Concept Star 3.2 Features

Feature	Version 3.2
Maximum number of ideas permitted	Over 250
Main relation phrase	Choice of common relation phrases or user can enter the relation phrase.
Relationship modeling tools	Interpretive Structural Model Linear Interpretive Model Interrelationship Digraph
Secondary relationships	3 types, user defined meaning
Able to skip votes	yes
Able to delete votes	yes
User control vote order	Ability to change vote order
Voting screen size	User selectable size
Graphic display of relationship model	yes
Able to change position and size of Idea Boxes	yes
Able to select Idea Box color	yes
Text display font	User selectable
Line width	User selectable
Copy model to other programs to include in reports	yes

Concept Star 3.2 provides 3 relationship modeling tools (Interpretive Structural Model, Linear Interpretive Model, and Interrelationship Digraph) and a secondary relationship feature as described below.

Interpretive Structural Model (ISM)

Interpretive Structural Modeling, originally developed by J. Warfield in 1973, is an effective method for dealing with complex issues. It has been used successfully for over 25 years by specially trained consultants to help their clients understand complex situations and find solutions to complex problems.

ISM is useful for:

• Group decision-making or exploration sessions where participants' time is at a premium
• Simplicity of the output model is an important criteria
• Also used for Prioritizing, Sequencing, or Categorizing ideas

Of the 3 modeling tools included in Concept Star version 3.0, ISM provides maximum time saving during the modeling session by minimizing the number of pair-wise analysis required to construct the relationship model.

Linear Interpretive Model (LIM)

LIM is an adaptation of ISM, which provides a more comprehensive model that is easier for most people to understand and interpret. In many cases the increase in the analysis time (compared to ISM) is a worthwhile investment, as it provides a more thorough analysis.

LIM is useful for:

• Excellent personal desktop tool
• Small group decision-making or exploration sessions
• Slightly more refined model than ISM
• Generally easiest model to understand and base action plans on

Interrelationship Digraph (ID)

This is a computer implementation of the Interrelationship Digraph tool described in the book The Memory Jogger II.

ID is useful when:

• Limited number of interrelated ideas to be analyzed
• Highly detailed visual model is desirable.

Interrelationship Digraph provides the most detailed analysis and documentation of the relationships between various ideas of a situation. It does not use logical inferences to provide time saving or simplification of the relationship model.

ID is useful when there are a limited number of highly interrelated ideas to be 'untangled', especially when the ideas have circular (feedback) type of relationship.

Secondary Relationships Feature

Sometimes, during analysis of relationship between ideas, it is found that an additional type of relationship exists, different from the main relation being analyzed, but also important for decision-making. The secondary relationship feature allows you to capture this information, as a secondary link, on the Relationship Model. These additional links can (and should) have a different meaning than the main relationship being modeled. This feature is available for all 3 Relationship Modeling tools.

The main benefits of having this feature available are:

• It allows for a more satisfying analysis session, since people feel that relationships important to them have been captured on the model.
• You can construct maps of 2 types of relationships in the same session. (For example, while making an Organizational Structure, the relationship of people’s activities and responsibilities is of primary concern, however the flow of information is important also.) In a group session, you can save time by completing both requirements in a single meeting.
• Occasionally used to indicate controversial relationships, where more information is needed for the group to agree on whether the relationship exists or not.