The earlier posting by David (I think) Lane re his research into Soft
Systems Methodology (SSM) and SD is relevant to Johns current posting.
SSM is designed to elicit information about the problem situation and to
allow relevant stakeholders to understand the problem and its
complexities, including the political situation within the organisation.
I was interested in Lanes posting because Ive had a feeling for some
time that there could be great advantage to consultants in combining the
techniques of both SSM and SD especially during the problem definition
stage. SSM is a very effective technique for understanding the
complexities of a messy problem and to define a purpose for the ensuing
SD model. It addresses many of the issues raised by John in his posting.
If anyone is interested in SSM a good intro is by David Patching
"Practical Soft Systems Analysis", 1990, Pitman Publishing, London.
--
Bruce Campbell
Joint Research Centre for Advanced Systems Engineering
Macquarie University 2109
Australia
E-mail: Bruce.Campbell@mq.edu.au
Ph: +61 2 9850 9107
Fax: +61 2 9850 9102
Systems from the top?
-
John Wolfenden
- Junior Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
Colleagues
Both George Backus and John Gunkler make a lot of sense on this question of
eliciting ownership.
First, a comment on Johns observations:
>1. It is middle managers who kill the change. And it makes sense that it
>...
>2. Introducing change (that will stick) in an organization is not much like
>managing, but is a lot like fomenting a revolution.
He is here describing two phenomena that Ralph Stacey has called ordinary
and extraordinary management. The first reflects the business as usual
but do it as well as you can approach of the middle managers. It is about
managing within a given set of processes and structures, and doing it well.
By contrast, extraordinary management is that which causes change in
processes and structure; it certainly is revolutionary. Stacey argues that
for a company to function sustainably within a changing environment, it
needs a balance between each of these modes of management. The problem is,
of course, that they require fundamentally different attitudes about how to
do things. Indeed, there is an argument that the extraordinary managers
must necessarily be functionally isolated from the ordinary managers; i.e.
they would not be in the same management structure of reporting or
resonsibility. For more on this see: Stacey, R.D. 1993. Strategic
Management and Organisational Dynamics, Pitman, London.
My second comment is that both George and John reflect a very pragmatic
approach to all of this. They have obviously thought long and hard about
the realities of working within organisations, and the need to carefully
and strategically sell the basic ideas and concepts so that the client
develops ownership. (Of course, many others have addressed this same issue
on this forum as well). My colleague and PhD supervisor Roderic Gill and I
have placed particular emphasis on these issues in our own work. We have
been interested in extending the learning techniques of SD and systems
thinking into the field of public management of environmental resources.
In this context, there are wide ranging stakeholder interests that need to
be included in the learning and decision making processes. Many of these
people have a healthy distrust of consultants, academics or any other
outsiders telling them what to do. Therefore, a core facet of our work has
been to directly and explicitly address this need for ownership early on
and continuously as part of our interventions.
The main point here is that for us the issue of client (i.e. stakeholder
group) ownership is fundamental and central to any application we make of
SD type learning within the general area of planning and managing for
sustainable development. Actually, the client is probably not the same as
the stakeholder group. However, our responsibility to the client usually
implies that the stakeholder group at large accept/adopt the outcomes of
our interventions. This is analagous to diverse management interests
within an organisation needing to adopt new approaches based on a systems
intervention, and not just the one manager who has hired the consultants.
We have an article presently under review for the SDR that addresses these
issues more thoroughly.
Regards
John
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Wolfenden
Research Fellow
New England Ecological Economics Group (NEEEG)
Centre for Water Policy Research (CWPR)
University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia
Australia Ph (02) 6773 2420 Fx (02) 6773 3237
International +61 2 6773 2420 +61 2 6773 3237
Mobile 0412 245 234; email: jwolfend@metz.une.edu.au
Committee Member and Postgraduate Coordinator,
Australia New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics (ANZSEE)
WEB INFORMATION
My Homepage: http://metz.une.edu.au/~jwolfend/index.htm
NEEEG Homepage: http://www.une.edu.au/cwpr/NEEEG/neeg.html
CWPR Homepage: http://www.une.edu.au/cwpr/
ANZSEE Homepage: http://cres.anu.edu.au/~dstern/anzsee/ANZSEE.html
Both George Backus and John Gunkler make a lot of sense on this question of
eliciting ownership.
First, a comment on Johns observations:
>1. It is middle managers who kill the change. And it makes sense that it
>...
>2. Introducing change (that will stick) in an organization is not much like
>managing, but is a lot like fomenting a revolution.
He is here describing two phenomena that Ralph Stacey has called ordinary
and extraordinary management. The first reflects the business as usual
but do it as well as you can approach of the middle managers. It is about
managing within a given set of processes and structures, and doing it well.
By contrast, extraordinary management is that which causes change in
processes and structure; it certainly is revolutionary. Stacey argues that
for a company to function sustainably within a changing environment, it
needs a balance between each of these modes of management. The problem is,
of course, that they require fundamentally different attitudes about how to
do things. Indeed, there is an argument that the extraordinary managers
must necessarily be functionally isolated from the ordinary managers; i.e.
they would not be in the same management structure of reporting or
resonsibility. For more on this see: Stacey, R.D. 1993. Strategic
Management and Organisational Dynamics, Pitman, London.
My second comment is that both George and John reflect a very pragmatic
approach to all of this. They have obviously thought long and hard about
the realities of working within organisations, and the need to carefully
and strategically sell the basic ideas and concepts so that the client
develops ownership. (Of course, many others have addressed this same issue
on this forum as well). My colleague and PhD supervisor Roderic Gill and I
have placed particular emphasis on these issues in our own work. We have
been interested in extending the learning techniques of SD and systems
thinking into the field of public management of environmental resources.
In this context, there are wide ranging stakeholder interests that need to
be included in the learning and decision making processes. Many of these
people have a healthy distrust of consultants, academics or any other
outsiders telling them what to do. Therefore, a core facet of our work has
been to directly and explicitly address this need for ownership early on
and continuously as part of our interventions.
The main point here is that for us the issue of client (i.e. stakeholder
group) ownership is fundamental and central to any application we make of
SD type learning within the general area of planning and managing for
sustainable development. Actually, the client is probably not the same as
the stakeholder group. However, our responsibility to the client usually
implies that the stakeholder group at large accept/adopt the outcomes of
our interventions. This is analagous to diverse management interests
within an organisation needing to adopt new approaches based on a systems
intervention, and not just the one manager who has hired the consultants.
We have an article presently under review for the SDR that addresses these
issues more thoroughly.
Regards
John
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Wolfenden
Research Fellow
New England Ecological Economics Group (NEEEG)
Centre for Water Policy Research (CWPR)
University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia
Australia Ph (02) 6773 2420 Fx (02) 6773 3237
International +61 2 6773 2420 +61 2 6773 3237
Mobile 0412 245 234; email: jwolfend@metz.une.edu.au
Committee Member and Postgraduate Coordinator,
Australia New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics (ANZSEE)
WEB INFORMATION
My Homepage: http://metz.une.edu.au/~jwolfend/index.htm
NEEEG Homepage: http://www.une.edu.au/cwpr/NEEEG/neeg.html
CWPR Homepage: http://www.une.edu.au/cwpr/
ANZSEE Homepage: http://cres.anu.edu.au/~dstern/anzsee/ANZSEE.html
-
ularoch@ibm.net
- Junior Member
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
treating whole businesses top down is just one of our main activities.
however it is predominantly not systems thinking but systems analysis aided
by isomorphic process models that are simulated (just what jay forrester did
pioneer and describe in his still up_to_date book "industrial dynamics"), of
course a little and modestly modernized by adding our proprietory method of
process-cost (activity based) and integration of ERD
(entity_relations_diagram).
for any further contact we propose to use private e-mail.
// yours sincerely ulrich la roche
From: ularoch@ibm.net
fast focus consulting
heilighuesli 18, CH-8053 Zuerich,
switzerland
fax +411 382 1349
however it is predominantly not systems thinking but systems analysis aided
by isomorphic process models that are simulated (just what jay forrester did
pioneer and describe in his still up_to_date book "industrial dynamics"), of
course a little and modestly modernized by adding our proprietory method of
process-cost (activity based) and integration of ERD
(entity_relations_diagram).
for any further contact we propose to use private e-mail.
// yours sincerely ulrich la roche
From: ularoch@ibm.net
fast focus consulting
heilighuesli 18, CH-8053 Zuerich,
switzerland
fax +411 382 1349
Systems from the top?
I have just finished spending a few days with a company.
I was able to work with the entire management team on
systems thinking and some SD modeling. As I completed
that initial work it occurred to me that we (I) frequently work
on a project or segment of a company and seldom with *THE*
company. Does anyone have information concerning
systems dynamics being the way of thinking at all levels of
any company?
Van Bowen, University of Richmond
Van Bowen
From: Van Bowen <vbowen@richmond.edu>
Professor of Mathematics
Richardson Chair of Mathematics
Math & CS Department
University of Richmond
Virginia 23173
804-289-8081 http://www.mathcs.urich.edu/~bowen/
I was able to work with the entire management team on
systems thinking and some SD modeling. As I completed
that initial work it occurred to me that we (I) frequently work
on a project or segment of a company and seldom with *THE*
company. Does anyone have information concerning
systems dynamics being the way of thinking at all levels of
any company?
Van Bowen, University of Richmond
Van Bowen
From: Van Bowen <vbowen@richmond.edu>
Professor of Mathematics
Richardson Chair of Mathematics
Math & CS Department
University of Richmond
Virginia 23173
804-289-8081 http://www.mathcs.urich.edu/~bowen/
Systems from the top?
This is a reply to Van Bowen, who asked
> Does anyone have information concerning
> system dynamics being the way of thinking at all levels of
> any company?
You have put your finger on the current challenge in applied SD. Its no
longer unusual to find a SD project being done at a (large) company.
However, it IS unusual to find a series of system dynamics projects
being done in various areas of the company. And, still more unusual to
find managers with a plan for bringing SD into increasing central use
for making policy.
Some of the issues in corporate wide Sd are:
1) How to successfully include teams of managers in a lengthy SD
project. (Many people know how to run reliably successful two to four
day SD workshops; but sustaining interest over a period of 6 months to a
year remains difficult).
2) How to "reuse" models. The debate is whether to throw-away,
maintain, or canabalize prior models. (My vote goes to canibalizing).
3) How to "sell" the conclusions of an SD process to the rest of a
company. (This is actually a difficulty for any conclusion whether it
comes from an SD process or not, but there are more options and pitfalls
because there is often a computer simulation model that can be
used/abused at the end of an SD process).
5) How people inside the company can become competent SDers, so that the
SD is truly internalized.
Large companies that are figuring out answers to the above issues
include: General Motors, Hewlett Packard, Eastman Chemicals,and Nova
Chemicals.
Regards,
Jim Hines
LeapTec and MIT
From: Jim Hines <jimhines@interserv.com>
> Does anyone have information concerning
> system dynamics being the way of thinking at all levels of
> any company?
You have put your finger on the current challenge in applied SD. Its no
longer unusual to find a SD project being done at a (large) company.
