Tag Archives: complexity

Florence Nightingale; the mother of Infographics? (btw she was also a nurse……)

Posted on by
13

20130127-152835.jpgThis week I’ve had a few interesting conversations following this exchange: Question, “What did Florence Nightingale do? ” Typical response, “She was a Nurse……(of course!)“.  But….. “did you know she was also a mathematician and in the 1850′s produced a remarkable graphic showing the causes of death of hospitalised soldiers during the Crimean war.  The graphic convinced Parliament to improve sanitary conditions, which lead to a huge decline in mortality in many areas. She was probably the mother of modern Infographics…..”

I got involved in a project to develop better ways of communicating numerical information several years ago which we called ‘graphical presentation of data’. I don’t think the word Infographic had been invented back then, so it’s nice to have something new and groovy to describe what we were up to. An associate at the time was very concerned about the potential for the manipulation of data and its misrepresentation using graphics to “tell the story you want“. We never really made much progress and I think that some of the concerns that troubled us are still evident. Some infographics I’ve seen are a biased, inaccurate, unethical or just badly put together.  If you want a useful (and entertaining) description of good and bad infographics have a look at halfblog.net and the campaign against crap infographics (more links at the end of the post).

20130127-152849.jpg

Back to Florence Nightingale. In the 1850′s she developed this graphic which was a circular histogram that she called a ‘Coxcomb’. The purpose was to illustrate the number and, more importantly, the different causes of deaths soldiers suffered during the Crimean War. The graphic illustrates difference between;

  • Red – deaths caused by wounds,
  • Black – deaths from other causes, and
  • Blue – deaths caused by diseases.

It’s clear from the Coxcomb graphic that far more soldiers died from preventable diseases than from their battle wounds.  The result was action to improve sanitary conditions which led to greatly reduced numbers of deaths.  This article by Understanding Uncertainty provides a detailed explanation and helpful animation of the graphic.

The significance for me is that Florence Nightingale was able to communicate a very important issue through the graphical presentation of hard evidence; the data. It has been suggested that this approach enabled Politicians and Civil Servants to understand the issue and take action. They would have apparently struggled to understand if the data had been presented in the format of tables or other statistical reports used at the time. Clear presentation which enabled understanding was the key to the success of Florence Nightingales’ Coxcomb. It is worth remembering that this was created over 160 years ago, and today the 1857 Coxcomb still sets a standard that many modern infographics could aspire to. Florence Nightingale could in my view claim to be the mother of modern infographics

One last observation. Writing this post was partly prompted by reading this blog post  from Ayrshire Health, and a very brief twitter conversation with Derek Barron (@dtbarron) about nursing research.  The gist was around how some research is presented in a very academic way that can obscure understanding. That got me thinking about Florence Nightingale again, thanks Derek.

I’m not aware of how much the mathematical research and data presentation capabilities of Florence Nightingale feature in modern nurse research and communication training. In my view you’ve got a very helpful role model.

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. The graphical presentation of data (aka infographics) has been around for long time.
  2. It is an effective and quick method of clearly communicating complicated information, and can have a huge impact.
  3. Like any method of communicating there are good, bad and terrible examples of infographics and how to use them. Be careful how you use a powerful tool.

Photo Sources: Florence Nightingale picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Florence_Nightingale_CDV_by_H_Lenthall.jpg

Coxcomb Graphic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nightingale-mortality.jpg

Useful Links: mostly from halfbog.net

Good Examples. http://halfblog.net/2013/01/22/infographics-of-xkcd/

Not so good. http://halfblog.net/tag/crap-infographics/

I had to end this with a link to an Infographic. Here is the latest from Mashable showing the rise in Infographics: http://mashable.com/2013/01/26/infographics-marketing/

Agile Project Management and a Naval Bombardment in Newport, South Wales

Posted on by
2

20121202-193420.jpgThis is actually about the game Battleships and not some sinister plot (probably by Cardiffians) to obliterate Newport in a naval bombardment.

Last week I went to Newport to learn about agile project management from James Scrimshire of hurricanefour.com and got involved in a game of Battleships. It was at a Port80 event organised by all round good guy (and web strategy gun-slinger) Joel Hughes. The methodology for what we did can be found here on James’ site, and here is a link to James’ slides. This is what I took from a very illuminating exercise, thanks James and Joel.

