Getting Started

If you’d like a little orientation to sumApp, this 57 second video should help!

yes (sumApp has been significantly updated since this video was made but we still think it will give you a good sense of what’s going on, and you can probably translate what you see in the video to the current platform.)

🌱 Start Small, Stay Curious: The Cycle of Learning in Social System Mapping

⚠️ The Risk of Front-Loading

Yes, you can plow through the entire mapping process as if it’s one big, linear project with a single final deliverable — like “a map” or “an analysis.”

But if you go that route, you’ll need to finalize your vision, technical setup, and sensemaking views all up front. You’ll only get one shot at each step.

And that defeats — or at least confuses — one of the core purposes of Social System Mapping:
To engage in an emergent process of learning and discovery, together.

Even more importantly: you’re not ready to finalize anything up front yet.
Your network can’t fully see what this is yet — and no matter how much you might wish otherwise, you can’t see it for them.

As they begin to see into the process, you will start to see it differently too.
Everyone’s understanding evolves. That’s part of the point.

I’ve participated in several projects that ultimately fell short because they began with too much ambition, aimed in the wrong direction. Not because they failed to produce a product — but because that product missed the mark. It didn’t connect. It didn’t engage. It didn’t become alive within the network.

🌀 Begin with a Gentle Prototype

So: don’t get too far ahead of yourself.
Instead, start with a quick walk-through of all three phases — Envisioning, Mapping, and SenseMaking.

Keep it simple. Just a small handful of people with a high tolerance for experimentation. Treat it like an emergent prototype. The goal isn’t polish — it’s orientation.

Use this round to:

• Get your feet wet
• Learn the tools
• Start to imagine what this will feel like from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about mapping

This small, simple start will give you more clarity and confidence — and prepare you to facilitate a broader, more inclusive envisioning process later.

🔁 The Value of Repeating the Cycle

After that first rough cycle, come back to the Knowledge Base.
It will start to make more sense now that you’ve had a full-body experience of what the work feels like.

Then run another cycle.
Still small, but a little deeper.

• Test a few new survey questions
• Involve a few more people
• Use what you’ve created so far to spark conversation
• Ask:
  • What’s missing?
  • What else could we be gathering?
  • How does this land with people on the map?
  • How about those who aren’t yet on it?

This second round of prototyping opens up a new level of insight.
Now you’re not just making a map — you’re beginning to think together in a new way.

You’re beginning to ask:

• What does it mean to visualize our connections — both actual and potential?
• How do we learn to think systemically, as a group?
• How do we use this new visual language to have conversations we couldn’t otherwise have?

⛔ The Illusion of “Done”

Another risk of front-loading is the belief that once the map is built, it’s “done” — like a website you can launch and walk away from.

But it doesn’t work like that.

People won’t use the map until they’ve learned its language — until it means something to them.

Think about how you learned to read.
You didn’t start with an encyclopedia and a couple of lessons.
You started with baby books — a few words at a time, with someone by your side, and lots of repetition.

Offer your network that same kindness.
Start where people are.
Not one step beyond that.

🌿 Readiness Is Relative

If your group already knows this visual language, and people are energized to wordsmith the survey and dive into a big collective process — wonderful. Begin there.

But if not — just take baby steps.
Cycle through the phases more times.

Start small, then deepen. Iterate. Let the process evolve with your network’s readiness.

And know this: no matter where you start, it never really ends.
You just continue spiraling deeper into collective awareness as the map morphs and matures.

🤝 When to Reach Out

Once you’ve moved through a couple of cycles, that’s a great time to begin engaging with the broader mapping community:

• Join on-ramp sessions
• Participate in community forums
• Share what you’ve learned
• Ask questions
• Spark conversations about where to go next

Mapping can be lonely if you try to do it in isolation. But there’s a network of mappers who’ve been where you are — and who want to think with you.

🧠 Why the Phases Matter

These three phases — Envisioning, Mapping, SenseMaking — aren’t rigid steps.
They’re overlapping. Iterative.
They blur into each other and cycle endlessly.

But they also require different mindsets. Different activities.
Which means it’s helpful to think about which phase you’re in — so you can tend it more thoughtfully.

Let’s say you’ve already built a prototype and done some initial sensemaking. You’re starting to notice patterns. That’s great.

But this is also a good moment to go back to the beginning.
Start fresh.
Put on your beginner’s mind and ask:

• What haven’t we mapped yet?
• What don’t we know?
• What’s still outside the frame?

🔍 Deepening Through Each Phase

Envisioning
Look again, with new eyes. Are there systemic dynamics your network is trying to impact that the current map doesn’t yet capture? Can you find ways to visualize those?

Mapping
Explore new possibilities in the tools.
What haven’t you used yet in sumApp or Kumu?
Could your views tell a different story?
Are there features waiting to be unlocked?

SenseMaking
Is the current map surfacing what your network needs to see?
Are you seeing what is — or beginning to ask about what could be?

Each round opens a new layer of depth.
Each cycle creates new possibilities.

And the invitation remains the same:
Start where you are. Stay curious. And keep going

🌀Three Phases, One Living Cycle

There are no hard and fast absolutes about the process of Social System Mapping. As you proceed, your network will naturally constrain, re-frame, and co-generate its own path to your collectively-desired end-point. And you should invite that — because without the community’s ultimate ownership, the map won’t live up to its greatest potential for guiding and giving insight to your network.

Still — without at least a little planning ahead, the project can quickly spin out of control, or just as easily grind to a halt. I don’t want that to happen to you, so I offer up our experience as a starting point. Consider what follows as a place to begin thinking about the process — based on experience across many different contexts. But know that it’s only a beginning. You should indulge your creative impulses. Make it your own.

The phases outlined here could easily be sub-divided, collapsed, blended. There’s overlap. Circling back. Fuzziness. I wouldn’t advise over-thinking it — because whatever you imagine at the beginning, the process will take you somewhere different.

So — jump in.
Start where the people are.
Do what you can.
Then go back, revisit, deepen.
Iterate. Iterate. Iterate.
Let it emerge.

Having said all that — here’s how I think about the three core phases:

🔭 Envisioning

This is everything that happens to get a project underway — before there’s anything meaningful to look at. If a map doesn’t yet exist for a specific group and you want to help that group make one, you’re in the Envisioning phase. You’re wearing the Visionary Hat.

Your imagination is engaged with what could exist — but you can’t build it alone. Social System Mapping is inherently collaborative.

This is the time to invite others in, gather clarity about purpose, and begin sensing what kind of map your network needs — and why. It’s also where the Storytelling Hat first appears: helping name what called the map into being, and weaving a narrative that others can connect with.

🛠 Mapping

Mapping, in this context, means everything related to the online interfaces — sumApp setup and administration, Kumu setup and view design, the data-flow work needed to get information from sumApp into Kumu, and whatever interface choices you make to share the map with your community.

If your questions fall into this category, you’re probably wearing the Technician Hat — the one focused on structure, clarity, and function.

Storytelling continues here too — helping make the technical choices legible, the design intentional, and the process inviting. Sometimes that’s a simple framing sentence in an email; sometimes it’s a metaphor that helps your team stay oriented in complexity.

🧠 SenseMaking

SenseMaking is what you do with the map. It’s the reason you built it in the first place — the process of using it to gain insight, reflect, learn, and support action.

This phase includes:

• Exploring the map with community members

• Connecting the visual to lived experience

• Asking good questions together

• Embedding the map in network practices and rhythms

• Helping others use it to meet their own goals

If your imagination lights up here — or this is when your energy kicks in — you’re likely wearing the SenseMaker Hat.

And again, the Storytelling Hat is present — helping distill insights, surface tensions, highlight patterns, and communicate meaning across different audiences. The story becomes a bridge between the map and the movement.

🔁 It’s Not a Line — It’s a Cycle

SenseMaking doesn’t end the process — it feeds the next round.

When you’ve worked with the map, you start to see its limits. You discover new questions. New needs. New clarity. And that awareness brings you back around to the Envisioning phase — this time with deeper grounding, better questions, and more collaborators.

Social System Mapping is not a linear project — it’s a living cycle.
Each pass through the phases brings more coherence.
Each iteration reveals what the system is becoming.

And the Storytelling Hat?
Worn all the way through.

Let me know if you’d like this version dropped into a shared doc for easy editing, or if you’d like to pair it with a visual representation of the cycle.

