Creating the Adaptive Enterprise: Capability and Delivery from Change Conversation

  • Published on
    19-Oct-2014

  • View
    431

  • Download
    1

DESCRIPTION

Where can insights and deep working knowledge of how talk actually works be applied in your enterprise

Transcript

<p>Requisite Conversations Framework</p> <p>Change Conversation Capability SetCreating theAdaptive EnterpriseHow to talk to get work done in a complex world</p> <p>/ #Just Knowledge Australia Pty LtdCopyright 2013There is a journey all human enterprises must be on in the present era: Away from inflexible, technical and reductionist ways of working toward conversational capabilities that unlock individual capabilities and contributions, adaptive expertise, and new ways of engaging with stakeholders.</p> <p>No matter where on the journey your enterprise lies, there is a next step you can take that is grounded in the way people are talking to get work done:Design and facilitation of conversations that enable adaptionThis Capability Statement outlines the spectrum of Change Conversation capabilities to assist your journey towards adaptiveness. The Change Conversation offers are outlined in the flow chart on the next page. They range in a spectrum from (left to right) the emergent challenges of social impact and culture change through to the more concrete conversational environments of specialist work .Creating the Adaptive Enterprise</p> <p>FromToinflexible routine expertise</p> <p>Adaptive expertiseTraditional marketing toolsCustomer focussed designExclusivelyanalytical modelsDesign thinking toolsTop down social programsEmergent social impact/ #Just Knowledge Australia Pty LtdCommercial in Confidence 2010</p> <p>The Change Conversation capability spectrumCHANGE CONVERSATIONCulture is ConversationsConversations for EmergenceConversations for Shaping StrategyConversational Leadership - Out of the BoxConversations for a Concerned CommunityConversation DesignKDP System DesignMeasuresConversation System DesignDesign ThinkingAdvanced Design SkillsCreating Adaptive SpecialistsConversations for a System of Concern*Pre-requirements</p> <p>Whole of system</p> <p>Post-requirements#0#D#D3#D2#D1#S#CChange Conversation can express each of these capability areas as aDiagnostic/needs analysis capabilityCoaching capabilityTraining program, orProject support/action learning delivery#S3#S2#S1#C3#C2#C1The flow of this chart from left to right is from the most large-scale and complex conversational contexts for social change to the more defined and technical conversation arena of projects/ #Just Knowledge Australia Pty LtdCommercial in Confidence 2013What is the burning platform for you? Why do you need to change? The drivers are as various and as individual as your enterprise, but they keep you awake. </p> <p>Where do we need to change? Ah, there is a common theme. We need to change our level of competency in talking to accomplish purposes.</p> <p>Change Conversation provides a map of the territory the Requisite Conversation framework - and then uses that map to devise a targeted set of value propositions that directly address specific elements in a spectrum of organisation needs.</p> <p>Conversation Design wont fix everything. But it will make an extraordinary difference in some places where we are so badly equipped to face the challenges coming at us. Change Conversations operating model provides services in:</p> <p>Diagnosing your context, challenges and opportunitiesConducting analysis of the conversation capability needs Capability assessments of systems and personnelCoaching key players in the approach and requisite conversation capabilitiesFacilitating new conversation design and deployment</p> <p>The Requisite Conversations FrameworkThe Requisite Conversations Framework is a model for those systems and structures that usually go unseen as we go about talking to get work done. It provides a way of distinguishing the key different domains of organisational talk, and ensuring that the ways we talk are fit for purpose. The Framework differentiates 3 major conversational terrains, and 3 conversation habitats. Together these set up different interaction systems predictable patterns of interaction between people and people, and between people and artefacts, from CEOs to call centres, from contexts of collective impact to entrepreneurial endeavours.</p> <p>A theory of conversation that unlocks value during change</p> <p>Each of these conversational interactions plays out at every level of human enterprise from theconversations we have with ourselves, to theconversations with the materials of the situation, andconversations we have with others in order to collaborate, align and execute at scale. We use the same conversation structures again and again, in the same way that trees use self-similar branching to support ever larger expressions of their identity./ #Just Knowledge Australia Pty LtdCopyright 2013</p> <p>the Requisite Conversation Framework</p> <p>Change Conversation - has a research driven core.