In 1967, as we've said, the biggest airlines flying in and out of Texas all operated according to the "hub and spoke" model of air transport, which offered the airlines the most convenient way to move the maximum number of pa.s.sengers. By delivering pa.s.sengers from many spokes to a central hub, then flying them out on another spoke, the airlines could avoid the difficulties a.s.sociated with operating countless direct flights between cities. While this model worked well for the airlines and for pa.s.sengers traveling long distances, it was not at all convenient for local, short-distance air travel.

Although it took four years of legal wrangling by Herb to get started, by 1971 Southwest was in the air. By focusing only on a small group of cities, Southwest was able to combine operating efficiencies with a convenience and price that Texas-based businessmen found highly desirable. That, combined with gung ho marketing that included hot pants wearing stewardesses and "free" fifths of Chivas for pa.s.sengers who purchased full-fare tickets, ensured that Southwest soon became the airline to beat on domestic routes, a legacy that has been proven in thirty years of unbroken profitability, an otherwise unheard of record in aviation.

QUESTION 5: THE WAY THINGS ARE VERSUS THE WAY THEY COULD BE.

A recent work efficiency study conducted inside one of America's largest banks revealed an unsettling number: The constant communications enabled through e-mail, instant messaging, Web-based tools, conference calling, and video conferences left senior managers with an average of only four minutes to spend on any given task before being interrupted. The data was only slightly better for executive vice presidents and VPs, directors, and staff. Everyone at the bank was feeling as if they were slipping further and further behind on what they needed to get done, while simultaneously they saw that their stack of to-dos just kept growing.

Seeing the numbers, the bank knew it had to act, and fast. If the highest paid decision makers couldn't spend more than four minutes without interruption, how could they possibly take the time to make good decisions? A small SWAT team of internal thought leaders was called together to see what could be done. Sitting in a room with a whiteboard, the team was quickly able to visually show the problems.

The simple sketch showed the world in which the bank employees lived "today." For very good reasons, the bank had cultivated an environment where open communications was valued above almost all else. Letting branch managers speak directly to senior managers allowed regional issues to be resolved quickly.

But instead of employees being happy that they could always reach out to one another, message overload caused many people to give up on answering any device. Of course that wasn't possible either-among all the noise there was still a tremendous amount of valuable information being shared.

Sometimes a clear articulation of the status quo is all that a project needs to get it moving. But not this time: The SWAT team realized that if they couldn't come up with some way to address this problem, it was unlikely that anyone further up in management could either. They hadn't been called together just to say "we know what is wrong." They knew they needed to find an answer.

They started by imagining what things would look like when they had succeeded-when people could communicate with whomever they needed to whenever they needed to, and at the same time the receiver could choose when and how to be notified of the incoming messages.

Status quo: The bank's SWAT team sketched out the company's time crisis.

The team then created a view of what the perfect world might look like: everything filtered by sender, priority, urgency, and personal preferences.

On the second pa.s.s of "what might be," the team got to a more realistic solution: inbound and outbound filters.

The team was happy with that. Although it did nothing to address how, it at least showed the situation they'd like to have, and served as a starting point for imagining a better future. Then it dawned on the team that they may have gone too far in putting themselves into the picture. They had become so defensive about their own time and keeping a filter on what was coming in that they forgot to think about how to send information back out.

So they took another pa.s.s at their picture, this time recognizing that every sender is also a receiver, and that the receiver-if he or she wishes to have incoming communications filtered by urgency, relevance to a specific project, and overall importance-must then also take responsibility for indicating those same criteria in messages he or she sends out.

Senders and receivers sit on either side of a set of lenses that filter according to a whole range of criteria, some filtering messages on the way in and some on the way out. "Channels" (phone, e-mail, IM, mail) become secondary to the type of message itself, and can be chosen by either sender or receiver, depending on their preferences.

Now the team agreed that they had a model for what to aim for. It was still highly conceptual and asked more questions than it answered, but they felt pleased with their afternoon's work. And they were especially pleased that they had been able to get their vision to this level without being interrupted.

WHITEBOARD WORKSHOP: TAKING THE SQVID FOR A WALK.

1. Pick an idea.

Think about a particular idea that you'd like to share with business colleagues. The idea could be most anything, from an insight you gleaned from a financial spreadsheet to a brilliant blog you read online to a new marketing message you'd like to propose. Since you'll be thinking about this idea for a while, pick something that you find personally interesting and which is relatively easy to explain.

If you're stumped, here are a few examples: A new ad for our product, based on a princess kissing a frog.

We don't calculate profitability correctly.

In the past year, China became the world's second largest auto manufacturer behind the United States.