Why think about each phase separately?

Social System Mapping is an expanded version of Network Mapping that is emerging from the increased functionality of the combination of sumApp and Kumu.

It’s a mash-up of system mapping, social network mapping, asset mapping, stakeholder mapping and more.

Human beings and their own self-reporting are at the core of Social System Mapping, but at the same time – the social network is not isolated from the systemic forces that the humans in the system impact and are impacted by, and the systemic forces in the system are not de-personalized. It’s humans, relationships, systemic forces – all together.

Learn more from this 17 minute video:

Social System Mapping is one genre of the new visual language that is developing out of the intersection of data-visualization, network science and systems thinking. We hope it can become a tool as useful to understanding and engaging with the invisible dynamics of human networks and systems, as geographical mapping is to understanding and navigating the physical world.

And THAT will require a whole lot of us to learn, use, and then teach the new language.We invite you to be part of that discovery process!

Social system mapping (SSM) is a new mapping practice that can present on the surface a sloppy mash-up of better-established and more-well-groomed methodologies. 

It was not pre-conceived, pre-defined, pre-justified & pre-proven. Rather, it is emerging from the interaction between what Tim & I were interested in working on – the problems we wanted to solve for – and a growing number of mappers’ and network leader’s intuitions, imaginations, and need to understand the contexts in which they act and lead more clearly.

Because it’s new, because it’s un-anticipated and emergent, it has taken awhile to articulate what ‘it’ is and why we, and others, are doing it. But now it has come along far enough that we can clarify that ‘this’ is NOT ‘that’. We can define what ‘this’ is and why. And explain why it needs a name of it’s own.

Step back into the story of geographical maps 

In order to frame and add clarity to what social system mapping is, we need to be clear that we’re at the very beginning of a story. It doesn’t help us to sense our way forward through the possible if we expect to have already arrived.

So let’s take a step back in time and contemplate the story of geographical maps, because geo-maps are a powerful corollary.

Once upon a time, most people didn’t use visual diagrams showing the relative placement of one place to another place, or a path between them. At best, someone drew some lines in the sand if they needed to communicate where they went, where something was, or how to get somewhere. Then, I’m guessing, some travelers started making crude drawings on papyrus or something. To share it, they had to explain what the lines meant, because w/o the explanation, the map was useless. Over time, the maps got more accurate – they took more things into account, they adopted symbolic norms making them easier to read, they were more than lines with starting and ending points. They grew infinitely more sophisticated and packed with data.

In the early years, it was mostly the guys in power who could read & make use of these maps. The captain of the ship, the general of the army, the merchant leading their servants and camels packed with wares to the next marketplace, the advisors to the throne.

If you put a map in front of the general population, they’d shrug & say ‘so what?’ – they wouldn’t recognize the knowledge and power a map could give them. But over time, even the general population began to see their value and learn to read them. In other words, geographical maps have evolved. They’re a tool that both reflects the current knowledge about geographical reality, informs more learning about that reality, and then reflects the new knowledge back.

But none of that just happened.  Wide-spread use of geo-maps didn’t occur just because someone made a map – they began as the purview of an elite few. And the sophisticated and information-rich geo-maps we have today started out as crude and simple efforts to communicate what could be not communicated by any other means. There was a necessary feedback loop of increasing understanding that required humans to apply their intelligence and then to engage with what was reflected back to them – and over time, a rich and powerful visual language emerged.

That new visual language is different from written & spoken language, because it’s not linear. Different because it summarizes a ton of data as well as many types of data (infrastructural, political, topological, atmospheric, agricultural, etc.) into quickly-understandable symbolic elements. Different because humans are visual, so what we see stays with us longer and speaks to us more deeply. A good geographical map shows us things about our world that we literally can’t see in any other way. 

Language shapes thinking 

And as any second-language-learner can attest – language shapes our thinking. We understand and engage reality differently, depending on which language we’re speaking. And we wouldn’t be the global citizens we are today (for better and for worse) without the historical evolution of geographical maps. 

The geo-map language gave us understanding and it gave us norms. And as a feedback loop, it inforces and asserts the version of reality that it has taught us to see. If all we needed to navigate and thrive was a well-developed knowledge of physical location, we’d be all set. But the world view we’ve inherited has proven inadequate to the litany of challenges we currently face. We need new ways of understanding and communicating about and navigating through new aspects of reality that we’re only beginning to understand. 

Systems Thinking Instigates A New World View 

Systems thinking has taught us about complexity, interconnectedness, dynamical change – all things we need to understand and see if we want to help make the world a better place. But we can’t represent any of those things in a geographical map. Systems thinking has shown us that what controls our reality is mostly hidden under the surface, invisible (tho not absolutely unknowable). We’ve learned that the world view (our mental models, beliefs, values and emotions) we bring to our actions has powerful impact, and that the world view we’ve inherited (through no fault of our own) is extremely problematic. Systems thinking pioneer Donella Meadows said the greatest leverage point in shifting a system is in shifting the paradigm that informs the system. 

Systems thinking has taught us: our old Cartesian understanding of reality has helped us create the litany of problems we face; applying systems thinking is crucial to solving those problems; and a network approach is how we need to structure the work. 

But changing how we think and how we work together is hard. Even if we WANT to apply a systems mindset, it mostly seems abstract and ‘out there’ somewhere. And even if we love the idea of working in networks, we struggle to make them work. We who are committed to this paradigm shift still have a lot of learning ahead of us.

Without relevent representations of how all that abstract invisible stuff connects to OURSELVES, it’s a mystery. So long as its ‘out there’ or about ‘someone else’, we can’t sense our way into it. Sarah Shanahan of the RE-AMP Network says it takes their new members roughly two years to understand what the network is. And RE-AMP is a mature, sophisticated network with established on-boarding practices & a lot of excellent training. 

We need a new world-view-impacting, visual language for representing this new reality related to systems and networks that is similar to, and as powerful as, the visual language of geographical mapping. A visual language for enabling, facilitating and processing our learning. 

This language has been developing for some time now. System mapping, network mapping, value mapping, process mapping, stakeholder mapping, influence mapping and more – all are genres in the developing language of the network graph. All emphasize relationships and surface aspects of the hidden realities. All are valuable tools for advancing our learning. 

Moreover, visualizations are among the best ways to help people with different perspectives share understanding. So when those mapping genres are implemented as a collaborative process, they’re even more valuable. 

But those mapping genres I just mentioned are still fragmented. You use one kind for THIS purpose and another for THAT purpose. But reality is overlapping & interconnected. That’s the whole point these maps are trying to impart. 

So social system mapping has become the medium through which we’ve been exploring these questions with our mapping clients and sumApp customers: how do we create a paradigm-shaping, reinforcing feedback-looping visual language similar to what we have with geographical maps – but in this new context? How do we create a new visual language that increases our awareness of, sensitizes us to, and increases our actionable wisdom around the invisible and interconnected forces in systems and the hidden dynamics of social interdependence? A representation of reality that both expands our understanding and reflects what we’re learning about it. A representation that enables us to see our complex situations more clearly and have greater insight into how to navigate what is normally hidden?

And it’s not just about the outcome, it’s about the process as well. Who defines what matters? Whose language? How is power reflected, how is it used? What’s working and what needs to change? The project itself has to become a focal point of collective learning and decision-making and evolving together. The process itself is the experiment – the map is a reflection of what we’ve learned so far.

It’s also about reflecting the truth – which is messy. It’s about acknowledging and accepting inherent complexity and different understandings so that we can find ways of navigating that, instead of splitting it up into arbitrary and neatly-separated boxes. It’s supposed to be messy, it’s supposed to be confusing. It’s supposed to wake us up to the truth. We’ve been spoon-fed bite-sized, fragmented bits of near-useless knowledge so long we don’t know how to step back and look for patterns, or to discern coherence or its lack. We don’t have the mental habits and skills that enable us to make sense of a non-compartmentalized reality. So we desperately need tools and processes that help us figure out how to do that. 

So that’s the purpose of a social system map. It is a collective learning experiment that facilitates a deeper understanding of systems thinking and the power of networks, using a visual language that is APPLIED, to what is RELEVANT to US, in a CO-LEARNING environment, WITH others who have SHARED INTENTIONS, in an ONGOING way. 

Just like a geographical map sensitizes us to information-in-relation-to-place, a social system map and the process of making it sensitizes us to the hidden relationships and dynamics that make up our human systems.