However, it IS unusual to find a series of system dynamics projects
being done in various areas of the company. And, still more unusual to
find managers with a plan for bringing SD into increasing central use
for making policy.
Some of the issues in corporate wide Sd are:
1) How to successfully include teams of managers in a lengthy SD
project. (Many people know how to run reliably successful two to four
day SD workshops; but sustaining interest over a period of 6 months to a
year remains difficult).
2) How to "reuse" models. The debate is whether to throw-away,
maintain, or canabalize prior models. (My vote goes to canibalizing).
3) How to "sell" the conclusions of an SD process to the rest of a
company. (This is actually a difficulty for any conclusion whether it
comes from an SD process or not, but there are more options and pitfalls
because there is often a computer simulation model that can be
used/abused at the end of an SD process).
5) How people inside the company can become competent SDers, so that the
SD is truly internalized.
Large companies that are figuring out answers to the above issues
include: General Motors, Hewlett Packard, Eastman Chemicals,and Nova
Chemicals.
Regards,
Jim Hines
LeapTec and MIT
From: Jim Hines <jimhines@interserv.com>
-
Jay Forrest - SDSG
- Junior Member
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
Jim Hines identified several key issues regarding corporate-wide SD. My
company responded to Van Bowen privately, sending him a copy of our most
recent paper on Systemic Leverage (TM) which addresses broad corporate
perspectives. It is my belief that unless we internalize the models we
build and their implications into the "client", the client is unlikely to
pursue the insights of SD successfully (primarily due to lack of commitment
or understanding). My expansion on Jims comments follow:
>You have put your finger on the current challenge in applied SD. Its no
>longer unusual to find a SD project being done at a (large) company.=20
>However, it IS unusual to find a series of system dynamics projects
>being done in various areas of the company. And, still more unusual to
>find managers with a plan for bringing SD into increasing central use
>for making policy.
>Some of the issues in corporate wide Sd are:
>
>1) How to successfully include teams of managers in a lengthy SD
>project. (Many people know how to run reliably successful two to four
>day SD workshops; but sustaining interest over a period of 6 months to a
>year remains difficult).
Very difficult and true. As a first step I would suggest using SD modeling
in team activities related to specific problems. IMO the biggest benefit in
a specific project is to jump start the group and advance their
understanding and hypothesis formation. As teams gain experience, one can
develop a culture where SD becomes an ongoing part of team exploration and
learning. This will generally occur at a mid-level. Lower level employees
will generally lack the credibility and power to implement their
understanding and it is hard to create the "ongoing culture of SD" in
senior executive groups due to time/focus issues.
>2) How to "reuse" models. The debate is whether to throw-away,
>maintain, or canabalize prior models. (My vote goes to canibalizing).
This one is tough! The easiest route to failure is for the client to not
understand and "own" the model. If the group is generally knowledgeable I
support reviewing similar models and cannibalizing appropriate pieces. As
the group grows more elementary I tend to favor new development more. IMO
the key lies in team understanding.
>3) How to "sell" the conclusions of an SD process to the rest of a
>company.=20
As a facilitation oriented consultant, I believe "selling" the conclusions
includes connotations which doom the consultation. The need to "sell"
implies that the client did not participate in the process such that, at
the end, lack attachment to the model and its conclusions.=20
>5) How people inside the company can become competent SDers, so that the
>SD is truly internalized.
As indicated before, I believe it must generally start in the middle and
work its way both up and down. I would place more emphasis on working UP
than down if I could. Building executive appreciation and understanding of
SD (and vocabulary) can do a great deal to open the door to the process and
insights but top executives will generally not do SD and will rely on
trusted personnel for the insights. IMO one common problem of the past is
that the trusted person in the past was not deeply involved in the process,
such that you had "the consultant" selling the learnings to "the team" who
sold their tarnished learnings to "the manager" who tried (and failed) to
explain "poorly understood concepts" to top management. We have all played
the parlor game in which a story is told around a circle until it returns
to the beginning and has no resemblance to the original. Is it any surprise
this approach fails or that top management decides SD does not provide
insight. Getting top executives involved before the conclusion phase can
be a big step to project success and credibility is created one step (or
project) at a time.
**** I would add one more item to Jims list:
6) How to convince companies to explore the higher level implications
before setting out to build massive simulations (containing too much
detail)? IMO detail models, and particularly those dealing with soft
variables, frequently draw inferences which exceed the accuracy of their
assumptions. In addition, they can be difficult to comprehend and learn
from -- even for experienced SD modelers. Is it any surprise that building
complex models with neophytes generates communication gaps which limit the
success of the projects and encourages the view that "SD is a black box" or
"not very helpful".
Regards!
Jay Forrest
SDSG,LLC=A0 - The Strategic Decision Simulation Group=20
11606 Highgrove Drive
Houston, Texas 77077
Tel:=A0 281-493-5022
Fax: 281-558-3228
E-mail: jayf@sdsg.com
company responded to Van Bowen privately, sending him a copy of our most
recent paper on Systemic Leverage (TM) which addresses broad corporate
perspectives. It is my belief that unless we internalize the models we
build and their implications into the "client", the client is unlikely to
pursue the insights of SD successfully (primarily due to lack of commitment
or understanding). My expansion on Jims comments follow:
>You have put your finger on the current challenge in applied SD. Its no
>longer unusual to find a SD project being done at a (large) company.=20
>However, it IS unusual to find a series of system dynamics projects
>being done in various areas of the company. And, still more unusual to
>find managers with a plan for bringing SD into increasing central use
>for making policy.
>Some of the issues in corporate wide Sd are:
>
>1) How to successfully include teams of managers in a lengthy SD
>project. (Many people know how to run reliably successful two to four
>day SD workshops; but sustaining interest over a period of 6 months to a
>year remains difficult).
Very difficult and true. As a first step I would suggest using SD modeling
in team activities related to specific problems. IMO the biggest benefit in
a specific project is to jump start the group and advance their
understanding and hypothesis formation. As teams gain experience, one can
develop a culture where SD becomes an ongoing part of team exploration and
learning. This will generally occur at a mid-level. Lower level employees
will generally lack the credibility and power to implement their
understanding and it is hard to create the "ongoing culture of SD" in
senior executive groups due to time/focus issues.
>2) How to "reuse" models. The debate is whether to throw-away,
>maintain, or canabalize prior models. (My vote goes to canibalizing).
This one is tough! The easiest route to failure is for the client to not
understand and "own" the model. If the group is generally knowledgeable I
support reviewing similar models and cannibalizing appropriate pieces. As
the group grows more elementary I tend to favor new development more. IMO
the key lies in team understanding.
>3) How to "sell" the conclusions of an SD process to the rest of a
>company.=20
As a facilitation oriented consultant, I believe "selling" the conclusions
includes connotations which doom the consultation. The need to "sell"
implies that the client did not participate in the process such that, at
the end, lack attachment to the model and its conclusions.=20
>5) How people inside the company can become competent SDers, so that the
>SD is truly internalized.
As indicated before, I believe it must generally start in the middle and
work its way both up and down. I would place more emphasis on working UP
than down if I could. Building executive appreciation and understanding of
SD (and vocabulary) can do a great deal to open the door to the process and
insights but top executives will generally not do SD and will rely on
trusted personnel for the insights. IMO one common problem of the past is
that the trusted person in the past was not deeply involved in the process,
such that you had "the consultant" selling the learnings to "the team" who
sold their tarnished learnings to "the manager" who tried (and failed) to
explain "poorly understood concepts" to top management. We have all played
the parlor game in which a story is told around a circle until it returns
to the beginning and has no resemblance to the original. Is it any surprise
this approach fails or that top management decides SD does not provide
insight. Getting top executives involved before the conclusion phase can
be a big step to project success and credibility is created one step (or
project) at a time.
**** I would add one more item to Jims list:
6) How to convince companies to explore the higher level implications
before setting out to build massive simulations (containing too much
detail)? IMO detail models, and particularly those dealing with soft
variables, frequently draw inferences which exceed the accuracy of their
assumptions. In addition, they can be difficult to comprehend and learn
from -- even for experienced SD modelers. Is it any surprise that building
complex models with neophytes generates communication gaps which limit the
success of the projects and encourages the view that "SD is a black box" or
"not very helpful".
Regards!
Jay Forrest
SDSG,LLC=A0 - The Strategic Decision Simulation Group=20
11606 Highgrove Drive
Houston, Texas 77077
Tel:=A0 281-493-5022
Fax: 281-558-3228
E-mail: jayf@sdsg.com
-
Anil Kumar Sahai
- Newbie
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
Hello:
I will like to comment on this question raised by Jim Hines. I think
selling the conclusions of SD is a very difficult task. Customers might
have "bought in" your SD "methodology" / "framework" in general to
address their problems. Note that not much is at stake until now
(leaving consulting $$s!). But in the end, when you present "results",
the customer has to make startegic decisions and the cost consequences
are too high if one chooses to make big strategic choices.
Drawing a parallel to my experience in the performance modeling of
systems, I have found similar challenges while presenting modeling
results when the architecture choices or buying decisions need to be
made and there are "real" consequences involved. Traditionally, people
have used calibrated models as a way of "convincing" (in part or total)
that the models do have some merit. People not experienced with SD or
modeling will understand/buy "calibration" a bit easily. However,
using calibration can backfire in long run because 1) it can cause
over-optimism in the predictive accuracy of models, and 2) the true
power of SD models in understanding the system behavior is overshadowed
by its (not so) forecasting capabilities.
Causal-Loop diagrams can be a powerful tool in selling SD results. I
guess it will require patience and a "bottom up" approach where you need
to "sell" your results in phases (from small to big!). In a way, it
will require a small element of "SD education" as part of your "sales
pitch" for SD results!
Cheers.
-- anil sahai
From: Anil Kumar Sahai <anil@MIT.EDU>
I will like to comment on this question raised by Jim Hines. I think
selling the conclusions of SD is a very difficult task. Customers might
have "bought in" your SD "methodology" / "framework" in general to
address their problems. Note that not much is at stake until now
(leaving consulting $$s!). But in the end, when you present "results",
the customer has to make startegic decisions and the cost consequences
are too high if one chooses to make big strategic choices.
Drawing a parallel to my experience in the performance modeling of
systems, I have found similar challenges while presenting modeling
results when the architecture choices or buying decisions need to be
made and there are "real" consequences involved. Traditionally, people
have used calibrated models as a way of "convincing" (in part or total)
that the models do have some merit. People not experienced with SD or
modeling will understand/buy "calibration" a bit easily. However,
using calibration can backfire in long run because 1) it can cause
over-optimism in the predictive accuracy of models, and 2) the true
power of SD models in understanding the system behavior is overshadowed
by its (not so) forecasting capabilities.
Causal-Loop diagrams can be a powerful tool in selling SD results. I
guess it will require patience and a "bottom up" approach where you need
to "sell" your results in phases (from small to big!). In a way, it
will require a small element of "SD education" as part of your "sales
pitch" for SD results!
Cheers.
