Making this stakeholder map wasn't very difficult in the sense of extensive thinking, it was more difficult because of the fact that it was tedious. I personally think that the construction of the map and the process of obtaining the information were really simple and easily obtainable. In my opinion the hardest step of gathering information for this map was the fact that I actually had to sit down and want to read and wonder why each party sided the way that they did. On the other hand the easiest step in this process was comparing the views that I had with each side in order to obtain an unbiased view on the subject.
The
first step I took in making this map was reading the initial article, the blog
author’s article, and multiple articles I found online. These steps were necessarily easy because all I had to do was read the separate articles and
compare the view points of each in order to make categories. The second step I
took was breaking the positive and negative views into multiple categories and
putting peoples views in the corresponding sections. The next step was finding
the people that would have the strongest viewpoints on the matter and would be
most affected by the decision. I did this in order to show the most “radical”
viewpoints that were either being proposed or thought of. The final step was
connecting each viewpoint and combining them with the thoughts of each person
that was being directly affected by this decision.
A
couple of things that really kept me interested in making this map were the
highly differential opinions, the multiple parties that could be affected, and
the very controversial subject. In almost every article that I read concerning
this decision there were multiple different reasons for why it should be
approved or disapproved. Also in this article many people had the chance of
being affected, this ranged from doctors, to the donor, the organ receiver, and
the person making the decision. In at least one or two of these cases there is
bound to be something that will go wrong. One of the main reasons this kept me interested
was the fact that it was such a controversial story. On one end, this man
murdered and raped two people and shouldn’t have the chance to play hero now
and donate his organs, but on the other hand if they do allow for him to donate
his organs he could be saving a life of maybe even multiple lives in the
process.
I particularly enjoyed this article because it was easy to read and write in with all the controversy it entailed. I really like the set up of this map in terms of who was picked. I think my only advice would be to be a little bit more specific on what each person truly thought through examples. Instead of saying that a judge would not rule in favor given the obvious murderer circumstances, you should explore both sides of each argument i.e. why WOULD the judge rule in favor rather than opposed? Why would the family possibly WANT their son to be convicted?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Destiny! I really like this article because it was difficult to take a side on. On one side you can make this guy, who wasted his life to harm and destroy many others, and make his life worth something. You really got the key parts of it. The family are the ones who are directly affected, which is a given for the closest affected. I like how you also included the audience. We often forget that we are directly affected because the people who tell us about these hold some sort of bias. Great Job! I would of also maybe included the guys family. The one on death row that is.
ReplyDeleteYou picked a good article because it was interesting and provided a lot of controversy over the topic. It's pretty evenly weighted when you look at who's for and who's against the donation of this man's organs. Your map is also very well organized; I like that each separate bubble is labeled with the name of the stakeholders. That made it a lot easier to follow. I think you should expand a little more on each stakeholder and be a bit more specific about how they're involved in the issue, but other than that it looks great!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteVey well put together model Bradley. He really organizes every box to show every persons point of view on the topic. I still hate how this "madman" is trying to prolong his life because he is trying to do the right thing while he is on his death. I also liked on how you went into detail an the authors point of view because he is the man who posted this story and gives each person's views on this lunatic. I was also interested on the multiple parties because not one, but both pretties are being affected. All in all, well job done and I hope the killer is taken care of and sent do his death.
ReplyDeleteThis was one of the articles I was immediately drawn to as well. It is a very controversial topic, but it is not hard to think of different stakeholders and their opinions. I also agree with you that making a stakeholder map was very tedious. You have to pay very close attention to detail. It also forces you to really put yourself in the person's shoes to relate to how they might feel. I think you did a very good job of organizing your map. I like how you broke it into the two sides and also how you elaborated on what each group of people might think.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good stakeholder map. You have several concrete argument positions, and you also extensively described each one and your personal opinion on them. This is interesting because it creates another perspective of an opinion of another opinion. Producing this kind of perspective is important when analyzing multiple arguments like this, and I think that it was presented quite well here. This is a good example of a solid mapping of different views.
ReplyDeleteThis was an awesome article--one of my favorites, because I felt so strongly about it. I really like how you organized your map and the points you made. I enjoyed reading your description too, because you made it seem like this map is a very easy thing to do. Haha it gave me motivation to start mine.
ReplyDeleteI really like this map! I too was thinking of doing this very articles because of how many sides their are with it. I like how you made the different perspectives on this topic from ranging to the victims family to the person that will receive the organ, it gives a chance for every person that reads this, to have a look at every angle so they can make a judgement of their own. I do think you should add more thoughts from the people that wrote about this from the blog and also from other articles that are related to this subject, so you could get more of an understanding of this topic. Also maybe some more color other just blue to distinguish between each perspectives that is being talked about in the map. Other then those two ideas, I think your map is really good and can only get better.
ReplyDeleteThis was one of my favorite articles because it was just so controversial. I think you really did a great job on this map and hit all of the main stakeholders affiliated with this concept. Its good that you added your own opinion to most of the stake holders because I think that makes this much more interesting than it would be without. I agree with destinys’s comment of adding more description of why someone felt the way they did. I think that would make this much more interesting and may convince some people to take a side on this difficult matter.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed looking over and reading your map. It was put together really well and was organized to a point where I never got lost. I was really interested in the way you separated the stakeholders into two separate parties on two sides of the map. I think a little more explanation and description could be added to give the map and the stakeholders more depth.
ReplyDeleteI was actually going to do this article but I was at a stand still trying to find information to go with both sides of the argument. However, you found some information that I overlooked when I was creating my Stakeholder map. Your map also showed me a bit of things that i was missing in my own map. Overall though, Good Job!
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I have to say thanks for picking my blog. That's cheesy, but I like it. Secondly, I really like the way that you've constructed your stakeholder's map. It's extremely similar to mine, not only because we picked the same topic, but also because we have some of the same stakeholders. I think your way of explaining why you those stakeholders are important was great. It really gets your point across and shows why they are stakeholders. Two suggestions that I made because of differences between my map and yours are that I think you should think about adding UNOS to your map. They are the organization in charge of organ donations. Also, I would add the Governor of Ohio instead of the judge. From my understanding, the Governor would be making the decision of whether or not to allow the man to donate his organs. If I'm wrong, then you should keep the judge but definitely also add the governor. He's one of the largest, if not THE largest, stakeholder.
ReplyDelete