So – having finally come to the WHY of a social system map, understanding its reason for being, we can recognize that it’s NOT just a random & aimless mash-up of a range of mapping genres – it has explicit and purposeful constraints that enable that WHY:

1. It centers human beings and self-reporting. All elements in a map are there only because they either are people or because they are connected in some way to the specific people represented. It relies on actual people’s input, feedback, and sense-making. Network members provide the bulk of the data represented, they keep it up to date, they use the map to inform their change efforts, and they define what data and visualizations are relevant to them.
2. Unlike with a Social Network Analysis, it doesn’t isolate the relationship patterns from the systemic forces that go along with them. It doesn’t just show us who is a connector or a bridger for example, it also shows us the systemic forces they are connecting or bridging. It allows us to highlight additional systemic dynamics embedded within the patterns an SNA reveals.
3. Unlike in a classic system map, it doesn’t depersonalize systems. A system map of abstract forces helps us step back from our personal perspective so we can see the whole system more clearly (which is great). But it also leaves the impression that systems are these monolithic autonomic machines ‘out there’ that mere humans cannot impact. When in fact – human systems are generated and held in place by individual persons abiding by collective and generally unconscious agreements. There are material constraints and real-world limits, but how we engage these limits is purely driven by human beliefs. Omitting the persons that are invested in, impacted by or seeking to impact those beliefs from the systemic picture obscures our very human collective power. System maps leave human agency hidden beneath the surface, at a time when we need to highlight it.
4. It’s online – available at any time and pretty much anywhere – equally available to everyone who helps inform and update the map.
5. It’s interactive – anyone accessing the map can filter, pattern-seek, slice, dice, and zoom the scale of detail in and out to their own heart’s content. No-one has to rely on a specialist to find and show them what they want to see. The interactivity can both satisfy and stimulate curiosity – which then can lead to greater insight.
6. It changes over time – everything from survey questions to who is included and questions about how they’re connected is meant to evolve. The content and design of the map are not defined once and for all in a perfect up-front process that everyone is then stuck with forever, but is meant to change and become both more meaningful and more context-specific as the network engages with it and learns from it over time. It emerges out of the ongoing interactions of the network members with the map. In that way, it’s a transparent and obvious example of a feedback loop.
7. It is a collaborative effort requiring different thinking modalities. It’s only as useful as the collaboration and the collective effort make it. It won’t take hold from a single-perspective, top-down approach. Its success requires us to practise what we preach.
8. It requires co-learning. The more the network is able to sense-make with the map around their own needs, the more useful the map will become to the whole. Without that training, much of the potential is left un-realized. 

So what?

So in theory, I’m implying . . . that. . . if we can design effective methods of helping people learn to generate, navigate, make sense of and derive actionable wisdom from their social system maps, we’d be simultaneously building their collaboration muscles and capacity to navigate complexity – within the context that is most meaningful to them – their own networks and systems-change efforts.  

With good training methods, a social system map could become a tool that catalyzes transformation through a network. The project itself – the training, the map, the sense-making and the iterating can become a network-wide focal point – an organizing principle for the network’s ongoing learning.

And that’s the point – to facilitate more, faster, better system-shifting, healing, generative, restorative wisdom.

Kumu is an online platform that visualizes data in network graph format.  A personal account is free. Each account can have unlimited ‘projects’. Projects that are indexed and viewable by the public are free. Private projects cost roughly $10/month. Private essentially means that the project isn’t indexed anywhere, and the only people who can access it are given access via their Kumu account. You can share your private project with any number of Kumu users, w/o incurring extra cost – it’s still just $10.

But, what’s a network graph, you ask? A network graph is any representation of information that uses the form of dots and lines. The ‘dots’ can be circles, squares, any other basic shape, or simply a few words. It’s a thing on a canvas. The lines are usually represented simply as lines (tho sometimes dashed or dotted, sometimes fat or thin) and they never exist in a vacuum – a network graph would never just show a bunch of lines. The lines always connect the dots – they represent some kind of relationship between one dot and another. Relationships are the whole point of a network graph. This kind of representation is inherently about connections, about relationships, about things that are never stand-alone, separate items – it’s inherently about context and system. That’s what’s cool about a network graph – they teach us to see and think less in terms of what’s-its and more in terms of what’s-between-its.

There are other online network graph tools but Kumu is our favorite tool – because of it’s beauty, it’s interactivity, it’s flexibility, and it’s accessibility.

But great as Kumu is, it won’t collect your data for you.

Which isn’t a problem if you’re graphing things about which you have sources of known data. But real relationship data about people – that can be hard to come by. It’s relatively easy to get information from people about themselves. But if you want to understand the connections between people or organizations – you have to ask them, and you have to ask them using an interface that makes that kind of asking easy, and using a tool that structures the data gathered in a way that works the way a network graph visualization requires (which normal surveys are terrible at).

So that’s what sumApp does. It helps you gather the data for a person-to-person/organization-to-organization/person-to-organization network graph – directly from the persons or organizational representatives themselves. It then feeds the data directly into Kumu so that you don’t have to even look at it, let alone clean it up & move things around. It’s even live so that when a person updates their info in sumApp, that info shows up in Kumu within minutes. It’s so seamless that it’s easy to think the two platforms (sumApp & Kumu) are one.

So – sumApp gathers social system data. Kumu visualizes it.

If your curious, read more about  why we built sumApp.

I like to say that Social System Mapping is one genre in a new visual language that’s emerging from the intersection of interactive online data visualization and graph theory. And because it’s new, because the media that use this language are not yet prevalent, because most people have had little exposure to it – to many people it’s confusing and underwhelming.

Beyond the fun of pretty moving pictures, and the zooming in & out – it gets dull and irrelevant fast. If you can’t ‘read’ the language.

There are other people (mostly intuitive connection-seeing types & systems-thinkers) who instantly get a sense of the potential of this new genre of the graph language. They get excited, they dig in, they want more and more. But even they often have a hard time explaining to others why these maps are important.

I believe that’s because it’s a new language. For some it resonates, or it speaks. For others, it’s just noise. See what you make of this example.

Which makes sense, if you think about the language of geographical maps. Both types of languages are visual abstractions, both represent relationships that can’t be seen from any other perspective, both are made up of data (not things). Neither is instantly obvious. There is an evolution that happens with any new language.

We can guess or imagine that when geographical maps were first developed, most people just saw meaningless scribbles. That guy carrying around a parchment scroll, flattening it out regularly, consulting the squiggly lines there – he must have seemed like a whack-job to others around him. I’ve been told there are still, today, places in the world where geographical maps are meaningless to many of the people. But not to us. Our ability to parse geographical maps has evolved.

If you’re reading this – you can read the language of a geographical map in your sleep. You look at google maps at least weekly. A momentary glimpse at the satellite weather map tells you everything you need to know about the weather over huge portions of the globe. And every wise decision-maker who deals with things that impact or impacted by geography (whether social, political, atmospheric, topographical, infrastructural, agricultural, mineral and so on) consults the relevant maps in depth before making decisions, investing, policy-making, committing and so on. Geographical language informs everything we do in ways that nothing else can. It’s essential to society, and shapes society in deeper ways than we can ever fully know or say.

Some of us are starting to be able to read the visual language of an interactive network graph the same way. Because of repeated exposure. Because we compose information using the language. Because we dig in and are curious and discover things.

My fantasy is that someday (sooner, rather than later, I hope) far more people will be able to read and write in this language. Because with all the wicked, seemingly intractable problems we currently face – coping, adapting, solving them requires us to, collectively, have far greater insight and ability to communicate about connections – about the relationships within systems, between people, among organizations, etc. And the need for that insight and ability to communicate about those otherwise-invisible relationships is precisely what this new visual language emerged from. It’s whole purpose is to increase our insight in ways nothing else can.

I’d like us all to be increasingly able to take advantage of that purpose – the way we’ve latched onto geographical maps.

In fact, I think it may be crucial to our survival.

Just to see what I mean by mapping being a ‘language’ – watch this one minute .gif

At first it may see like there’s a lot going on – a lot of dots, lines, names, movement, a couple of colors, that pop-out on the bottom left with text in it. . . .

But if you just relax & watch it unfold you start to see a pattern. And right around the time of the 106th congress, at 49 seconds, you’ll start to go ‘Oh! Wow!’

You don’t even have to pay close attention, the pattern pops right out at you.