2. Draw a circle and give it a name.

Get a stack of six sheets of blank letter-size paper and a black pen. On the first sheet, draw a circle in the center of the page.

Now give your idea a name. It could be as descriptive as "a plan for redefining how we calculate profit and loss," as abstract as "the frog campaign," or as simple as "China: 10 million cars and counting." Don't spend too much time on selecting the name-for now you're going to be the only person who will even hear it-but pick something that has meaning for you and your idea.

Write your idea's name in the center of the circle and write the SQVID letters below it.

3. Create your SQVID pages.

On each of the five remaining pages, write the word that corresponds to the SQVID letter at the upper left, and the opposite word on the lower left. When you are finished, you should have five sheets with one set of two words written on each.

Simple-Elaborate Qualitative-Quant.i.tative Vision-Execution Individual-Comparison Change-Status quo They will look like this: 4. Fill out your SQVID.

On each of the five sheets, make a quick sketch of how you might visually represent your idea according to each word. For example, if we had picked "the frog campaign," we might have something like this: Complete a simple set of sketches for each sheet. If you need inspiration, go back and review your apples at the beginning of this chapter.

What Is Happening The act of filling out the SQVID forces your mind's eye to look at your idea from many sides in a structured and repeatable way. The five questions you've just answered make different demands upon how your mind sees and activate many different thought centers in your brain, from those that notice measurement and shape to those that register time, s.p.a.ce, and change. The sketches you've drawn visually represent all the fundamental ways you can see an idea. The exercise not only stretches the imagination, it simultaneously brings your idea into clearer focus, ready to be finalized for showing in the next chapters.

*See Appendix C: Resources for Visual Thinkers.

* For more on the basics of the right- brain/ left- brain split, see Appendix B: The Science of Visual Thinking.

CHAPTER 7.

FRAMEWORKS FOR SHOWING.

Way back when we started talking about the visual thinking process, I mentioned that many people are uncertain about how to solve problems with pictures because they are uncertain about their ability to draw. This tendency to equate visual thinking with the creation of elaborate and refined drawings is just plain wrong. It approaches the process of visual thinking backward, limiting our most powerful problem-solving ability before we've even had a chance to really use it.

That's because showing-the step that contains the closest thing to a drawing lesson-happens at the end of the visual thinking process, not the beginning. In fact, business-people who try to start the process with showing-which is what happens 90 percent of the time-get so distracted by drawing skills, computer programs, and visual polish that they miss the real value of this step. Showing is not only our chance to wrap up our ideas so that we can share them with somebody else, this step is also when we invariably make our biggest breakthroughs-but only if we've already looked, seen, and imagined well.

Where the Rubber Meets the Road Showing is where it all comes together. We looked, we saw, we imagined; we found patterns, made sense of them, and found ways to visually manipulate them into a picture never before seen. Showing is how we share this picture with others, both to inform and persuade them-and to check for ourselves whether others see the same things.

In order to show well, we need to complete three steps: Select the right framework, use that framework to create our picture, and then explain our picture to somebody else. Only one of those steps requires any drawing, and yet that's the one that nearly everybody gets hung up on.

The Three Steps of Showing 1. Select the right framework.

To get started, we need two tools to select the right framework. We've already used the SQVID to help focus our idea, and now we'll use it again, along with a new tool that we'll see in a moment, to select the best framework for composing our picture. It won't be difficult because there are only six frameworks to choose from-and again, we've already seen them all.

2. Use the framework to create our picture.

With the most appropriate framework selected for the problem we need to solve, we'll start by laying in the appropriate coordinate system, then gradually adding in the data and visual details that make our picture show (and tell) the right story.

3. Present and explain our picture.

Whether we'll be there in person to present it or not, our picture still needs an explanation. Sometimes that may take a thousand words, sometimes none at all. Either way, a good problem-solving picture is always straightforward to explain, no matter how complex its content or meaning. If the picture has been drawn according to the six ways we see and takes advantage of precognitive attributes, our audience will almost always "get" it long before we've stopped explaining.

Seeing Becomes Showing Chapter 5 closed with the idea that being aware of how we see isn't just useful in helping us break problems down into distinct visual elements, but also provides guidance on how we can show. Here's what that really means: Since our vision system normally sees things according to specific pathways, it makes sense to take advantage of those same pathways when creating pictures that other people are going to see. In other words, if we see in six ways, it makes sense that we should be able to show in six ways as well.

The six ways we see (again): who/what, how many, where, when, how, and why.

This is important-in many ways this is the key not only to the rest of this chapter, but to all visual thinking. To make this connection clearly visible, let's start with a quick review of the six ways we see.