</p> <p>This is Africa home of the worlds biggest desert, and longest river (the Nile)Mercator's projection of the earth</p> <p>The Requisite Conversation Framework (RCF) provides a scaffolding that covers all the conversations necessary to purposeful human enterprise. </p> <p>It shouldnt surprise you that is more like a map than just 5 dot points or a 4 box matrix. </p> <p>Its a little bit tricky, but not that hard when you think of other scaffolds we have learned to carry aroundIt doesnt take that long to name and recognise the main spaces and even to know some pretty major features.</p> <p>The RCF integrates all the major theories of conversation you would expect to encounter in a robust model. A partial list of the sources that have fed this model development are on the next page.</p> <p>This is the Generate terrain of conversations Design is one of the main conversation habitats in here/ #Just Knowledge Australia Pty LtdCopyright 2013The story off Zellwegers development of the Logic alphabet has some parallels: Our story begins with a simple example. Suppose that someone asked you to keep a record of your thoughts, exactly, and in terms of the symbols given, when you are making an effort to multiply XVI times LXIV. Also suppose that, refusing to give up, you finally arrive at the right answer, which happens to be MXXIV. We are sure that you would have had a much easier time of it, to solve this problem, if you would have found that 16 times 64 equals 1024.This example not only looks at what we think and what we write. It also looks at the mental tools, the signs andsymbols, thatwe are using when that thinking and that writing is taking place. How we got these mental tools is a long story, one that now includes the presence of some new developments.Our main idea comes from calling attention to a deep commonality that cuts across the parallel streams of development that in recent millennia have unfolded in the ways and byways of evolutionary notation. It took many centuries of collective search to devise aplace-valuenotation for counting. Likewise to devise asound-valuenotation for reading. Likewise to devise anote-valuenotation for singing. And so forth,for each neurologically specialized ability; in effect, a different specialized notation for each specialized ability. These observations, easily recognized in the history of evolutionary notation, strongly suggest that every kind of intelligence needs its own kind of notation. Shea Zellwegger Mirrors 2008 http://www.logic-alphabet.net/mirrors_one.htm accessed 080911</p> <p>5Austin How to do things with words, of courseBeer the possibilities for fractal cybernetic structures vitalised in conversationCooren the ways organisation can arise from conversation itselfCorballis the fundamentally recursive character of human cognitionDejours legitimising personal cognition at workGadamer How questions open the way to new knowledge Heidegger how we are already inside conversations, and how to move to new meanings Jordan Rich insights to discourse analysis that work at scaleKoestler the original and best on creative conversation dynamicsKuhn for making sense of the conversations of scienceMoore seeing the patterns of conversation that we need in ITPrigogine how conversation can be the way enterprises take in energy from their environmentShotter for naming some really important things about constructivismStacey for unpacking the organisational conversations in terms of complexity theory. Yep, Shaw as well.Wittgenstein for living the turning point from abstraction to conversationZimmerman and partners for worked examples of conversation in healthcare complexity</p> <p>Including theory from:Bioss seeing conversation forms in stratified work systemsBuchanan - 4 orders of design and doors opened in my headEdmondsen a classic case of not seeing the obvious role of conversationHoebeke for the richest unfinished work Ive ever read Hoffer-Gittell for having a powerful idea but no hypothesisLiedtka for locating strategy in its generative conversation habitatMaturana for fuelling the life of language in the mind of a microbiologistPoythress ever emboldening me to accept a judeo-christian worldview as a platform for reflection about speechReos (Adam Kahane) fearlessly taking conversation into ever larger spacesRittel for naming features of conversation and never calling it conversationSealy-Brown for being my favorite ever interpreter of conversational ethnographySecond Road the unabashed power of heuristic thoughtWeick, and Winograd, and Hutchens for soaking yourselves in the real talk that gets work doneThe Requisite Conversation framework is based on leading theory and practice from around the world. .and reflective insight from:/ #Just Knowledge Australia Pty LtdCopyright 2013You have probably heard of many enterprise initiatives that have a 70% failure rate. My list of literature citations for 70% failure rates includes 70% of new product launches, customer relationship marketing programs, failure rates for KM IT implementations(70-80%) , safety programs, quality management programs, mergers and acquisitions and in short, 70% all business change initiatives a feature unchanged in 3 