My immediate take-aways:

1) There’s a TON of data in this 60 seconds – but it speaks quickly & eloquently – supporting my case that it’s a visual language.

2) If your eyes popped like mine did around and after the 106th Congress – you already know how to read this language.

3) When we’re making our own maps – we should strive to make them as easy to read as this.

Granted, our maps cover more possibilities, more dimensions, more everything messy. And they’ll rarely have such clear-cut & obvious messages embedded in them.

But it’s our job as map-makers to do our best to use the language with as much clarity as we possibly can.

In a March 2015 TED Talk, data visualization researcher Manual Lima explores what he calls the new cultural meme of ‘Networkism’, and a shift he sees in how we represent knowledge. We’re shifting, he claims from a core metaphor of the ‘Tree of Life’ to a core metaphor of the ‘Web of Life’.

We (you and me, in our little social-system-mapping corner of the world), of course, are not new to networkism, even if the label is new to us. It’s not news that the network metaphor is seeping into every aspect of life, and it’s not surprising to us because we understand – it’s simply a reflection of how reality is structured.

What was compelling to me in his talk was how he, (as I have elsewhere), refers to the network graph as an emerging visual taxonomy, that is rapidly replacing the tree metaphor (tree of knowledge, tree of life, etc. with the web metaphor).

That shift isn’t simply metaphorical – it’s based on dramatically different ways of understanding reality.

The tree metaphor represents and evokes: Order, centralization, balance, unity, symmetry, linearity.The network metaphor represents and evokes: Complexity, decentralization, interconnectedness, interdependence, multiplicity, non-linearity.

This shift of metaphors is a reflection of the ways complexity science has begun to shift our cultural paradigm – our understanding of what reality is & how it works. But it’s not only a reflection – the metaphor itself shifts our thinking. Different thinking creates different metaphors, the different metaphor – reproduced in so many mediums, applied to so many concepts, seen in so many places – creates even more of the different thinking. It’s a feedback loop.

So – to me, as we make our maps, it’s useful to keep in mind that by the very act of visualizing the web metaphor, we are helping to shift thinking. It’s also helpful to keep in mind that, while everyone loves the visuals, the underlying paradigm shift can still be uncomfortable when it’s so close to home.

In our projects – the core tension we often deal with is the collective, habitual, preference for the characteristics of the tree metaphor over the network metaphor. The desire for order and  linearity, overwhelm at complexity, discomfort with transparency and multiplicity.

A bit more about the language-taxonomy thing.

As Social System Mappers, I believe our core job will be to help prepare them for that, help them learn to navigate that, help them learn it.

Bruce Mau ‘When everything is connected to everything else, for better or worse, everything matters.’

All sumApp account set-ups start at Tier II for a free trial month.

No credit card is required for the free trial, so your account will just automatically downgrade to Tier I at the end of the month if you don’t choose to keep it at Tier II or higher.

If you want to downgrade immediately after setting up the account (or any time in the first month), just go to ‘My Account’, select ‘Change Subscription Plan’ at the lower left, and select Tier I.

There is no charge for Tier I.

If you would like to cancel your subscription, view the steps for canceling below.

And remember – if you have a Tier III or Tier IV account, you cannot downgrade it.

Social System Mapping involves the use of two online platforms, sumApp and Kumu.

sumApp

You’ll need a sumApp account to gather your network data. You can start a free 1 month trial here.

You can learn more about the sumApp tiers here.

sumApp is essentially a highly-specialized & super-sophisticated survey tool used for mapping social eco-systems. It’s a data-gathering tool designed to be user-friendly, change-able as your network’s understanding and needs change, and provide time-frames for seeing how your network changes over time. It structures the data so that it works perfectly with Kumu w/o you having to do any wrangling (which is common and time-consuming if you use other survey tools) and can be live-linked into Kumu so you can watch the map develop in real time.

Learn more about the relationship between sumApp and Kumu.

Kumu

Kumu is a data-visualization tool. You use it to create interactive, online maps and views of your network that your whole network can access. It represents your data in whatever ways you need, but it doesn’t help you collect that data, which is why we use the two tools together.

Kumu accounts can be personal (simple permissions) or organizational (more complex permissions & other features).

Projects in Kumu can be public (free in personal) or private (cost depends on type of account).

You need one project per social system map.

Access to projects can be shared with others. Levels of sharing depend on whether the account is personal or organizational.

You can learn more about Kumu accounts and pricing here.

Check out their ‘postcard’ pricing policy here.

Please note: Kumu and sumApp have no organizational or legal relationship to one another.

In this knowledge base, we share tips for how to do things in Kumu, but it’s limited to the kinds of things you’d do with data gathered in sumApp. We don’t provide instruction on everything that can be done is Kumu, and sumApp is not responsible for issues arising in Kumu that are unrelated to sumApp.

Tier I – free

Up to 3 projects| max
1,500 people/project

• • Kumu-Ready data structure

• Multiple data output formats
  • .csv
  • .json
  • Live .json link (data automatically feeds into Kumu, so you map is always up-to-date)
• Connections stay in place as long as you have the project open – they can simply be updated by members periodically as relationships change
• Single-mode connections:
  • One series of options you define
  • Only one option can be selected
    • i.e. ‘I know this person’, ‘I share ideas with this person’, ‘I work with this person’ (select one)
• Names, emails, & segments can all be edited after App is launched
  • Can include up to 3 emails per member
• More people can be added to the population after App is launched
• Automated invitation emails
  • 3 types of email-templates (you can edit all to suit your needs)
    • First time invitation
    • After new members have been added (asks people to show ties to new people, not do the whole survey & re-do all the existing ties) (goes to people who have already been invited in the past)
    • Reminder re: deadline.
• Downloadable status report
  • Includes each person’s link – enable influencers to reach out personally & provide the link to members
• Short ‘Bio’ field & photo import – show in member tiles to aid recognition
• Pulls in gravatars if people have Gravitar accounts
• Connection panel can filter on segments, or sort on
  • Name,
  • Segment,
  • Recent additions,
  • Reported connection strength
  • Tier I only has a single connection question
• Kumu map can be embedded into 4th ‘Map’ tab of the front-end member interface, enabling members to see and interact with the map right from sumApp.
• Data can be time-tagged (within limits imposed by browsers & Kumu). Enables you to track changes to your network over time.
• Projects can be moved from one account to another (submit a ticket or contact Christine)
• Member Merge function. Enables you to combine accidental duplicate members w/o losing their connections. 
• Opt-in form – enable members to share a link with others so they can opt into the map.
  • Can approve members before they’re added to the map
  • Can include segment options in opt-in form
• ‘Send me my link’ Form – enables the sumApp project administrator to send any existing map member their sumApp map link my email.
• Option to make a ‘Terms of Agreement’ acceptance mandatory.
• Members can update their own names, emails, and preferences in ‘My Preferences’
• Basic Activity log

If you need to transfer a project to another user – contact us to implement the move

Tier II – $15/month

Per project – bulk pricing for more projects and 20% off for annual subscription up to 1,500 people/project

Everything in Tier I, plus:

• Updated Survey form
  • Protected fields – select specific fields to remove from the json output, making them completely unavailable in Kumu. They can only be downloaded in the .csv export.
  • Conditional fields – shows different questions based on earlier answers (sometimes called ‘branching’)
  • HTML elements – you can now add additional texts, links, images to the body of the survey
  • Currency field – you can select currency type
  • Drop Down field (called ‘select’ in sumApp) – Now autofills guesses. You can now select multiple options.
  • Fields can be hidden from the survey – for instance if you want to continue to visualize old data, but don’t want anyone to update it.
  • Fields can be disabled – if you want to show data you already have, but don’t want members to edit it (for instance, cohort labels)
  • More display options – such as label position/label hiding, tooltips, etc. You can use CSS to further decorate survey display.
  • Better input validation
  • Can differentiate labels and values – can have long descriptive labels for survey clarity, but have succinct values to that present more clearly in a map.
  • You can create calculated values – a number field based on a calculation of other fields – requires javascript code.
• Can choose to show survey or not
• Can downgrade to Tier I when project isn’t active to save $, 
• Survey data will be retained & editable again when returning to Tier II.
• Updated Connections survey
  • You have the same updates as in the updated survey
  • Tier II only has a single connection question
• Live link stays active
• Kumu map can be embedded into 4th ‘Map’ tab in front end user interface, enabling members to see and interact with the map right from sumApp. 

