Last updated: 2026-11-06
Lab 1: Perspective Switching — Reading One Failure Six Ways
This lab opens the series with the hardest habit to build and the easiest to skip under deadline pressure: before arguing about a fix, work out which question is actually being asked. A failed system doesn't announce its own frame. Six reasonable people can watch it fail and walk away having witnessed six different events.
Learning Objectives FoundationalKnowledge that endures for decades — core principles
- Distinguish a disagreement about facts from a disagreement about frames.
- Apply Goffman's frame and Checkland's Weltanschauung to a real or realistic software failure.
- Produce a CATWOE root definition precise enough that two people could argue about it productively.
Pre-Lab Reading FoundationalKnowledge that endures for decades — core principles
Read Frame Analysis for Software and the "Five Ways of Looking at the Same System" and "When Perspectives Collide" sections of Software Meets Reality before the session. Bring one real example from your own experience — a group project disagreement, a bug that took longer to diagnose than it should have, a moment someone said "that's not what I meant" — in case your group's provided case study doesn't land.
Materials
- A short written incident ("The Submission System Crash," provided by the tutor, or a group's own real example).
- Six role cards: Programmer, Architect, Software Engineer, Systems Thinker, Student, Manager.
- A CATWOE template (one per group).
Session Plan (120 minutes) Applied / MethodologicalKnowledge with a 5–10 year half-life — stable practice
| Time | Block | Activity |
|---|---|---|
| 0:00–0:15 | Briefing | Tutor recaps frame vs. fact; groups read the incident. |
| 0:15–0:55 | Role writing | Each group member takes one role card and writes, alone, one paragraph answering: what does this person believe actually happened, and why do they think that? |
| 0:55–1:05 | Break | — |
| 1:05–1:35 | Frame collision | Groups read all six paragraphs aloud and identify every point where two roles describe the same event in incompatible terms. For each collision, name what each side would need to concede for the other's framing to make sense to them. |
| 1:35–1:50 | CATWOE synthesis | Groups pick one role's Weltanschauung and build a full CATWOE table and root definition from it, then build a second table from a role that directly conflicts with the first. |
| 1:50–2:00 | Risk the collision | Score the frame collision itself as a risk, using the likelihood/impact matrix from Risk Management & Mitigation: how likely was it that nobody would notice two roles were reasoning about different things, and how bad would the consequence have been if the collision had stayed unnoticed until production? Pick one of Avoid, Reduce, Transfer, or Accept for it, and justify the choice. |
Deliverable Applied / MethodologicalKnowledge with a 5–10 year half-life — stable practice
One page per group: the two CATWOE tables and root definitions, a short paragraph naming which single Weltanschauung element — Customers, Actors, or a different one — changed the most between the two tables and what that one change would have done to the system actually built, and the likelihood/impact score and Avoid/Reduce/Transfer/Accept decision from the final block.
Related Topics
- Software Meets Reality: Systems Thinking, Frame Analysis, and the Future Software Engineer — the argument this lab puts into practice.
- Frame Analysis for Software — the full Goffman treatment, including keying and fabrication.
- Soft Systems Methodology — the CATWOE method this lab's deliverable builds on.
- Risk Management & Mitigation — the Avoid/Reduce/Transfer/Accept framework and scoring matrix this lab's final block applies to a frame collision rather than a technical fault.
- Lab 2: Feedback Loop Mapping — next in the series.
References
-
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harvard University Press. Held by the University of Reading Library.
-
Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. John Wiley & Sons. Held by the University of Reading Library.
Graduate Attributes
Directly developed
- Critical Thinker: Readers compare two CATWOE tables to identify which specific element changed most between them.
- Collaborative: Readers work in groups to produce a single deliverable that synthesises their collective analysis.
Modelled on this page
- Subject Specialist: Discipline-specific frameworks such as CATWOE and Weltanschauung are applied to interpret system failures.
- Reflective: The text encourages examination of how different perspectives shape the interpretation of the same event.
- Inclusive: The approach validates multiple reasonable viewpoints as legitimate interpretations of a single failure.
University of Reading Graduate Attributes framework.