Wardley Maps and Me, and You Should Too
Sometimes a tool is a tool, and sometimes a tool is a key to a new world
"All maps are socially constructed. Wardley maps are therefore an artefact of social science, not (despite the Darwinian metaphor) a life science." I read this Matt Edgar quote while I readying to make a Wardley map. While the the critique is useful, Wardley maps have won me over. Few tools have altered the way that I try to learn But now, when I'm learning something, all I see is a Wardley map; when I need to share my thoughts with someone, I use a Wardley map. I've even incorporated them into my futures practice.
I don’t normally advocate for using a particular tool. Tools are replaceable, and whenever one pops up, at least two more of similar function soon follow. Put another way—though it's a saying I roll my eyes at a lot—"all models are wrong, but some are useful". All tools are wrong but some are useful. Wardley maps have proven their utility.
I heard about Wardley maps long before I used them; my friend Daniel had mentioned them. But, I didn't immediately dive into them, because I'm hesitant about learning new concepts others introduce. This isn't an insult on the one who suggests it, but rather a means of self-protection. My natural instinct is to devour information on things that other people are into, to spend much of my time understanding it so that I can speak with them about it. But if I did this for everything that came up in my life, I would have no time for nothing else. So, I've learned to protect myself through respectful restraint.
Over the course of a few months, though, Wardley mapping continued emerging from conversations. At first, my reactions weren't positive. I wrote in Multidisciplined an article on Multidisciplined about my problems with virtual whiteboarding, but I was also talking about my problems with Wardley maps. The argument was if the visual depiction doesn't leave me with clear rules in how to engage—or how to understand—then I'll likely be lost. And I was lost at many of the Wardley maps that I saw at the time.
But, like any self-respecting skeptic I decided to give Wardley mapping a chance. Daniel told me there was a cheap class offering and it felt pretty hard to pass up. Besides, the course was only about an hour long. I gave it a shot. You know how this ends, of course.
I want you to learn how to Wardley map too, and I hope to give you two good reasons why.
Sharing Artifacts
My previous complaints about Wardley maps are now the reason I recommend it to you. While having a conversation about an Air Force problem with two other people, I decided to start mapping the conversation. (Live mapping is an interesting activity on its own that I recommend you try.) We flowed from various topics related to the problem, while I tried my best to tie them back together with a map.
Because of the map, we were able to see potential strategic moves we could make, leading to deeper insights than if we were to have not mapped the conversation. The other outcome was that we had an artifact of the conversation, which then one of the other participants shared with their leadership—keep in mind that we included an explanation of the map along with the map itself to avoid the problems I spoke of earlier.
Sharing a map is good, so as long as you explain it to those you share it with.
Learning
I have a set of creativity cards that I take with me between work and my office. They're a peculiar set of cards. The illustrations are geometric, but the descriptions of some of them are. Either way, I get of use at being told to look at problems in different ways at random. So, I was at my home desk reading the book On Writing Well by William Zinsser and started to feel stuck. I couldn't explain why, and the more I tried to understand, the more stuck I felt. Then I pulled a card. It encouraged me to look at the problem in a way that I wouldn't normally but I knew would work. I had just learned how to Wardley map, so why not map a book?
In mapping the book, I learned more about what Zinsser was saying than I ever did in my number of times reading it in the past. Mapping the components of good writing as he explained them began to open up a perspective that I'm still mulling over: much of writing is visible, far beyond having words on a page. Which meant to master writing, I had to start mastering the smaller components. I don't think I would have gotten this much out of the book otherwise, and I feel much closer to Zinsser’s intent than I have felt in a long time.
This article troubled me over the last week. It was supposed to be last week’s article, but my struggles with it stopped me from making progress. Thank goodness I had The Unseen Becoming ready. Previous drafts of this article tried to do too many things: it tried to explain my history with Wardley maps, while also teaching you how to read one, while also providing further insights from Simon Wardley (the creator of Wardley Maps). Then my friend Daniel told me I should map this article. Only in mapping my approach with this article did I realize my error.
I think you should learn to Wardley map—or at least seriously consider it—but my map says I shouldn’t try to do that here. Instead, here are some resources to send you on your way:
Pragmatic Wardley Mapping, taught by Ben Mosier of Hired Thought
The Free Wardley Mapping Book written by Simon Wardley
An Introduction to Wardley (Value Chaing) Mapping by Simon Wardley
Great Things I’ve Read
5 (NON-OBVIOUS) DAILY HABITS THAT UNLEASH YOUR BEST WORK by Todd Henry
The Limits of Logic by Angus Fletcher and Thomas Gaines
Appreciative Inquiry by James Ludema, David Cooperrider, and Frank Barrett
Stay Multidisciplined!
If you’ve read this far, please consider subscribing. I have paid offerings (still very much in the works), but you will never miss out on content if you choose the free plan.