Sensemaking

This is the process by which we give relevance and meaning to the experience. It was introduced to information science by Brenda Dervin in the 1980s, to human–computer interaction by PARC researchers in 1993, and to organizational studies by Karl E. Weick. It is used to bring together insights drawn from philosophy, sociology, and cognitive science (especially social psychology), but moreover it is an approach that peels away the surface of the data and concepts, identifies conceptual relevance and reconstructs them as paradoxes or hybrids.  As part of our Metrics and Measurement program we have developed methodologies that help us design interactive and alternative thinking systems for Sensemaking. It helps us create a much broader and holistic understanding of what any given event really means beyond the obvious.

Sensemaking is an active two-way process of fitting data and concepts into a frame (mental model) and fitting a frame around the data and concepts. Neither data/concept nor frame comes first; data/concepts evoke frames and frames select and connect data. It follows Cohen’s recognition-metacognition model, which describes the metacognitive processes that are used by individuals to build, verify, and modify working models (or “stories”) through situational awareness to account for an unrecognized situation. It reflects aspects such as assimilation and accommodation by providing sufficient fluidity in the design process to enable us to develop rigorous, relevant means of measuring aspects such as experience and performance by applying a number of reflective and quantitative approaches. It is a crucial tool for understanding levels of affect and related effect in the growing shift towards immersive, experiential events.

While in over the past decades the work of Weick has identified some key properties of Sensemaking such as identity, retrospection, plausibility, environment, style of narratives, etc. we subvert assumptions, revisit the roles of signifiers, values, disruptors and clues from which we can build narratives that intertwine the multiple properties into a holistic vision that gives the show a more meaningful purpose. This is critical to ensuring that the themes and sub-themes have a true raison d’etre and clear points of impact and influence.

This part of our work tends to bring us back to deeper reflection on the work we explained in Narrative Encounters above. The processes enable us to try out and experiment with our ideas through multi-perspective simulation in changing environments and context. They simply help determine the optimized interpretation of the subject-matter in terms of its potential to maximize the stakeholder’s experience in each phase of the event development process, whether it is pre, during or post.

This applies to anything from whether to develop playable interactive promotional materials, design a flagship area to create awe or to introduce holograms for product display. Each element needs to be a part of a singular narrative in which each of the stakeholders feels like he or she is the central protagonist and sees the grand purpose in their role.