Evaluation Tools

Impact and Threshold Analyses  (IMP analyses)

(AHO 2013)

Gigamaps are rich and dense information representations. To work with such semi-organised complexities and develop the ideas within and to work with the interventions or innovations derived from the ZIP analyses and the creative process, we must use a series of evaluation tools. 

 Impact and Threshold Analyses 

These analyses were developed especially for SOD by the SOD team.

To help make decisions for the systems interventions, the value of I points, their implementation and effect, the below evaluation analyses is a good starting point. Evaluate and range all the I points according to the following criteria:

1.  Systemic impact (leverage)
1.1 Radius of ripple effects
1.2 Short term
1.3 Long term
1.4 Platform effect (to what degree the intervention is creating conditions for further interventions)

2.  Thresholds
2.1 Economic
2.2 Technological
2.3 Cultural
2.4 Organisational


3. Synergies
3.1 Synergies between intervention and the existing system
3.2 Synergies between interventions
3.3 Orchestration effects (combined effects, high-level synergies)
3.4 Orchestration thresholds (how easy is it to orchestrate the implementation?)

4. Counter (-inntuitive) effects (unwanted and counter intuitive effects)
4.1 Short term
4.2 Long term
4.3 Counter effects between the intervention and existing system
4.4 Counter effects between interventions

5. Resilience
5.1 Resilience toward micro-fluctuations
5.2 Resilience toward macro-fluctuations
5.3 Resilience toward extreme scenarios
5.4 Black swans

The PUGH Matrix is a similar evaluation method. Read more about it here >>>>>



A slider type of graphics is useful for the evaluation.

IMG 0001

The evaluation can be contextualized on a map, here for evaluating relations. (AHO 2013)



Threshold Analysis

Other types are based on scoring. (Stig M. Henriksen et. al. NTNU 2016)



Here a simpler score system but more factors are included. (Håvard Banne et. al. NYNU 2016)


Julie Grytten hials 2 2016

Another more detajled evaluation map   (Julie Grytten NTNU 2016)

Julie Grytten et al hials 2016 2 s


There are many ways to apply the principal. (Julie Grytten NTNU 2016)


Salto connect systemic evaluation 1 1200


From the Salto Connect project, (2rd year bachelor project, Marie Frogner, Trym Abrahamsen, Oda Heier, Torgeir Hæreid, Julie Sandvoll 2017)


Additional evaluations

Pro et Contra analyses. (See “Drøft” by Førland)

  1. Make a list of the ‘pro’ arguments that support your idea.
  2. Make a list of the ‘con’ arguments to your project.
  3. Select the most important pros and cons and develop pro and con arguments for each of them.
  4. Repeat this to a level where you think you have some well-supported arguments.
    If these analyses result in heavy counterarguments to your project, you should tweak, redesign and reform your project to address the issue. If this is not possible and you still want to continue with the project, you need to honestly explain the issue to stakeholders.


Stig M Henriksen hials 2016

Pro et contra argumentation tree. (Stig M. Henriksen NTNU 2016)


Risk analyses:
Risk analyses: Select the most important threats from your worst-case scenarios or through group discussions or individual considerations SWOT analyses or similar. Create the normal risk diagram according to two axes one for probability and one for consequences.


14 Risk management manuela linda et al small


Common Risk Evaluation Diagram with Y axis: Consequence and X-axia Probability (M. Aguirre, R. Mikalauskaite, L Blaasvær 2011)



RISK ANALYSIS Kwant Controls 1200

The normal risk analyses diagram can be addapted in many ways. Click image to see larger version. (Jan Kristian Strømsnes, AHO 2011)


Risk MArkus Gundersen 2016 1200

(Markus Gundersen NTNU 2016)


SaltoConnect riskanalyses 2017 1200

From the Salto Connect project, (2rd year bachelor project, Marie Frogner, Trym Abrahamsen, Oda Heier, Torgeir Hæreid, Julie Sandvoll 2017)

Worst-case scenarios:
Create two extreme scenarios that are at the edge of what is probable. Develop the scenario so that it shows how your system will survive or adapt to a new situation. For example, imagine that a ship’s bridge is burned out. A small emergency bridge at a different place on the ship allows for emergency operation. The system will survive, though in a reduced state.
This is about the resilience or the robustness of your intervention.
Black swans: A scenario of something really unexpected happening
to your design. You might already have developed this idea of the black swan in the development of the extreme scenario.



The design process is not linear; it contains periods of incubation and moments of illumination (Hadarmad). Therefore, the mapping by itself does not always lead to ideas and innovations. Also, furthering the development of ideas into concepts and designs is a process that is not harnessed by the mapping; rather, it is one that most often plays out in conventional design work. It is ok to ‘forget’ the maps and the rich systemic information for times of creative development. To allow this to happen, we have use ‘back-checking’. This means that at the check points, the concept is back-checked with the system represented by the GIGA-maps. This allows for an uninterrupted creative flow.

Back-checking for synergies:
Check your idea and intervention regarding the ripple effects on the system. Try to find synergies. Are there new possibilities that are opened by your intervention or idea?

Back-checking to the GIGA-map:
Draw your idea or intervention back into the GIGA-map, and draw the relations to everything in the map that is influenced, changed or needed for your design to work.

Stig M Henriksen backchecking hials 2016 s

The image shows backchecking of concepts to the gigamap to trace how the concept connects to the system. (Stig M. Henriksen et. al. NTNU 2016)