The idea behind the exercise is to demonstrate that when you are delivering a large complex project, small cycles where you repeatedly; plan act and review are far more effective than a single ‘big bang’ approach. I found the phrase ‘waterfall’ used to describe the project management approach of designing and specifying everything at the beginning of the project and then delivering it all together a useful analogy. This was a big contrast to the agile approach where there are repeated cycles of planning, taking action, reviewing and moving into the next phase of action based upon the feedback you have gathered. It’s similar to the Plan, Do, Check, Act cycle used in continuous improvement methods.

If you’ve never played the original game of battleships read the instructions here. This is how the battleships exercise with James worked:

  • Both players placed their ships in secret as required.
  • Player A then launched all of their bombs in one go. There is no feedback between bombs.
  • Player B then launches their bombs. Following each bomb they are given feedback, “was it a hit or a miss?”
  • The game ends when Player B has sunk all of Player A’s ships or run out of bombs.
  • The result? Player B scores more than Player A, because they have more effectively targeted their bombs based on the multiple feedback cycles. It was certainly the case when the results were taken across the approximately 20 pairs of players in the room.

Playing the battleships game it became obvious that the process of pausing, getting feedback and planning the next bomb position in response to the information was far more effective than the single ‘50 bombs in one go’ approach. Playing battleships this way is a very useful practical exercise to demonstrate the difference between the agile and waterfall approaches to project management.

The big question that remains is do we actually recognise this in real life? I don’t think I would have to look very far to find a few complicated projects that are sticking to the ‘waterfall’ approach, tightly specifying everything up front and rigidly sticking to the plan. I have written about something similar previously where I mentioned safe to fail pilots and Trojan Mice. Recognising that the world is a complex and unpredictable was at the heart of what James spoke about, and the title of the presentation, ‘Welcome to Uncertainty’. Unfortunately in lots of cases simplistic and highly rigid project management approaches are applied inappropriately.

James and I did speak about complexity and project management and the Cynefin Framework came up. By sheer coincidence I’d listened to Dave Snowden speak about Cynefin the day before at this seminar in Cardiff.. Dave mentioned that Cynefin has been highlighted by Gartners who said that “By 2016, the Cynefin framework will be used in 10% of IT operations organizations as a sensemaking methodology.” Good news and something to chat more about over a game of battleships.

So, what’s the PONT?

  • No battle plan survives the first engagement with the enemy. The same is true of project plans so why stick with a rigid out of date plan?
  • Utilising rapid feedback loops to plan, act, sense and respond is an effective way of getting a better result.
  • This version of battleships was very useful at illustrating the advantages of taking an agile approach to project management.

 

20121205-201743.jpgNot what I was expecting from a search of ‘cats playing battleships’. Helen Reynolds, Cat Picture Consultant tells me its OK though. Picture source:

http://coverslike.com/cat_vs_battleship-facebook-cover-photos.html

Is Best Practice the Enemy of Innovation?

Posted on by
17

Here’s a confession. Before I go to bed I like to watch an episode of How It’s Made.

There is something very soothing about manufacturing processes. The logical sequence, efficient systems, robotic arms, complete repeatability, high levels of certainty and quality products are like a comfort blanket before I go to sleep.

Unfortunately the world I wake up to isn’t quite like this, generally it’s all a bit more confusing.

This mirrors some of the confusion around best practice and innovation. Frequently I hear; ‘organisations must be more innovative’ rapidly followed with ‘organisations must implement best practice’. But how do the two fit together, particularly if you’ve got other voices saying ‘best practice is the enemy of innovation’?

Here’s the Wikipedia definition of best practice: ‘a method or technique that has consistently shown results superior to those achieved with other means, and that is used as a benchmark. ……..used to describe the process of developing and following a standard way of doing things that multiple organizations can use’.

This, and many other definitions imply to me that ‘best practice’ is the single and ‘best’ way of doing something, it’s not ‘pick and mix’. If this is the case, how can an activity be improved if it’s already ‘the best ‘? Standardisation also features. If this is the case, how do you innovate in an environment where everything is carefully fixed, controlled and repeatable?

So, is it true, best practice really is the enemy of innovation?

There are a few examples that support this argument. Possibly the most well-known is about the inventors of ‘Post it’ notes, 3M. There are many commentaries about the decline in their ability to innovate following the introduction of Six Sigma techniques. This case study from The Design Council talks about ‘over zealous management techniques stifling creative thinking’. The application of Six Sigma within the 3M R&D function was preventing innovation.

