Discussion: View Thread

Andrew,
You are on the right track. In addition to the weekly sessions, however,
have a different kind of session each one or two or three months. In it,
do not talk about progress toward the implementation. Instead, talk about
Lessons Learned and other ways of examining the process that is going on
among the staff. Hopefully their relationships and interaction styles are
changing. At the minimum these will be under stress. Do not try to
address this facet during the weekly meetings and do not let progress
reports creep into the Process Reflection meeting.

On Wed, 4 Mar 1998 , Andrew Smith wrote Do you have a solution (or a part
solution)?
--- snip ---
>1. I warn participants of this deadly problem at the start of the planning
>session.
>2. I secure a preliminary agreement at the start of the session from the
>C.E.O or highest level person participating. The agreement is: "If we are
>able to formulate a business development strategy that you agree is very
>likely to have very high pay-offs and it is broken-down into simple to
>achieve steps, would you agree to support it 100% on a weekly basis"?
>3. I repeat the warning several times during the session.
>4. All throughout the session, I work towards this goal of high pay-offs and
>simple implementation steps.
>5. The last item on the agenda is to get a signed agreement from the C.E.O.
>or highest level person that they will commit to weekly progress reports.
>The agreement states that the progress report will be prepared and
>circulated EVEN IF THERE IS NO PROGRESS TO REPORT.
>6. In some situations, I become part of the project or implementation team.
>I attend the monthly progress meeting. However for a number of reasons, this
>is not practical for a large number of the projects I get going.
>
>This system has made a significant improvement in the implementation
>effectiveness for many organizations, but for some, it is still not enough.
>
>DO YOU HAVE ANY IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTIONS?
>
>Best regards to all, Andrew
>
>-----------------------------------------------------
>Andrew Smith, Managing Director
>Personal Effectiveness Consultants Ltd
>& Accelerated Planning Technique Ltd
>PO Box 33-385 Takapuna, Auckland, New Zealand
>Tel:64-9-486-2879 Fax:64-9-486-5588
>E-mail: Plan@apt.co.nz
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 15:34:55 +0000
>From: Robert Bacal <rbacal@ESCAPE.CA>
>Subject: Re: Do you have a solution (or a part solution)?
>
>On 4 Mar 98 at 9:25, Andrew Smith wrote:
>
>
>> HERE IS THE PROBLEM:
>> Even if the plan has been broken down into simple bite-size pieces, and
>> everyone agrees to fully support it, this same problem is likely to occur.
>> People will not continue to work the plan! Implementation looses impetus.
>> They start in high spirits with lots of enthusiasm, but over the next few
>> months, they are likely to drift off course. Many are easily distracted off
>> a business development path. If a mini or major crises occurs, all attention
>> goes to the crisis event. Then when the crises ebbs, the strategy focus gets
>> diminished. If left unchecked, progress will likely halt.
>
>Andrew, I have prepared two "help cards" on the subject, one is
>called an Integrated Model of Strategic Planning, and the other is
>How To Make Strategic Planning Work.
>
>You can read the cards at our web site (at least partially), at
>http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal under the help card section. The cards
>are in a graphic format and may take some time to load.
>
>
>Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
>Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication,
>and defusing hostility
>at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
>*Site Last Updated On Jan 24, 1998*
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 15:55:49 -0800
>From: "Bernard Liebowitz, PhD" <bernie@LIEBOWITZASSOC.COM>
>Subject: (no subject)
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------678FD185D705C4C76FCB7C8F
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Patrick S.W.Fong wrote:
>
>
>> Recently I am looking into an area (without knowing what specific
>> terms to
>> look for) by examining the situation of taking ideas / concepts from
>> one
>> field and applied to a totally different field. For example, a concept
>> or
>> idea taken from management, business or even industrial engineering
>> and
>> apply to construction management.
>>
>>
>I am not sure what terms would yield the type of information you want,
>but there are several excellent sources
>that reflect a great deal of creativity in metaphorically applying a
>concept from one field to another. The "target" in
>these examples is "organizational structure" since that is my area of
>interest.
>
