By

Decision support is sometimes structured a priori. That puts limits to further thinking and possible commitments, but we have transparency. Other times the converse, a superficial consensus procedure without a structure, is used. Then we have an increased risk for parochial or even corrupt decisions. So in management science we have a debate and my stand in this dilemma is that no reasonable synthesis may be produced without a simultaneous consideration of explicit structures and a mood of making senseof those. A balance has to be struck. For the rest I do not take side in the debate. I recognize that a structure may be produced early or late in a project. What I find important is that a structure appears at all, so that the make sense will refer to something visible. So that democracy and audit can have a chance. This way of thinking creates freedom and varieties for control. The more you know about how to make sense, to yourself and to others, as analyst or as client, the more variety you can permit your procedures for thinking and choice. To be explicit both about the perspective and about how the parties make sense of it, that is the methodological idea. It is tested and it provides:- A relatively complete overview,- A framework for creative thinking,- A language of functionalities,- A framework for the organization of concrete facts,- An instrument for search,- An instrument for setting priorities so that both choice and rejection becomes visible,- A framework for teaching and understanding between levels,- A framework for critics and for an expression of improvements,- Transparency and accountability,- A simplified documentation and memory,- A framework for assessments and for setting standards for vital functionalities