This article from Business Week, talks about the tension between Six Sigma ‘control’ vs innovative ‘freedom’. They say that Six Sigma control is great for standard or routine processes in manufacturing and the scale-up of new products. However, Six Sigma was a disaster for innovative new products at 3M. Is this an example of best practice overkill?

Innovation is not Best Practice is a thought provoking perspective from Professor Alf Rehn from the University of Manchester Business School. The section on ‘The Problem with Best Practice’ defines best practice as, “stuff that worked in the past“. He makes the link with work on human development and suggests that the drive to seek and stick with ‘best practice’ is ‘programmed’ into humans as a survival instinct.

This idea that the human brain is programmed to look for and accept best practice (the quickest solution) is picked up by Stephen M. Shapiro in his book, ‘Best Practices are Stupid’. Check out this video Stephen talking about ‘expertise is the enemy of innovation’.

Finally here’s a sporting example, Dick Fosbury. Prior to 1968 Olympics, high jump best practice was going over the bar sideways or face first. Dick Fosbury failed to comply with the prevailing best practice went over backwards, and the result is history. Since smashing the world record the ‘Fosbury Flop’ has been the accepted best practice for the high jump, and even inspired a commemorative Silver Dollar.

Back to the confusion, where this started. I think there is a place for best practice. In the world of manufacturing and ‘How it’s Made’ it’s a key part of success. I am very happy that the engines of planes I fly in are built and maintained by Six Sigma enthusiasts. However, in other environments I’m not so sure. There are multiple ways to approach the complex issues faced by public services. It can be counter-productive to adopt a; ‘one size fits all’, ‘adopt or else’, best practice approach in these situations. At the very least it will probably be the enemy of innovation.

So, what’s the PONT?

  • The phase “best practice” is a widely misused and poorly understood. Before its used people should be clear about what they mean.
  • There is evidence that the ‘over zealous’ application of ‘best practice’ type management thinking and techniques can stifle innovation.
  • There is an important place for best practice, but it’s dependent upon the context, which needs to be understood.

Picture source: US Olympic High Jump Silver Dollar. Best practice ignored!  http://www.usmint.gov/historianscorner/?action=coinDetail&id=29524

Maybe cats had the high jump sorted out long before Dick Fosbury?

Negative Capability, John Keats and Half Man Half Biscuit.

Posted on by
1

Everybody sing along…….

There is nothing better in life,

Than writing on the sole of your slipper with a biro.

There is nothing better in life,

Than writing on the sole of your slipper with a biro.

There is nothing better in life,

Than writing on the sole of your slipper with a biro,

On a Saturday night instead of going to the Pub.

Lyrics: The Best Things In Life by sometimes surreal Half Man Half Biscuit (hmhb).

Well there is……spending Saturday night, not with slipper and biro, but researching the 19th century English Romantic Poet John Keats and his ideas on Negative Capability (my wife tells me that by now most people will have left). There is a very good reason for my mindshift…….

Earlier this year I was at Welsh Public Services Summer School where I was introduced to the idea of negative capability and Keats. This was in the context of how to approach learning and how I might best experience new ideas during the week. Helpfully it was broken down into some ideas I could get my head around.

Positive Capability: Acts of certainty; Confidence; Extend Boundaries; Control; Comfort; and Adding Skills (the place where we spent most time).

Negative Capability: Self inquiry; Observation; Adaption; Humility; Imagination and Uncomfortable Learning (not visited very often).

This explanation was great as a starting point but something kept troubling me and was the reason why I ended up researching John Keats on a Saturday night, whilst listening to hmhb. The question I kept asking myself was; is negative capability really any different to some of the learning and self-development ideas I’ve heard about before? Things like:

  • Push the boundaries;
  • “Do one thing every day that scares you” (just did that).
  • Get out of your comfort zone;
  • Think outside of the box;
  • Be comfortable with ambiguity;
  • Deal with complexity etc,etc.

Here are the results of my research and a few links that might be useful.

  • Wikipedia: Negative Capability, to be honest this didn’t help. I’m a lapsed scientist and the language  was all a bit too literary and then edged into psychoanalysis  (blimey).
  • French, Simpson & Harvey explained it more helpfully in a paper on Creative Leadership. Here they use the Keats quote to describe the state in which a person “is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact & reason”.