>Brian Pentland had an article posted on a website (I don't have the
>address nor his current school affiliation) that
>was excellent, a real "out-of-the-box" thinking exercise -- it was
>entitled, "Grammatical Models of Organizational Processes". Another
>fascinating work is a book by Gareth Morgan, "Images of Organizations",
>in which he uses such models as "organism", "brain", "political system",
>"psyche", etc., to ferret out what thinking in these ways about
>organizations might reveal about organizations. Another fascinating book
>is "Organizations as Theatre: A Social Psychology of Dramatic
>Appearances", the title
>being self-explanatory.
>
>A theory of metaphor is outlined in "Metaphors We Live By", co-authored
>by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. This book
>may be of interest to you in that it demonstrates how so much of our
>language is indeed metaphoric. Using this as a stimulant,
>I would suggest that you read virtually any article or book in your
>"target field", select metaphors that are used (frequently
>or not), determine what field of study they come from and apply the
>models in that field to your area of interest. Also, you
>might take any model (e.g., some of the ones mentioned above) and have
>fun applying it to your "target" to see what might
>happen.
>
>--
>Bernard Liebowitz, PhD
>Advisor & Consultant to Business & Management
>980 No. Michigan Ave., Ste. 1400
>Chicago, Il 60611
>tel} 773/334-2003
>fax} 773/334-2004
>email} bernie@liebowitzassoc.com
>http:// www.liebowitzassoc.com
>
>
>--------------678FD185D705C4C76FCB7C8F
>Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Description: Card for Bernard Liebowitz, PhD
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
>
>begin: vcard
>fn: Bernard Liebowitz, PhD
>n: ;Bernard Liebowitz, PhD
>email;internet: bernie@liebowitzassoc.com
>x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
>x-mozilla-html: FALSE
>end: vcard
>
>
>--------------678FD185D705C4C76FCB7C8F--
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 16:14:57 -0600
>From: Mark Michaels <michaels@IPAT.COM>
>Subject: Re: VALUES
>
>Umberto Huberman and Nancy Glance have been doing work at Xerox PARC on
>values re systems, simulating the emergence of values on computer. Two
>references, although one is not complete: About 3 years ago there was an
>article in Scientific American about this. 2nd: "Chaos and Cooperation" in
>Chaos and Society, A. Albert, ed. IOS Press.
>
>You can find additional articles at the XEROX PARC web site.
>
>Mark Michaels
>People Technologies
>michaels@ipat.com
>
>"To move a mountain, start with one pebble at a time."
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dr. Rodolfo E. GutiÈrrez MartÌnez <rodolfo@SERVIDOR.UNAM.MX>
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
>Date: Tuesday, March 03, 1998 1:37 PM
>Subject: [MG-ED-DV] VALUES
>
>
>>Hello, I would like to know if someone can provide me with information
>about
>>research being done in relation to organizational values, based on the
>>General System Theory,
>>thanks
>>rodolfo
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:41:25 -0800
>From: "T.J. Elliott" <tjell@IDT.NET>
>Subject: Re: Do you have a solution (or a part solution)?
>
>Andrew,
>
>I too have had similar experiences. I use search conference methods to develop
>action plans around certain issues. I find that the answer is similar to what
>you are doing: commitment to accountability.
>
>Sometimes there are good reasons why the plan and the people falter; perhaps,
>some aspect of their reality was insufficiently considered. Many times it is
>because the organization or its leadership is skewed towards one aspect of a
>company. They may be very good at setting up the systems and the progress
>reports but they lack the skills to communicate. Or they are great at
>coalescing
>around values but they have a problem with the specific knowledge or attitudes
>that the situation requires. At other times, it's a matter of resources --
>time,
>money, power, equipment -- that gets in the way.
>
>So I ask the question, "what would have this plan fail". I do so in the
>knowledge where possible of what the tendency of that company is. Do they
>try to
>solve everything in one way and neglect the ones that are needed to fulfill a
>plan?
>
>Thanks for starting a very useful thread.
>
>All the best,
>
>Andrew Smith wrote:
>
>> Here is a problem that I suspect affects all organizations and many
>> individuals. If you have some solution ideas, I believe many would welcome
>> your input.
>>
>> THE SITUATION:
>> I teach strategic, business project planning skills. I also facilitate a
>> large number of planning sessions every year. I work with small, medium and
>> large businesses. I also work with a wide range of government and
>> not-for-profit service organizations.
