Validating Gigamaps and SOD work

By Birger Sevaldson

October 2017

Updated December 2017

The methodology of Gigamapping and the supporting methods and techniques do have several ways of validating the work.

However, this is not enough to make sure the maps are valid. Additional attention needs to be paid to the information build-up in the project. How reliable is the information? Have we interpreted the interrelations in the best way possible?

The different modes are listed and described below.

Gathering information: Make sure you check and double-check information. Information given by singular informants should be triangulated by asking others or by using other types of data. 

Framing: The Gigamapping process is great for framing the project and research area because of its flexible boundary critique. The strategy of first mapping without filtering out seemingly irrelevant issues ensures you will cover a wider territory than what you assumed from the start. To withdraw from these territories after checking them, draw a relevant boundary in an informed way. Another effect is that during the process one becomes more knowledgeable about the bigger field at hand. This influences the conception of the systems boundaries. Reframing the boundaries, by enlarging or shrinking them during the process ensures a reflected development and boundary critique.

See more here: >>>>>

Coding of information value: We advise using colour or font coding or annotations to target, describe and rank information quality on the map. Such coding can distinguish among the a priori given, hard facts, well-triangulated qualitative data, common knowledge, interpretations, informed guestimations and sheer assumptions. Because the information is coded on the Gigamap it is contextualised and situated. Therefore, it is possible to analyse the importance of the information and if it needs improvement. The coding can then be used to refine and triangulate information that is crucial.

See more here: >>>>>


ZIP analysis: The zoom in the ZIP analysis helps to improve the resolution of information on the map and to distinguish between less important areas to zoom in on and those that are crucial. Additional information gathering and interpretation must be made.

See more here: >>>>>


IMP analyses: Repeating the Impact and THreshold analyses through out the project, first for helping to rank concepts and ideas and later to galvanice and chrystalize them.

Read more here: >>>>>


Expert co-designing: Building expert networks is central in SOD. The experts should be knowledgeable about different types of information. For example, experts from health care should be interpolated with expert patients.

See more here:  >>>>>


Back-checking: The information gathered is always situated on the Gigamap. When starting to work with design resolutions and interventions, you can back check in detail how the suggestion fits the research and where it leaves uncertainties that require additional investigations.

Together, these different modes, if conducted in a good manner, construct the evidence found on the Gigamaps.

‘Gigamaps send our eyes into places where our eyes can’t go’.

See more here: >>>>>



We are currently building a benchmarking framework