-- anil sahai
From: Anil Kumar Sahai <anil@MIT.EDU>
-
"George Backus"
- Member
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
The consulting industry mantra is "sell at the top." Often SD does not. If
the problem is important enough (lots of negative $ on the line for the
company) and tough enough (the company has already unsuccessfully gone
through the "other" methodologies looking for the solution), then you have a
captive audience at the top (until you make the slightest mistake).
The "importance" of the problem usually means that the SD model should
include at least a limited representation of the rest of the company, its
customers and its competitors. You then have a "integrated" model that no
one else has and that can "potentially" look at a variety of company
scenarios and impacts -- that everyone worries about but no one can address.
You are now stepping on everybodys toes and represent a real threat to
turf. So, now you give ownership of the tool to each of those
departments -- even if you have to add "weird" things to the model. If they
cant see whats important to them, you lose the game. You cannot change
their job description. The model has what they need (for the important
problem) or you have nothing to offer. The good SD news is that you can
talk in aggregate terms in the model and that does allow you to be "useful"
without adding several tons of useless, irrational equations.
You now have friends throughout the company who take credit for everything
right you do. This is good. Remember you are just a dumb, expendable, SD
consultant. Now you make sure they review everything you do as if it is
their own -- it is for their benefit that you have a job... . If the model
gives a "bad" answer due to the rotten feedback messing up linear thinking,
then you make a scenario that works as they ask, but point out the neat
results that occur when you consider the feedback -- that *they* guide you
through with your coaching. (You must be creative enough to allow the model
to find the solution instead of just the problem. The solution counts; the
problem is just bad news no one really wants to hear. ) Now when you (they)
present the conclusions to the CEO (who hopefully has been kept cognizant
via the grapevine or small emails --nothing over three paragraphs ever gets
read and it must be an unimportant "details" manifesto if it is over three
paragraphs), the "voting" on "model" recommendations are now just a
formality verifying the "required" conclusions. (If the conclusion is not
related to a $ crises, it is not important.... until the next time. The SD
"religious solution" that you may want to really promote is of no value to
anyone but you.) The model was only peripheral to this "conclusion," but
now the model is imbedded in the company at all "important" levels. We have
some models going on 20 years in this state. (BTW, the "model" can often go
dormant for a year or more if the company is in good shape. Why fix a
working machine? But as things get bad -- those damn SD cycles coming back
to haunt them --, then you can replay the old story and be useful again.)
Bottom line: My biased and jaded view is that SDers often do not strive to
elevate the model to the top, do not force ownership on the client, and do
not make sure the problem is important and tough enough. All companies I
see have really important problems that can be found via a little SD logic
while working on even a "small local project." Your "discovery" is also
often a good sales pitch.
The above tirade could just be a result of the narrow markets in which I
operate and not applicable to many SD efforts. Then again....
George Backus, President
Policy Assessment Corporation
14604 West 62nd Place
Arvada, Colorado, USA 80004-3621
Bus: +1-303-467-3566
Fax: +1-303-467-3576
email: gbackus@boulder.earthnet.net
the problem is important enough (lots of negative $ on the line for the
company) and tough enough (the company has already unsuccessfully gone
through the "other" methodologies looking for the solution), then you have a
captive audience at the top (until you make the slightest mistake).
The "importance" of the problem usually means that the SD model should
include at least a limited representation of the rest of the company, its
customers and its competitors. You then have a "integrated" model that no
one else has and that can "potentially" look at a variety of company
scenarios and impacts -- that everyone worries about but no one can address.
You are now stepping on everybodys toes and represent a real threat to
turf. So, now you give ownership of the tool to each of those
departments -- even if you have to add "weird" things to the model. If they
cant see whats important to them, you lose the game. You cannot change
their job description. The model has what they need (for the important
problem) or you have nothing to offer. The good SD news is that you can
talk in aggregate terms in the model and that does allow you to be "useful"
without adding several tons of useless, irrational equations.
You now have friends throughout the company who take credit for everything
right you do. This is good. Remember you are just a dumb, expendable, SD
consultant. Now you make sure they review everything you do as if it is
their own -- it is for their benefit that you have a job... . If the model
gives a "bad" answer due to the rotten feedback messing up linear thinking,
then you make a scenario that works as they ask, but point out the neat
results that occur when you consider the feedback -- that *they* guide you
through with your coaching. (You must be creative enough to allow the model
to find the solution instead of just the problem. The solution counts; the
problem is just bad news no one really wants to hear. ) Now when you (they)
present the conclusions to the CEO (who hopefully has been kept cognizant
via the grapevine or small emails --nothing over three paragraphs ever gets
read and it must be an unimportant "details" manifesto if it is over three
paragraphs), the "voting" on "model" recommendations are now just a
formality verifying the "required" conclusions. (If the conclusion is not
related to a $ crises, it is not important.... until the next time. The SD
"religious solution" that you may want to really promote is of no value to
anyone but you.) The model was only peripheral to this "conclusion," but
now the model is imbedded in the company at all "important" levels. We have
some models going on 20 years in this state. (BTW, the "model" can often go
dormant for a year or more if the company is in good shape. Why fix a
working machine? But as things get bad -- those damn SD cycles coming back
to haunt them --, then you can replay the old story and be useful again.)
Bottom line: My biased and jaded view is that SDers often do not strive to
elevate the model to the top, do not force ownership on the client, and do
not make sure the problem is important and tough enough. All companies I
see have really important problems that can be found via a little SD logic
while working on even a "small local project." Your "discovery" is also
often a good sales pitch.
The above tirade could just be a result of the narrow markets in which I
operate and not applicable to many SD efforts. Then again....
George Backus, President
Policy Assessment Corporation
14604 West 62nd Place
Arvada, Colorado, USA 80004-3621
Bus: +1-303-467-3566
Fax: +1-303-467-3576
email: gbackus@boulder.earthnet.net
Systems from the top?
Just a clarification to Jay Forrests comments:
> >3) How to "sell" the conclusions of an SD process to the rest of a
> >company.
Jay wrote:
> As a facilitation oriented consultant, I believe "selling" the conclusions
> includes connotations which doom the consultation. The need to "sell"
> implies that the client did not participate in the process such that, at
> the end, lack attachment to the model and its conclusions.
Im sorry if my term "selling" carried the connotation of not involving
the client. What I really meant was that in most large businesses
today, no single manager or small group of managers can implement a new
policy without convincing others -- often MANY others -- that the new
policy is desirable.
There are a number of ways that the MANAGERS can use a system dynamics
model to convince others in their company.
1) The managers can refrain from emphasizing (or even mentioning) the
model and instead make the logical arguments that may have come out of
the modeling work. The logical arguments would be supported by
reference to the companys experience.
2) In contrast, the managers can put a calibrated model on the
"witness stand", showing how it fits historical time-series data. The
managers would be making the argument that the model should be believed
because it hasnt lied in the past.
3) A flight simulator (management game) could be constructed from the
model. People in the company could play the flight simulator and (with
proper debriefing) have an experience somewhat similar to that enjoyed
by the managers who participated in the original SD process.
Are there other ways?
Regards,
Jim Hines
LeapTec and MIT
From: Jim Hines <jimhines@interserv.com>
> >3) How to "sell" the conclusions of an SD process to the rest of a
> >company.
Jay wrote:
> As a facilitation oriented consultant, I believe "selling" the conclusions
> includes connotations which doom the consultation. The need to "sell"
> implies that the client did not participate in the process such that, at
> the end, lack attachment to the model and its conclusions.
Im sorry if my term "selling" carried the connotation of not involving
the client. What I really meant was that in most large businesses
today, no single manager or small group of managers can implement a new
policy without convincing others -- often MANY others -- that the new
policy is desirable.
There are a number of ways that the MANAGERS can use a system dynamics
model to convince others in their company.
1) The managers can refrain from emphasizing (or even mentioning) the
model and instead make the logical arguments that may have come out of
the modeling work. The logical arguments would be supported by
reference to the companys experience.
2) In contrast, the managers can put a calibrated model on the
"witness stand", showing how it fits historical time-series data. The
managers would be making the argument that the model should be believed
because it hasnt lied in the past.
3) A flight simulator (management game) could be constructed from the
model. People in the company could play the flight simulator and (with
proper debriefing) have an experience somewhat similar to that enjoyed
by the managers who participated in the original SD process.
Are there other ways?
Regards,
Jim Hines
LeapTec and MIT
From: Jim Hines <jimhines@interserv.com>
-
Phil Odence
- Junior Member
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
In reactions to some of the discussion about disseminating specific
insights and SD consciousness skills...
First, thanks to Van for stimulating the discussion.
Jay Forests point about getting the client involved is a very important,
necessary, pretty-well-understood, and still-oft-ignored one. However, in
a most organizations there isnt a "the client". Generally, insights from
a particular modeling effort need to be shared with a much broader
audience than can be practiacally involved with the effort.
An effective approach to sharing specific insights is to let people
recreate them through experiential learning. Good flight simulators and
board games with some good facilitation can fill this need, but
facilitator capacity is often a contraint on the speed of dissemination.
To the extent you can "bottle up" in the software the coaching and
content that a skilled facilitator provides, the insights can be shared
with less facilitation, and therefore can propagate more quickly through
an organization. This is our approach with Learning Environments.
A not-unintended consequense of employing Learning Environments to share
specific insights is to also deploy System Dynamics consciousness and
even skills more broadly through an organization. Well-crafted coaching
delivers these benefits transparently to the unwitting consumer. This
makes the individuals in an organization an easier "sell" next time
around. It also makes them more inclined to think of SD as an approach to
their issues, and thus sets off reinforcing loops.
***************************************************************************
Phil Odence
High Performance Systems
45 Lyme Road, Suite 200
Hanover, NH 03755-1221
voice- 603 643 9636 x107, fx- 603 643 9502, web- http://www.hps-inc.com
From: Phil Odence <podence@hps-inc.com>
insights and SD consciousness skills...
First, thanks to Van for stimulating the discussion.
Jay Forests point about getting the client involved is a very important,
necessary, pretty-well-understood, and still-oft-ignored one. However, in
a most organizations there isnt a "the client". Generally, insights from
a particular modeling effort need to be shared with a much broader
audience than can be practiacally involved with the effort.
An effective approach to sharing specific insights is to let people
recreate them through experiential learning. Good flight simulators and
board games with some good facilitation can fill this need, but
facilitator capacity is often a contraint on the speed of dissemination.
To the extent you can "bottle up" in the software the coaching and
content that a skilled facilitator provides, the insights can be shared
with less facilitation, and therefore can propagate more quickly through
an organization. This is our approach with Learning Environments.
A not-unintended consequense of employing Learning Environments to share
specific insights is to also deploy System Dynamics consciousness and
even skills more broadly through an organization. Well-crafted coaching
delivers these benefits transparently to the unwitting consumer. This
makes the individuals in an organization an easier "sell" next time
around. It also makes them more inclined to think of SD as an approach to
their issues, and thus sets off reinforcing loops.
***************************************************************************
Phil Odence
High Performance Systems
45 Lyme Road, Suite 200
Hanover, NH 03755-1221
voice- 603 643 9636 x107, fx- 603 643 9502, web- http://www.hps-inc.com
From: Phil Odence <podence@hps-inc.com>
-
"Marc Abrams"
- Junior Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
Just to add my two cents.
