Toward a Diagnostic for Process Design

We've all been there: a carefully orchestrated change process is suddenly steered into another direction in the interest of "more action and less talk." Having embarked on an engagement designed to use Appreciative Inquiry and completing a first Discovery session, the decision was made that there would be no topical interviews and a revised schedule had no Dream phase. What happened?

Two things come to mind for future improvement: being more circumspect about taking "yes" for an answer, and becoming much more rigorous about jointly developing an agreed-upon change agenda. In this particular incident, AI was warmly viewed as an excellent tool for the issues at hand; however, it's possible that the AI solution was on the table before the task was fully analyzed. For instance, my assumption was that the change agenda had been previously determined as bringing Change, Progress and Renewal to the issue at hand. It was much later that I finally realized the intended message: the issue needs CPR. This is not the positive orientation upon which AI builds its success, and it seems to be a contributor to how things ran off the track.

The revised approach for this project will move more immediately into specific content and analysis; again, a pressure that many clients face for varying reasons. The choice that has to be made is around the value of a "deeper dive" that creates the capacity for fundamental change. For instance, we know that if new thinking doesn't permeate our conversations, our images don't change and therefore neither will our practices. We know from the Anticipatory Principle that there is huge potential in moving toward what we value as opposed to away from what we dislike. It can also be shown that the creation of images of ideal outcomes reveals alignment in group thinking; recent brain research shows higher levels of creativity in such positive atmospheres as opposed to the usual orientation of problem elimination.

A pattern that appears in a large body of work is that of a distinct "turn" in collective thinking under certain circumstances. Thomas Kuhn described it as the result of sufficient dissonance; Arthur M. Young showed it as a 90-degree turn, such that the new direction is equally different from its original destination and its source; Drexler and Sibbet described it as a point of commitment, Scharmer as the opening of will, Block as the point at which "the answer to How? is Yes!" Mapping these will often show a "u" or "v" shape, with various levels along the vertical dimension, and to these levels can be added those of the iceberg used in systems thinking.

The horizontal dimension can be described as moving from intention to action, as shown in the Enneagram work by G.I. Gurdjieff among others. So what's wrong with focusing on that direction? It's certainly how our day-to-day pressures present themselves. It's OK sometimes, but when? That's where a careful diagnosis of a situation merits as much attention as the process design itself.

So where might one begin? At a fundamental level, Heifetz's Leadership Without Easy Answers offers a starting point. In describing when to use technical versus adaptive practices, he suggests we consider the extent to which the challenge is well-defined and the likely solution already known. Similarly, Carlson and Bailey describe the use of the processing mode of thinking for when the variables are known, but the application of the flow mode for when they aren't. A diagnostic tool that allowed a designer to chart a client's situation among such markers would be invaluable.

Additional resources can be found in the literature on various approaches. For instance, on the AI Commons can be found advice on when NOT to use AI: predictable, linear process and outcomes are required; problem-identification/problem-solving is the preferred method for change; there is lack of support for passionate dreaming and inspired self-initiative.

The Creative Problem Solving Process may be a place to start with the development of such a diagnostic tool. In what ways might we use that process to design process?

CPSI #55

The 55^th running of the Creative Problem Solving Institute was held this past week in Danvers, MA. It's the oldest conference most of us know of, sustained annually by the high energy that participants bring as well as their commitment to the sponsor, the Creative Education Foundation.

We heard Sarah Miller Caldicott talk about Thomas Edison, his charismatic optimism and his use of the analogical thinking that the human brain really enjoys. Claude Stein reflected on the Essence of Leadership: identifying a message, finding true heart and then convincing and persuading others. Dean Kamen distinguished invention, which is usually about technology, from innovation which is usually about people. He also had the best one-liner for the week: the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits. Keith Sawyer told us about the creative power of collaboration, using improv theatre as an example of how it's not so much the individuals as the interactions between them. His experience suggests that everyone can be creative, and that creativity always emerges over time and always involves sharing and collaboration.

For the week I attended the Tools and Techniques component of the Facilitating Creative Leadership track. Our large and revved-up group learned about the work of Guy Aznar; his flow from concept to image and then to sensation is one I'll explore further in the context of Theory U, Arthur M. Young and systems thinking's iceberg. Especially cool tools were the Ladder of Abstraction, How-How and the Problem Police.

As usual, I captured what I could in my journal from day to day. To some extent it was hit and miss because we were rarely allowed to just for long periods of time without getting up and doing something. Many kind people commented on what I was doing, expressed curiosity about it and asked if they could take a look at week's end. For them, the pages are reproduced here through Picasa.

NACUFS Meets Idealized Design

Last week I conducted the Planning Institute for the National Association of College and University Food Service (NACUFS), one of an impressive array of offerings they have for their members. Originally scripted with NACUFS as well as the Society for College & University Planning and conducted in 2007, the workshop uses Russell Ackoff's Idealized Design as a platform for learning about issues in planning.

Part of our rationale in choosing this model was based on the assumption that food service operators should be able to quickly grasp the systems analysis with which the process begins. In 2007 we actually struggled with this piece moreso than any others, so a redesign was in store this time around. Here, we mixed very simple approaches with modest requirements for results, and when this was coupled with the extraordinary work effort that NACUFS members bring to these events the results were incredible. Dubious at first, they all saw their sticky notes transition from chaos to order.

One of the struggles I currently have with this particular approach is that it begins with a deficit orientation; in fact, most of the training I've had so far in systems thinking emphasizes problem-seeking. Rather than just sell Ackoff short, attention was called to that issue as they were asked to reflect on how heavy the atmosphere was as we "designed the mess." We also asked for their own experiences in dealing with positively focused issues as opposed to the usual negative orientation.

They toughed through relatively mindfully, and continued their solid work. The mission statements they developed were as good if not better than most I've seen in the "real world," and they produced them with a minimum of wordsmithing. As they discovered the need for collaboration among groups, they began with a few representatives at first, and eventually entire teams were pairing up to work through issues. The systems thinking approach apparently helped them, as their proposals and solutions clearly had an eye on the total campus context, and not just dining.

We introduced them to a variety of tools. A trends analysis was done by assembling and analyzing a large collage made from magazine clippings. We used Creative Problem-Solving as a reference for careful sequencing of the work, and then added some fast brainwriting to quickly seed idea sessions. CCL's Visual Explorer was used with one group to write the story of "the mess," and with another to help start the Idealized Design. Rather than use the traditional gap analysis to move from Idealized Design to Means Planning, we borrowed from Appreciative Inquiry and helped them collaboratively write Provocative Propositions.

It's often the case after an event like this that we go home full of excitement, but then it passes in the face of the next week's demands. To confront this head-on, we designed a set of reflective questions, based in concept on the Dream stage in AI but blended with Idealized Design, and asked them to work in pairs to write and share a story about what the next year would be like for each of them. Some of the thoughts we heard were:

• The quote I'll remember: It's easier to tame down a wild idea than to wild up a tame one;
  
• The provocative propositions work was really nice. We NEVER write down these things;
  
• I have a great team! I can do this! Let's think bigger!
  
• Sometimes a peak experience begins with a setback;
  
• We're all in this together;
  
• I can start my own story now;
  
• A cookie cutter approach is not what we did this week. Thank you, Bruce!