Day 1 - Monday, March 29, 1999

NOTES MERGED ON BASIS OF SESSION

Day 1 - Monday, March 29, 1999

Preparations:

Colin and Fran put flip chart sheets together on a white board to make a large paper area (4 feet by 8 feet)

Chuck put up a 5 foot by 6 foot paper on the wall next to the projector screen.

Room arrangement:

Chairs and tables

Another arc of chairs and tables

Chuck's 5by6 paper area

Projector screen

Projector table with overhead

Beam projector

Printer

9:00 - David’s Introduction: (using slides for this introduction; see slides for details)

Introductions of the team

Time expectations: start on time, break on time, reconvene on time.

Etc. (see slides)

Overview of the day (slide); Monday night session cancelled, but Tuesday night session will happen.

9:00 - 9:50MUSE process (Hopes and Fears)Finn

9:15 - Chuck

Rowing slide with one rower, lots of coswains

Slide of key thoughts on strategic planning (slide)

7 +/- 2

Can’t change someone’s mind; can elaborate their thinking

People are rational

People will not commit to a plan unless they own it.

Stratetic planning is common sense.

Strategic planning is one of the hardest things an organizaation can do.

Slide of organizations are transition mechanisms (print too small – revise this slide)

Three components

Slide of three components (problems issues or opportunities) (slide too wide – revise)

“that’s why organizations exist” sounds like a gross oversimplification – have to watch out for such summary statements.

Too much talk, no involvement of the group (9:23)

What are your hopes and fears for this exercise? (9:27) We call this the “MUSE” exercise, because it involves us “wondering” (unclear reason for the name)

Two questions, to be answered on paper: (slide)

“In terms of expectations… and the challenges you anticipate, both from a personal and group perspective (long question!), identify at least two hopes and two fears.”

If there is only one thing you could bring from this course, what would it be?

(John stands in front of 5 foot by 6 foot paper area to join in on posting the hopes and fears)

Instruction: put your most important hope and most important fear on an oval (have to select) . Identify H (hope) and F (fear).

Introductions start at 9:35: name, hope, and fear.

(10 minute warning given) Instructions on putting blue tack on the oval (why not have John do that?)

Samples of hopes and fears:

Help for work in schools.

Fear of wasting my time.

Fear that I’m not a model building person.

Hope for a one-page summary of strategic planning.

Fear that leave with disorganized thoughts.

Hope to gain a systems perspectives.

Fear that time schedule will prevent learning.

Fear that it will be difficult to do this stuff without a lot more learning.

Hope for better understanding of systems approach to organizations.

Fear that I won’t learn enough to do it.

Hope to understand techniques to do them with clients.

Fear of too much theory.

Fear too busy to use these techniques to solve problems.

Hope for better understanding of strategic planning.

Fear won’t get enough in this seminar.

No specific fear at this time!

Fear too academic.

Hope limit academic nature and emphasize practical applications.

Fear: make problems harder than they really are.

Fear that systems thinking process may be too complicated to apply.

Fear that system dynamics and strategic planning don’t work well together.

Fear that fuzzy math background will prevent operationalizing maps.

(writing on the ovals is tiny – completely impossibe to read on the walls)

Hope for learning about face to face communications in small groups.

Hope sense of what strategic thinking is about.

Fear that language difficulties will get in the way.

Fear that I will get lost on the way.

(John puts the maps on the wall in clear columns – which have no meaning yet for the participants because they can’t be read). Chuck’s look more haphazard.

Chuck says we have the same hopes and fears.

Sometimes we put hopes and fears together; sometimes we categorize them.

“During the workshop think about these categories” (but the categories have not been identified)

Question gets John to explain his categories (main clusters)

Chuck says he has three categories (but the map on the wall is a hodge-podge).

(I missed the categories)

(John gives to the recording team his categories of hopes and Chuck’s of fears; Colin will put the complete list in DE. My list is missing some hopes and fears; it tries to capture what people said, since I could not read what they wrote. I note that John rearranges Chuck’s ovals into other categories before bringing to us. Doesn’t conflict with what participant’s see and know, because no one can read the ovals anyway from where they’re sitting.)

John: Hopes translate into goals; fears translate issues to be addressed.

9:50 - 10:20Naive review of GORA caseAndersen

9:50 – David begins to talk about the GORA case

Instructions to dig out the case. “GORA is our client.”

Asks p’s to take out a piece of paper and note some suggestions for what Benchman should do. Explains what GORA (the organization) is for.

People write silently. David puts white sheets of paper on the wall, one on top of the next, taped to the wall next to Chuck’s 5 by 6 area of paper, not to each other (so they can be peeled off one at a time). People have been writing for about five minutes (10:00).

David begins to talk again at 10:04; asks them to talk with their neighbors about their lists; let’s them know they can add (say) new things as they pop into their minds in the discussion. Discussion noise level rises after about two more minutes.

David starts the elicitation at 10:10.

“First blush thoughts…” Writes suggestions on the flip chart paper he taped to the wall; moves a page when it’s full.

Clarify the mission of GORA. Clearing house or technical assistance?

Reforecast based on statewide possibility of 400,000 transactions; step up to statewide.

Opportunities to leverage the business (consulting) community to help, maybe partnering.

Realistic look at possible resources; 400,000 transactions is clearly impossible.

Reduce the content of manuals; maybe improve things with technology.

Maintain a “human aspect”; training source to minimize worker stress.

(Around again? At 10:15)

Build a model to analyze what’s going on.

Internet consultant.

Stick to a training standard; can’t contact a customer until you really know what you are doing.

Kris Kelly susgests the strategy of an experiment that was used in the original case. (10:17)

Bring benefiting agencies together for a joint effort to share resources.

“OK – we’re done with this review – we’ll spend the next three days on this case in various perspectives.” (10:18).

Cartoon: “Al realized his problem were much worse…”

10:20 - 10:30BREAK

10:30 - 11:25Stakeholder analysis for GORAFinn/Bryson

10:30 – David begins again.

Announcements (laptops, installing DE, don’t spill drinks)

10:24 - Chuck begins.

Summary of what happened to this point is sketchy and unclear; I missed it.

Tuchman quote (slide)

Stakeholder definition: any … that can make a claim on a government’s attention, resources, or output, or that is affected by the government’s ouput.