Tier III – $33/month

Per project – bulk pricing for more projects and 20% off for annual subscription | max. 1,500 people/project

Everything in Tier II, plus:

• Multi-Modal connections
  • You can use as many questions regarding relationships as desired
  • Same field types as survey
• Can import pre-gathered data, which shows up pre-filled in the survey and can be edited by members.
• Mailchimp API

Caution:

• Tier III accounts cannot be downgraded to any lower Tier. Projects can be deleted or the project data can be archived for later retrieval up to one year, but once archived the project-specific sumApp interface cannot be resurrected
• Projects in a Tier III account can only be moved into other Tier III or Tier IV accounts, they cannot be moved into Tier I or Tier II.
• If a Tier III account is moved into a Tier IV account, it will permanently remain a Tier IV project.

Tier IV – $45/month

Per project – bulk pricing for more projects and 20% off for annual subscription | max. 1,500 people/project

Everything in Tier III, plus:

• Language can be revised to suit organizations, programs, teams, etc. instead of individuals
• ‘Custom Filter’ option.
  • Project administrator can choose one checkbox survey question to function as an extra filter (similar to ‘segment’ filter) on the member panel, enabling members to filter based on other member’s responses to that question.
  • When custom filter option is in use, project administrator can send emails to selected sub-groups based on response to the custom filter question responses
• The first ‘ranking’ connection question responses can be migrated from one project into another
  • If you have multiple projects with overlapping populations, you can save members time by copying their connections from one project into another project. 
  • If you use a different set of ranking options on the 2 projects, you can map which option type should be moved into each of the other options.
  • It won’t import all the connection questions if you’re using multiple questions.
• ‘Dual Element‘ linkage available, enabling you to link an ‘Organizational’ project to a ‘Person project’:

Caution:

• Tier IV accounts cannot be downgraded to any lower Tier. Projects can be deleted or the project data can be archived for later retrieval up to one year, but once archived the project-specific sumApp interface cannot be resurrected
• Projects in a Tier IV account can only be moved into other Tier IV accounts, they cannot be moved into a Tier I, Tier II or Tier III account.

Pricing Table

If you already have a sumApp account (including an old trial that has been downgraded to Tier I), go to the log-in page and log in. You can re-set your password there if you’ve forgotten it. Once you’ve logged in – just follow the pictures below:steps to take to upgrade a sumApp account

Warning: once upgraded to Tiers III or IV, a project cannot be downgraded again to a lower Tier. Please be sure you understand how the Tiers work before you upgrade.

Learn more

*Projects in Tier III and Tier IV accounts cannot be downgraded to lower tiers.

sumApp Features by Tier

✨ It Needs to Be a True Collaboration

Social System Mapping is more of an art than a science. It’s the art of process — one that begins by understanding the purpose and aims of a collaborative, action-oriented, or intentional network. From there, it’s about learning what kinds of relational and systemic awareness might help the network see itself more clearly, so it can learn and act together with greater coherence.

Then comes the craft of translation — distilling those needs all the way down into spreadsheets and data flows, designing questions that will gather the right information, and ultimately creating a map that’s not just a diagram, but a shared space for insight and conversation. Something we can look at together, explore, tell stories through, and derive meaning from.

This is a process that spans a wide range of mental skills — and most of us don’t possess all of them.

Most of the time, creating a truly useful Social System Map requires a minimum of four different kinds of thinkers. We call these the Thinking Hats.

• One listens and inspires — drawing out people’s imaginations and intuiting what kind of information might help a community grow. This is an imaginative, people-y, connective kind of thinker. We call this Hat the Visionary. The Visionary generates energy and possibility before there’s anything to look at.
• One navigates the technical tools — setting up interfaces, shaping data flows, solving problems with systems logic. This is a tech-y, detail-savvy, implementation-focused kind of thinker. We call this Hat the Technician. The Technician takes the energy generated by the Visionary and translates it into something tangible — something the rest of us can see.
• One brings systems thinking and inquiry into play — asking deep questions, noticing patterns, helping others make meaning from the map once it’s created. This is a conceptual, teacher-y, pattern-seeking kind of thinker. We call this Hat the SenseMaker. The SenseMaker helps the network reflect, learn, and make better choices using the map we can now explore together.
• And one bridges them all — helping the community stay connected to why the map matters, surfacing insights in ways that resonate, and rippling meaning in and out of the network. This is a connective, reframing, meaning-weaving kind of thinker. We call this Hat the StoryTeller. The StoryTeller is present at every stage — inviting people in, reflecting back what’s emerging, and helping others find their way in.

Of course, there are more than four kinds of thinkers. Many other ways of thinking contribute to good mapping work. But in our experience, without at least these four orientations in the mix, a project tends to falter. The potential it holds remains unrealized.

And it’s rare — really rare — for one person to be strong in all four areas. Even I (Christine), who often have to wear all the Hats at once, find it hard to perceive and process well from more than one of them at a time. If I’m not clear about which Hat I need to be wearing in a given moment, I can find myself spinning in circles. It’s part of why Social System Mapping is inherently, and inevitably, collaborative.

You may have noticed that the Hats correspond roughly with the three phases of mapping — Envisioning, Mapping, and SenseMaking (or more simply, Before, During, After). And while they’re all involved throughout, each phase emphasizes a different Hat. Each phase is best led by someone whose strength aligns with its focus.

These Hats — these roles — also require different kinds of knowledge and attention. And in the name of true collaboration, where each person brings their own strength to the table without needing to master everyone else’s domain, we’ve structured this knowledge base to align with the Thinking Hats.

So as you dig in, try to notice which Hat you’re wearing. Let that guide where you begin — and what you look for.

🎩 Key Driving Roles — or “Thinking Hats”

Whether they’re filled by one person or shared across a group, a strong mapping project requires someone to take responsibility for each of the following roles:

🟣 Visionary

Catalyzes the mapping process by helping others see its potential — before there’s anything to look at. Guides purpose, gathers people, inspires the process forward.

🔵 Technician

Takes member lists and survey designs and turns them into a functioning interface in sumApp. Translates data from sumApp into a meaningful, interactive Kumu map.

🟢 SenseMaker

Helps the community read and learn from the map. Brings systems awareness, asks useful questions, and helps turn visuals into shared understanding.

🟡 StoryTeller

Bridges all phases and roles. Helps people stay connected to the why, reflects what’s emerging, translates between Hats, and connects the process to the broader network’s story.

👥 Other Key Roles

Ambassadors / Advocates

Visionaries need others to envision with. Members of the network need to feel part of the process. Many successful projects gather a subgroup — sometimes called Ambassadors, Pilot-Testers, Design Team, or Advocates — to help shape the survey, offer feedback, and encourage participation.

You might convene them for a group session (once or repeatedly), or engage them one-on-one. It all depends on your network’s size, energy, and context.

Diversity matters here. You can’t surface the needs of the whole if you’re only hearing from a few familiar voices. But if fanfare is hard to generate — don’t worry. Start with who’s willing. Iterate from there.

Network Members

You can’t map much without participation. You have to consider the value to members at every stage. Start with those who are interested. Run a pilot. Create a prototype. Let people see themselves in the early map — and enlist them in spreading the word.

Once you have a map, invite others to make sense of it with you. That kicks off the next iteration. And the cycle begins again.

🌱 The Opportunity

A Social System Map is more than a tool — it’s a practice. It gives us a chance to work across real difference. Not just demographic or ideological difference — but cognitive difference. The Hats represent different languages, different strengths, different ways of making meaning.

In network-weaving spaces, we talk a lot about the importance of bridging across difference. But we still tend to gravitate toward people who think like we do. And that can make true collaboration difficult — especially when our thinking styles start to bump into each other.

I used to say that my job was to translate the infinite, abstract, non-linear, multi-dimensional longings of Visionaries into the finite, structured, single-dimensional bits and bytes of computer logic — so the Technicians had tools to work with — and then translate that structure back out again into abstract, interactive visuals that allow people to see what they couldn’t see before.

That meant learning to navigate four wildly different languages, all at once.

The hardest part was that most people didn’t realize those other languages existed. They assumed their way of thinking was the only one in play — the only one that mattered. The mental load of translating constantly, without acknowledgment, could get heavy. And sometimes, I got cranky.