This is all great, but what you really need on a Saturday night is YouTube……….

  • Video by conferencereport. A useful explanation if you can cope with the cars passing in the background.  Having the presenter talk to a hand-held camera while walking around was curiously engaging.
  • Eben Pagan’s Get Altitude video has a more ‘management seminar’ style and talks about understanding another person’s emotions. A bit tangential.
  • Bright Star is a 2009 film about the Keats poem of the same name, here is the official trailer. Helpfully there are other videos linked to the film where negative capability is explained. Here is one with chaps diving in the lake Mr. Darcy style. To my surprise, the explanation of how to ‘understand poetry’ helped a lot with my understanding of negative capability.

“The point of diving in the lake is not to immediately swim to the shore, but to be in the lake. To luxuriate in the sensation of water. You do not, ‘work the lake out’. It is an experience beyond thought”

Summer School was a bit like diving in and immersing myself. Now I’m sitting back and doing some of the ‘working out’, on Saturday nights as it happens. As for hmhb lyrics, I’m still in the lake, luxuriating in the mystery.

So what’s the PONT?

  1. Negative capability is different from just ‘pushing the boundaries’ of things you already know about.
  2. Accept that you cannot and may not need to understand everything you encounter.
  3. It can feel uncomfortable but by immersing yourself in things you don’t fully understand, new things can emerge.

Photo source: John Keats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Keats_by_William_Hilton.jpg

I have to finish this off with one more hmhb reference for Helen Reynolds. John Keats wrote several odes including ode to a nightingale. As far as I know hmhb only have one ode, ‘ode to Joyce’, which does have a video featuring this picture of a kitten playing a guitar. Awesome!

Will descending from Welsh Sheep Farmers prevent you collaborating?

Posted on by
Reply

Back in the mid 1800’s a group of Welsh emigrants were being rescued from an island where they been shipwrecked.  Before they left, they modestly showed their rescuers what they had achieved during their years of isolation. “These are our houses, this is the school, this is the reading room, this is the rugby field, and these are the two chapels”. “Why two chapels?” asks a rescuer.  The reply, “Oh, that’s the one we don’t go to…….”.

We have a long history of not getting along with our neighbours in Wales, but maybe we aren’t that different to lots of peoples who have descended from animal herders (sheep farmers). That’s the theory offered by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers in the chapter on Harlan County, Kentucky.

The theory is that cultures that have developed around animal farming on marginal land (eg upland sheep farmers) are inherently more confrontational than those where there has been a strong requirement to collaborate (lowland arable farmers). If you are a shepherd looking after a flock of sheep you constantly need to be on your guard against predators, of the animal or most commonly the human variety. Preventing people stealing your sheep requires some demonstration of your physical prowess and a evidence you will take action to prevent your flock being pilfered. This has led to a ‘culture of honor’ (prevalent in the Southern United States) as Gladwell describes it, or ‘getting a bit chesty’ as we like to say in South Wales.

Gladwell illustrates how this has been carried forward into the modern age and across continents by using the example of the violent family feuds that took place in Harlan County in the early 19th century. He argues that the roots of this ‘honor code’ behaviour can be traced back many generations to the culture of the herdsmen who farmed the marginal uplands.  Many of these people emigrated to America and ended up in the rural areas of the Appalachians and places like Harlan County. He identifies the North of England and Scotland as the areas where these people originally came from, but there’s probably just as much as a case to be made for Welsh immigrants.

It’s an interesting theory that has been backed up by some research done at the University of Michigan, where certain groups of people (young men from the Southern States) were far more likely to ‘get a bit chesty’ if you insulted their honor. Have a look at the work of psychologists Cohen and Nisbett for more detail (Nisbett, R.E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South).

With the current emphasis upon collaboration between public services in Wales I wonder if we need to think about where our ancestors came from before we start? If they were (or still are) sheep farmers from the uplands are we starting at a disadvantage, particularly if we insult someone’s honor? This will be an interesting one to observe at the next committee meeting on collaboration………, ‘who gets a bit chesty’ and why?