Key to success is the satisfaction of stakeholders.

So we should pay attention to them.

Stakeholder mpa for a nonprofit organization (big star with org in the middle; unclear how such a “map” is better than a list)

What we need to know about stakeholders (slide – print too small)

Who are they?

How important are they?

Who supports and who doesn’t? How much?

Do any stakeholders have a mgmt or production function in the org?

Relationships between those inside the org and outside?

In GORA, satisfaction of key stakeholders will be crucial.

Cartoon: How to recognize moods in a Irish setter.

Introduces stakeholder grid (10:41)

Shows slide of concentric circles and calls it a stakeholder “grid.” Center is the organization and more distant stakeholders are farther out.

Slide of an actual grid (circles with stakeholders placed – print WAY too small)

“Hourglass” form slide of internal and external stakeholders. “Tend to support” and “Support” bounded by hyperbola. (Print again too small)

Replaces with a straightline map with internal stakeholders in an oval in the center, externals stakeholders outside the lines.

Slide of same actual grid again with “less” and “more” handwritten in, and the two vertical lines or internal and external. Then adds horizontal line with Management above it and Production below it. “Most organizations don’t think about the Production function.” “Only think about the big people,” but the others can be stakeholders too.

(I think I have the lines and circles mislabled – inside, outside, near, far, supportive, opposed, …?)

Asks for people to brainstorm the key stateholders in GORA (10:51). Will put them on the wall. “If it isn’t on the wall it isn’t real.”

Stakeholders

Governor

Benchmen

Production staff

Business coming from outside the state

Existing business owners

State senate

Senate Democrats

Taxpayers (“I’m going to hold on this – how would we address this group? – are they “key”?)

Business consultants

(Invites group to put their ovals on the paper wall map 10:55. They put ovals on map, with negatives on left and positives on right.)

Voters

Land developers

Other agencies that provide these services. Collaborating state agencies.

IRS (questioned by Chuck)

(“We’ll discover more as we go on.”

Chuck suggests drawing lines on the wall map.

Circles an internal group of stakeholders. “Is the Governor internal?”

Draws double headed arrows between Senate Democrats and the internal set and something else and the internal set.

Draws a dotted line through ovals representing groups who are likely to lose if GORA (and we) are successful. The dotted lines apparently now represent the dividing lines between heavy support and light support; I’m confused here. (Lines too light on the map; make them dark.)

“A very quick and dirty run at stakeholder analysis.”

Who would be doing this analysis? One person? A group? Answer: Two components get mixed up in stakeholder analysis: analysis (who?), and management (how to handle?).

“Does the map capture importance as well as support/opposition?” Answer in terms of the cmplicated slide with tiny print, explaining what the ovals and lines and geometry mean. In close means important. “A five-dimensional concept, so hard to capture.”

Shows Nutt and Backoff grid slide (this is a grid): Oppose/support on vertical axis; Least to most importance on the horizontal axis. Four cells: Problematic, antagonistic, supports, low priority (clockwise from top left)

Oppose

Support

ISSUE POSITION

IMPORTANCE

Least

Most

Problemmatic

Antagnositic

Low priority

Supporters

“We have to organize to succeed.”

“Next step is really to ask the questions that help lead to the success of the strategic effort. What do businesses really not like about GORA? Is there a way Senate Democrats will be brought on boad?” (The group never questioned or analyzed the pro/con positions for the groups as claimed by the suggesting participant; unexamined positions placed on the map and become “real” on the map without question or analysis.)

Question about stakeholder analysis for something that shouldn’t be perpetuated in the first place? Strategy that accepts the vision or that works toward a new vision. GORA as it is, or GORA as it could be with a different mission.

(Shows the tiny-text slide again to talk about technology replacing production staff, to illustrate there are people inside the organization that might not be supportive of aspects of improvement efforts.)

“Use a wall (nobody owns the wall). The wall gives you the opportunity to have a group conversation. The wall allows for the conversation to be us.”

Q: What if satisfying a key stakeholder means deviating from the organization’s mission or vision? “Good question – if can’t satisfy both, could be a failed strategic plan.”

Q: What does “political” mean? Answer: different viewpoints, goals, which need to be addressed. Small “p” in political. (11:23)

(David alerts Fran she will be on in the next couple of minutes.)

Analysis of stakeholders and management of stakeholders; draws arrows to make a loop – calls it a feedback loop.

11:25 - 12:30Oval mapping for GORA

Eden/Ackermann

11:25 – Fran begins.

Surface strategic issues in the case.

Think about stakeholders in relation to strategic directions.

How can we begin to surface issues? (Slide of Oval Mapping Technique)

Get a broader, holistic picture using OMT.

(David and Colin put up another 4 by 6 foot wall of paper in place of Chuck’s.)

Wall posting lets people concentrate on what others are saying rather than on what they want to say next. People can speak “simultaneously.” Map helps see interactions, how things fit together. “Map helps to begin to see stakeholders. (Maybe we should have Fran begin, then follow with Chuck, if OMT leads to stakeholders.)

(Picture of OMT workshop showing map, placing ovals, and recorder – using beam projector.) Followed by projected image of a DE map of the oval map.

“Cause maps” picture showing tear drops with ends at top, means toward the middle, options toward the bottom. Desired outcomes at top, options at the bottom. A hierarchy, that helps to surface deep knowledge, common understanding. Notes wording with a verb in the phrases in the cause map; get rid of questions in the phrases.

11:40 - Colin announces we will divde the group into groups of seven, to try surface issues.

“You may want to play the role of the unruly bugger who tries to inhibit the group process.”

Introduces blue tack, instructs how to use it (a small bit, so we can move the ovals around). Blue tack is therapeutic – manipulate to relieve stress. Emphasizes 6 to 8 words, using blunt pen that forces brevity on the oval. Emphasizes an active verb, not using “should” or “ought.” Worst is “yes” or “no” or “I agree” and the like; express a point of view. “Six to eight words, some action.”

Why ovals and not Post-Its, for example? Rectangles push people toward columns and rows, and problems are not structured that way.

Q: Is public authorship a problem? A: Not really a problem, since people can’t identify handwriting and they forget who said what. Group ownership has been checked – who put up this item? – more than one person says they did.

11:47 - Groups are set out by Colin, assigned to a location and a facilitator (John, Chuck, Colin, and Fran)

(Notes stop at this point as I’m going around to watch.)