But here’s the gift:
This work can be a powerful practice — if you let it.
It invites you to slow down. To ask better questions. To listen more deeply. To become clearer, more transparent, more curious.
It teaches you to co-create from difference.

I love that you can’t do this alone.
I love that it demands we stretch, together.
I love that it makes us more than the sum of our parts.

🎩 Thinking Hats in a Social System Mapping Project

In most instances, a strong Social System Map requires at least four different kinds of thinkers. We call these the “Thinking Hats.” Of course, there are more than four valuable ways of thinking in the world — and more than four ways to contribute to a mapping process — but in our experience, without someone showing up in at least these four mental orientations, the potential of a Social System Map often goes untapped.

And let’s be real — we’re all multi-dimensional, complex human beings. No one wants to be put in a box. Some of us can (and want to) wear more than one Hat in a project — just as we do in life. That’s fine. That’s beautiful.

But it’s rare for one person to be truly strong across all four domains. Even when we stretch to cover the range, our dominant patterns tend to pull us back. We start over-emphasizing the parts we’re most comfortable with. Which is why, at its best, Social System Mapping is a collaborative ecology of thought — a weaving together of diverse ways of seeing and making sense.

And even if you are that rare Unicorn who spans all four, it’s still useful to know which Hat you’re wearing at any given time. Trying to wear them all at once usually makes the thinking go soft. Hats get tangled. Focus gets fuzzy.

🧵 The Dance Between Hats

Each Hat plays its own role — but the real magic happens in the interfaces between them.

The Visionary helps guide the survey design — sensing what the network most needs to know and mapping that into question form. But they don’t work in isolation. They lean on the Technician for feedback about technical constraints and data-flow considerations — which question types will work, how to keep data clean, and what formats will best support future visualization.

As data begins to flow in, the SenseMaker and Technician work together to shape the map views in Kumu — grounding what shows up visually in what the SenseMakers need to see, distinguish, and make actionable. The Technician ensures the map functions, while the SenseMaker ensures it means something.

And the StoryTeller?
They’re in conversation with all the Hats — and also with the broader network.
They carry the thread of purpose, resonance, and relevance.
They help the community feel connected to the process, not just informed about it.

🟣 Visionary

The Visionary inspires and facilitates. They listen closely to people’s imaginations, noticing the longings, patterns, and curiosities that hint at what the map could become. This is a people-oriented, connective, facilitative kind of thinker.

Visionaries are especially crucial before a map exists — in that early, tender stage of wondering what we might create together. Without a Visionary, the map risks being boring, derivative, or superficial — a mirror of the obvious instead of a tool for revealing the unseen.

🔵 Technician

The Technician handles the technical tools. They’re the ones who know how to build structure out of vision — designing surveys in sumApp, aligning fields with Kumu views, ensuring data integrity, formatting for clarity. This is a data-minded, detail-attentive, systems-savvy thinker.

The Technician takes the big picture and makes it operational. Without this Hat, the process often runs into technical roadblocks or becomes a graveyard of half-formed ideas. A good Technician lets the creative energy of the group actually flow into a tangible, usable outcome.

🟢 SenseMaker

The SenseMaker leans into interpretation, teaching, and pattern-seeing. They’re the ones asking, “What are we learning?” and “How can others begin to see what this map is showing us?” This is a systems-oriented, meaning-making, inquiry-driven thinker.

SenseMakers are essential after the map is live — helping the network engage with it, reflect on it, and apply it to real-world decisions and collaborations. Without this Hat, even the most elegant map can sit untouched — present but unused, insightful but inert.

🟡 StoryTeller

The StoryTeller brings breath and resonance to the process. They help people connect with why the map matters — at every stage. From the first invitation to imagine, to post-map reflections on meaning and insight, the StoryTeller helps bridge understanding across roles, timelines, and contexts.

This Hat isn’t worn only at the end — it’s worn throughout. The StoryTeller ripples in and out of each phase and Hat, translating between vision and view, insight and impact. They’re often the ones connecting the project back to the broader network — making it visible, meaningful, and alive beyond the core team.

Without this Hat, people may not understand what the map is for, or how to orient to it.

You don’t need all these Hats in equal measure at all times. But you do need all four, across the life of a mapping process.

And you need to recognize that these ways of thinking are different — sometimes even in tension. That’s not a problem. That’s the point.

Social System Mapping works best when we let difference do its work — when we collaborate across thought styles, let each Hat lead in its moment, and build enough trust to hand the baton back and forth.

When that happens, a map becomes more than data.
It becomes alive

Isn’t SenseMaking the Same as Envisioning?

Not at all!

People often think of visioning & sensemaking as the same thing – but in my experience, it doesn’t actually work that way. I’ve known great visionaries as much at a loss for what to do next as everyone else when we get to this phase.

I could make a list of dozens of visionaries we’ve worked with, but the budding SenseMakers I know of could be counted on the fingers of one hand. And they’re just beginning to develop a methodology around it.

My buddy Aldo De Moor says ‘often it’s the early doubters who end up making the most use of the map’. And it’s often the early-excited that get bored & wander off before the project takes root.  Most visionaries I’ve worked with get a little stumped when faced with a room full of ‘so what?’ faces.

I have that problem myself. In the beginning, what I wanted to produce was so real & meaningful to me I could taste it. But once it was done & others didn’t know what to make of it, I didn’t know what to say. It feels a little like not seeing the emperors new clothes in reverse – how could they NOT see what was so clearly RIGHT THERE? I felt like a fraud & wanted to go home and hide.

Being able to make sense of what I saw myself didn’t make me a sense-maker for the group – that requires not just seeing it oneself (which is STILL only seeing what I, myself, was ready & able to see) but also being able to help skeptical people generate their own questions, find the info that would help them, and make meaning together that they can act on.

Plus – visionaries, catalyzers, initiators tend to be busy re-imagining the world and initiating the next new important thing. They persuade & convince up front. They’re not usually the ones who stick with a thing to make sure it seeps deep into the interstices of a culture – which is where a SenseMaker comes in.

Imagining what’s possible is different from making meaning from the evidence of what is. So don’t think that just because both involve facilitation, communication and good people skills that they can be rolled into one hat.

So you might be able to wear both hats, but you’ll have to think differently under each one.

Are You a SenseMaker?

I confess – the SenseMaking role is the least developed in this framework. It’s the first one that I noticed the lack of & need for. And it’s the single most pivotal role for the long-term success of a Social System Map. Over time I’ve become convinced that without someone (and eventually several someone’s) wearing that hat, no map will ever make the difference we believe it has the potential to make.

But what might it mean to be a SenseMaker? Based on what I repeatedly sense the need for, or the lack of, it would need to be someone who:

• Is able to teach and facilitate others in learning how to:
  • Navigate the map (this is relatively easy, most of us can do this)
  • Use the selectors to drill down to get the information they want
  • Look for patterns that are meaningful to their own context
  • Think systemically about their network and use the map as a tool for that thinking
  • Shift their attention from parts and entities to greater whole and connectedness
  • Dig for meaning in myriad ways
  • Identify data that’s missing & should be included in the map
  • Think clearly and purposefully within the chaos a Social System Map can present
  • And most importantly – Generate Questions!
    • We are generally, all, culturally, still so enmeshed in the paradigm of self-sufficiency, separate-self, silos & fragmentation, that WE DON’T KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS TO ASK. The most pivotal attitude we could possibly generate is to be curious and inquiring about the things we can’t already see with our own eyes. And in my observation, most people don’t have that attitude. And that’s – in my humble opinion – the most important thing a good Sense-Maker needs to learn how to impart

In other words, the SenseMaker is the person who helps others learn how to read the new language and think from a different perspective – together.

But not only that, the SenseMaker is crucial to helping to inform how the language communicates in the first place. A map can’t communicate if the data-visualization techniques used in it don’t ‘speak’ clearly.

So a SenseMakers job is also to take what the members are learning, seeing, struggling with back to the map-makers to continue to tweak the map to help ensure that:

• The visual elements are consistent, coherent, and able to support meaning-making
• The various views contain only what should be included
• That all views have a clear purpose and serve that purpose
• That the visual communication elements align with what is most meaningful to the community
• When the chaos is too much & how to focus it

And lastly, the SenseMaker needs to help the entire network find actionable ways of embedding the map and referring to the map into all of the decision-making they do. That means helping to adapt the practices to each particular context.