As we continue, let's keep our eyes wide open. The next step leads to the biggest and most useful insight in this book-the <6><6> rule of visual thinking.

The <6><6>.

Rule For every one of the six ways of seeing, there is one corresponding way of showing.

For each one of these six ways of showing, there is a single visual framework that serves as a starting point.

Walking through the picture from left to right, we see the six ways of seeing coming in through our eyes, being processed in our mind's eye, then flipping around and emerging as six corresponding showing pictures on the other side: Who/what becomes a portrait, how many becomes a chart, where becomes a map, when becomes a timeline, how becomes a flowchart, and why becomes a multiple-variable plot.

Since everything in the rest of the book relies on this concept, let's make sure we really get it. Here's the way it looks from our own eyes, a kind of "inside-looking-out" view of the same idea.

From our eyes' perspective

<6><6> looks like this:

Of course, it's not really our hands that pa.s.s off the visual inputs to the corresponding outputs, but since we're going to need our hands to create upcoming pictures, now is a good time to draw them in. Also, using our hands to model the rule (especially since we've conveniently got the right number of fingers and palms) makes it easy to visualize and hard to forget.

IMPLICATIONS FOR VISUAL THINKING.

The <6><6> model has many implications for visual thinking, all of them good: There may be thousands of possible charts we can make, but all are derived from just six basic "showing frameworks" (or a combination of those six).

Learning when to apply these six frameworks and how to draw them gives us the ability to create a pictorial representation of almost any problem we can see.

The inverse is also true: Any problem that we can see (and that we can break down into its 6 W's fundamentals), can also be shown by simply representing those same 6 W's.

The most efficient way to show a particular visual category (who/what, how much, etc.) is to just flip around the way we see it in the real world. If we see where based on objects' spatial relationships to each other, we can represent it by drawing those objects in a similar spatial position. If we see when by noting an object's change over time, we can represent it by drawing the same object as it appears at different times.

This means that we can forget about the hundreds of different kinds of charts, graphs, diagrams, pictograms, schematics, plots, maps, renderings, ill.u.s.trations, and visualizations we run across in business. Not that there's anything wrong with having such a vast quant.i.ty of pictures available-on the contrary, they're all useful in the right context (and we'll soon see many of them in play)-but as we move into understanding the showing process, we need to worry about only six fundamental frameworks, not a thousand.

So the next time we face a problem, we won't have to ask ourselves, "Oh, boy, which picture could I possibly use to solve this problem?" We'll simply ask, "Which of the six frameworks maps to the problem I see?"

The six ways we see and the six ways we show.

What Defines a Showing Framework?

In order for these frameworks to be useful-both as starting points for visually thinking through ideas and as tools for drawing actual pictures-they must be comprehensive as a group (so that we can rely on just the six for most every picture we'll need to make) and yet individually distinct enough so that we know when to call upon each. To help us, there are four criteria that we will use to define each framework and differentiate them from one another.

What the framework shows. Who/what, how much, where, when, how, or why, as determined by cross-referencing what we saw with the <6><6> model.

The framework's underlying coordinate system. The fundamental structure of the picture, whether spatial, temporal, conceptual, or causal. This is also derived from the <6><6> model.

The relationship between the objects contained within the framework. Objects defined by their own traits, objects defined by their quant.i.ty, objects defined by their positions in s.p.a.ce, objects defined by their positions in time, objects defined by their influences upon one another, objects defined by interactions of two or more of the above.

The framework's starting point. Top, center, beginning, end, etc.

As we go through each framework over the following pages, we'll continually refer back to these four criteria as a way to keep the frameworks distinct in our minds and to help us as we begin to draw examples of each one.

HOW DO WE USE A SHOWING FRAMEWORK?.

The showing frameworks help us in three profound ways. First, they show us that creating meaningful problem-solving pictures isn't a random or chance event. On the contrary, the frameworks show that there is a logical reason for picking one type of picture over another, and that the process is learnable and repeatable. Second, the act of simply selecting one of the frameworks forces us to think through what it is that we see that is most important to show. If it's the people who matter most-the who-then we'll use a portrait. If it's the timing that matters most-the when-then we'll use a timeline, and so on. Finally, by providing us with a defined coordinate system and specific starting point, each framework gives us the way to get our picture started without confusion or worry.

Mapping It All Together: The Visual Thinking Codex Now we've got two different ways to think about showing our problem: the six frameworks derived from the <6><6> model, and the five imagination-focusing questions of the SQVID. These two models look different, function differently, and even force our minds to think in different ways: more a.n.a.lytically when we go about selecting a framework, and more intuitively when we run an idea through the SQVID. These differences are important because they make the two models complementary. It's when we use them together that solutions literally begin to appear on the page.