Gave 5 minute warning about 12:14. Go back to whole group about 12:20 for debrief.

Debrief

Fran shows Powerpoint slides of an OMT session. Later on the process.

Sticky dots for prioritization. Group shown is about 10 to 12 people. Wall is full of ovals. Colin and Fran tend to use 10 – 12 pieces of flip chart paper.

How to make sense of all this? “Don’t panic – just move things around to see what emerges. At first you won’t see clusters, but then they will emerge.” (Powerpoint slide)

Be prepared to change clusters as ideas develop.

Encourage p’s to do the clustering themselves. Can leave a “dump” cluster for things that don’t fit; they’ll probably eventually fit.

Q: Do facilitators know where they are taking the group? A: Not deliberately pushing the client in a particular directions. Can do this with an organization or business the facilitator doesn’t know much about.

Structuring of a cluster

Broad at top; detailed at bottom.

Don’t draw links too early.

Encourage alternative views – links and statements - and get them put on the map.

Identify clusters with names.

Be as inclusive as possible.

Ended at 12:31 –

David announces where our lunch is.

If you have a laptop and want DE loaded, we can do that over lunch.

Wants to talk with people taking this for course credit. Ended at 12:33.

12:30 - 1:30LUNCH

1:30 - 3:00Using Decision ExplorerAckermann

1:30 – Colin begins

There was quite some confusion getting the hardware running. It is still not clear that everyone is up and running

Colin mentioned that various of the facilitators do their work different ways. But the point is that we are all working toward the same end

Colin projected the GORA case with various types of statements color coded. He then demonstrated how this could be used to create a map.

Colin identified a viscious cycle around burnout that came from a direct coding of the document. Colin has extracted 45 statements from the analysis of just several paragraphs. This is one possible starting point. This model is on the student’s data file and it is called “GORA 1”

“If I were a consultant working for Alan Hirschwitz, the first thing I would do with a memo like this is to bang it into a decision explorer map to see how he is thinking”, sez Colin Eden.

Another source of such a map would be to type it in directly as it is put on the wall. This would be very quick. We have done this over lunch and the result is available on the data disk as “OMT 1”.

1:50 Fran is now leading the group on getting OMT1 up and running.

We have distributed to the whole group a xeroxed manual on Decision Explorer. Fran is working through this manual along with a slide that outlines what she wants to cover. The outline of what to cover is linked to specific pages in the hanout.

Four facilitators are now circulating, trying to get the various laptops up and running with OMT1. The room is very active, instructors are helping and those who do not have software up and running are trying to do it. WE NEED TO GET ALL OF THIS INSTALLATION DONE OVER LUNCH

1:57 We are now off and running again—Fran is going through basic commands

Entering and Editing (our time plan called for us to be at this point by 1:45, so we are about 12 minutes late right now) (Fran has open a powerpoint (I think) set of instructions as well as the Decision Explorer page. Fran is showing the group how to type in new concepts. She is focusing on how GORA could use technology.

Fran had the group all turn on the same set of toolbars

Linking and Moving. Detailed instructions on how to move concepts and link them.

NOTE: Worry about getting two persons per machine. Some groups have three per maching and others have just one.

Views: Fran is reviewing various views. She is showing how to insert and make views.

Sets:

Creation

Use

The group is quite active

2:40 Fran is now working on formatting concept styles.

John and Colin are having a discussion on the side. We need a glossary of terms for next time. In addition, Chuck’s stakeholder stuff this morning did not follow the written material that we had assigned. We should change what is presented or Chuck should publish the stuff that he discussed.

Fran is reviewing Heads and Tails.

We are reviewing the “Orphan” concept.

Fran is working through a menu that is linked to the xeroxed manual that has been handed out to all participants

2:52 We are at the point of Fran’s outline (on Power Point that is covering)..

Lists

Find

Tips and Tricks

Refresh…

Comments on memory cards

Unseen Linke

Exploring

Hiding and Showing Concepts

2:58 Colin has come on and we are ending the software talk and starting to expand the map.

3:00 - 3:15BREAK

3:15 - 4:00Analysis of oval maps

Eden/Ackermann

3:15 Colin Begins—he opens with a slide on Issue Management up on the projector

SLIDE ON ISSUE MANAGEMENT Begin with issues, not with goals. What is keeping you awake at night, not what you espouse as public goals.

Moving up, what do we achieve by addressing these issues

Moving up the ladder, we also get to negative goals (formerly not goals)

Hence we discover the emergent system of goals.

SLIDE #2 ON ISSUE MANAGEMENT—Now going down the tree

What is happening to generate the issues

Ladder down to discover emergent beliefs sysstem

These provide the basis for option surfacing

SLIDE: METHODS OF GROUP PARTICIPATION—MANUAL, SINGLE USER, AND MULTI-USER

Manual method—interviews

Manual method—Oval mapping

Single User Group Support (SUGS)

Networked Group GSS Workshop

3:30 Fran has now brought up the machine to look as “laddering up”

The first step in “laddering up” is to get a list of heads.

Do not include steps such as “create a strategic plan” or “clarify mission”

Check for orphans

Fran is working the machine and Colin is speaking to the group

SLIDE forDomain Analysis—(Show a PowerPoint slide on this.) to see where we have the most “buzz about”

SLIDE for Central Analysis—Again show a slide that defines centrality out N layers (density analysis)

Colin is stressing that these are good starting in

DAVID SEZ??***Key TPI HEURISTIC*** IF A GOAL IS LEADING TO A MEANS—THIS IS A STRONG CLUE THAT THERE IS A LOOP (OR SHOULD BE A LOOP)

3:37 COLIN HAS NOW COMPLETED THE DRAFT OF THE GOAL SET

Goals are not a list—goals are a network.

SLIDE SHOWING THE “TEARDROP” BELOW A GOAL—Options assertions and facts feed up toward strategies that “ladder up” to Goals.

Show the Hiset Analysis on the 5 goals that have been identified.

One Hiset had just one item in it. This item was just one goal that was fed only by another goal.

Now we have Mapped Hiset 3 to get the teardrop with 31 concepts.

Fran is “cleaning up” the mapped diagram, getting better visibility on the screen.