This role is where the interface between the network at large and the map will be created. Ultimately, it’s a way of thinking that should be able to shift the culture profoundly. We just have to find the practices that can be reproduced in multiple contexts.

Is Technician The Role You Fill In AN SSM?

The Technician or Technicians are generally not catalysts, they’re geeks. They’re the ones who think fiddling in Kumu is fun, who like learning a little code here & there, who have a sense of how data-bases work & have at least an inkling of what it means to talk about how data structured.

A pure Technician says ‘just give me the survey questions & options to set up, but don’t make me sit through the word-smithing’.

The Technician is the one who doesn’t get overwhelmed when the technology doesn’t behave, they just take it in stride and trouble-shoot their way to a solution. They’d rather do that than sit through debates about the ultimate purpose.

This doesn’t mean a Technician can’t wear other hats in an SSM project. It doesn’t mean they aren’t interested in SenseMaking either. But we find that the Vision-y & SenseMake-y types are often so much more focussed on people & process & meaning that they get a little overwhelmed & frustrated when dealing with the challenges of data & technology. That makes it crucial that you have at least one solid Technician involved in an SSM project.

If you’re a Technician, the Mapping section of this knowledge base are for you. You’ll need to have a sense of what the other hats are doing in the other phases, but everything the others will count on you for will be spelled out in detail in Mapping.

Are You An SSM Visionary?

The person or persons wearing the Visionary hat are generally the catalysts that get a Social System Mapping project started. They convince network decision-makers to support the project. They help key network members define the networks mapping needs. They facilitate the survey design, connection options, and help inform the overall process in such a way that respects and embodies the network’s values and structure.

If that sounds like you, consider yourself a Visionary. You’ll know that’s you if you’re looking for help with the following:

• Articulating the value of mapping
• Generating interest in the project
• Defining a process for design input & feedback
• Inviting the network to participate at appropriate levels
• Designing activities that stimulate deeper thinking about what would be useful
• Keeping everyone informed of the process
• Making sure the Technician(s) have what they need to set up the tools correctly

If that’s you, keep in mind:

You’ll be needed to keep your sense of imagination and purpose and value informing the process through all the phases, tho you’ll be more than crucial at the beginning. The Envisioning part of this Knowledge Base is aimed to help you do your job, so it should be your first stop when looking for answers.

On the one hand – The deeper the degree of engagement you can inspire from the network up front, the better sensemaking the group can experience with the completed map.

And on the other hand – Social System Mapping is still new to most people, and still breaking out of the box of the classic SNA. So don’t set your expectations so high that you make it hard to begin. Start where there’s some energy, take whatever involvement you can get and go from there. Until people have something to engage with, it’s often hard for them to really think deeply about what’s possible.

So get started! Experiment! And share what you learn with the other Visionaries in the Community Visionary Forums.

The original network visualization tools (as well as, perhaps, the underlying scientific research goals they were designed to serve) imposed constraints on a Social Network Analysis project that no longer apply when using sumApp and Kumu together. These new tools offer more flexibility in terms of WHAT we map (the content), in terms of HOW we map it (the process), and in terms of SO WHAT can we learn from them (the use of the maps). In other words, even mundane changes in technology often give rise to unintended consequences – this is an example. And those unintended consequences can be generative, destructive, desirable, undesirable, all of the above together, or none of the above.

In this instance, I’ve noticed that by removing those few technical constraints, sumApp increased the potential use of the maps we generate. And the classic idea of Social Network Analysis no longer fits, which is why we now call these maps Social System Maps instead of SNA’s.

Yet – I find that people with SNA experience still approach a sumApp >> Kumu project as if the old constraints still apply, not always taking advantage of the flexibility sumApp offers, or imposing ‘should’s’ that are no longer necessary or helpful.

So to help re-envision how to approach these maps, I’m sharing the principles that guide my own thinking and coaching of others when supporting a Social System Mapping project.

The ‘Show Don’t Persuade’ Principle

It used to be that you had to push a network to participate in an SNA project before they had any understanding of the outcome. That makes it harder than it has to be. Just make a quick prototype map and once you have something to show folks, it’s much easier from there. Read more about this principle.

The ‘Meet Them Where They’re At’ Principle

This is related to the Show Don’t Persuade principle, and it’s about not stressing everyone out (especially yourself) too much about either the process or the content. The field of Social System Mapping is emerging fast, and all kinds of potential good practices are being experimented with and suggested to others – which is wonderful!

But – this principle suggests holding all those ‘best practice’ thoughts lightly. Prioritize what you network clients & ambassadors are able to imagine right now and don’t over-demand upon their (and your own capacity). Don’t create too many ‘shoulds’ for them or for you. Trust their potential for emergence and work with them to learn as they go.

If your follow-up sensemaking reflection process is good – it will all work out in the end. Read more about this principle.

The ‘Data That Makes a Difference’ Principle

A mapping project’s data-gathering focuses on data that has the potential to make a difference. And understanding WHAT data will make a difference will emerge over time, through frequent collective questioning. Read more about this principle.

The ‘Center the Data on Human Beings – and Their Own Self-Reporting’ Principle

We get as much data as possible from the people in the network themselves. And the kinds of data we gather are defined – as much as possible – BY the network members.

The ‘Connect the Relationship Patterns to the Systemic Forces That Impact them’ Principle

Social Network Analysis reveals the patterns in relationships among people. But simply leveraging existing patterns can easily deepen the status quo. We want to see those patterns relative to the forces of power, privilege, differences in strategies and goals and so on. Human relationships don’t exist in isolation from larger systemic forces, why limit our picture of them?

The ‘Intentionally Personalize the Systemic Forces’ Principle

This is unlike with a classic system map where if human beings exist at all, they’re pretty much just collective abstractions. We want to see who is connected to or impacted by those systemic forces and how they’re connected or impacted.

The ‘Exchanges Across Differences’ Principle

Amplifying echo chambers is NOT the purpose. Learning to understand from different perspectives, learning to connect and co-create across gaps – is. In my personal value system, if a map doesn’t at least have the POTENTIAL to help people see differently, and learn to generate something new with people different themselves, I don’t know why I bothered to make the damn thing. And if it has the potential, but it’s not being acted upon – then I’m trying hard to figure out how to move the group towards it.

But then again, the mapping process itself is a move in that direction. I figure that if you can cobble together a decent map, involving people wearing the four different thinking hats, and the team hasn’t fallen apart yet, you’re on the right track. You just need to find ways to bring that capacity to the larger whole. . . (hahahaha ‘just’. . . .)

The ‘Commit to a Process, Not a Product’ principle

A social system map is a learning journey for everyone involved. The map supports and reflects that process. We commit to the journey.

Principles I’m realizing are underneath those principles above (i.e. these are probably the core principles):

• Supporting the wisdom and agency of all beings
• Supporting insight for collective wise action
• Transparency that empowers those most impacted by a system
• Increasing the velocity of generative exchanges
• Visualizing the invisible
• Surfacing the forces underlying the status quo
• Diversity (in all the dimensions relevant to a given context)
• Seeing from multiple perspectives
• Generating the conditions for self-organizing
• Porous and appropriate boundedness
• Surfacing tensions to access transformational energies
• Pattern seeing
• Sense-Making
• Emergence
• Adaptive action
• Iteration

So – maybe these aren’t all directly-relatable to mapping. But they are OUR underlying principles, and we’re constantly trying to learn how to apply them to our work.

One of my first insights into this kind of project is that ‘network mapping’ or ‘social network analysis’ or any other kind of labeling means NOTHING to most people. And even if you show them an example, a simple generic map with a few nodes and some names of fictional persons – it still means NOTHING. It’s a big ‘So What?’, and an even bigger ‘Why would we want that?’.

What engages people is thinking about the connections in THEIR OWN network. And even then, the visualization light only turns on when there is something for them to LOOK AT. When we first started mapping, most people were introducing the subject with yarn and post-its – which still seems like the best place to begin, because it’s tactile, hands-on, happens in real space, and emerges from collective activities and conversations.

My frustration with post-its and yarn was that a) it could get really messy, esp. when you have a wall that tape & post-its have a hard time sticking to b) it had to get taken down, it was a brief, one-time thing that usually couldn’t be returned to. It got across the network concept, but wasn’t much of a tool beyond that.