The other great joy of reading Malcolm Gladwells book was that he does describe Harlan County in detail. Harlan interests me a lot as it seems very familiar. Not only is it the setting for Justified (a brilliant bit of TV based on books by a favourite author Elmore Leonard), they also have a strong coal mining tradition. As if it couldn’t get better, Steve Earle (another favourite) has even sung about the place, Harlan Man. Harlan might be in Kentucky but for me there are many similarities with bits of South Wales; feuding, coal mining, the general struggle to prosper and ‘getting chesty’. Maybe it is all to do with some common ancestry and descending from the same bunch of sheep farmers and miners?

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Our ancestors might have more of an influence upon our behaviours than we realise (have a read of Outliers).
  2. Collaboration may not be the default position for some people; it depends upon where they come from.
  3. At your next collaboration committee meeting, avoid insulting someone’s honor if you don’t want them getting all ‘chesty’ with you.

The staff don’t understand, quick draw them a picture or something……..

Posted on by
6

You are engaged! http://www.delta7.com

Suspend reality and imagine this strange situation…….

  • Boss: “The staff here are a huge problem. They just don’t get my latest initiative, what’s wrong with them?”
  • Smithers: “Ah yes Sir. The words in your manifesto document are so beautifully crafted, truly inspirational, and it’s printed on the finest paper”
  • Boss: “Well here’s something that might work. I’ve heard that some organisations are drawing pictures….. to dumb things down ……..so the staff get it”
  • Smithers: “errrr…… perhaps you mean graphical representation Sir? A picture is drawn so that the  message can be understood and communicated at many levels, in a high impact way?”
  • Boss: “Yes that’s the sort of thing. Right, I want you to knock up an oil painting or bronze sculpture of my fantastic ideas. Then they will understand and I shall achieve true greatness.  Make it happen Smithers!”

This (obviously) is a bit of a parody of a real life situation I heard about. Those involved represent a kind of staff engagement ‘anti-matter’. They were struggling to justify yet another failed initiative and ended up blaming the staff for their lack of cognitive ability. The failure (in their eyes) was on the part of the ‘dumb’ employees, to understand and implement the clever ideas that were being thrust upon them. The ‘draw a picture’ discussion was actually just a diversion to avoid confronting the real problem, a lack of engagement with staff around the ‘clever new initiative’.

This is a great shame as there are genuine benefits in using diagrams, pictures and graphics to communicate messages, understand ideas and generally make sense of the complexities of organisational life.

A good example the approach I’ve seen is archetype extraction used by Cognitive Edge. This is a process where common understandings will emerge out of discussions, workshops, focus groups or other social interactions. A cartoonist / graphic facilitator will capture these common understandings and present them as a cultural archetype. These archetypes are a physical picture of how a community views things; common behaviours, social conventions, rituals and beliefs, common language, role models, “the way things happen around here”, etc (archetypes).  According to Cognitive Edge; “Archetypes can then be used in various initiatives such as branding, communications or strategy. Archetypes that are extracted from the anecdotes told naturally in a community resonate: they have bite.”  Have a look at their website for more details.

Another good example I’ve seen of using pictures and cartoons is by Delta7. The graphic I have included in this post (you are engaged!) is one of many examples on their website. In a similar vein to the Cognitive Edge archetypes the example I’ve included here does look like a bit of an extreme version of what happens in organisations, or perhaps not? A bit like mentioned above, ‘it has bite’ and could be perceived as a bit uncomfortable for some people. It’s well worth having a look at the Delta7 website gallery for a few more examples of the pictures and archetypes they have created, I bet you will see a situation you recognise.

Coming back to the Boss and Smithers mentioned earlier. I don’t think these are the sort of pictures the Boss had in mind. It’s a case of being careful what you wish for. If all you want are simple graphical illustrations, that’s fine but you do run a huge risk of patronising people and seriously disengaging them by ‘dumbing’ things down. If you go for something that digs a bit deeper that engages people (which I think you should), be prepared to live with the results. The pictures might actually have ’bite’ and tell you how things actually do happen around here, possibly not what you wished for.

So, what’s the PONT?

1. Pictures, graphics and diagrams are a really effective way of communicating complicated messages, ideas or making sense of situations.

2. They are also a good way of engaging staff, particularly if they are involved in creating the image as something that is commonly understood in the organisation, an archetype.

3. Bosses be careful what you wish for here, some egos may not withstand the archetypes created, they can ‘bite’.

Picture source: http://www.delta7.com/you-are-engaged/

http://www.delta7.com/walking-the-talk/  another great one from Delta7.