Fran has selected 9 key items and has “collapsed on it. We can now see that the collapse statement can be read as a strategic argument.

Colin is driving home to a very powerful summary. He is arguing that these chains of strategic argument can emerge in minutes or hours. In some cases, we are now done. In some cases, we will search for deeper analysis with a simulation model.

RUN CLUSTER ANALYSIS (WHY DID WE JUST DO THIS???—I THINK TO SHOW THE CLUSTER ANALYSIS FUNCTION??)

RUN POTENT ANALYSIS—WE ARE NOW FLYING.

Colin is pointing out that content drove the direction of the arrows. Hence, this analysis of the structure of the map is also a content analysis.

4:00 - 5:00TPI reflections on GORA so farBryson/All

4:04 John is starting the debrief. All are going forward, so we are now loosing these notes. 2 minute break

4:05 Dan Curtin is taking the notes.

4:10 restartBryson: change in schedule will stop at 5 because of class at 5pm

SLIDE Debrief on tools –

Engage in discussion of how would I be consultant at Gora

Moving toward, and linked, 2 items

1. how to organize winning coalition

2. around strategy that will work

nothing is a substitue for leadership

debrief -\stakeholder analysis

question (Q) - overwhelmed with software – how do I proceed start here or oval mapping

A. It depends Colin structure, give results back, social experience. People will look at handout and remember experiece and not content – ownership

John Challenges to discern useful info, recognize patterns, which ones are useful

Chuck Use software or lose it; wetware

David – do by hand, run in tandem, map w/ chauffer; then take data back and do it offline

Colin – we operate it too well, learners are better, group has sense of control

David – see Dan for his experience

Q. project should be done in small groups, what do others thinks

A. John see tattoo it depends

Chuck it helps to go out and have client elaborate

Q what do you mean bby dangerous in breaking map up

A John use small group 1st, compatibility, letting info out, closing options

Need to think strategically

Colin – don’t routinely ask people – it raises expectations – you can’t deliver on them, another reason to simulate

John it depends – maybe client needs to hear from people but you need to think about it

Q. follow up question

A. John mapping tools helps figures out

Q. follow up

A Colin may want because of experitise or ownership, may want to bound them

John – we all have participatory view but don’t assume huge amounts of people may be counter productive

Chuck – let’s play GORA game, do you want to talk to overworked employee

David – planning team composition – practical issues – how big a group 13-15

Q. if you are trying to satisfy stakeholders how do you do it

A. go further w/ stakeholder analysis, figure out which ones are key what strategies are technically viable, how to link strategy with winning coalition, tools slow people down long enough to figure it out

Q is it incremental approach or revolutionary approach to strategy, people have vested interest? Higher the impact, less inclusive

A. John Good question

Q formation of initial question – question waqs strategic issues facing Gora, what was listed was actions what are peoples beliefs? Are there other questions?

A. JOHN: Colin said think about issues and list actions

Colin organization dependent, culturally dependent, grab emergent strategies

Surfacing things they already think are important

Get starting point

John strATEGY is building bridge from where you are to somewhere, questions is something ppeople can visualize

Chuck we don’t know where bridge begins; miracle happens

Q. What question would John and Chuck use,

A what would you thing gora will be doing in next year or so

Q. What are stategic issues vs. what should we do, maybe too internal, more comprehensive

John depends upon who is in room, might have done SWOT beforehand.

Q are working with Benchman or others

A John Benchman is primary client. If he doesn’t involve others, he’s stupid and we don’t work for stupid people.

Q. Does Benchman choose attendees

A. Yes, but with input from consultant

4:50 John return to hopes and fears to check in

Chuck notes by door on way out

Instructors passed out oval map (hopes and fears), Colin put in linkages.

Colin leads exercise. 1. Is this too theoratical?

Q. when things touch in maps is that important?

A. No.

Q. I think it works, but can you make this work to snapshot scenario, talk to person 1 to 2 hour , then decide.

A. It varies depends upon project. Is it worth it? Pgm is strategic management, not strategic decision

Chuck: most mgmt decisions are made w/ incomplete knowledge and info. What’s wrong mgmt doesn’t link decision with goals, values etc. ot the organization. Most decisions are linear, Mapping isn’t.

Colin: how are we doing? Are we too theoritcal, too practical?

A. this was a nice synthesis of three text, I could walk away and try.

5:00pm closure 9pm start time, bring laptops. Have vinsim and dataset loaded. George gave instructions on resetting room. Neat chart.

Day 2 - Tuesday, March 30, 1999

David: Opening comments to students about how to see Fran on a video and how to use a tutorial. Announcements about the dinner on Wednesday. Notes the link to Senge’s book The Fifth Discipline. Notes that when Senge says systems thinking he means system dynamics. David says that a better word for what we are doing is “feedback thinking.”

· David covered the reason for including Senge’s book - (i.e. personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning and Systems thinking (it is the last that is of most interest). Noted that when Senge says Systems Thinking he means SD. Colin’s article about SD is also included (in Senge’s book?)

· Systems thinking is the analysis of feedback dynamics – SD are not the only folks to emphasis the importance – Richardson book emphasized. Senge also teaches from George’s book! And therefore bring George in.

9:00 - 10:30Modeling GORA in VensimRichardson

George: The TPI Approach

· Strategic Thinking

· mission, mandates, stakeholders, strategaaic options, action program

· System dynamics

· Dynamic thinking – thinking in graphs over time

· Feedback thinking – feedback loops, closed loops of influence and causality

· Quantitative thinking

· Thinking about accumulations

· Thinking algebraically

· Laboratory Thinking

· Computer simulation experiments

· Cognitive shifts required

· Verb phrases to quantities

· Rich detail to useful aggregations

· Arrow links to algebra

· Goals as “heads” to goals in goal-seeking feedback loops

· Events to dynamics behavior – relatively smooth graphs over time

· Decisions to “policy structure”

· Hints from strategic thinking to look deeper

· There are three…

· Example of goals in goal-seeking loop, along with unintended effects and internal changes

· Two kinds of feedback loops, positive and negative loops

George: Self-reinforcing dynamics in the Gora case? People are asked to turn to their neighbors to discuss the question, after telling them the question is yes.

George: Asks for examples

Student: Demand for services is going up. George starts drawing graph on overhead.

George: What are we worried about?

