In transformation, enterprise architecture, and service design, models have their place. Boxes and lines can make the abstract tangible. They help people see what is otherwise hidden, and for that reason they can be powerful tools.

But here’s the catch: just because you can model something doesn’t mean you should.

Too often, we treat the model itself as the end product. It becomes the artefact that gets shared, stored, and presented in slide decks. We forget that the real value doesn’t sit in the diagram. It sits in the explanation, the conversation, and the narrative that brings the model to life.

A model without a story is like a map without a guide. It gives you the outline of the territory but none of the context that helps you navigate.

What was assumed?

What was left out?

What patterns really matter?

Those things don’t come from the picture. They come from the dialogue around it.

This problem comes into sharp focus in executive settings. I’ve sat in countless boardroom sessions where beautifully crafted models are presented. Layered diagrams, coloured matrices, process flows, every angle covered.

The executive listens patiently, but the bulk of the time is spent explaining how to read the model itself rather than what the insights mean.

By the end, the exec knows how the model is structured but still lacks a clear view of the implications: 

What choices do we face?

What risks are we running?

What decisions need to be made? 

The model has absorbed the spotlight, leaving the conclusions in the shadows.

Recent research supports this experience. A 2024 study in the Journal of Strategic Communication on sensemaking in organisational storytelling shows that understanding rarely emerges in neat, linear form. Instead, it develops through fragments, multiple interpretations, and evolving dialogue.

In practice, this means a model on its own is rarely enough. The narrative around it; the stories, conversations, and questions it provokes. This is what enables people to make sense of complexity and move toward action.

That has two implications.

First, models should be seen as scaffolding for thought, not as finished houses. Their purpose is to support understanding and invite discussion, not to become polished artefacts mistaken for reality.

Second, the time invested in developing a narrative around the model should match, if not exceed, the time spent creating the diagram itself.

So next time you find yourself tempted to model something, pause and ask:

  • Will this help others see what I see?
  • Am I investing equal effort in the narrative that will make sense of it?
  • Could a live conversation do the job better than another diagram?

When we keep narrative and dialogue at the heart of the work, models regain their rightful role: tools for collective thinking, not trophies for the slide deck.

Reference
Frandsen, S., & Johansen, W. (2024). Sensemaking in organizational storytelling: From linear narratives to fragmented and multiple interpretations. Journal of Strategic Communication, 18(2), 123–139.