Bikeshedding – prospering in your committees! Parkinson’s Law of Triviality.

Posted on by
1

This is a fantastic find. Thanks to my father in law, who always manages to top trump my blog topics (in a nice way), proving two things:

There is not much new that’s really new in the world; and

Age and experience always out do (relative) youth.

Linked to the post on Spotting Field Sabotage in committees and the follow up on additional sabotage techniques, this is an incredibly effective act of sabotage. It falls into the realm of subconscious behavior and people not even realising they are doing it.

Cyril Northcote Parkinson proposed bikeshedding, the ‘Law of Triviality’ in 1957, which states that, “organisations give disproportionate weight to trivial issues” (You so know this is true).

Another way of expressing the law would be that the amount of time a committee will
spend discussing an item is inversely proportional to the importance of that issue (how much it costs, people affected, impact etc). If that’s not a bit of subconscious sabotage I don’t know what is.

Back in 1957 Parkinson used the example of a committee spending hardly any time
approving the construction of a nuclear power station, then going on to spend hours debating the construction of a bike shed. Some of the reasons that he attributed to this behavior, were to do with the nuclear power plant being very complicated and the average committee member being unable to understand the issues. As a result the item receives very little discussion, and the committee ‘trusts’ the experts. There are very few questions as nobody wants to appear stupid by asking something that is blindingly obvious or makes them look ignorant. Building a bike shed on the other hand is something we can all understand, and committee members are more than happy to contribute anecdote, opinion and sometimes ideas, usually at great length.

Hence the evolution of the phrase ‘bikeshedding’ to describe the practice.

I’ve mentioned bikeshedding to a few people this week and they all say, “YES”as
they recognise it instantly. I’ve then been knocked flat with their examples of “that’s exactly what our committee does”. Here are a few of them:

  • 5 mins on “shall we build a massive new shopping centre” and 2 hours on “what shall we call it”;
  • 10 mins on decision to commission a new multi million £ production line and 90 mins on where to put the company flag pole; and
  • 5 mins on restructuring a half a billion pound business and 40 mins on a £30k income generation scheme.

Maybe I should start collecting some of these modern-day bikeshedding examples for an anthology?

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. There is nothing new in the world when it comes to human behavior.
    Bikeshedding was originally described in 1957, was probably around for ages
    before that and is still worryingly present today.
  2. Bikeshedding is just as much an act of meetings sabotage as the other things I’ve mentioned here. We just might not realise we are doing it.
  3. Be vigilant. Watch out, you might have become part of the bikeshedding sabotage.

Cyril Northcote Parkinson also wrote the better known Parkinson’s Law which roughly
translates as ‘work expands to fit the time available for its completion’.  This is based on lots of evidence from the Civil Service and is a fascinating read. I’ll put out post about this next week.

Picture source: http://glostransporthistory.visit-gloucestershire.co.uk/images/ROD_Toucan%20Park_complete_bike%20shed_advert.jpg

Links to earlier posts:

Can Malcolm Gladwell help our Movement?

Posted on by
Reply

Last week was about the difficulties of creating a movement, the mission impossible community of practice. Here is some hope in the form of Malcolm Gadwell’s book The Tipping Point. This has lots of useful information that could help our movement flourish.

Malcolm Gladwell
Malcolm Gladwell

To get a feel for what I’m talking about have a look at Malcolm Gladwell on TED, you won’t be disappointed.

The Tipping Point is about why some ideas, behaviours, messages or products become incredibly popular very quickly.  They become viral and behave just like outbreaks of an infectious disease. Gladwell describes them as social epidemics. The love padlocks of an earlier post might be considered an example?

The book uses a number of case studies from different settings to illustrate the idea of the Tipping Point. Three concepts which are critical to getting there:  the Law of the Few, the Stickiness Factor, and the Power of Context. I’ll try and explain them in the context of our proposed movement:

The Law of the Few. Before we achieve widespread acceptance we need the support of a few key people from different groups, who will champion the idea. If individuals representing all three of the groups endorse and advocate the idea,it is much more likely that it will tip into exponential success. For me, the important thing here is that you only need a FEW of these people. It’s not a mass marketing or huge persuasion job involving 100’s presentations to 1000’s of people. These ‘few’ people do the job for you. Gladwell describes these key types of people as:

  • Connectors, people who operate in different environments, the boundary spanners;
  • Mavens, people who have a strong compulsion to help other consumers by helping them make informed decisions; and
  • Salesmen, the people who are good at influencing the opinion of others to ‘buy’ a product or idea.