And then there was this huge gap from yarn & post-its to SNA tools – where there was nothing to see until the whole project was done. Even if the decision-makers were all-in with only yarn & post-its and some generic example pictures, most of the network didn’t get it & was often suspicious of yet another request for them to generate data. It was an uphill slog to get people to participate in the mapping exercise.

So right away, I started mapping whoever was interested and didn’t worry about the rest of the group. I figured, if we got a handful of people (and they’re often, naturally, the better connected among the network, because the topic interests them) to be on a map, and if we then made that map in Kumu, and enabled those who were ON the map to share it with their peers – there would be a natural gravity to the process. Others would want to show up, too – they’d want to show how they were connected in meaningful ways as well.

But of course, that meant you had to have tools that made that easy. It wouldn’t work if the data-gathering to mapping routine was too big a hassle – because no-one would be willing to repeat it several times if it was.

So Tim made an easily-repeatable data-wrangling process for all our projects and we found that approach worked great. We’d just start was with whoever was willing and able to start, and let the rest of the network come along at their own pace. And once we could see how key that was, we designed sumApp to make our approach easy.

So now that’s a core principle for us – map who shows up & give the rest something to look at. It works well. I suggest you give it a go, if you haven’t already.

This is related to the Show Don’t Persuade principle, and it’s about not stressing everyone out (especially yourself) about the process too much.

Sure, there’s a bunch of ideals we’re presenting in this knowledge base – great ways to help the outcomes be most beneficial to your the whole network. They’re based on experience, and core network principles, and important systems thinking insights. And ultimately, you do want to evolve your project into using all these great ideas. But the fact is, this whole field is still very emergent and there’s no point in freaking people out with more process than they’re able to deal with and imposing too many should’s (on the group, or on the mapping team). It’s also helpful to trust in your people’s and your own capacity for learning.

In other words – treat it as a learning journey, not as an engineering blueprint to follow to a T.

It’s like with Show Don’t Persuade – in a classic SNA, the idea is that you have to push for a high percentage of responses or the whole thing is a complete waste of time and money. Deadlines often get extended because there isn’t enough data. And survey/connection questions & options can get word-smithed to death, because there’s no going back. Once those choices are made, you’re stuck with them until next year (and – honestly, with the cost and the work involved, and the limited payoff – how many ‘next years’ actually happen?). It takes a long time to prepare and there’s a lot riding on getting it right.

But the fact is, until people are familiar with an interactive Social System Map, they really don’t have a deep enough understanding of what’s possible to craft great questions/options anyway – they’re not ready to ‘get it right’ and you telling them what ‘right’ is doesn’t help them learn it for themselves. You telling them keeps them looking to you for the answers, when the whole point is to enable them to see and act from this new way of understanding on their own.

Why not let it evolve over time? Why not do what they can imagine right now so they stay interested, sense-make and reflect on what you end up with, draw out suggestions for improvement and trust that – as they engage with it, they’ll better understand what’s useful and what’s not. They’ll tell you what should be changed so it will be more useful to them.

In other words – I never argue, or pressure a group to use a particular approach or to see what I see. If they make a decision I think is dumb, I let them (with the exception of technical decisions that will make BIG messes that will take a long time to fix). If I make a suggestion that other clients have benefited from and they reject it out of hand, I let them.

Ok, don’t get me wrong – I do push back – just in case – but gently and briefly. If they’re not ready to budge, or if it’s controversial enough to cause tension among them, I don’t see the value in letting everything get stuck in that particular debate. I surrender lightly because a) I trust it will all get worked out in the end, and b) there’s plenty of other things to deal with in this moment, and c) it’s possible they see something I don’t. I could be wrong and lose out on an opportunity to learn something.

I assume it’s all a matter of when, not if. If the process step, question, idea, message is right and necessary – it’s time will come. If not, there’s no point in wasting time trying to force the issue.

Once the map is made, they’ll see for themselves why a decision was dumb, or why what I suggested was a good idea – and that kind of learning (for themselves, not handed down by me when the whole thing is still pretty abstract to them).
Meet them where they’re at. Do what they can imagine doing. Trust in emergence and iterations. And reflect, reflect, reflect.

A social system map can instigate lot’s of great actions. A social system map can become a really valuable tool.

But to me, a social system map’s deepest purpose is to sensitize a group of people to the paradigm it is built upon. To me, it’s more about the collective paradigm shift than it is about the visible outcome.

It’s about not just generating actions, but increasing the capacity for WISE ACTIONS. Actions built upon an ever-deepening insight into interconnectedness, interdependence, complexity, systems, flow, and the conditions necessary for adaptiveness and resilience. And that ever-deepening insight applied to their own context – not simply in the abstract. And built upon with increasing insight over time.

Our core role is to draw out the sensitization aspects of the project. It’s so much less about the product and more about the process, and the process must always focus on sensitizing our networks to this new way of thinking and understanding and taking action.

I stole this phrase from Michael Quinn Patton’s upcoming book ‘Blue Marble Evaluation’. It resonated so strongly when I read it.

But I’m still sensing my way into what it means in the Social System Mapping context – so expect this article to evolve over time.

The first thing it means to me is – when defining the data to map – defining profile and connection questions – who will need to see this and what will it tell them? How will you know it’s useful? I’m opinion-less about how much is too much or too little, or what language is right – what option lists are good and which are bad.

But key is – it has to be questioned perpetually. We have to constantly compare the data we’re gathering to the difference we want it to make. What do we really want this map to give us? How do we want the network to change because of it? What is the network trying to generate & how can this map be increasingly better at supporting it?

What I often see is clients who are afraid of asking too many questions for fear the members have survey fatigue – but, I find that if the data is for their own use and if they know how to dig into the map, it feels different – they often ask for more. I also see clients who avoid certain kinds of questions for fear that they’re too uncomfortable or too revealing. Or asking questions because that’s what they’ve seen in other maps. It’s often less about ‘that data isn’t useful’ and more about ‘what useful data is missing?’ or ‘how can we make THIS data more useful? What more could we learn from it?’

Again – this principle has to be combined with the ‘Meet Them Where They’re At’ and the ‘Show Them’ principles. They must be allowed to start at their own first step, but then continually be questioned about their data-choices and adapting based on what they uncover. The map is only going to be as good as the data we generate – but we can evolve that data over time as the whole group learns together what it needs.

There are 2 fundamental tensions I often sense that I believe undermine the value of the data:

The first is an idea about something related to scientific rigor – people want to be sure they’re being scientifically rigorous. Which is fine – unless it’s failing to serve the needs of the whole. I’ll sacrifice the fantasy of accuracy every day (if that’s what it takes), for something that fosters more agency.

The second tension I sense has to do with transparency. As a culture, we’re used to hiding what makes us uncomfortable. For instance, it’s easier to just hide/not ask about certain demographic data-points – such as race, gender identity, age – than to deal with the patterns that might be visible if we visualize them, or the potential for misunderstanding that would entail.

Or – sometimes clients are uncomfortable with the fact that 2 persons/orgs may see their relationship very differently. I rate my connection to you a 5, but you rate it a 2 – what’s that about? Sometimes clients want me to hide that fact – average the relationship value out, or over-ride one with the other. I never do that, because one party would rightly claim to be misrepresented. But I also don’t do that because the difference is an opportunity to explore different perspectives. It’s an opportunity to learn what connections really are. What’s required is a collaborative inquiry, not a glossing-over.

And that surfacing of tensions addresses my other question about this principle – what about ‘makes a difference’ resonated? What ‘difference’ was I sensing? I’m sensing right now, as I write this, that I’m going to be actively pondering this principle for a while. More will emerge, and it will get distilled.

But right now, the ‘difference’ part (for me – I’m just voicing my own views here) has to do with:

• Enabling us to see what has been invisible, in terms of power-structures and the dynamics in human systems.
  • (that’s super-clear – that’s a deep value of mine & perhaps the core driver for me in this work.)
• Enabling us to see from a larger perspective, and to see the patterns in the dynamics.
• So that destructive and exploitative power status-quos can be broken apart and power can be distributed more equitably and used more generatively.
• And so that we can gain actionable insights into our intractable problems that we can’t get by other means.

Ok – so – that’s the difference that I want this work to generate. It’s about surfacing, it’s about transparency, and it’s about both broader and deeper systemic perspectives. So – for this moment – I’m satisfied with saying – A key Social System Mapping principle is that we must constantly question our data and iteratively push it to making the difference we designed these tools to make.  So that we have Data That Makes a Difference.