>>
>> HERE IS THE PROBLEM:
>> Even if the plan has been broken down into simple bite-size pieces, and
>> everyone agrees to fully support it, this same problem is likely to occur.
>> People will not continue to work the plan! Implementation looses impetus.
>> They start in high spirits with lots of enthusiasm, but over the next few
>> months, they are likely to drift off course. Many are easily distracted off
>> a business development path. If a mini or major crises occurs, all attention
>> goes to the crisis event. Then when the crises ebbs, the strategy focus gets
>> diminished. If left unchecked, progress will likely halt.
>>
>> HERE IS MY BEST SOLUTION TO DATE:
>> My best solution so far is a collection of simple common-sense steps:
>> 1. I warn participants of this deadly problem at the start of the planning
>> session.
>> 2. I secure a preliminary agreement at the start of the session from the
>> C.E.O or highest level person participating. The agreement is: "If we are
>> able to formulate a business development strategy that you agree is very
>> likely to have very high pay-offs and it is broken-down into simple to
>> achieve steps, would you agree to support it 100% on a weekly basis"?
>> 3. I repeat the warning several times during the session.
>> 4. All throughout the session, I work towards this goal of high pay-offs and
>> simple implementation steps.
>> 5. The last item on the agenda is to get a signed agreement from the C.E.O.
>> or highest level person that they will commit to weekly progress reports.
>> The agreement states that the progress report will be prepared and
>> circulated EVEN IF THERE IS NO PROGRESS TO REPORT.
>> 6. In some situations, I become part of the project or implementation team.
>> I attend the monthly progress meeting. However for a number of reasons, this
>> is not practical for a large number of the projects I get going.
>>
>> This system has made a significant improvement in the implementation
>> effectiveness for many organizations, but for some, it is still not enough.
>>
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTIONS?
>>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 16:51:10 -0600
>From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Dr._Rodolfo_E._Guti=E9rrez_Mart=EDnez=22?="
> <rodolfo@SERVIDOR.UNAM.MX>
>Subject: VALUES
>
>I would like to know if someone can provide me with information about
>research being done in relation to organizational values, based on the
>General System Theory,
>thanks
>rodolfo
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 21:21:15 EST
>From: OrgCoach <OrgCoach@AOL.COM>
>Subject: Cool MBTI Ideas (long)
>
>Thanks to Amy, Julie, Emily, Susie, Sandy, Cathy, John, Joe, Diahn, Alan,
>Susan, Linda, and Dutch for great ideas to add to our like-type exercises
>cadre. These are such fun, I can't decide which one to use (P)! Maybe, like
>Linda, I'll just get a feel for the team and what they're like and trust the
>ideas to come to me (N)!
>
>:::::Virtual hugs to Susie and Linda::::::
>(I don't know the rest of you that well...wouldn't want you to think I'm
>forward...)
>
>Anyway, below is my original request, and all the great responses I received.
>Thanks! I'll let you know what happens!
>
>Andrea, aka INFP
>
>Cross posted to OD Net and Management Development lists. My apologies if
>you receive this twice.
>I am looking to refresh my cadre of like-type MBTI exercises. Any great ideas
>out there? Any web sites I might visit? Right now I use these exercises for
>exploring like types in like-type groups:
>E/I: Planning a recognition event for yourself.
>S/N: Describing an object, like a marker or a lipstick.
>T/F: Deciding who gets to attend a conference in the Caribbean, or other
>great location.
>J/P: Reviewing what you did last weekend.
>I find that the differences are not always clear in the outcomes of these
>exercises, especially in the S/N and T/F exercises. I would appreciate any
>and all ideas you have, especially exercises you have tried and like. I'm in
>design right now for a large, global meeting. I will, of course, gather all
>the replies and send them to the list membership.
>Thanks for your creative ideas!
>
>Andrea
>
>Andrea Sigetich Affiliates
>Organization Coaching for magnificent management and team development
>Personal Coaching for amazing individual results
>OrgCoach@aol.com
>******************************************************************************
>*******************
>>From Amy:
>
>Andrea,
> I'd appreciate if you'd share a summary of responses you receive...
>Here's what I use:
>E/I - Come up with your ideal weekend, in a fishbowl-observation format
>S/N - Describe an object, in a group breakout format. I usually use a piece
>of fruit, or a simple drawing which could be described quite literally, or