I agree with George Backus, Jim Hines, and Phil Odence. All make
important points.
I tend to think of "client involvement" in a different light. _why_ is
the modeling effort taking place? _Organizations_ per se are not the
"purposeful" elements. People _in_ them are. If you dont understand
why the modeling effort is being done, you have no clue as to what is
_actually_ expected. You cant sell SD anymore then you can sell Tarot
card readings, astrology or god. People _BUY_ what they want and need.
Understanding what that is, is fundamental to successfully
implementing a project.
As distasteful as this notion might be. The efficacy of SD models
probably ranks way down the list as reasons why people will or will
not _buy_ into a project. Getting agreement ( _not_ compromise ) on
_a_ problem statement and on the elements and people that _need_ to be
involved in the project will always be the most difficult,
exasperating, and frustrating part.
Marc
From: "Marc Abrams" <msa@panix.com>
I agree with George Backus, Jim Hines, and Phil Odence. All make
important points.
I tend to think of "client involvement" in a different light. _why_ is
the modeling effort taking place? _Organizations_ per se are not the
"purposeful" elements. People _in_ them are. If you dont understand
why the modeling effort is being done, you have no clue as to what is
_actually_ expected. You cant sell SD anymore then you can sell Tarot
card readings, astrology or god. People _BUY_ what they want and need.
Understanding what that is, is fundamental to successfully
implementing a project.
As distasteful as this notion might be. The efficacy of SD models
probably ranks way down the list as reasons why people will or will
not _buy_ into a project. Getting agreement ( _not_ compromise ) on
_a_ problem statement and on the elements and people that _need_ to be
involved in the project will always be the most difficult,
exasperating, and frustrating part.
Marc
From: "Marc Abrams" <msa@panix.com>
-
Bill Harris
- Member
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
George,
I like the points, but I have a question.
> The consulting industry mantra is "sell at the top." Often SD does not. If
A change management course I went through emphasized that by talking about
the need for "authorizing sponsors", followed by a cascading chain of
"reinforcing sponsors". OTOH, I heard Peter Senge talk a couple of years
ago, and he was saying that their (SoL?) data didnt indicate a strong
correlation between top management buy-in and survivability of change. It
was more that you needed something in the middle, as it looked so far. (At
least thats what I remember of the talk.)
So, does anyone have any data about the (SD) interventions which survive
and those which fade away and the level at which the sponsorship really
occurred?
> Bottom line: My biased and jaded view is that SDers often do not strive to
> elevate the model to the top, do not force ownership on the client, and do
> not make sure the problem is important and tough enough. All companies I
When I first got started in this some 12 years or so ago, my manager at the
time (the manufacturing engineering manager) said he thought it would be
extremely useful to have computer simulations to help solve some of the
sticky (manufacturing) problems which arise from time to time. Yet, even
though he let me and another person working for me address the issue, it
didnt catch on. One problem was certainly my newness, but another was
that the problems we chose to address were all solved by the time we had
put together any simulation. The solutions probably werent as elegant or
maybe as good, but they worked well enough to take the problem off the hot
list.
So, yes, I learned that it is important to pick problems which _are_
important to the organization, so they care, and are intractable enough so
they wont be addressed by ad hoc solutions which remove them from future
consideration.
Perhaps thats why I do agree with much of the "sell at the top" approach.
Those at the top will have the real problems which need addressing, wont
necessarily have the time to come up with a technical solution, and have
few above them to change their priorities. The problems of those in the
middle can be real, but they can be changed rapidly if someone above them
assigns them new problems to address.
Regards,
Bill
--
Bill Harris Hewlett-Packard Co.
R&D Engineering Processes Lake Stevens Division
domain: billh@lsid.hp.com M/S 330
phone: (425) 335-2200 8600 Soper Hill Road
fax: (425) 335-2828 Everett, WA 98205-1298
I like the points, but I have a question.
> The consulting industry mantra is "sell at the top." Often SD does not. If
A change management course I went through emphasized that by talking about
the need for "authorizing sponsors", followed by a cascading chain of
"reinforcing sponsors". OTOH, I heard Peter Senge talk a couple of years
ago, and he was saying that their (SoL?) data didnt indicate a strong
correlation between top management buy-in and survivability of change. It
was more that you needed something in the middle, as it looked so far. (At
least thats what I remember of the talk.)
So, does anyone have any data about the (SD) interventions which survive
and those which fade away and the level at which the sponsorship really
occurred?
> Bottom line: My biased and jaded view is that SDers often do not strive to
> elevate the model to the top, do not force ownership on the client, and do
> not make sure the problem is important and tough enough. All companies I
When I first got started in this some 12 years or so ago, my manager at the
time (the manufacturing engineering manager) said he thought it would be
extremely useful to have computer simulations to help solve some of the
sticky (manufacturing) problems which arise from time to time. Yet, even
though he let me and another person working for me address the issue, it
didnt catch on. One problem was certainly my newness, but another was
that the problems we chose to address were all solved by the time we had
put together any simulation. The solutions probably werent as elegant or
maybe as good, but they worked well enough to take the problem off the hot
list.
So, yes, I learned that it is important to pick problems which _are_
important to the organization, so they care, and are intractable enough so
they wont be addressed by ad hoc solutions which remove them from future
consideration.
Perhaps thats why I do agree with much of the "sell at the top" approach.
Those at the top will have the real problems which need addressing, wont
necessarily have the time to come up with a technical solution, and have
few above them to change their priorities. The problems of those in the
middle can be real, but they can be changed rapidly if someone above them
assigns them new problems to address.
Regards,
Bill
--
Bill Harris Hewlett-Packard Co.
R&D Engineering Processes Lake Stevens Division
domain: billh@lsid.hp.com M/S 330
phone: (425) 335-2200 8600 Soper Hill Road
fax: (425) 335-2828 Everett, WA 98205-1298
-
Jay Forrest - SDSG
- Junior Member
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
A short addendum to Jim Hines comments to mine regarding "selling" ideas:
We should probably distinguish between the "team" involved in the modeling
process and the entire organization of the client. My comments regarding
selling are specifically targeted at the team. I do not feel that the
modeler should generally need to "sell" the results to the team. A failure
by the team to understand the model and its implications implies to me that
they were not adequately involved or that the methodology of the
facilitator(s) and modeler(s) were inadequate. In an ideal world that team
will include the stakeholders and leaders in addressing the topic. There
are many situations where the team learnings need not be dispersed broadly
-- that the insights can be acted upon by the team with little or no
additional "selling" required. SDSG has been fortunate in that much of our
work has been with empowered teams at the "right" level.
I view selling the learning outside the team as a different challenge, far
less in control of the SD practitioner and far more in the realm of the
team. Wher the learning should be dispersed there are many potential
barriers, including at least:
1) The team lacks passion (to communicate the lesson) -- learnings will=
"die"
2) The team did not internalize the lessons -- dissemination is very
unlikely or will be flawed
3) The team was poorly selected (inadequate diversity or lack credibility)
-- dissemination unlikely
4) The organization doesnt truly care about the problem (looking for a
scapegoat or simply to say they are addressing the problem -- amazingly
common, especially if your rates are low!)
Jim proposed three methods of disseminating the learning and asked if there
were other ways.
My preferred mode would be to have an ideal team with diversity and
credibility such that communicating the learnings would be facilitated. I
would also hope that the team would be "converted" and have passion about
the learnings. In larger organizations and where personal dissemination is
not practical the SD practitioner is greatly impaired as the dissemination
of the learning is beyond your control. Even a great LE can lie unused. I
see broad dissemination as one of the glaring challenges to the field.
Teamwork and communication are the topic of much research and writing. To
my knowledge, the holy grail of transferring insight remains to be found!
Good LEs are probably the best tool we, as SD practitioners, have, but are
still subject to semantic error and experiential differences. I, too, look
forward to other suggestions for disseminating learning.
Regards!
Jay Forrest
"System dynamics is not a magic bullet or a magic gun and requires skill to
hit the target!"
SDSG,LLC=A0 - The Strategic Decision Simulation Group=20
11606 Highgrove Drive
Houston, Texas 77077
Tel:=A0 281-493-5022
Fax: 281-558-3228
E-mail: jayf@sdsg.com
We should probably distinguish between the "team" involved in the modeling
process and the entire organization of the client. My comments regarding
selling are specifically targeted at the team. I do not feel that the
modeler should generally need to "sell" the results to the team. A failure
by the team to understand the model and its implications implies to me that
they were not adequately involved or that the methodology of the
facilitator(s) and modeler(s) were inadequate. In an ideal world that team
will include the stakeholders and leaders in addressing the topic. There
are many situations where the team learnings need not be dispersed broadly
-- that the insights can be acted upon by the team with little or no
additional "selling" required. SDSG has been fortunate in that much of our
work has been with empowered teams at the "right" level.
I view selling the learning outside the team as a different challenge, far
less in control of the SD practitioner and far more in the realm of the
team. Wher the learning should be dispersed there are many potential
barriers, including at least:
1) The team lacks passion (to communicate the lesson) -- learnings will=
"die"
2) The team did not internalize the lessons -- dissemination is very
unlikely or will be flawed
3) The team was poorly selected (inadequate diversity or lack credibility)
-- dissemination unlikely
4) The organization doesnt truly care about the problem (looking for a
scapegoat or simply to say they are addressing the problem -- amazingly
common, especially if your rates are low!)
Jim proposed three methods of disseminating the learning and asked if there
were other ways.
My preferred mode would be to have an ideal team with diversity and
credibility such that communicating the learnings would be facilitated. I
would also hope that the team would be "converted" and have passion about
the learnings. In larger organizations and where personal dissemination is
not practical the SD practitioner is greatly impaired as the dissemination
of the learning is beyond your control. Even a great LE can lie unused. I
see broad dissemination as one of the glaring challenges to the field.
Teamwork and communication are the topic of much research and writing. To
my knowledge, the holy grail of transferring insight remains to be found!
Good LEs are probably the best tool we, as SD practitioners, have, but are
still subject to semantic error and experiential differences. I, too, look
forward to other suggestions for disseminating learning.
Regards!
Jay Forrest
"System dynamics is not a magic bullet or a magic gun and requires skill to
hit the target!"
SDSG,LLC=A0 - The Strategic Decision Simulation Group=20
11606 Highgrove Drive
Houston, Texas 77077
Tel:=A0 281-493-5022
Fax: 281-558-3228
E-mail: jayf@sdsg.com
-
Jay Forrest - SDSG
- Junior Member
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
>Perhaps thats why I do agree with much of the "sell at the top" approach.
>Those at the top will have the real problems which need addressing, wont
>necessarily have the time to come up with a technical solution, and have
>few above them to change their priorities. The problems of those in the
>middle can be real, but they can be changed rapidly if someone above them
>assigns them new problems to address.
>From my perspective "the top" is the person/group with both responsibility
and authority to address the issue. When a decision maker has a problem it
can be ultimately dealt with in one of three ways:
1) if the problem is important enough the decision maker will deal with it
himself
2) if the problem is less significant the problem will be referred to
someone else to "study" or "solve"
3) if the problem falls below some threshold the problem is ignored.
