2nd Draft of Pro-Pro Chart: Where Arguments Break Out!

Second Draft of Pro-Pro Chart:
Where Arguments Break Out
After Asaf and Rosanne's comments;
Before Mr. Essabhai's comments 

2nd Draft of Pro-Pro Chart – Other Institutions

2nd Draft of Pro-Pro Chart – University of Toronto

1st draft Pro-pro Chart 

After the meeting we had with Dr. Asaf and Dr. Rosanne, we were faced with the challenge to improve our Pro-pro Chart while taking into account all the information we grasp from them. However, before we had the chance to think about filling out the missing benefit bubble of the Pro-pro Chart and making the existing ones solid and strong, sudden confusion and insight arose.

Christine, one of the groupmate rises a point that turned the group into much deeper thinking process. She suggested that the students, one of the stakeholders, that were originally divided as the raising hands and tapping shoulders should be merged as one. This is because she saw that dividing the students would create redundant and flexible benefits that would go whichever category. Thus, leaving out the purpose of the Pro-pro Chart, which is to create two opposing models, stretched as far as possible away from each other.

The conflict, of course, arises because one of the group members which is Malachai strongly disagrees with this idea. This is because, on his point of view, the division of the students is already a great insight. The division of these students is necessary because there are instances that candidates in  'Other Institutions' are being tapped in the shoulders despite its distance, the same case as to the candidates of the 'University of Toronto' in which they are raising their hands despite the privilege of studying in an affiliate school of Baycrest.

With this, the challenge for us is the decision making. It is either we merge it as one and find another third stakeholder or retain it and find strong benefits exclusive under one category only, by reason and explanation. Although the essence of integrative thinking is to arise another third choice from two unsatisfactory choices, we, as a group, agreed to choose between these two through thorough communication.

In the end, we chose to retain everything and faced with the dilemma of thinking strong benefits exclusive to one which is too difficult and brain cracking. We are not only thinking deeper benefit on one category but we are also taking into deliberation how the benefit would not fit into another category.  Basically, one example goes like this:

1. Benefits under Other Institutions – Raising Hands VS. The Three Categories: Other Institutions – Tapping Shoulders; University of Toronto –Raising Hands; University of Toronto – Tapping Shoulder
And so on............

The above image showcases the thinking we had gone through in formulating our benefits as well as the explanation before we present it to Mr. Essabahai for a pre-final copy of the Pro-pro Chart. These are the benefits we would hopefully wish Mr. Essabhai would approve and improve even if the benefit bubbles are not completed. The struggle is real guys.