Jack Ring
Innovation Management
32712 N. 70th St.
Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
Phone) 602-488-4615
Fax) 602-488-4616
sendmail:jring@amug.org

Andrew,

There are a couple of issues we address with the client �prior to accepting
to help with the planning session� that we have found helpful in heading
off some of the implementation problems you describe.

The first seeks to answer the questions, "why plan?" and "why now?" We ask
this to determine whether there's a "burning platform" driving the desire
to plan, or if the driver is simply what Russell Ackoff (I think) described
as the "ritual rain dance" of planning that happens each year regardless
whether it brings rain or not. We believe that, to create a plan that will
be viewed as relevant and supportable, there must be a compelling business
"driver" for planning.

The second issue seeks to answer the questions, "who needs to be involved,
and how, and when, in order to create a relevant, supportable plan?" We
believe that plans created by senior managers and then "rolled out" to the
organization are seldom viewed as either relevant or supportable by the
broad stakeholder constituency. We encourage leaders to look for ways to
"meaningfully" engage the wider organization in the planning process.

While we're not always successful in changing the nature of the planning
process, we do create an awareness of the choices available and the
potential consequences of those choices.

Regards,

Rod Brazier
Intersol Consulting Associates
rbrazier@intersol.ca
-----------------
On Wed, 4 Mar 1998 , Andrew Smith wrote Do you have a solution (or a part
solution)?
--- snip ---
>1. I warn participants of this deadly problem at the start of the planning
>session.
>2. I secure a preliminary agreement at the start of the session from the
>C.E.O or highest level person participating. The agreement is: "If we are
>able to formulate a business development strategy that you agree is very
>likely to have very high pay-offs and it is broken-down into simple to
>achieve steps, would you agree to support it 100% on a weekly basis"?
>3. I repeat the warning several times during the session.
>4. All throughout the session, I work towards this goal of high pay-offs
and
>simple implementation steps.
>5. The last item on the agenda is to get a signed agreement from the
C.E.O.
>or highest level person that they will commit to weekly progress reports.
>The agreement states that the progress report will be prepared and
>circulated EVEN IF THERE IS NO PROGRESS TO REPORT.
>6. In some situations, I become part of the project or implementation
team.
>I attend the monthly progress meeting. However for a number of reasons,
this
>is not practical for a large number of the projects I get going.
>
>This system has made a significant improvement in the implementation
>effectiveness for many organizations, but for some, it is still not
enough.
>
>DO YOU HAVE ANY IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTIONS?
>
>Best regards to all, Andrew
>
>-----------------------------------------------------
>Andrew Smith, Managing Director
>Personal Effectiveness Consultants Ltd
>& Accelerated Planning Technique Ltd
>PO Box 33-385 Takapuna, Auckland, New Zealand
>Tel:64-9-486-2879 Fax:64-9-486-5588
>E-mail: Plan@apt.co.nz
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 15:34:55 +0000
>From: Robert Bacal <rbacal@ESCAPE.CA>
>Subject: Re: Do you have a solution (or a part solution)?
>
>On 4 Mar 98 at 9:25, Andrew Smith wrote:
>
>
>> HERE IS THE PROBLEM:
>> Even if the plan has been broken down into simple bite-size pieces, and
>> everyone agrees to fully support it, this same problem is likely to
occur.
>> People will not continue to work the plan! Implementation looses
impetus.
>> They start in high spirits with lots of enthusiasm, but over the next
few
>> months, they are likely to drift off course. Many are easily distracted
off
>> a business development path. If a mini or major crises occurs, all
attention
>> goes to the crisis event. Then when the crises ebbs, the strategy focus
gets
>> diminished. If left unchecked, progress will likely halt.
>
>Andrew, I have prepared two "help cards" on the subject, one is
>called an Integrated Model of Strategic Planning, and the other is
>How To Make Strategic Planning Work.
>
>You can read the cards at our web site (at least partially), at
>http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal under the help card section. The cards
>are in a graphic format and may take some time to load.
>
>
>Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
>Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication,
>and defusing hostility
>at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
>*Site Last Updated On Jan 24, 1998*
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 15:55:49 -0800
>From: "Bernard Liebowitz, PhD" <bernie@LIEBOWITZASSOC.COM>
>Subject: (no subject)
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------678FD185D705C4C76FCB7C8F
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Patrick S.W.Fong wrote:
>
>
>> Recently I am looking into an area (without knowing what specific