Consultants are often involved in both categories 1) and 2).=20
Category 1) jobs are almost always "real" and the decision maker is more
likely to be interested in a real solution/insights.
Category 2) jobs almost invariably involve a data collection phase in which
the representative talks to multiple consultants, filters their answers
together, and produces some amalgum analysis of the problem. If the
material is presented back to the decision maker the presentation is often
shoddy and the consultant has no control over the interpretation and
presentation of his concepts. This type of problem is also complicated by
the fact that the representative of the decision maker rarely truly
understands the problem or the value of the solution (which resides in the
mind of the decision maker). In addition, the organization frequently lacks
a commitment to resolving this issue. With a little experience these
delegated problems can be smelled a mile away and avoided like the plague.
They waste time and rarely lead to real or productive work.
My mantra is "deal with decision makers". This does not have to be the
"top" but the client does need to be adequately autonomous to pursue the
insights (or to commit to and disseminate a learning environment if
appropriate). Any time approval and understanding is required outside the
client team (for implementation) the probability of success is reduced.
My $.02
Jay Forrest
SDSG,LLC=A0 - The Strategic Decision Simulation Group=20
11606 Highgrove Drive
Houston, Texas 77077
Tel:=A0 281-493-5022
Fax: 281-558-3228
E-mail: jayf@sdsg.com
>Those at the top will have the real problems which need addressing, wont
>necessarily have the time to come up with a technical solution, and have
>few above them to change their priorities. The problems of those in the
>middle can be real, but they can be changed rapidly if someone above them
>assigns them new problems to address.
>From my perspective "the top" is the person/group with both responsibility
and authority to address the issue. When a decision maker has a problem it
can be ultimately dealt with in one of three ways:
1) if the problem is important enough the decision maker will deal with it
himself
2) if the problem is less significant the problem will be referred to
someone else to "study" or "solve"
3) if the problem falls below some threshold the problem is ignored.
Consultants are often involved in both categories 1) and 2).=20
Category 1) jobs are almost always "real" and the decision maker is more
likely to be interested in a real solution/insights.
Category 2) jobs almost invariably involve a data collection phase in which
the representative talks to multiple consultants, filters their answers
together, and produces some amalgum analysis of the problem. If the
material is presented back to the decision maker the presentation is often
shoddy and the consultant has no control over the interpretation and
presentation of his concepts. This type of problem is also complicated by
the fact that the representative of the decision maker rarely truly
understands the problem or the value of the solution (which resides in the
mind of the decision maker). In addition, the organization frequently lacks
a commitment to resolving this issue. With a little experience these
delegated problems can be smelled a mile away and avoided like the plague.
They waste time and rarely lead to real or productive work.
My mantra is "deal with decision makers". This does not have to be the
"top" but the client does need to be adequately autonomous to pursue the
insights (or to commit to and disseminate a learning environment if
appropriate). Any time approval and understanding is required outside the
client team (for implementation) the probability of success is reduced.
My $.02
Jay Forrest
SDSG,LLC=A0 - The Strategic Decision Simulation Group=20
11606 Highgrove Drive
Houston, Texas 77077
Tel:=A0 281-493-5022
Fax: 281-558-3228
E-mail: jayf@sdsg.com
-
Jim Thompson
- Junior Member
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
>From my experience, there are several different issues in "Systems from
the top".
The nature of system dynamics is to be both "cross-functional" and
"vertical". For organizations used to one and not the other, the
methodology seems to over-reach. Inexperienced consultants may say, "so
what?" But this is an important point. After slashing through an
organization and appearing to be critical of its policies and procedures
in various functions, the fact that organizations are still ruled from
the top often leads to criticism of the top management. The methodology
is brought to the organization from the outside through the consultant,
and both can be exfoliated quickly by dismissing the outsider. Staying
within the bounds of "the problem" and not insulting everyone in the
client company are challenges to the consultant.
The nature of consultants is to sell consulting. The biggest buying
power is held by top management. When a system dynamics consulting
project billows, the system dynamics consultant may be tempted to meet
with top management when the original, authorizing client is in middle
management. This "managing up" is infuriating to many middle managers
who spend a large part of their careers trying to catch the notice of
top management. Even when the consultant and authorizing client meet
with top management, the consultant will tend to stand out -- as a
"breath of fresh air", a "clear-thinker", or worse -- "an idiot".
The nature of managers is to keep things running smoothly and solve
problems. A solution path such as system dynamics that disrupts many
areas of an organization hardly keeps things running smoothly. A
solution path that solves a problem may be welcome, however. So, the
client must be carefully prepared to understand the scope and magnitude
of change that _may_ be required as a consequence of problem-solving
with system dynamics. When the consultant places client relationships
on an equal footing with problem-solving, the intervention stands a
better chance of succeeding.
The nature of organizations is to protect itself from becoming
disorganized. No matter what tool is used to solve a problem, the
solution may endure but not the tool or solution path. Consultants,
especially system dynamicists, must decide whether to even expose the
tool at all. There are ways to employ the principles of system dynamics
without the client adopting new jargon, mapping methods and modeling
techniques.
The question the consultant should ask is "what is best for the issues
at hand?" That is, is the client willing and adequately prepared to
learn a methodology that is alien to the organization? Willingness is
one thing; preparedness is another. Assessing client preparedness is a
difficult and sometimes humbling task. If the client is willing but
unprepared, the consultant must assess whether s/he is up to preparing
the client.
Consulting is a tough way to make a living. Consulting with an alien
tool is tougher.
Jim Thompson
jamespthompson@GlobalProspectus.com
the top".
The nature of system dynamics is to be both "cross-functional" and
"vertical". For organizations used to one and not the other, the
methodology seems to over-reach. Inexperienced consultants may say, "so
what?" But this is an important point. After slashing through an
organization and appearing to be critical of its policies and procedures
in various functions, the fact that organizations are still ruled from
the top often leads to criticism of the top management. The methodology
is brought to the organization from the outside through the consultant,
and both can be exfoliated quickly by dismissing the outsider. Staying
within the bounds of "the problem" and not insulting everyone in the
client company are challenges to the consultant.
The nature of consultants is to sell consulting. The biggest buying
power is held by top management. When a system dynamics consulting
project billows, the system dynamics consultant may be tempted to meet
with top management when the original, authorizing client is in middle
management. This "managing up" is infuriating to many middle managers
who spend a large part of their careers trying to catch the notice of
top management. Even when the consultant and authorizing client meet
with top management, the consultant will tend to stand out -- as a
"breath of fresh air", a "clear-thinker", or worse -- "an idiot".
The nature of managers is to keep things running smoothly and solve
problems. A solution path such as system dynamics that disrupts many
areas of an organization hardly keeps things running smoothly. A
solution path that solves a problem may be welcome, however. So, the
client must be carefully prepared to understand the scope and magnitude
of change that _may_ be required as a consequence of problem-solving
with system dynamics. When the consultant places client relationships
on an equal footing with problem-solving, the intervention stands a
better chance of succeeding.
The nature of organizations is to protect itself from becoming
disorganized. No matter what tool is used to solve a problem, the
solution may endure but not the tool or solution path. Consultants,
especially system dynamicists, must decide whether to even expose the
tool at all. There are ways to employ the principles of system dynamics
without the client adopting new jargon, mapping methods and modeling
techniques.
The question the consultant should ask is "what is best for the issues
at hand?" That is, is the client willing and adequately prepared to
learn a methodology that is alien to the organization? Willingness is
one thing; preparedness is another. Assessing client preparedness is a
difficult and sometimes humbling task. If the client is willing but
unprepared, the consultant must assess whether s/he is up to preparing
the client.
Consulting is a tough way to make a living. Consulting with an alien
tool is tougher.
Jim Thompson
jamespthompson@GlobalProspectus.com
-
Tom Conlon
- Newbie
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
Heres one that must have been successfully sold at the top. Does
anyone
know more about the results? Has SD caught on?
As part of a multi-divisional supply chain management reengineering
project
(very successful), all associates (thousands) of Mars (foods and
candies) were required to participate in a half-day Beer Game manual
simulation session. Members of
middle and senior management opened the sessions and lent support.
Reportedly, a good time was had by all. What happened afterward?
Tom
From: Tom Conlon <tconlon@ix.netcom.com>
anyone
know more about the results? Has SD caught on?
As part of a multi-divisional supply chain management reengineering
project
(very successful), all associates (thousands) of Mars (foods and
candies) were required to participate in a half-day Beer Game manual
simulation session. Members of
middle and senior management opened the sessions and lent support.
Reportedly, a good time was had by all. What happened afterward?
Tom
From: Tom Conlon <tconlon@ix.netcom.com>
-
"George Backus"
- Member
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
Bill Harris said:
> I heard Peter Senge talk a couple of years
>ago, and he was saying that their (SoL?) data didnt indicate a strong
>correlation between top management buy-in and survivability of change.
All those involved with Learning Organizations (LO) in SD have done SD a
great service. Because of them, SD now has some credibility, and I
no-longer have to hide the fact from my clients that I use SD. Nonetheless,
I dont believe in Organizational Learning, per se. When a company is in
desperate straits because of changing market conditions, it needs to change.
But once the change is done, there is no longer overwhelming pressure to
continue changing -- until the next crisis. In the absence of a
company-wide crises, the organism goes back to old behaviors.
The "learning organization" mentality alone takes energy. All entities take
the path of least resistance. Normal business pressures already put a big
load on employees. LO is a great idea, but it does not remove the forces
that brought about the modus operandi for most companies. I dont believe
OL or change management can be a sustained practice within a company.
Therefore, I never think of change management or LO in my work. Because top
management sets the problem, they go with what feels most comfortable. The
next levels down then do the job using the tools with which they feel most
comfortable. If that comfort level is with an SD model (the savior of the
past), then it, as the embedded tool of choice, will be used again. (Note
that it is the model/tool and not the methodology that is embedded -- in my
experience.)
There are only forces and counter-forces in the world. When the forces
balance there is no motion; no change. When a force becomes too threatening
to a companys survival, the company attempts a counter response. If an SD
tool is available and it is on the path of least energy expenditure, the
company will use it. Otherwise, it will use other methods (behaviors) --
just like it always has.
G
George Backus, President
Policy Assessment Corporation
14604 West 62nd Place
Arvada, Colorado, USA 80004-3621
Bus: +1-303-467-3566
Fax: +1-303-467-3576
George_Backus@ENERGY2020.com
> I heard Peter Senge talk a couple of years
>ago, and he was saying that their (SoL?) data didnt indicate a strong
>correlation between top management buy-in and survivability of change.
All those involved with Learning Organizations (LO) in SD have done SD a
great service. Because of them, SD now has some credibility, and I
no-longer have to hide the fact from my clients that I use SD. Nonetheless,
I dont believe in Organizational Learning, per se. When a company is in
desperate straits because of changing market conditions, it needs to change.
But once the change is done, there is no longer overwhelming pressure to
continue changing -- until the next crisis. In the absence of a
company-wide crises, the organism goes back to old behaviors.