Students and George: Staff -- not going up very fast. Staff leaving because of burnout. Hard to get authorization for new staff.

George: What is happening to workload? Draws graph – heading up. Draws “burnout territory.”

Q: Tell me a story about a self-reinforcing loop?

A: Demand/success. G draws a picture.

Demand (new requests for service – work for staff to do – service completions – words of mouth success – new demand. Even number of plus signs

G: Has people go into Vensim

Wants people ot build model of “work for staff to do”

· George started with The TPI approach (including Strategic thinking, Systems Dynamics,

· Strategic thinking includes mission, mandates, stakeholders, strategic options action programs which lead to goals, po9litifal feasibility, means to ends and ownership)

· System Dynamics including dynamic thinking (thinking in graphs over time), feedback thinking (closed causal loops, closed sequences of causality and influence), quantitative thinking (thinking about accumulations and thinking algebraically) and finally laboratory thinking (computer simulation experiments “what if” DSS! Design to reflect complex reality. Have to make mental shifts.

· Adding cognitive capabilities – shift from verb phrases to quantities, rich detail to useful aggregation (take a lot of detail and aggregate them into small bits of systems structure) arrow links to algebra, goals as “heads” to goals in goal-seeking feedback loops (types of DSS). Also move from thinking about the world as discrete events to graphs (but strategic thinking doesn’t take a discrete view it takes a holistic view! Tries to understand the interactive nature, the emergent patterns, identify strategizing in action. Etc. [missed the final point]

· Head that looks like a means or a tail…suggests on the verge of a feedback loop [where heads/goals lead to strategies or actions]

· Causal loops in the cause map suggests dynamic analysis needed

· Numbers are needed to be sure…suggests simulation is needed.

· George showed hierarchical map and then goals in goal seeking loop pictures. This starts with the goal leads to pressure to reduce the gap, leads to planned action, leads to change in the state of the system leads to system state leads to perceived state which returns to pressure to reduce the gap – and hopefully there will be no gap. Sometimes in addition see planned action leads to unintended effects leads to hange in the state of the system. In addition there are internal changes which can also change the sate of the system.

· Two kinds of feedback loops

· Positive loops (self reinforcing, growth producing, destabilizing, accelerating, even number of –ve (symbolised by (snowballs, +ve sign, R = reinforcing)

· Negative loops (counteracting, goal seeking, stabilizing, balancing, odd number of –ve links (signs include –ve, balance, C or Balance

· Showed examples eg births per year increases population which increases more births, OR performance increases motivation which in turn increases performance and finally an increase in private businesses increases tax base which increases tax rates which increases expected profitability which decreases private businesses and thus self reinforcing.

· Show graphs with Population line going up

· Question “are there self reinforcing loops in the GORA case?”

· Asked for the dynamic part first - demand going up while productivity going down. Demand graph drawn (axis are demand and time) – moved onto showing time through 6 months and number of staff and have traditional S curve. Moved to Staff and time graph and then actually plotted 7 staff to begin with moving to 10 about 9months in and then compared two graphs to illustrate that there isn’t a hope in hell of being able to meet expectations. Plotted then that staff moved up to 14.5 (if lucky –legislative staff let him have them) but could lose due to burn out. [then we would have things like lack of productivity, loss of learning due to training etc]. Covered workload then. Drew another graph with workload on one axis and time over the other (flow rate) Shows the increasing load on staff which was then related to folks worry and then a line drawn illustrating burn out territory.

· Questioned “do any look self reinforcing” – demand suggested. Give a story that might account for that. Success, services, word of mouth all contribute. Self reinforcing head to a loop.

· See DE model (then drew a graph) showing demand over time. Explain that how fast it rises depends on the demand). Thus convinced ourselves that the feedback loop comes from the graphs.

· Moved into Vensim [0937] “smart people in this room build models is to build little pieces first” and then return to the big picture. Being smart by building a little baby model. By the end we will be working with a model of GORA. Lots of good stuff and rich feedback dynamics

· Started by creating a model, and going through time steps etc – went through the cursors and other facilities around the tool bar (word phases = algebra, stocks, information link (tying one bit of algebra to another), flow (pipe variable), shadow, then icons, delete key, equations)

· Down the left went through the tools to analyse and therefore can ignore for a while)

· Went into building the loop (have the white board to show feedback loops on OHP and the model screen)

· Started with work for staff to do – and centred it on the screen – a tub, thus need an inflow

· Drew an incoming request – and showed eating up the wrong things….. (me thinks GR rather likes this)

· Observations = the pointer tool can move things around – select with box and move it around – showed moving around

· Next moved to service completions – thus an outflow – with service completions [three bears – too slow, too fast, just right!]

· Moved to saying word of mouth success story is a variable – grab variable tool – and placed it above the screen acknowledging it was disassociated – and now want to draw in the loop

· Put in the connections (if you escape you get rid of it) – CF asked for it to be done again., Then sensuously curved the arrow! So we have the OHP feedback loop

· Now we need to do some quantitative thinking about this – CF wants a cue for paying attention JR suggests “hey dummy”

· Added new variable “new requests per customer served) and linked to new requests from word of mouth

· Next comment on the theory “new requests is a multiplying effect” – the quantitative thinking – computed through added two things coming into it. Then added a new variable – average time to service a request - and linked that to service completion flow along with a link straight from stock “back log” to service rate

· Covered the feedback loop and then noted we need to do the equation – all go black – clicked on variable – go the algebra box and the rest same as Powersim

· Vensim asks for Units – dimensions – that help you decide whether you have built a reasonable model or not. If the units don’t work then you will know – put in transactions/month (and then went back to diagram)

· Then went to backlog – but this is a stock – so different – all you need to put in is the starter i.e. number of transactions (in this case 0)

· Then added variable of new requests from advertising linked it to incoming requests and asked group to figure out the equations for incoming requests and also service completion

· Then went to OHP slide with the figure on it. If you want to change an equation click on the variable name and the menu offers the equation box. [1012]

· Noted that the other variables were constants and asked group to enter them. Basic stuff

· Change name of run – and ran it – BUT don’t see anything like Powersim. Has workbench model and look at them – by double clicking focused on the stock – then can graph it. Noted if you go into Set then you can change variables (but only for this run) - and see the impact against the previous

· Showed using control panel that you can do runs and if you don’t want to see them, but also don’t want to lose them, then can put them in a save bin

· Then reflected on what we have learned – and noted that either models are incorrect or thinking is. Noted that after the break we will look at the key notion of work burnout, notion of backlog going up leads to quality of work going down which will control the number of requests being made. Do that to 1130 and then stop and talk.