The Stickiness Factor.  This is a tricky one. It’s described as a unique quality that compels the phenomenon to “stick” in the minds of the public and influence their future behavior. Even trickier is the notion that this stickiness it is often counterintuitive, or
contradictory to the prevailing conventional wisdom. This could make things difficult if we try to deploy conventional business models and techniques. Conventional wisdom is a difficult thing to work around (let alone against).

The Power of Context.   Not an easy one to explain. It’s a bit of “right time and right place” as far as I can work out. The book has a number of examples which explain it far better than I could. What I think is relevant for us is that it will be difficult to engineer the context using (I hate to say this again) traditional business models and techniques. I think we could use things like the current economic climate to help create ‘drivers’, but other context factors are far more subtle and will require some probing and sensing to
understand them.

This is all sounding a bit difficult, but I think there is some hope. When asked what he hopes people will get from the book Malcolm Gladwell says:

“One of the things I’d like to do is to show people how to start “positive” epidemics of their own. The virtue of an epidemic, after all, is that just a little input is enough to get it started, and it can spread very, very quickly. That makes it something of obvious and enormous interest to everyone from educators trying to reach students, to businesses trying to spread the word about their product, or for that matter to anyone who’s trying
to create a change with limited resources.”

We need to stick at it with our movement, I’m off to read the book again (and watch the videos).

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Conventional wisdom isn’t going to ‘feed our movement’.
  2. Treating it like an epidemic might be a useful alternative approach.
  3. I’m heading back to ‘The Tipping Point’ for some inspiration.

Picture Source: http://www.gladwell.com/bio.html

Mission Impossible Community of Practice…..a Movement?

Posted on by
3

A friend has been given mission impossible, “you are required to”………:

  • Bring together a large group people from diverse and often
    competing sectors;
  • Across a wide geographical area and un-specified
    timescale;
  • Get them to share skills, knowledge and resources;
  • All for the greater good, there’s no money in it;
  • There aren’t any obvious or immediate benefits from participation;
  • You must make this happen with no real resources;
  • You need to call this a Community of Practice; and
  • There is no option to refuse the mission……

You’re doomed friend!

Actually I think the core proposal is good, so I’m sticking with it and I’ll try and  help. (By the way, it’s not Big Society or anything; I don’t have those sort of friends).

In talking this through we identified some of the likely problems, particularly if  it’s treated as an extension of doing traditional business. Hierarchical, command  and control structures won’t be effective in what looks like a complex adaptive system. To meet expectations we’d need something less formal and more unstructured. Light touch governance arrangements, safe to fail pilots and Trojan Mice. Certainly not PRINCE2 project initiation documents, milestones and a risk register.

What we want is something more like a “movement”……………. Oh dear!

An alarm bell went off at this point….I could hear the questioning voice…….  “a
movement you say?…….. That’s all a bit 1960′s….”

Actually a movement or social movement is very modern  and just what we need:  “large informal groupings of individuals and/or organisations focused on specific political or social issues, in other words, on carrying out a social change.”

To help my friend in their task here are two movements that show what can be achieved. One is a hugely successful global movement and the other Cardiff based (which I think is going places): TED and Cardiff Blogs.

TED: Ideas worth spreading, describes itself as “a small nonprofit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading — through TED.com, our annual conferences, the annual TED Prize and local TEDx events.”

This is a very modest description for something that since 1984 and has attracted speakers that include US Presidents, UK Prime Ministers, numerous Nobel Prize Winners and just about anyone important and influential on a global level you can think of.

The best bit is that their ‘ideas worth spreading’ really are ‘spread’.  Videos of the talks are freely available via the TED.com website. In September 2011 there
were over 1000 talks available that had been viewed over 500 million times.
This is incredible and I would recommend looking at what’s on offer (it will pull
you away from watching TV).

The other expansion of the movement has been into the TEDx events that take place
in over 60 cities globally.  There have been about 750 of these free events that follow a format defined by TED and are hugely popular. I was lucky enough to attend the TEDx Cardiff  2011 event, which nicely links me to a local Cardiff movement, Cardiff Blogs.