The "learning organization" mentality alone takes energy. All entities take
the path of least resistance. Normal business pressures already put a big
load on employees. LO is a great idea, but it does not remove the forces
that brought about the modus operandi for most companies. I dont believe
OL or change management can be a sustained practice within a company.
Therefore, I never think of change management or LO in my work. Because top
management sets the problem, they go with what feels most comfortable. The
next levels down then do the job using the tools with which they feel most
comfortable. If that comfort level is with an SD model (the savior of the
past), then it, as the embedded tool of choice, will be used again. (Note
that it is the model/tool and not the methodology that is embedded -- in my
experience.)
There are only forces and counter-forces in the world. When the forces
balance there is no motion; no change. When a force becomes too threatening
to a companys survival, the company attempts a counter response. If an SD
tool is available and it is on the path of least energy expenditure, the
company will use it. Otherwise, it will use other methods (behaviors) --
just like it always has.
G
George Backus, President
Policy Assessment Corporation
14604 West 62nd Place
Arvada, Colorado, USA 80004-3621
Bus: +1-303-467-3566
Fax: +1-303-467-3576
George_Backus@ENERGY2020.com
-
"John W. Gunkler"
- Junior Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
I want to throw in my two cents about what it means to "get the client
involved." In my 15+ years of strategic consulting, one of my more
interesting clients was one of the top three consulting firms in the world.
They, apparently not unlike all of the Big 5 (it was Big 8 then), have a
horrendous problem with client "compliance." That is, they work very hard
with their top (very smart!!) people to come up with solutions to client
companies problems -- and their solutions are often brilliant. Then when
they hand the solutions over to their clients, nothing (or very little)
actually gets implemented.
My reaction upon hearing this was something like, "Duh!" Of course nothing
is implemented because, using their methodology, nobody internal to the
client company "owns" the solution.
But, as Phil Odence and George Backus point out, it is not so simple as
getting someONE to own the solution. There are any number of constituencies
who must feel ownership.
So, how does one do such a thing without making it ones lifes work for
each client? Well, when I read people on this listserv talking about using
the SD model to help get people involved, my first reaction is "Whoa, thats
way too late!!"
We get broad ownership of not just "the solution" but of a common
understanding of the problem situation by creating a "research integration
team" comprising a diagonal slice of influential people from throughout the
organization. [A "diagonal slice" means having representatives from across
organizational departments/units -- thats the horizontal vector -- and from
various levels of management from executives to front-line people -- thats
the vertical vector.]
We dont make a move, at the very beginning of a project, without this
teams understanding and endorsement. And no move we make is made in a
vacuum since the team members are charged to be "representatives" of their
departments and peer groups -- and learn to take very seriously their
responsibility to report to, and get reactions from, their constituencies.
Even when we "know" the answer, we are very careful not to present it to the
team -- but take the time to help them discover it for themselves. And in
the process they sometimes, in fact quite often, come up with better answers
than we "experts" have. So we all learn together.
From: "John W. Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
involved." In my 15+ years of strategic consulting, one of my more
interesting clients was one of the top three consulting firms in the world.
They, apparently not unlike all of the Big 5 (it was Big 8 then), have a
horrendous problem with client "compliance." That is, they work very hard
with their top (very smart!!) people to come up with solutions to client
companies problems -- and their solutions are often brilliant. Then when
they hand the solutions over to their clients, nothing (or very little)
actually gets implemented.
My reaction upon hearing this was something like, "Duh!" Of course nothing
is implemented because, using their methodology, nobody internal to the
client company "owns" the solution.
But, as Phil Odence and George Backus point out, it is not so simple as
getting someONE to own the solution. There are any number of constituencies
who must feel ownership.
So, how does one do such a thing without making it ones lifes work for
each client? Well, when I read people on this listserv talking about using
the SD model to help get people involved, my first reaction is "Whoa, thats
way too late!!"
We get broad ownership of not just "the solution" but of a common
understanding of the problem situation by creating a "research integration
team" comprising a diagonal slice of influential people from throughout the
organization. [A "diagonal slice" means having representatives from across
organizational departments/units -- thats the horizontal vector -- and from
various levels of management from executives to front-line people -- thats
the vertical vector.]
We dont make a move, at the very beginning of a project, without this
teams understanding and endorsement. And no move we make is made in a
vacuum since the team members are charged to be "representatives" of their
departments and peer groups -- and learn to take very seriously their
responsibility to report to, and get reactions from, their constituencies.
Even when we "know" the answer, we are very careful not to present it to the
team -- but take the time to help them discover it for themselves. And in
the process they sometimes, in fact quite often, come up with better answers
than we "experts" have. So we all learn together.
From: "John W. Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
-
"John W. Gunkler"
- Junior Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
I guess this is my third cent:
In 15+ years of helping organizations change I have discovered a couple of
things that seem always to be true:
1. It is middle managers who kill the change. And it makes sense that it
should be so. Change of anything substantial in an organization includes
changes in processes and systems. Middle managers are the "keepers" of
processes and systems. They owe their success/promotions to being better
able to work the existing systems than their cohorts. They tie up their own
sense of self worth with this demonstrated superior ability. So they have
the most to lose when such systems change.
2. Introducing change (that will stick) in an organization is not much like
managing, but is a lot like fomenting a revolution. It is a lot easier to
do with the support and active endorsement of the leader, but it is not
necessary to have it. Successful revolutions can, and often do, start at
the fringes of organizations and cultures. The only thing that makes it
possible to change a culture (even a business culture) is that it doesnt
take a majority to create a revolution. To augment Jim Thompsons comment,
managing the chaos of revolutionary change, without damaging the culture or
getting the revolutionaries killed, is not easy. But if one doesnt manage
the culture, change is at best temporary.
I had one client express this quite well. He told me, "Son, Ive learned
from long experience about people like you and ideas like yours. Youre
like a golden wave -- you sweep inshore with the sun aglitterin off ya
lookin like you was created direct by God himself and everybody regards ya
with awe. But, son, Ive also learned that if I jest stand on the shore,
the wave will wash my feet and then trickle back out to sea and let me get
on with my business as usual."
I believe lifes too short to waste time creating "golden waves."
From: "John W. Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
In 15+ years of helping organizations change I have discovered a couple of
things that seem always to be true:
1. It is middle managers who kill the change. And it makes sense that it
should be so. Change of anything substantial in an organization includes
changes in processes and systems. Middle managers are the "keepers" of
processes and systems. They owe their success/promotions to being better
able to work the existing systems than their cohorts. They tie up their own
sense of self worth with this demonstrated superior ability. So they have
the most to lose when such systems change.
2. Introducing change (that will stick) in an organization is not much like
managing, but is a lot like fomenting a revolution. It is a lot easier to
do with the support and active endorsement of the leader, but it is not
necessary to have it. Successful revolutions can, and often do, start at
the fringes of organizations and cultures. The only thing that makes it
possible to change a culture (even a business culture) is that it doesnt
take a majority to create a revolution. To augment Jim Thompsons comment,
managing the chaos of revolutionary change, without damaging the culture or
getting the revolutionaries killed, is not easy. But if one doesnt manage
the culture, change is at best temporary.
I had one client express this quite well. He told me, "Son, Ive learned
from long experience about people like you and ideas like yours. Youre
like a golden wave -- you sweep inshore with the sun aglitterin off ya
lookin like you was created direct by God himself and everybody regards ya
with awe. But, son, Ive also learned that if I jest stand on the shore,
the wave will wash my feet and then trickle back out to sea and let me get
on with my business as usual."
I believe lifes too short to waste time creating "golden waves."
From: "John W. Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
-
Stephen Downes-Martin
- Junior Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
Message text written by "John W. Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
>So, how does one do such a thing without making it ones lifes work for=
each client?<
Maybe that is the point...one does make it ones lifes work if one wants=
to create significant and *sustainable* value in the client organization.=
Of course, as a consultant the fee must be *worth* a lifes work...which
means *value pricing* based on the value created.
So, how can one service more than a single client? Well, for "lifes work=
"
read "deep, collaborative, long-term, partership relationship". I believe=
the alternative is to sell commodity SD models using a caveat emptor
relationship with the buyers.
This discussion really has little to do *specifically* with SD, it applie=
s
to any form of consulting.
All the best,
Stephen Downes-Martin, Ph.D.
Downes-Martin Associates, LLC
PO Box 1058
Northampton, MA 01061, USA
Tel: 413-582-0183
Fax: 413-586-6765
Internet: dmallc@compuserve.com=
>So, how does one do such a thing without making it ones lifes work for=
each client?<
Maybe that is the point...one does make it ones lifes work if one wants=
to create significant and *sustainable* value in the client organization.=
Of course, as a consultant the fee must be *worth* a lifes work...which
means *value pricing* based on the value created.
So, how can one service more than a single client? Well, for "lifes work=
"
read "deep, collaborative, long-term, partership relationship". I believe=
the alternative is to sell commodity SD models using a caveat emptor
relationship with the buyers.
This discussion really has little to do *specifically* with SD, it applie=
s
to any form of consulting.
All the best,
Stephen Downes-Martin, Ph.D.
Downes-Martin Associates, LLC
PO Box 1058
Northampton, MA 01061, USA
Tel: 413-582-0183
Fax: 413-586-6765
Internet: dmallc@compuserve.com=
-
C Thomas Higgins
- Junior Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
The discussion of ownership in the context of consulting amuses me somewhat
(apologies if this sounds flip). It is easy to test ownership of real
property yet there are volumes of court cases interpreting ownership in this
sense. If you would have tried to discuss real property ownership to the
American Indian prior to the colonization of this country by European and
other societies you would have had a real challenge. As consultants we tend
to whip by the really hard stuff by eluding to our vast experience and
plugging a buzz word (ownership/buy-in) in the problem in order to get to
the good stuff.
The good stuff to us is the skill we have honed as engineers, accountants,
programmers, ... whatever it is we do well. When we see that our great
ideas are not taking root in the organization we may dismiss the effort
because there is no client ownership. We may puzzle for a minute or two
about how to get "ownership", but, I am not sure I have seen a good systemic
analysis of what ownership in this context is. Alternatively, I am not sure
that ownership is the proper conceptual framework. It is perhaps just a
convenient word to plug hole in the discussion of a failed or difficult
consulting engagement. In other words, the engineering, accounting ... was
great - the client just didnt buy into (own) the idea.
So! How do we test ownership or the validity of the concept of ownership in
the context of how well an organization accepts or responds to our advice.
Well! Heres my shot:
Assumptions:
1) Ownership is a concept
2) Concepts are thoughts
3) Thoughts are a system of representations drawn from experience and the
interaction of other thoughts.
4) The system of thought has structures called beliefs.
5) The system of beliefs is a component of concepts and directly impacts the
perceived validity of the concept.
6) The system of concepts forms the meta-concept understanding.
7) All beliefs are assumptions.
What someone believes is represented by their actions not their words.
First-- If the concept of ownership is valid for implementing consulting
engagements -- we must be able to test its validity. Second - That if the
concept of ownership is not valid -- What conceptual framework is valid.
