It’s interesting to me how much people rely on formal tools for modeling. I frequently talk to individuals that tend to assert that just because a model is made in some modeling tool (like Visio) that it is *right* or at least superior to whiteboard sketches.
The Visio fan-boys and fan-girls seem to snicker and generally doubt the effectiveness of a sketch done at a whiteboard. Why is this?
Is it because of the appearance? Is it the lack of gradients? Is it the lack of the drop shadows? Is it the lack of the standard company logo in the upper right-hand corner? Is it because of how straight the lines are?
My view is exactly the opposite. If I had to summarize my stance, I’d say that the straightness of the lines has an inverse effect on the understanding of the problem.
In my experience, most of the models created with modeling-tools are done by one individual. If others collaborate on the model, it’s usually in a serialized fashion. It’s “tossed over the wall” to someone else who follows a similar process. It’s also my experience that many people spend more time worrying about the polish of how the output looks than spending time thinking about what is being modeled.
Contrast this to a whiteboard-session:
When a model is explored on a whiteboard it’s usually done with more than one person. It’s usually done collaboratively with at least two participants, a variety of view-points, and it’s iterated on quickly. Because it’s being done collaboratively, it also frequently results in break-through ideas or understanding.
Unfortunately, the modeling tools also tend to focus our attention on the output, not the creation of the model (where the real learning occurs).
It’s important to remember that the modeling, learning, and understanding is what provides the real value, not the model.
Photo courtesy of Doc Searls.