At the last Cardiff blogs gathering ‘doing it for love not money’ was the topic of discussion.  I think this really gets to the heart of a movement and why do a bunch of diverse people get together to share knowledge, skills and experiences for no obvious benefit to themselves?  The short answer is I don’t know. There is no compelling campaign or cause to fight against or support here. It’s about like-minded people who happen to be bloggers, in the Cardiff area linking up to share ideas.

In conversation with my good friend Mrs Motivator we’ve compared what is happening to the intellectual flowering of the ‘enlightenment’ that took place in the London Coffee Houses in the 1650’s.  A fluid network of varied people coming together to discuss interesting things.

Where it will end up is anyone’s guess but it does feel a  privilege to be part of it. This TED talk from Steven Johnson on “where good ideas come” from gives a description of the important role of fluid networks in creating innovation and change. It’s why I think things like Cardiff Blogs are important to the future of Cardiff and Wales (no pressure on the Admin Team).

Back to my friend with mission impossible.  I think there is a globally successful movement in TED we could learn some lessons. More locally there is something flowering in Cardiff Blogs you could look at for inspiration and perhaps become part of? Go on start your blog.

So what’s the PONT?

  1. Applying traditional business approaches to Communities of Practice
    can inhibit them, and disengage some of the people you want to attract.
  2. Fluid networks are more likely to enable the growth of a movement.
  3. Have a look at what TED and Cardiff Blogs do for inspiration.

Picture Sources:

Cardiff Blogs http://itvwalesblog.com/2011/08/23/guest-blog-cardiff-blogs-for-love-not-money/

TEDx Cardiff http://huwdavid.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/hdd-makes-a-creative-mark-at-tedxcardiff/

Mission Impossible http://www.soundtrackcollector.com/title/36422/Mission%3A+Impossible

What’s eating the Trojan Mice?

Posted on by
1
Cute, but potential mice killers.

Cute, but potential mice killers.

Last week I posted about setting free Trojan Mice and argued that when faced with complex situations we need to carry out multiple ‘safe to fail’ pilots (rather than large single option solutions) .  All very fine, but once you’ve set the Trojan Mice free, how do you give them the best chance of success? Learning from failure is all well and good, but a box full of deceased Trojan Mice isn’t going to help anyone. They need an environment where they can at least ‘run free’, and if they fail it’s due to them alone and not the ’environmental factors’ (organisational culture and behaviours) that get in the way.

To get the best out of safe to fail pilots you need to implement a number of them. The
more pilots you have running, the more likely you are to come up with many right answers – a bit like buying lots of raffle tickets.  In a complex adaptive system diversity and a range of options can only help you. Like Euan Semple says “Unleash Trojan Mice. Don’t do big things or spend loads of money. Set small, nimble things running and see where they head.”

I’d suggest that helping the Trojan Mice is all about creating this right environment. Working out the technology, corporate policy and procedures should be dealt with by the people running the safe to fail pilots. If they need to comply with rules or fill in some forms (or not), leave it up to them. It might be better that they beg forgiveness later rather than wait around for permission.

These are my views on the 7 most important things that will let the mice run free, and avoid them getting eaten:

  1. Accept Uncertainty. You cannot predict the future in complex situations.
  2. Believe.  Solutions will emerge from safe to fail pilots.
  3. Trust People. They have knowledge and will do their best.
  4. Give Protection. Give cover from organisation or factors that will cause harm.
  5. Tolerate Failure. Accept that not everything will work.
  6. Be Patient.  Just because things are pilots, they aren’t instant.
  7. Evaluate, Learn & Move On (All at once). Learn and scale up where successful and stop where not.

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Trojan Mice / safe to fail pilots are vulnerable. They need some protection.
  2. Try to initiate as many pilots as reasonably possible.
  3. Leadership that creates the right environment is probably the most important factor in determining the success of the Trojan Mice. It stops them getting eaten by the metaphorical (organisational) cat.
Greebo (as cat) from Discworld. Avoid this bad boy!

Greebo (as cat) from Discworld. Avoid this bad boy!

Beware of this bad boy Greebo the Cat, he will eat Trojan Mice without a second thought (a bit like some organisational cultures). He needs a Nanny Ogg  to keep him under control.

Picture source: http://www.terrypratchett.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1372&sid=07edba36b93fff88ad830547924d7052