A full discussion of this would be quite detailed and probably not suited
for this list. So Im going to skip over all the hard stuff and jump to a
couple of observations.
First - Ownership as a testable mental concept is quite difficult if not
impossible when dealing with ideas and not tangible property. Treat this as
a query to anyone who may think otherwise.
Second - The system of beliefs is easier to test and can lead to some
observations about what some call ownership. Remember what someone believes
is represented by their actions not their words.
Finally - in response to Dr. Downes-Martins comments I agree with the
general premise of his response on significant and sustainable value being
ones life work. They are directly related to fostering the beliefs that
will drive a clients ownership of good consulting ideas. I do find the
comment that "This discussion really has little to do *specifically* with
SD" is trying to draw a boundary I am not comfortable with. It is from
working at the edges of such ideas that we have some guarantee of growth.
C. Thomas Higgins, CPA
Post Office Box 820
Belfair, WA 98528
Loscann@telebyte.net
(360) 275-5414 Voice
(360) 275-6564 Fax
(apologies if this sounds flip). It is easy to test ownership of real
property yet there are volumes of court cases interpreting ownership in this
sense. If you would have tried to discuss real property ownership to the
American Indian prior to the colonization of this country by European and
other societies you would have had a real challenge. As consultants we tend
to whip by the really hard stuff by eluding to our vast experience and
plugging a buzz word (ownership/buy-in) in the problem in order to get to
the good stuff.
The good stuff to us is the skill we have honed as engineers, accountants,
programmers, ... whatever it is we do well. When we see that our great
ideas are not taking root in the organization we may dismiss the effort
because there is no client ownership. We may puzzle for a minute or two
about how to get "ownership", but, I am not sure I have seen a good systemic
analysis of what ownership in this context is. Alternatively, I am not sure
that ownership is the proper conceptual framework. It is perhaps just a
convenient word to plug hole in the discussion of a failed or difficult
consulting engagement. In other words, the engineering, accounting ... was
great - the client just didnt buy into (own) the idea.
So! How do we test ownership or the validity of the concept of ownership in
the context of how well an organization accepts or responds to our advice.
Well! Heres my shot:
Assumptions:
1) Ownership is a concept
2) Concepts are thoughts
3) Thoughts are a system of representations drawn from experience and the
interaction of other thoughts.
4) The system of thought has structures called beliefs.
5) The system of beliefs is a component of concepts and directly impacts the
perceived validity of the concept.
6) The system of concepts forms the meta-concept understanding.
7) All beliefs are assumptions.
What someone believes is represented by their actions not their words.First-- If the concept of ownership is valid for implementing consulting
engagements -- we must be able to test its validity. Second - That if the
concept of ownership is not valid -- What conceptual framework is valid.
A full discussion of this would be quite detailed and probably not suited
for this list. So Im going to skip over all the hard stuff and jump to a
couple of observations.
First - Ownership as a testable mental concept is quite difficult if not
impossible when dealing with ideas and not tangible property. Treat this as
a query to anyone who may think otherwise.
Second - The system of beliefs is easier to test and can lead to some
observations about what some call ownership. Remember what someone believes
is represented by their actions not their words.
Finally - in response to Dr. Downes-Martins comments I agree with the
general premise of his response on significant and sustainable value being
ones life work. They are directly related to fostering the beliefs that
will drive a clients ownership of good consulting ideas. I do find the
comment that "This discussion really has little to do *specifically* with
SD" is trying to draw a boundary I am not comfortable with. It is from
working at the edges of such ideas that we have some guarantee of growth.
C. Thomas Higgins, CPA
Post Office Box 820
Belfair, WA 98528
Loscann@telebyte.net
(360) 275-5414 Voice
(360) 275-6564 Fax
-
Stephen Downes-Martin
- Junior Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
Thomas Higgins makes some interesting points about ownership.
I have a less sophisticated approach I have found useful. "Ownership"
or "buy in" occurs (is defined by?) when a person in the client organizat=
ion
with the *power* (not necessarlity *authority*) to generate change champi=
ons
your consulting intervention. I define Power as "the ability, capability =
or
capacity to act in ways which influence the behavior of others in directi=
ons
which you desire". If such a person champions your intervention, then I
claim you have as much buy in as you can expect (being an outsider yourse=
lf).
So, how do you get such an individual to champion your intervention?
The level of buy in by the champion (a recursive definition?) is proporti=
onal
to the alignment between the champions personal goals (eg be a hero, get=
promoted, earn the performance bonus, come to the attention of the Board,=
=2E..) and the value gained by the organization from the intervention.
I recommend that SD consultants obtain a deep knowledge of sales process,=
modern management techniques, power and authority, change management, =
human relations, etc if they wish to be succesful at generating sustained=
value for their clients.
All the best,
Stephen
Stephen Downes-Martin, Ph.D.
Downes-Martin Associates, LLC
PO Box 1058
Northampton, MA 01061, USA
Tel: 413-582-0183
Fax: 413-586-6765
Internet: dmallc@compuserve.com=
I have a less sophisticated approach I have found useful. "Ownership"
or "buy in" occurs (is defined by?) when a person in the client organizat=
ion
with the *power* (not necessarlity *authority*) to generate change champi=
ons
your consulting intervention. I define Power as "the ability, capability =
or
capacity to act in ways which influence the behavior of others in directi=
ons
which you desire". If such a person champions your intervention, then I
claim you have as much buy in as you can expect (being an outsider yourse=
lf).
So, how do you get such an individual to champion your intervention?
The level of buy in by the champion (a recursive definition?) is proporti=
onal
to the alignment between the champions personal goals (eg be a hero, get=
promoted, earn the performance bonus, come to the attention of the Board,=
=2E..) and the value gained by the organization from the intervention.
I recommend that SD consultants obtain a deep knowledge of sales process,=
modern management techniques, power and authority, change management, =
human relations, etc if they wish to be succesful at generating sustained=
value for their clients.
All the best,
Stephen
Stephen Downes-Martin, Ph.D.
Downes-Martin Associates, LLC
PO Box 1058
Northampton, MA 01061, USA
Tel: 413-582-0183
Fax: 413-586-6765
Internet: dmallc@compuserve.com=
-
"Marc Abrams"
- Junior Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
>From [ Marc Abrams (980809.1210) ]
Sorry if the heading bothers anyone. I find it useful. The numbers are
the date and time.
C Thomas Higgins (980809.0948) writes:
>As consultants we tend to whip by the really hard stuff by eluding to
our >vast experience and plugging a buzz word (ownership/buy-in) in
the >problem in order to get to the good stuff.
You summed up the problem very succinctly. Said a bit differently, we
tend to ignore or not care about the clients concerns as much as we
are concerned about how we are perceived as "problem solvers" The
"good stuff" is what _you_ are interested in. You expect that the
client has the same concerns you have. First BIG mistake. Companies
dont make decisions. The people in them do. If you treat "ownership"
as a buzzword you dont understand the significance that _each_ person
plays in gaining or losing credability
>The good stuff to us is the skill we have honed as engineers,
>accountants, programmers, ... whatever it is we do well.
The technical skills you speak of, again, are of _secondary_
importance. The really tough part is figuring out _what_ the client
wants and delivering it in a way _the client_ finds meaningful.
>When we see that our great ideas are not taking root in the
organization >we may dismiss the effort because there is no client
ownership. We may >puzzle for a minute or two about how to get
"ownership", but, I am not sure >I have seen a good systemic analysis
of what ownership in this context >is.
Client ownership is not something _you_ can get. People have to _give_
it to you. It is something that must be _earned_ by _your_ ability to
focus in on the concerns of the client and making the satisfaction of
that client your #1 priority. It starts the very first time you meet
your client and hopefully does not end. It _requires_ a commitment on
your part to spend the time and deal with the inevitable frustrations
that will follow.
>Alternatively, I am not sure
>that ownership is the proper conceptual framework. It is perhaps
just a
>convenient word to plug hole in the discussion of a failed or
difficult
>consulting engagement. In other words, the engineering, accounting
... >was great - the client just didnt buy into (own) the idea.
Doesnt matter how "great" your technical skills are. People did not
buy in because you _failed_ to address the primary concerns _they_
had. How do you know the technical aspects were good? Certainly not in
the eyes of the client. Have you ever asked _why_ people are not
"buying" in. Try it.
>So! How do we test ownership or the validity of the concept of
ownership >in the context of how well an organization accepts or
responds to our >advice.
Organizations dont accept advice. The _people_ in them do. They will
"respond" to your advice when _your_ advice matches what they are
interested in hearing. How do you know _what_ they are interested in
hearing? Simple, ask.
>Well! Heres my shot:
>
>Assumptions:
>
>1) Ownership is a concept
>2) Concepts are thoughts
>3) Thoughts are a system of representations drawn from experience and
>the interaction of other thoughts.
>4) The system of thought has structures called beliefs.
>5) The system of beliefs is a component of concepts and directly
impacts >the perceived validity of the concept.
>6) The system of concepts forms the meta-concept understanding.
>7) All beliefs are assumptions.
>8) What someone believes is represented by their actions not their
words.
I dont agree with this list. I also dont believe a discussion about
it on this listserv would be useful. Just one comment. #8, words _are_
actions and I dont believe peoples "actions" ( words included )
always or even sometimes represnt thier beliefs.
>First-- If the concept of ownership is valid for implementing
consulting
>engagements -- we must be able to test its validity. Second - That
if the
>concept of ownership is not valid -- What conceptual framework is
valid.
If you mean by "ownership", That people take responsibilty for being
part of the problem, then it is up to you to show _how_ they are part
of the problem. They also must be part of the solution. What
"conceptual framework" do you refer to?
>A full discussion of this would be quite detailed and probably not
suited
>for this list. So Im going to skip over all the hard stuff and jump
to a
>couple of observations.
>
>First - Ownership as a testable mental concept is quite difficult if
not
>impossible when dealing with ideas and not tangible property. Treat
this >as a query to anyone who may think otherwise.
No, its not, People are part or are not part based on what they do
and who they do it with. Mapping might be helpful in determining the
boundries of an issue. _You_ cannot determine the boundries. Those
boundries _must_ be drawn by the people involved This is usually the
first mistake consultants make in _not_ working toward ownership. That
is, _who_ _defines_ the problem?
>Second - The system of beliefs is easier to test and can lead to some
>observations about what some call ownership. Remember what someone
>believes is represented by their actions not their words.
I dont agree with this.
>Finally - in response to Dr. Downes-Martins comments I agree with
the
>general premise of his response on significant and sustainable value
>being ones life work.
Not if you think "ownership" is a "buzzword".
Marc
From: "Marc Abrams" <msa@panix.com>
Sorry if the heading bothers anyone. I find it useful. The numbers are
the date and time.
C Thomas Higgins (980809.0948) writes:
>As consultants we tend to whip by the really hard stuff by eluding to
our >vast experience and plugging a buzz word (ownership/buy-in) in
the >problem in order to get to the good stuff.