>> terms to
>> look for) by examining the situation of taking ideas / concepts from
>> one
>> field and applied to a totally different field. For example, a concept
>> or
>> idea taken from management, business or even industrial engineering
>> and
>> apply to construction management.
>>
>>
>I am not sure what terms would yield the type of information you want,
>but there are several excellent sources
>that reflect a great deal of creativity in metaphorically applying a
>concept from one field to another. The "target" in
>these examples is "organizational structure" since that is my area of
>interest.
>
>Brian Pentland had an article posted on a website (I don't have the
>address nor his current school affiliation) that
>was excellent, a real "out-of-the-box" thinking exercise -- it was
>entitled, "Grammatical Models of Organizational Processes". Another
>fascinating work is a book by Gareth Morgan, "Images of Organizations",
>in which he uses such models as "organism", "brain", "political system",
>"psyche", etc., to ferret out what thinking in these ways about
>organizations might reveal about organizations. Another fascinating book
>is "Organizations as Theatre: A Social Psychology of Dramatic
>Appearances", the title
>being self-explanatory.
>
>A theory of metaphor is outlined in "Metaphors We Live By", co-authored
>by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. This book
>may be of interest to you in that it demonstrates how so much of our
>language is indeed metaphoric. Using this as a stimulant,
>I would suggest that you read virtually any article or book in your
>"target field", select metaphors that are used (frequently
>or not), determine what field of study they come from and apply the
>models in that field to your area of interest. Also, you
>might take any model (e.g., some of the ones mentioned above) and have
>fun applying it to your "target" to see what might
>happen.
>
>--
>Bernard Liebowitz, PhD
>Advisor & Consultant to Business & Management
>980 No. Michigan Ave., Ste. 1400
>Chicago, Il 60611
>tel} 773/334-2003
>fax} 773/334-2004
>email} bernie@liebowitzassoc.com
>http:// www.liebowitzassoc.com
>
>
>--------------678FD185D705C4C76FCB7C8F
>Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Description: Card for Bernard Liebowitz, PhD
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
>
>begin: vcard
>fn: Bernard Liebowitz, PhD
>n: ;Bernard Liebowitz, PhD
>email;internet: bernie@liebowitzassoc.com
>x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
>x-mozilla-html: FALSE
>end: vcard
>
>
>--------------678FD185D705C4C76FCB7C8F--
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 16:14:57 -0600
>From: Mark Michaels <michaels@IPAT.COM>
>Subject: Re: VALUES
>
>Umberto Huberman and Nancy Glance have been doing work at Xerox PARC on
>values re systems, simulating the emergence of values on computer. Two
>references, although one is not complete: About 3 years ago there was an
>article in Scientific American about this. 2nd: "Chaos and Cooperation" in
>Chaos and Society, A. Albert, ed. IOS Press.
>
>You can find additional articles at the XEROX PARC web site.
>
>Mark Michaels
>People Technologies
>michaels@ipat.com
>
>"To move a mountain, start with one pebble at a time."
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dr. Rodolfo E. Guti�rrez Mart�nez <rodolfo@SERVIDOR.UNAM.MX>
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
>Date: Tuesday, March 03, 1998 1:37 PM
>Subject: [MG-ED-DV] VALUES
>
>
>>Hello, I would like to know if someone can provide me with information
>about
>>research being done in relation to organizational values, based on the
>>General System Theory,
>>thanks
>>rodolfo
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:41:25 -0800
>From: "T.J. Elliott" <tjell@IDT.NET>
>Subject: Re: Do you have a solution (or a part solution)?
>
>Andrew,
>
>I too have had similar experiences. I use search conference methods to
develop
>action plans around certain issues. I find that the answer is similar to
what
>you are doing: commitment to accountability.
>
>Sometimes there are good reasons why the plan and the people falter;
perhaps,
>some aspect of their reality was insufficiently considered. Many times it
is
>because the organization or its leadership is skewed towards one aspect of
a
>company. They may be very good at setting up the systems and the progress
>reports but they lack the skills to communicate. Or they are great at
>coalescing
>around values but they have a problem with the specific knowledge or
attitudes
>that the situation requires. At other times, it's a matter of resources --
>time,
>money, power, equipment -- that gets in the way.
>
>So I ask the question, "what would have this plan fail". I do so in the
>knowledge where possible of what the tendency of that company is. Do they
>try to
>solve everything in one way and neglect the ones that are needed to
fulfill a
>plan?
>
>Thanks for starting a very useful thread.
>
>All the best,
>
>Andrew Smith wrote:
>
>> Here is a problem that I suspect affects all organizations and many
>> individuals. If you have some solution ideas, I believe many would
