias. I could still argue that a group bias doesn't really matter anyway,
but that may depend on what you are using the affinity diagram for.

I'd be interested in hearing how you and others are creating affinities and
what you are using them for.

-dave



David B. Rondeau

Design Chair
Incontext Enterprises
http://www.incontextdesign.com =A0











On 3/4/09 4:02 AM, "Diarmad McNally" <[email protected]> wrote:

>=20
> Morning,
>=20
> Another interesting difference between card sorting and affinity diagramm=
ing
> is that the latter attempts to achieve consensus in a group and is theref=
ore
> subject to group bias (e.g. strong characters leading the group etc.) whi=
le
> the consensus agreed through card sorting is aggregated from individual
> responses.
>=20
> Regards,
> Diarmad McNally
> Interaction Design Studio
>=20
> t: (+44) 07808 297289
> e: [email protected]
> w: www.ixdStudio.com
> Twitter: www.twitter.com/ixdStudio
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --- On Tue, 3/3/09, William Hudson <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
>> From: William Hudson <[email protected]>
>> Subject: RE: Card sorting!!!
>> To: "User-Centred Design (Discussion)" <[email protected]>
>> Date: Tuesday, 3 March, 2009, 4:10 PM
>> Peter -
>>=20
>> While I agree that there are some similarities between card
>> sorting and affinity diagramming, I don't think that one
>> lead to the other. Affinity diagramming comes from the KJ
>> Method which was only invented in the 1960s. Philosophers,
>> psychologists and information scientists (in various guises)
>> have been categorising concepts for many hundreds of years
>> before that. In fact, even the methods of cluster analysis
>> and tree diagrams commonly used to process card sorts
>> predate the KJ Method (although they came after
>> Aristotle<g>).
>>=20
>> Also, there are some very important differences between
>> card sorting and affinity diagramming. As it happens, I
>> cover these in my web design course at CHI 2009 in Boston -
>> see
>> http://chi2009.org/Attending/AdvanceProgram/courseC119.htm
>>=20
>> Basically, card sorting is trying to investigate categories
>> and terminology while affinity diagramming is much more
>> about concepts, descriptions and the voice of the customer
>> (at least as practised by Karen Holtzblatt and her
>> colleagues). Anyone interested in affinity diagramming
>> should have a look at Jared Spools web page on the subject
>> (http://www.uie.com/articles/kj_technique/) and either a
>> Karen Holtzblatt's books on contextual design.
>>=20
>> Regards,
>>=20
>> William Hudson
>> Syntagm Ltd
>> Design for Usability
>> UK 01235-522859
>> World +44-1235-522859
>> US Toll Free 1-866-SYNTAGM
>> mailto:[email protected]
>> http://www.syntagm.co.uk
>> skype:williamhudsonskype
>>=20
>> Syntagm is a limited company registered in England and
>> Wales.
>> Registered number: 1895345. Registered office: 10 Oxford
>> Road, Abingdon OX14 2DS.
>>=20
>> Advances in Card Sorting - One Day Workshop
>>  - London, 21 April 2009
>> http://www.syntagm.co.uk/design/csadvances.shtml
>>=20
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Peter Capell [mailto:[email protected]]
>>> Sent: 03 March 2009 15:19
>>> To: UCD
>>> Subject: RE: Card sorting!!!
>>>=20
>>> Hi,
>>>=20
>>> Card sorting is apparently a slight modification to
>> "affinity
>>> diagramming" about which there is much (older)
>> literature in the area
>>> of "meeting management." I think it is a
>> very powerful technique (when
>>> the group/team/users are cooperative). Often it is
>> coupled with first a
>>> session of brainstorming, which when conducted by the
>> rules is a very
>>> helpful adjunct. There are even permutations of
>> brainstorming/card
>>> sorting (affinity diagramming) called "nominal
>> group technique" which
>>> allows for differences in personality type.
>>>=20
>>>  Peter
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> ---
>> You are currently subscribed to ucd as:
>> [email protected].
>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>> leave-44499-378.8bf1211fd4b7b94528899de0a43b9fb3@listman.syntagm.co.uk
>=20
>=20
>      =20
>=20
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ucd as: [email protected].
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> leave-44522-370.d709f38ef758b5066ef31b18039b8ce5@listman.syntagm.co.uk




---
You are currently subscribed to ucd as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-44576-427.18997733ec258a9fcaf239=
[email protected]