Challenge pattern

Question a connection that looks too obvious to find the conditions and hidden causes behind it.

Purpose

Test the connections the group drew quickly or that you suspect is hiding complexity. Such an arrow may hide a condition or a third factor that matters more than the arrow itself.

When to use it

During Connect, after the first pass of connections is on the board.
When connections look too neat, or the group agrees on everything too fast.
When paths run straight from root / problem to action / intervention to desired state / outcome with nothing in between, a sign of the shortcut.

Timing

Each challenge takes a few minutes of discussion. Challenge 2 or 3 connections in a session, inside the time of Connect.

Steps

Pick a connection that seems obvious.
Ask the group:

Is this always true? Are there cases where this does not lead to that?
Follow up:

What would have to change for this connection to break?
Put any condition or intermediate cause the group names on the board as a node, and redraw the arrows through it. It may be a new node, or one that was already on the board.
If nothing new comes up, keep the connection as it is and move on.

Tips

Challenge connections, not people. Point at the arrow on the board, not at whoever drew it.
Pick connections the whole group agreed on.
One real exception does more than an abstract doubt. Present a customer, an incident, or a number that does not fit the arrow.

Traps

Challenging every arrow. The group loses energy and Connect never ends. Challenge a few connections, chosen deliberately.
Debating what the arrow means. Whether an arrow means "causes" or "influences" is not the question. Keep the meaning of arrows loose during Connect. See influences.
Removing an arrow just because it was challenged. The pattern looks for what is missing, not to remove without cause.

Variations

When you do not know the domain, ask 1 or 2 knowledgeable participants to challenge connections for you. See planning a session.
An arrow drawn as provisional during a disagreement gets its challenge outside of the session later, when the tree is reviewed. See the defer-to-refinement move in difficult situations.

Example

Early in Connect, the renewals group drew the arrow everyone expected: outages during the morning rush cost renewals. Nobody questioned it. Outages were the first thing customers named in their exit interviews.

The facilitator owns the renewal numbers, so she had a case that did not fit. She put it to the group as a question:

Is this always true? Two customers went through the same outage in the spring, and both renewed. We called both of them before their technicians called us.

Step 1 of 3. Early in Connect, the group draws the arrow everyone agrees with: outages cost renewals.

Step 2 of 3. Is this always true? The facilitator checks it against her renewal data: the customers who heard about the last outage from us renewed. What mattered was how they found out.

Step 3 of 3. The direct arrow comes off. In its place, the group maps what it can act on: who tells customers, and how.

Diagram as text: The challenge pattern on the renewals board

Steps:

Step 1: Early in Connect, the group draws the arrow everyone agrees with: outages cost renewals.
Step 2: Is this always true? The facilitator checks it against her renewal data: the customers who heard about the last outage from us renewed. What mattered was how they found out. Changes: added "Customers hear about outages from their technicians". new arrows: "Outages hit during the morning dispatch rush" influences "Customers hear about outages from their technicians".
Step 3: The direct arrow comes off. In its place, the group maps what it can act on: who tells customers, and how. Changes: added "No one owns customer updates during incidents", "Public status page", "Name a communications lead for every incident", "Customers hear about incidents from us first". new arrows: "No one owns customer updates during incidents" influences "Customers hear about outages from their technicians"; "Customers hear about outages from their technicians" influences "Name a communications lead for every incident"; "No one owns customer updates during incidents" influences "Name a communications lead for every incident"; "Name a communications lead for every incident" influences "Customers hear about incidents from us first"; "Public status page" influences "Customers hear about incidents from us first"; "Public status page" attacks "Customers hear about outages from their technicians". arrows removed: "Outages hit during the morning dispatch rush" influences "9 in 10 large customers renew".

After the last step:

Nodes:

Root / Problem: "Outages hit during the morning dispatch rush"
Root / Problem: "No one owns customer updates during incidents"
Root / Problem: "Customers hear about outages from their technicians"
Action / Intervention: "Name a communications lead for every incident"
Desired State / Outcome: "9 in 10 large customers renew"
Desired State / Outcome: "Customers hear about incidents from us first"
Artifact / Deliverable: "Public status page"

Arrows:

"Outages hit during the morning dispatch rush" influences "Customers hear about outages from their technicians"
"No one owns customer updates during incidents" influences "Customers hear about outages from their technicians"
"Customers hear about outages from their technicians" influences "Name a communications lead for every incident"
"No one owns customer updates during incidents" influences "Name a communications lead for every incident"
"Name a communications lead for every incident" influences "Customers hear about incidents from us first"
"Public status page" influences "Customers hear about incidents from us first"
"Public status page" attacks "Customers hear about outages from their technicians"

What mattered was how customers found out. That problem had been on the board since Prepare, with no arrows: "Customers hear about outages from their technicians." The group drew the path through it and took the direct arrow off.

The group then expanded around that node with the origin pattern, and found a cause, an action, an artifact, and an outcome that had not been on the board. One of the 2 insights named during Close started here: customers are more likely to forgive an outage they hear about from the company first.