· Where you change base data i.e. length of run (under model duration) then have to move/delete all previous runs otherwise they are incompatible

· Asked to stop working on the model – system missing things – it is currently going to r forever (400,000 enquiries). Went back to the original picture and looked at workload. Workload is to do with ration of staff and work to do. If workload goes up then quality goes down thus limit the demand – and drew on structure. Went through the positive and negative feedback loops – shows negative and positive links and also brings in a level of stability.

10:30 - 10:45BREAK

10:45 - 12:00Working with a system dynamics model of GORA Richardson

· Added three new variables, linked them and then worked on the equation. Went back to the OHP and drew graph of effect of quality and workload as axis. Started with 1 as top quality. Graph goes down and reaches some low effect (plot the curve) - thus need to put this into Vensim. Enter in similar to powersim. Noted that it is stored as data points. Asked group to consider what was going to be the result. Showed that the pattern stabilizes the requests. Showed graph with the positive loop dominating the first part and the negative loop dominating the second part. Go read Senge – will see limits to success (archetype) – showing two loops linked together. Tried playing with the shape of effect of quality on workload and its impact on the overall shape – less loss of quality then slower the stabilization.

· DA “I want to leave you with a thought” the strategic issues and stakeholder notions – this dynamic and ask where is Benchman and Governor on this dynamic. Benchman is at the head of a declining quality organization. This is not an independent piece of analysis but informing one another.

· Moved to the full model [1115]. Went through the parameter screen - went through them – policy parameters which can be changed – some constants and graphs.

· Got group to do base run and then looked at various graphs. Then changed number of staff and reviewed at the results

12:00 - 12:30Debrief GORA model-based insightsRichardson

· Then went onto a DE model view (the IT picture) with the rich story – is the one parameter (normal productivity) – aggregated into one number. Now we can just say we do one/two/three etc of the detail tasks then can change the variable

· Summarized that our very own success is killing us – getting more staff doesn’t help (unless you can get unlimited staff), even getting more technology doesn’t help use escape from the trap. Set the group lose with playing. Asked people to write down things for debriefing. GR reminded group they are not changing the model, just the parameters.

· George reassert control at 1200. Asked for insights. Asked whether anything works? Nothing! Tried increasing staff (and decreasing staff) [GR put in the variable title] GR suggested that pie in the sky and realistic options are tried. Decreasing had no effect (+ve or –ve). Concept need to nail is that that part of the system isn’t a leverage point. One of the concepts is that there are leverage points in systems that can’t always be determined by thinking about it.

· Tried changing the price – GR asked for other things that didn’t work. These were positions, time to fill vacancy, time to gain experience (HR policy)

· Returned to price – (more success here) – used a range of prices 50-100 in units of 10 – noticed that small prices don’t make much difference but larger did. If changed 100 then demand became flat – charge ‘too much’ then that means people don’t buy service. Doesn’t affect quality of service, no delivery delay, and make money. Asked for another price where something interested happened. $75 demand is growing and so is backlog. GR asked if quality is low why is demand growing – “I shall have to mildly chastise you here…. Why is demand still growing, you should be asking yourselves that!” Pulls up the workflow Vensim page and reflected that quality reductions (better than $50) nor service delivery delay are putting people off – at $75 charge. Thus price matters and if price is in the middle then the two other impacts are not sufficiently drastic and thus growth continues.

· GR often notes “trust me…this is how it is”

· Market research might help find what matters most – service delivery delays, quality etc, just cause we are doing Systems or strategic thinking, doesn’t mean we won’t do other things.

· Noted that some of the obvious/ugly things out – what does this suggest to good modelling – that the neatness of the picture drives the effort!

· Collaboration was also suggested as an option – could this be part of the price model – helping train staff. If price works (through inhibiting growth and providing revenue which in turn allows for more staff, more training etc). Moved onto whether rules are that the money can’t be used to hire staff – then does the price insight suggest other policy that would work. Eg consultants, collaboration with other agencies, differential pricing policies, for profit spin-offs, buy information system (& remember its link to productivity)

· Other options included concentrated more on the type of tasks eg level 1 within GORA and farm out the others for a fee. GR then reflected on the ‘wrongness’ of the model – and that models are wrong, and that they are all wrong and what you have in your head is wrong [wow!]. There is always some inadequacies with models.

· Summarized through getting people to think about limits to growth. – 1228 and hands over to David – a question “the premise of what we are doing here over these three days is that you will come away with an understanding of the approaches and how these pieces fit together”. Monday focused on strategic material, today we focused on systems and that we have been rushing at you especially as there have been 2 software packages THUS what is the TPI approach (is it SD/ST one or the other)

12:30 - 1:30LUNCH

1:30 - 1:45Strategic intentEden

Colin

“The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise,, and is not preceded by a period of worry and depression.” John Preston, Boston College, from The Observer, 22 January 1995.

C: OMT can lead to needing to do more detailed exploration using VenSim or Excel.

C: Who’s doing all this stuff?

Begin PowerPoint presentation

Negotiating from Multiple Perspectives

Starting with different stakeholders and differing stakeholder views

Participation – key actors list and discussion of each

How many people?

Why involve people?

Powerful opponents who might be brought over

Because we have a belief that it is good to involve people

Group conclusion – do workshop with insiders

Dangers of partial views

· Figure without ground, action without contexts

· Systems without antecedents, world without history

· Time and perspective, change without continuity

· Large patterns and processes, minimal appreciation of sub-processes

· Andrew Pettigrew

Going through GORA goal and issue maps

If you’ve got goals embedded in feedback loops they have got to be “up for grabs”; they just don’t sit out their as aspirations, but are variables.

What aspirations are set by the organization, what aspirations are imposed? The ones that are imposed may be a subject for serious negotiation. And the others may be as well.

What should our livelihood scheme be?

First question, what are our distinctive competencies?

If there is no link between your competencies and your values, goals, and aspirations system, then there is no livelihood scheme. Go round and round the cycle until you figure out your core competencies, livelihood scheme, and values, goals and aspirations.