welcome
>> your input.
>>
>> THE SITUATION:
>> I teach strategic, business project planning skills. I also facilitate a
>> large number of planning sessions every year. I work with small, medium
and
>> large businesses. I also work with a wide range of government and
>> not-for-profit service organizations.
>>
>> HERE IS THE PROBLEM:
>> Even if the plan has been broken down into simple bite-size pieces, and
>> everyone agrees to fully support it, this same problem is likely to
occur.
>> People will not continue to work the plan! Implementation looses
impetus.
>> They start in high spirits with lots of enthusiasm, but over the next
few
>> months, they are likely to drift off course. Many are easily distracted
off
>> a business development path. If a mini or major crises occurs, all
attention
>> goes to the crisis event. Then when the crises ebbs, the strategy focus
gets
>> diminished. If left unchecked, progress will likely halt.
>>
>> HERE IS MY BEST SOLUTION TO DATE:
>> My best solution so far is a collection of simple common-sense steps:
>> 1. I warn participants of this deadly problem at the start of the
planning
>> session.
>> 2. I secure a preliminary agreement at the start of the session from the
>> C.E.O or highest level person participating. The agreement is: "If we
are
>> able to formulate a business development strategy that you agree is very
>> likely to have very high pay-offs and it is broken-down into simple to
>> achieve steps, would you agree to support it 100% on a weekly basis"?
>> 3. I repeat the warning several times during the session.
>> 4. All throughout the session, I work towards this goal of high pay-offs
and
>> simple implementation steps.
>> 5. The last item on the agenda is to get a signed agreement from the
C.E.O.
>> or highest level person that they will commit to weekly progress
reports.
>> The agreement states that the progress report will be prepared and
>> circulated EVEN IF THERE IS NO PROGRESS TO REPORT.
>> 6. In some situations, I become part of the project or implementation
team.
>> I attend the monthly progress meeting. However for a number of reasons,
this
>> is not practical for a large number of the projects I get going.
>>
>> This system has made a significant improvement in the implementation
>> effectiveness for many organizations, but for some, it is still not
enough.
>>
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTIONS?
>>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 16:51:10 -0600
>From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Dr._Rodolfo_E._Guti=E9rrez_Mart=EDnez=22?="
> <rodolfo@SERVIDOR.UNAM.MX>
>Subject: VALUES
>
>I would like to know if someone can provide me with information about
>research being done in relation to organizational values, based on the
>General System Theory,
>thanks
>rodolfo
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 21:21:15 EST
>From: OrgCoach <OrgCoach@AOL.COM>
>Subject: Cool MBTI Ideas (long)
>
>Thanks to Amy, Julie, Emily, Susie, Sandy, Cathy, John, Joe, Diahn, Alan,
>Susan, Linda, and Dutch for great ideas to add to our like-type exercises
>cadre. These are such fun, I can't decide which one to use (P)! Maybe,
like
>Linda, I'll just get a feel for the team and what they're like and trust
the
>ideas to come to me (N)!
>
>:::::Virtual hugs to Susie and Linda::::::
>(I don't know the rest of you that well...wouldn't want you to think I'm
>forward...)
>
>Anyway, below is my original request, and all the great responses I
received.
>Thanks! I'll let you know what happens!
>
>Andrea, aka INFP
>
>Cross posted to OD Net and Management Development lists. My apologies if
>you receive this twice.
>I am looking to refresh my cadre of like-type MBTI exercises. Any great
ideas
>out there? Any web sites I might visit? Right now I use these exercises
for
>exploring like types in like-type groups:
>E/I: Planning a recognition event for yourself.
>S/N: Describing an object, like a marker or a lipstick.
>T/F: Deciding who gets to attend a conference in the Caribbean, or
other
>great location.
>J/P: Reviewing what you did last weekend.
>I find that the differences are not always clear in the outcomes of these
>exercises, especially in the S/N and T/F exercises. I would appreciate
any
>and all ideas you have, especially exercises you have tried and like. I'm
in
>design right now for a large, global meeting. I will, of course, gather
all
>the replies and send them to the list membership.
>Thanks for your creative ideas!
>
>Andrea
>
>Andrea Sigetich Affiliates
>Organization Coaching for magnificent management and team development
>Personal Coaching for amazing individual results
>OrgCoach@aol.com
>***************************************************************************
***
>*******************
>>From Amy:
>
>Andrea,
> I'd appreciate if you'd share a summary of responses you receive...
>Here's what I use:
>E/I - Come up with your ideal weekend, in a fishbowl-observation format
>S/N - Describe an object, in a group breakout format. I usually use a
piece
>of fruit, or a simple drawing which could be described quite literally, or