decades of HBR reporting on the latest possibilities. It turns out that failure rate has a very high correlation with every time we do something that is outside the box ie when we attempt changes that require implementation by humans, not just installation by technocrats. The evidence is in. Change failures arise because we cant work with attitudes and behaviours, not because of inadequate budgets, poor resource deployment or poor strategic conception. We cant recoil from the soft stuff we have to press on into that territory until we get it right. In that environment, skill with the requisite conversations for achieving purposes together has a do-or-die premium. In this module of work, Change Conversation introduces the need for change, the benefits for enterprise, and the key transformations that will occur in our new conversations.</p> <p>Conversational Leadership why it mattersThere is no shortage of consensus that the world has changed and that different conversations are needed.When strategy, processes, metrics, and behaviour are stable and relatively unchanging, conversational skill is less important than simply following the proven path. When those same things are dynamic, in a state of change, conversational skill becomes crucial. This is when I got deeply interested in conversations as a catalyst for change*</p> <p>#O Out of the Box</p> <p>*Susan Burnett, HPs vice president of Workforce Development and Organization Effectiveness: Hewlett-Packard Takes the Waste Out of Leadership, 2003/ #Just Knowledge Australia Pty LtdCopyright 2013Searle (What is Language?) talks of us moving to desire independent possibilities for action . This is the whole point of producing specifications for things we want to make. We may love houses, and even be the designer of our own, but once we have translated our desire into specifications, the implementation can be to a large extent independent of our involvement. That is how we amplify our effect in the world.</p> <p> The opposite move away from the world of specifications, project plans and schedules, has the opposite effect. </p> <p>When we move upstream from the world of implementation to consider what might be different, and how we could make that arise, we are confronted with two primary contexts of knowledge work:Contexts where we know what we want, but not yet how to get it. In this case we need to build the conversations for a system of concern.Contexts where the need is so widespread, or the community of stakeholders so diffuse, that we cannot say with any confidence that we even know what we want. In this case we need to build the conversations of a concerned community (see #C1-3)</p> <p>Once we move out of the Box, we face the challenge of creating and living within adaptive enterprise systems systems of concern to us because of their necessary contribution to accomplishing our collective purposes.</p> <p>How to improve conversation capabilities inside key adaptive enterprise systemsChange Conversation discerns three key points of value we can add to the conversations around systems of concern:</p> <p>#S1 - Creating Adaptive SpecialistsUnderstanding the key points of difference between the cognition and disposition of routine expertise versus adaptive expertise.</p> <p>#S2 Providing advanced design skillsExpanding the professional capability of soft system designers and their workplace conversations.</p> <p>#S3 - Coaching in Design ThinkingProviding proven ability to develop the cognition and dispositions essential to 3rd and 4th Order Design (Richard Buchanan), in both craft designers and non-designers.</p> <p>#S Conversations for a System of Concern/ #Just Knowledge Australia Pty LtdCopyright 2013People are being trained every day patterned by the systems you place them. Will you enact people for adaptive expertise or routine expertise? Sadly, too much work is done by those with routine expertise . Adaptive expertise is essential in working with complexity. Let Change Conversation help you do that.</p> <p> Hatano and Inagaki (1986) distinguish between routine-expertise and adaptive expertise. Routine expertise is mainly developed by constant and repeating requirements whereas adaptive expertise develops especially in the context of changing requirements. According to that differentiation, routine expertise is valuable in order to implement context-specific strategies whereas adaptive expertise represents meta-strategies which transfer knowledge to new situations or generate new knowledge. As a consequence, both types of experience work under different conditions but are equally important.* </p> <p>Supporting specialists on the journey to an ever changing contextOne of the inadvertent consequences of the Box culture forged by technical rationalism is the suffocation of knowledge sharing:because there is no need for it, and thusit becomes an overhead, but also because there are no conversation structures for it to naturally occur.And so as we move into a more volatile, plastic enterprise context, we have no conversation skills to support our change challenges....</p>

Recommended

View more >