Ideally, you want a self-sustaining loop of distinctive competencies. Then the loop becomes a distinctive competency – and you’ve got it and someone else doesn’t.

Nothing recedes like success. Anon.

C and F will spend half a day out of a whole-day workshop figuring out what the organization should get rid of, because organizations spend a whole lot of energy maintaining things they shouldn’t be doing. A lot of organizations will outsource competencies, because they are not distinctive. They will contract with others to deliver the competency that when linked to what the organization does makes it a distinctive competency.

What are GORA’s distinctive competencies?

This is a harder question to ask in the public sector, but probably a more important question to ask.

1:30 David Opened the session, passed out materials from morning

1:35 Colin began

As planning gets to be serious, persons start to care about the process. There can be winners and loosers. We need to consider power bases of winners and loosers. Different actors will have different points of view

1:40 Move toward a set of slides.

SLIDE Cartoon on resource use in N. America

SLIDE Participation--Key Actors

Anticipated losers

anticipated winners

genuine cynics

opinion formers

idea generators (“plants”)

saboteur

sit back and wait & see before jumping

We are actors in the system and are perceived as having an agenda. We must be aware of our own role.

How many people should be in the group. Magic number 7, and then the list expands.

1:45 - 2:15Distinctive CompetenciesEden

2:00 PM Colin is now designing the membership for the GORA team.

Chuck has passed out a stakeholder map from yesterday to help. Fran has powered up Decision Explorer and is supporting the discussion that Colin is facilitating. As the class names members of the planning group, she is putting up those names. She is attaching memos to the various stakeholders.

Colin is asking for people who ought to be in the room or involved in the strategic planning. “Anybody else you can think of?”

Q: What would you do about people you DIDN’T want to be there? A: Why WOULD you want them there? You’d only want them if they had a significant part there. If we are pulling in people who are against us, it’s because they have a significant powerbase, or because we think we ought to involve all the players in the discussion (a value we have).

Colin asks Chuck and the other ‘master consultants’ if we would include the Governor. (Why did Colin ask?) David explains his ‘no,’ by saying we’d have Benchmen’s boss’s representative in the room when the team is opening up problems with Benchman’s organization. John argues that a trusted rep of the Governor could be helpful, especially if the Governor’s mission and GORA need to be separted. The point is that experts might disagree about who should be in the room, but the question and the final answer is very important.

2:10 - Colin moves on to “The Framework for Strategic Direction”: distinctive core competences, livelihood schemes, the goal system, the mission or vision statement.

Switches back to Powerpoint show with “Danger of Partial Views.” Then to the “Framework” slide.

David is handing out paper materials (Colin’s slides and handouts) while Colin is talking; lots of commotion underneath Colin’s talk.

2:15 - 2:45Goal systemsEden

2:20 Colin is now discussing the goal structure for the Poverty Alliance (not in slide packet)

Colin discussed how goal paragraphs and how different goal structures emerged from this goal structure slide.

2:25 Fran is now projecting from Decision Explorer the Goal Map from yesterday.

Colin is now contrasting this goal map with that for the poverty alliance just discussed.

Now we are projecting views from Decision explorer. The views being projected also exist as handouts.

GORA-goals

GORA-goals and issues

GORA-one loop

GORA-105 loops

Nice quote from Colin “If you have goals sitting in feedback loops, they have to be up for grabs”

**”If variables are within loops, they can not be an aspirations.”

***As it turns out, it appears that Colin has been mapping George’s discussion from this morning

We are into some important stuff here in this discussion about goals being/ not being within loops.

DFA comment: George types feedback loops into VENSIM. That is, we somehow come to recognize that an important loop exists and we are entering it into a model to test how the various loops interact. VENSIM can test the dominance and dynamics of a coupled set of loops. On the other hand, Colin is alleging that the loops (without an ability to be analyzed) are emerging from the policy map.

2:40 Distinctive Competencies.

SLIDE: FEEDBACK loop fed with teardrops

Distinctive competencies

SLIDE: The Cycle of Coherence between Dss and Livelihood, Aspirations

Colin is showing a sequencial “and then” feedback loop with the notion that by working around and around this loop, we extract the core competencies.

We are now looking at a business organization in Chicago. Colin is pointing out that self-sustaining feedback loop around a core competencies is a “ Distinctive Competency”

For Shell, the abiity to negotiate with any company at any time was the distinctive competency--not the abiity to extract oil, nor any other competency. When you have a competency embedded within a positive feedback loop then you will not be able to loose that competency of a competitor. (sic)

2:45 - 3:15BREAK

3:15 - 3:45Livelihood schemeEden

Further discussion of the meaning of distinctive competencies

What is the difference between proficiencies and destinctive competencies

Nothing Recedes Like Success

A competence is more that success as it is core to why success happens

SLIDE: A distinctive Competnece is:

SLIDE: The discovery of Distinctive Comptencies

An organization should not out-source a distinctive competency

SLIDE: Competence Characteristics

Let’s try to find some Dcs in GORA

Fran puts DC discussion in DE. There is still confusion about the definition of Dcs in the group

TPIers begin to have fun inter-personal discussions in front of the group

After listing all the potential Dcs, the group was asked to link them. They did this by yelling out the DE numbers to Fran. Colin had to stop the same people from trying to edit the links as the ones that wanted to debate the Dcs. Fran would not move the DC s around on the screen while this was going on even when it was all crossed over. This was because the group had located the statements and moving them would have been confusing

Fran then copied the DC discussion on another GC map and sorted them out

Fran did a loop analysis and found 90 plus loops

They then began distilling

15:42 We appear to be way behind or very off track regarding the DC discussion the discussion is concentrated among a few and it feels like there is low energy or confussion in the room

Q: Are we talking about DC’s that are tied to goals that themselves might be our downfall?

A: We need to keep going around the loop to figure out whether the DC’s and goals cohere. You may even need to redo your system dynamics model to take account of a changed view of the world.

DC’s may not be “good.”

C: Pattern of competencies that form a feedback loop are likely to be distinctive, though not necessarily good. It’s only good if it sustains our aspirations.

We are all the time on a cycle of exploration.

You can’t buy a DC. You have to go out and grow it.

3:45 - 4:15Mandates, mission and visionEden

1600: C asks about linking the DC’s to GORA’s aspirations.