Jack Ring
Innovation Management
32712 N. 70th St.
Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
Phone) 602-488-4615
Fax) 602-488-4616
sendmail:jring@amug.org

Phillip,

Our experience has been that it's not how the plan is written (i.e. what's
in it, and the way it's expressed) that's most important, but rather how,
and by whom, the content of the plan has been shaped.

In a top-down approach to planning (which often reflects a more general
patriarchal management style) gaining broader support for the plan (if it
is deemed important) is usually considered to be a "communications"
exercise. In this scenario, the words used to write and speak about the
plan are important, because they're basically all there is to garner
employee understanding and support.

These days, the complexity and rate of change of the business environment,
of organizations themselves, AND in the needs and expectations of the
people renders the top-down approach largely untenable, in terms of both
"quality of plan" and stakeholder support.

The discussion we are having with many senior leaders these days is often
around how to involve a broader stakeholder constituency in organizational
decision making (including planning) while retaining some manner of leader
control. To make this happen, we are increasingly making use of large/whole
scale change processes.

Regards,

Rod Brazier
Intersol Consulting Associates
Ottawa, Ontario. Canada
rbrazier@intersol.ca
"shaping successful futures....together"
----------
> From: Phillip Rutherford <robnphil@OZEMAIL.COM.AU>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Solutions
> Date: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 3:47 AM
>
> It's just a thought but wouldn't the planning process go much smoother if
people were taught how to write plans that others could commit too?
>
> I agree that writing a plan simply because its time to do so is a waste
of both the time and the person writing the plan, so why do it? We see so
often that good plans are written but the only one committed to it is the
person who wrote it - and even then that's not a given. So, how about
looking a little closer at the way the plan is written, who it is written
for, and how to write the darn thing so that they can understand it,
realise its importance, and subscribe and commit to it?
>
> Like I said, just a thought.
>
> Phil Rutherford
> P D Rutherford & Associates Pty Ltd
> Competency-based systems specialists
> 0011 61 2 6230 4823
> robnphil@ozemail.com.au
>

It's just a thought but wouldn't the planning process go much smoother if people were taught how to write plans that others could commit too?

I agree that writing a plan simply because its time to do so is a waste of both the time and the person writing the plan, so why do it? We see so often that good plans are written but the only one committed to it is the person who wrote it - and even then that's not a given. So, how about looking a little closer at the way the plan is written, who it is written for, and how to write the darn thing so that they can understand it, realise its importance, and subscribe and commit to it?

Like I said, just a thought.

Phil Rutherford
P D Rutherford & Associates Pty Ltd
Competency-based systems specialists
0011 61 2 6230 4823
robnphil@ozemail.com.au

The process of writing a plan at scheduled intervals is not necessarily a
waste of time. Ancient Chinese wisdom tells us that "We make plans to
throw them away" and more recently Eisenhower observed that "Plans are
nothing; planning is everything." The plan provides a road map and it's
only as good as the assumptions made when thinking about it and writing it.
Assuming that people aren't "committed" to a plan just because of how it's
written is probably a stretch. Could a plan be written that a person
"could commit to" without knowing more about that person and what drives
that person or causes him/her to make commitments? I think the solution is
to focus more on planning as a process and less on the plan itself.

Larry E. Pate
University of Wisconsin-Madison


At 08:47 AM 3/10/98, you wrote:
>It's just a thought but wouldn't the planning process go much smoother if
people were taught how to write plans that others could commit too?
>
>I agree that writing a plan simply because its time to do so is a waste of
both the time and the person writing the plan, so why do it? We see so
often that good plans are written but the only one committed to it is the
person who wrote it - and even then that's not a given. So, how about
looking a little closer at the way the plan is written, who it is written
for, and how to write the darn thing so that they can understand it,
realise its importance, and subscribe and commit to it?
>
>Like I said, just a thought.
>
>Phil Rutherford
>P D Rutherford & Associates Pty Ltd
>Competency-based systems specialists
>0011 61 2 6230 4823
>robnphil@ozemail.com.au
>

I would agree with Larry that "the solution is to focus more on planning as
a process and less on the plan itself." I also believe that the value in
such an approach depends on the QUALITY of the process. Was it Einstein who
said something like, "if you do what you've always done, you will get what
you've always gotten."

In designing a "good" planning process (defined generally as one which
creates broadly shared meaning of, and commitment to "right" things), we
have found two questions (which we learned from Kathie Dannemiller)
invaluable:

"Who needs to be in the room?"
"What do they need to be talking about?"

One of my favorite reads in the past few years has been Margaret Wheatley's
"A Simpler Way" which, in my view, is chock full of valuable insights for
those who view planning as a way to "control" organizations. One of these,
based on the premise that organizations are "living systems" with an
inherent capacity for �and drive to� "self-create" and "self organize" is

"we can never direct a living system. We can only disturb it."

This idea, combined with two others (from the same source),
"self-organization always takes shape around an identity," and,
"Life co-evolves. There are no separated individuals,"

suggests that the "process" of planning, in order to foster "healthy"
organization should...
(a) somehow include all those whose wisdom and support are needed for
success, and
(b) focus first and foremost on building shared "identity," which, in
Wheatley's view, includes dimensions such as, purpose, history, values,
core beliefs, competencies, principles, and mission.

Rod Brazier,
Intersol Consulting Associates
Ottawa, Ont. Canada
rbrazier@intersol.ca
"shaping successful futures....together!