You summed up the problem very succinctly. Said a bit differently, we
tend to ignore or not care about the clients concerns as much as we
are concerned about how we are perceived as "problem solvers" The
"good stuff" is what _you_ are interested in. You expect that the
client has the same concerns you have. First BIG mistake. Companies
dont make decisions. The people in them do. If you treat "ownership"
as a buzzword you dont understand the significance that _each_ person
plays in gaining or losing credability
>The good stuff to us is the skill we have honed as engineers,
>accountants, programmers, ... whatever it is we do well.
The technical skills you speak of, again, are of _secondary_
importance. The really tough part is figuring out _what_ the client
wants and delivering it in a way _the client_ finds meaningful.
>When we see that our great ideas are not taking root in the
organization >we may dismiss the effort because there is no client
ownership. We may >puzzle for a minute or two about how to get
"ownership", but, I am not sure >I have seen a good systemic analysis
of what ownership in this context >is.
Client ownership is not something _you_ can get. People have to _give_
it to you. It is something that must be _earned_ by _your_ ability to
focus in on the concerns of the client and making the satisfaction of
that client your #1 priority. It starts the very first time you meet
your client and hopefully does not end. It _requires_ a commitment on
your part to spend the time and deal with the inevitable frustrations
that will follow.
>Alternatively, I am not sure
>that ownership is the proper conceptual framework. It is perhaps
just a
>convenient word to plug hole in the discussion of a failed or
difficult
>consulting engagement. In other words, the engineering, accounting
... >was great - the client just didnt buy into (own) the idea.
Doesnt matter how "great" your technical skills are. People did not
buy in because you _failed_ to address the primary concerns _they_
had. How do you know the technical aspects were good? Certainly not in
the eyes of the client. Have you ever asked _why_ people are not
"buying" in. Try it.
>So! How do we test ownership or the validity of the concept of
ownership >in the context of how well an organization accepts or
responds to our >advice.
Organizations dont accept advice. The _people_ in them do. They will
"respond" to your advice when _your_ advice matches what they are
interested in hearing. How do you know _what_ they are interested in
hearing? Simple, ask.
>Well! Heres my shot:
>
>Assumptions:
>
>1) Ownership is a concept
>2) Concepts are thoughts
>3) Thoughts are a system of representations drawn from experience and
>the interaction of other thoughts.
>4) The system of thought has structures called beliefs.
>5) The system of beliefs is a component of concepts and directly
impacts >the perceived validity of the concept.
>6) The system of concepts forms the meta-concept understanding.
>7) All beliefs are assumptions.
>8) What someone believes is represented by their actions not their
words.
I dont agree with this list. I also dont believe a discussion about
it on this listserv would be useful. Just one comment. #8, words _are_
actions and I dont believe peoples "actions" ( words included
)always or even sometimes represnt thier beliefs.
>First-- If the concept of ownership is valid for implementing
consulting
>engagements -- we must be able to test its validity. Second - That
if the
>concept of ownership is not valid -- What conceptual framework is
valid.
If you mean by "ownership", That people take responsibilty for being
part of the problem, then it is up to you to show _how_ they are part
of the problem. They also must be part of the solution. What
"conceptual framework" do you refer to?
>A full discussion of this would be quite detailed and probably not
suited
>for this list. So Im going to skip over all the hard stuff and jump
to a
>couple of observations.
>
>First - Ownership as a testable mental concept is quite difficult if
not
>impossible when dealing with ideas and not tangible property. Treat
this >as a query to anyone who may think otherwise.
No, its not, People are part or are not part based on what they do
and who they do it with. Mapping might be helpful in determining the
boundries of an issue. _You_ cannot determine the boundries. Those
boundries _must_ be drawn by the people involved This is usually the
first mistake consultants make in _not_ working toward ownership. That
is, _who_ _defines_ the problem?
>Second - The system of beliefs is easier to test and can lead to some
>observations about what some call ownership. Remember what someone
>believes is represented by their actions not their words.
I dont agree with this.
>Finally - in response to Dr. Downes-Martins comments I agree with
the
>general premise of his response on significant and sustainable value
>being ones life work.
Not if you think "ownership" is a "buzzword".
Marc
From: "Marc Abrams" <msa@panix.com>
-
C Thomas Higgins
- Junior Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
Thanks to Marc and Stephan for their comments. I am not sure how much more
of the "Systems from the top " "Ownership" discussion can have a benefit for
the list. I would like to respond to their comments.
First, I believe that "ownership" in the context of consulting is a "buzz
word". But it doesnt mean that "I dont understand the significance
that_each_person plays in gaining or losing credability" (credibility) as
Marc suggests. "Ownership" is simply too far up the "ladder of inference"
to properly test. Whether it is at the Organizational or Individual level.
We can test the behavior of individuals against their "espoused theory" and
their "theory in use" to infer if they are acting consistent with what they
say they want (On Organizational Learning, Chris Argyris). It is at this
level of behavior, I believe, that the consultant must understand what gives
rise to "ownership".
If we say we believe in "Systems Thinking" and "System Dynamics" (hard or
soft) as a consultant. Then we try to use a concept such as "ownership"
in the delivery of that service without a clear systemic analysis of the
structure of "ownership" within that system. Maybe our system of delivery
of consulting services does not deserve to get "ownership" from the client.
Although I agree with the spirit of what Stephan says about the "champion"
and ownership generally it cant be tested. At least as far as I can figure
out.
Interesting discussion!
Tom...
C. Thomas Higgins, CPA
Post Office Box 820
Belfair, WA 98528
Loscann@telebyte.net
(360) 275-5414 Voice
(360) 275-6564 Fax
of the "Systems from the top " "Ownership" discussion can have a benefit for
the list. I would like to respond to their comments.
First, I believe that "ownership" in the context of consulting is a "buzz
word". But it doesnt mean that "I dont understand the significance
that_each_person plays in gaining or losing credability" (credibility) as
Marc suggests. "Ownership" is simply too far up the "ladder of inference"
to properly test. Whether it is at the Organizational or Individual level.
We can test the behavior of individuals against their "espoused theory" and
their "theory in use" to infer if they are acting consistent with what they
say they want (On Organizational Learning, Chris Argyris). It is at this
level of behavior, I believe, that the consultant must understand what gives
rise to "ownership".
If we say we believe in "Systems Thinking" and "System Dynamics" (hard or
soft) as a consultant. Then we try to use a concept such as "ownership"
in the delivery of that service without a clear systemic analysis of the
structure of "ownership" within that system. Maybe our system of delivery
of consulting services does not deserve to get "ownership" from the client.
Although I agree with the spirit of what Stephan says about the "champion"
and ownership generally it cant be tested. At least as far as I can figure
out.
Interesting discussion!
Tom...
C. Thomas Higgins, CPA
Post Office Box 820
Belfair, WA 98528
Loscann@telebyte.net
(360) 275-5414 Voice
(360) 275-6564 Fax
-
"John W. Gunkler"
- Junior Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Systems from the top?
Since Mr. Higgins seems to be having some fun with my use of the word
"ownership" I feel compelled to respond.
Yes, "ownership" in this context is being used not in the sense of ownership
of real property but in a somewhat metaphorical sense -- albeit one in
ordinary usage. The ownership I refer to is the ownership that derives from
ones belief that one created (or at least participated in creating) the
thing said to be "owned." It is just a different part of speech than in the
sentence, "It is my/our own idea."
Higgins also writes:
>>Ownership as a testable mental concept is quite difficult if not
impossible when dealing with ideas and not tangible property.<<
Surely he cant mean to imply that nothing that isnt "tangible property" is
"testable." There are many tests of whether people hold mental
concepts/ideas or beliefs. None of them may be quite as decisive as the
tests we can do with physical objects, but with care we can produce nearly
as much assurance that such intangibles exist as we can produce to assurance
use that something is really 6 inches long.
Some of the "tests" I use to determine whether my clients feel "ownership"
of ideas include:
a) How they talk about the ideas. Do they tend to use words such as
"my/ours/mine" or "we/I" when discussing the ideas? Do they actually take
credit with others for creating the ideas? Or do they refer to the ideas as
"his/theirs?"
b) How do they respond to questions about the ideas? [This may be in a
formal survey/questionnaire form, or informally in discussion.]
c) Most important: What actions do they take, and say theyre willing to
take, based on the ideas? Do they voluntarily "sell" the ideas to
colleagues? Do they enthusiastically [test this by tone of voice, rapidity
of speech, use of positive words, frequency of the behavior, etc.] talk
about the ideas to others? Do they voluntarily spend their time working on
the ideas or on projects derived from the ideas? Do they enlist others
support for the ideas/projects? Do they defend the ideas when people oppose
them? Do they defend the ideas when people with more organizational
authority oppose them? ...etc., etc.
I hope this gives you a little better idea of what I meant. Yes, I believe
that "ownership" is exactly the right concept for use in making consulting
assignments effective. Further, any consultant who persists on talking
about "my concepts" or "my model" or even "my skills" has misplaced their
duty to the client. I believe that a consultants primary function is to
help clients do and achieve something, not do something to or for them.
As one young man once explained lack of "ownership" to his boss, "Sir, have
you ever washed your rental car?"
From: "John W. Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
"ownership" I feel compelled to respond.
Yes, "ownership" in this context is being used not in the sense of ownership
of real property but in a somewhat metaphorical sense -- albeit one in
ordinary usage. The ownership I refer to is the ownership that derives from
ones belief that one created (or at least participated in creating) the
thing said to be "owned." It is just a different part of speech than in the
sentence, "It is my/our own idea."
Higgins also writes:
>>Ownership as a testable mental concept is quite difficult if not
impossible when dealing with ideas and not tangible property.<<
Surely he cant mean to imply that nothing that isnt "tangible property" is
"testable." There are many tests of whether people hold mental
concepts/ideas or beliefs. None of them may be quite as decisive as the
tests we can do with physical objects, but with care we can produce nearly
as much assurance that such intangibles exist as we can produce to assurance
use that something is really 6 inches long.
Some of the "tests" I use to determine whether my clients feel "ownership"
of ideas include:
a) How they talk about the ideas. Do they tend to use words such as
"my/ours/mine" or "we/I" when discussing the ideas? Do they actually take
credit with others for creating the ideas? Or do they refer to the ideas as
"his/theirs?"
b) How do they respond to questions about the ideas? [This may be in a
formal survey/questionnaire form, or informally in discussion.]
c) Most important: What actions do they take, and say theyre willing to
take, based on the ideas? Do they voluntarily "sell" the ideas to
colleagues? Do they enthusiastically [test this by tone of voice, rapidity
of speech, use of positive words, frequency of the behavior, etc.] talk
about the ideas to others? Do they voluntarily spend their time working on
the ideas or on projects derived from the ideas? Do they enlist others
support for the ideas/projects? Do they defend the ideas when people oppose
them? Do they defend the ideas when people with more organizational
authority oppose them? ...etc., etc.
I hope this gives you a little better idea of what I meant. Yes, I believe
that "ownership" is exactly the right concept for use in making consulting
assignments effective. Further, any consultant who persists on talking
about "my concepts" or "my model" or even "my skills" has misplaced their
duty to the client. I believe that a consultants primary function is to
help clients do and achieve something, not do something to or for them.
As one young man once explained lack of "ownership" to his boss, "Sir, have
you ever washed your rental car?"
From: "John W. Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>