Says we have 1, 2 and 3-star aspiration ratings, which are affected by whether or not DC’s can be linked to them. New strategic issues emerge tied to how to develop key Dcs.

A core DC is one that if you took it out the whole livelihood scheme would fall apart.

We did not agree on agreeing strategic intent and mandates, mission, and vision

4:15 - 5:15TPI reflections on the TPI processAndersen/All

1615 Debrief on the TPI World View

DC walks us through the map.

DC notes SD tools.

Notes SD worldviews

Draws the shape of CUBA around the SD worldview

D asks large group to form dyads and discuss whether concepts on the map make sense for a few minutes. Then the large group and TPI senior consultants will have a discussion.

We spend time explaining abbreviations.

We spend time talking about the “endogenous view” and what it means. The meaning of loops has something to say about what can be controlled and what cannot. The system and the organization are not the same.

D: The 12 “purples” are the core values/world views of TPI. The essence. The “greens” are tools we use to operationalize the purples.

Lenghy discussion about the connection between thinking, acting, and structure.

Discussion of changing systems through changing events.

Homework: Make sure you know what the concepts mean. Make sure you understand the linkages -- or as questions about why the linkages are there.

Group wants more examples, not more theory.

One person wants to understand more clearly about Dcs.

One person wants us to talk about “risk” factors in strategic planning

CBF suggests we might talk about each of the tools for 15 minutes. Some people seem to think that would be a good idea.

Day 3 - Wednesday, March 31, 1999

9:05 AM David Andersen Opened.

David Went over the prepared set of opening slides

Participants had quite a few questions, mostly centering on the world view slide from the previous day

9:30 - 10:00ScenariosEden

9:33 Colin Began with Scenarios

Colin began by discussin his own background

“I hope that you see that this is a field of practice--we can’t teach you all this in three days.

SLIDE The mission Statement

Purpose

Strategy

Values

Stndards & Behaviors

Colin is explaining how he extracts a one page summary of a mission statement from a goal map

SLIDE showing the mission statement (from the book) of the Northern Ireland Prison System

SLIDE some quotes on scenario planning. The key is that futures are multiple.

Discussion of Flip-Flops

The class is asking questions about compatibility between flip flop scanarios and system dynamics models

SLIDE Uncertainty v.s uncertainty

You can not do any strategy making without doing any scenario analysis.

Strategy Making is about creating a new future, not analyzing an old past.

45 minutes of strategy forecasting can change how a group things about its new futures.

10:00 - 10:45Leadership issues and Change Process designBryson/Finn

9:57 John started on leadership.

John is working through a set of slides. These slides have been passed out to the class three per page.

SLIDE: Leadership and Strategic Planning

SLIDE: Interconnected leadership tasks

John is stressing the idea of separating Forums from Arenas and them reconnecting them.

Time is stressing us. George gave a premature 20 minute warning then recanted. John Got derailed--how he interacts with Chuck was publicly unclear around this presentation.

Major point--there are so many leadership competencies that it is hard to make them all work together--successful change is hard to make happen

10:10 John Handed off to Chuck

A series of slides for Chuck’s ideas were not ready to hand out.

SLIDE(S) Action-Oriented Learning Organization

SLIDE Business as Usual

SLIDE Strategic Plans Address

SLIDE Mission Statements Address..

SLIDE Vision Statements Address...

Question: How do you get started on this.

John’s answer--there are lots of techniques for visioning. One is to have the planning team write a story that envisions how the organization will be in some specific way at some point in the future. Mapping is another technique.

SLIDE Understanding the Context

Appreciate History

Tailor process to the context

Know when to puruse big wins vs. small wins.

SLIDE Red summary and conclusion slides that Chuck had

SLIDE Overview diagram of the AFS Strategy process--David Andersen really does not understand what is going on here!!!

10:35 Chuck and John are finished with their slides

The class is now into a Q&A mode with John and Chuck

John: How do we get from old solutions to new definition of the problem and then new organization around this new definition of the problem. We need special events--out of the office, with new sets of people, to get these new definitions of problems--to a new way of seeing and framing the world.

John used the image of Cornell not putting in sidewalks until the network of people walking defined the problem. Then the grounds people created “in concrete” the solution to how the network has defined the necessary pathways.

10:45 - 11:00BREAK

11:00 - 11:40Stakeholder managementEden

Stakekholders

CE starts talking about stakeholders, has up interest x power diagram.

You can use the results of a stakeholder analysis to contrive or dis-organize coalitions of interested parties.

Stakeholder management becomes a very fundamental part of strategic change efforts.

Stakeholder management slide -- not handed out.

Strategic management always involves serious issues of internal strategic management. E.g. when CE and Fran get involved with a private company, there usually are serious casualties.

STAR diagram presented -- note that it is in the book. Either manage someone’s power base or the basis of their interest.

Some examples of STAR diagrams presented.

CE notes we are coming back to a number of topics this morning we’ve touched on before. In strategic managament we are continuously working our way around the topics. In practice, at some point you need to reach closure, or else you will boor the pants off people.

11:40 - 12:00Performance measuresAckermann

1140 Fran takes over

Implementation and Performance Measurement -- Power Point presentation

Slide: Strategy Development Involves...

Example of map

Govan Initiative goal system

Action tracking schema

Map example

Performance Measurement system slides

1218: Promultation slides. “It’s all about stakeholder management again, isn’t it?”

1225 Strategic review slide

12:00 - 12:30ImplementationAckermann

12:30 - 1:30LUNCH

1237 David starts giving the assignment for the afternoon

1:30 - 2:30GORA proposals, in groupsAndersen/All

1335 David brings people back, congratulates them on getting through the morning, and starts introducing the group assignment

Do prospectus for GORA assignment -- products, tasks, outcomes; how responsive to GORA’s needs

Reflect on TPI world view -- which tools and skills do you possess; where do you need more mastery; where can you find resources?

2:30 - 2:45BREAK

2:45 - 4:00Groups report outAndersen/All

1452 Groups start presenting

GROUP A presents from 1452 to 1458, then DA asks for questions.

CBF responds to a proposal about stakeholder management task on group’s proposal.

4:00 - 4:30Reflections, Evaluation, and ClosureAll

�PAGE \# "'Page: '#'�'" ��What is a brass ring?