Imagine that we're running a major project and we've got to explain to our team leaders when a series of individual milestones must be completed to ensure on-time delivery. Timing is the critical factor here (when) so the <6><6> model tells us that the right framework for showing this information is a timeline. That's a good starting point, but knowing that we need to create a timeline doesn't tell us how detailed it needs to be, whether it should show steps as approximate durations or minute-by-minute deadlines, whether it compares typical project timing against the urgency required this time, etc.

In other words, we still need to determine which version of timeline to create, given the specific circ.u.mstances and audience we face: a simple timeline or an elaborate one, a qualitative version or a quant.i.tative version, one that focuses on the vision of where we're going or the execution of how we're going to get there, one that shows this project alone or one that compares it to other simultaneous projects, a timeline that reflects the way things could be or simply the way things are. That's where the SQVID comes in. Because the SQVID forces us to answer each of these questions up front, it serves to focus our thinking and help us make important choices about our picture before we put pen to paper.

When we map the <6><6> and the SQVID together on a shared grid, a master list emerges that ill.u.s.trates and categorizes every major problem-solving picture we'll use for the rest of this book. This list is called the Visual Thinking Codex, and using it is simple. At the intersection of each framework and each point of the SQVID are two icons, one for each SQVID option (simple vs. elaborate, quality vs. quant.i.ty, etc.). These icons represent the ideal starting point for any picture, taking into account what is most important to emphasize, depending on our audience, communications priorities, data, and personal viewpoint.

To use the codex, we first select the appropriate framework on the vertical axis (portrait for who, map for where, etc.), then slide across the horizontal axis using the points of the SQVID to select the best version of that framework. In some cases, no icon appears because no appropriate version of that framework exists (there is no reason to qualitatively show how much, for example).

The Visual Thinking Codex: a master list of problem- solving pictures.

Let's now run through that previous project management example using the codex.

Step 1. Showing when things need to get done in order to meet a final deadline is primarily a when problem, so we slide down the codex to the when row. Clearly, we're going to be making a timeline.

Step 2. Given the detailed and precise information we need to convey to our team leaders, we see as we slide across the SQVID that our timeline is going to be elaborate, quant.i.tative, and execution oriented-a kind of super-timeline showing the specific interaction of many precise deadlines of many project components. That's where we're going to start.

To test the codex again, let's now imagine that we're Daphne, the brand manager for the global publishing company from way back in chapter 2. We plan to go to our CEO to get his or her support for the new branding project we want to start. Getting support from the CEO is almost always a question of why-Why is this important to our growth? Why does it need to happen now? Why will Wall Street like it?-so this is a very different problem than the previous one, and it requires a completely different kind of picture.

Step 1. We slide down the axis to the why row: We'll be making a multiple-variable plot. Ouch. Those are the hardest of all pictures to create well and to show well. Then again, n.o.body said getting support from the CEO was easy. This will require some homework.

Step 2. We can make it an easier sell if we can show how our project aligns directly with the CEO's vision of the company, so let's make this a visionary plot.

Step 3. It will be even more persuasive if our picture shows how our project can help our company shift market position upward relative to our compet.i.tors-something the CEO's been talking about for years. To show that kind of picture, the codex tells us we should start with a visionary, comparative, multiple-variable plot-tricky, but worth the effort if it succeeds in showing the full story.

In both cases, whether we're managing a major project and need a detailed timeline or we're Daphne in search of the right plot, we've got our starting framework and version selected. In the first case, we're going to start with a super-timeline; for Daphne, it will be a visionary, comparative, multiple-variable plot. The codex has done its job, now it's up to us to start drawing.

A NOTE ON COMBINATION FRAMEWORKS.

The beauty of the <6><6> model is that by presenting a simple way of looking at the endless variety of possible pictures out there (and mapping them according to the six basic ways we see), it makes it easy to select the right starting point for showing almost anything we want to... almost.

The fact is that how and why aren't the only combinations we see. The miracle of our vision system is that it continuously combines all the ways we see in order to help us understand our environment. We see when in combination with where, we see how much in combination with what, etc. Two combinations-hybrid frameworks that are created by combining two of the basic six-are so frequently used in showing that we're going to identify them specifically as we run through each of the basic frameworks in the coming pages.

The first is the time series chart, the combination that results when a how much chart is superimposed on a when timeline. We'll discuss this combination in the when framework section in chapter 12. The second is the value chain, the result of combining a when timeline with a how flowchart, which we'll encounter in the how framework section in chapter 13.