----------
> From: Larry Pate <lpate@BUS.WISC.EDU>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Solutions
> Date: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 9:28 AM
>
> The process of writing a plan at scheduled intervals is not necessarily a
> waste of time. Ancient Chinese wisdom tells us that "We make plans to
> throw them away" and more recently Eisenhower observed that "Plans are
> nothing; planning is everything." The plan provides a road map and it's
> only as good as the assumptions made when thinking about it and writing
it.
> Assuming that people aren't "committed" to a plan just because of how
it's
> written is probably a stretch. Could a plan be written that a person
> "could commit to" without knowing more about that person and what drives
> that person or causes him/her to make commitments? I think the solution
is
> to focus more on planning as a process and less on the plan itself.
>
> Larry E. Pate
> University of Wisconsin-Madison

I agree with you up to a point: Aside from the brilliant plan that everyone loves and will follow to the ends of time, there are generally two classes of plans - the brilliant plans that no-one can subscribe to and therefore don't follow, and the rubbish plans that are picked up by a good team who run with them even though they have to make many changes as they go along. (And in doing so make the planner look good.)

Now, your point that "Could a plan be written that a person
"could commit to" without knowing more about that person and what drives
that person or causes him/her to make commitments?" sums up the major problem people have in writing plans - they don't know the people for whom the plan is written. I do a lot of work in consulting in project management training and education and am linking up with some of the best brains in the world in both the practice and the theory of planning, and all of them say the same thing: Unless the planner can tap into the skills, knowledge and needs of the people who are expected to make the plan work, then there is hardly a point in writing the plan in the first place.

It's a little like giving somebody a road map but not bothering to ask whether or not they can drive or even make their own way from where they are to where they want to be - or even if they want to go in the first place.

So, to answer the question, no it can't - and that is the whole problem.

Planning for planning's sake is simply wasting time. How many plans are written behind closed doors and then thrown like a paper plane into the waiting throng with the expectancy that everyone will laugh and applaud at this offering from the Gods? How many plans are written and then not even shared with those who are expected to do everything to make them come into fruition? Too many. But still it goes on.

My father spent over 12 years in the navy, including 6 years in WW2. He once said that he never saw a ship win a battle - it was always the crew on board the ship that won the fight. The ship was only the platform they used to take the fight up to the enemy and then defeat him.

In planning terms, the ship is the plan and the crew is the people expected to put the plan into reality. The plan takes the people from where they are, along the road to their objective, and it is the people who do whatever is expected of them to produce the desired outcome.

Without a good crew, comfortable with what the ship offers them (in terms of tools to carry out their job, safety for self and others, comfortable working conditions, security and reward throughout) and dedicated to the protection of the ship and its reputation, then the ship is nothing but a funny shaped island. Somewhere for seagulls to rest while heading off to somewhere else. Similarly, if the plan can't offer these things - and more depending on who the crew is - then it won't be followed. It too will end up just a good idea at the time.

The bottom line is that planning is more than just writing a plan. It is identifying all of the key stakeholders and drawing from them their needs in regard to how they see their part in the plan. It is also drawing from them their needs in regard to what the plan can offer them so that the plan can motivate them and they can motivate themselves to achieve its outcomes.

I'm starting to sound like a preacher so I'll stop there. I think that the proof of what I'm saying is in a close analysis of plans that work and those that don't.

PHIL
P D Rutherford & Associates Pty Ltd
Competency-based systems specialists
0011 61 2 6230 4823
robnphil@ozemail.com.au



The process of writing a plan at scheduled intervals is not necessarily a
waste of time. Ancient Chinese wisdom tells us that "We make plans to
throw them away" and more recently Eisenhower observed that "Plans are
nothing; planning is everything." The plan provides a road map and it's
only as good as the assumptions made when thinking about it and writing it.
Assuming that people aren't "committed" to a plan just because of how it's
written is probably a stretch. Could a plan be written that a person
"could commit to" without knowing more about that person and what drives
that person or causes him/her to make commitments? I think the solution is
to focus more on planning as a process and less on the plan itself.

Larry E. Pate
University of Wisconsin-Madison



>

Jack Ring wrote:
<<You are on the right track. In addition to the weekly sessions, however,
have a different kind of session each one or two or three months. In it,
do not talk about progress toward the implementation. Instead, talk about
Lessons Learned and other ways of examining the process that is going on
among the staff. Hopefully their relationships and interaction styles are
changing. At the minimum these will be under stress. Do not try to
address this facet during the weekly meetings and do not let progress
reports creep into the Process Reflection meeting.
>>

An interesting observation. This is what in Systematic Innovations is
called
the approach of checking the innovation process itself. Observing and
correcting the innovation operation itself, the process from definition to
implementation and testing. That is where you catch errors, efficiency
problems, misunderstandings, etc. WHAT are we actually doing here?
Challenging for error research and efficiency improvement of the innovation

process itself may provide the incentive to actually do it, instead of
brushing it off.

Emil Zahner
Innovation coach
Morphological Institute Canada
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/index19.htm