The first meeting begins with a “post-mortem” on the latest launch crisis. The team members tackle the issue with enthusiasm, jumping in with their own perspectives of what went wrong and why. At first the meeting seems to be going well, since everyone is obviously engaged in solving the problem. But as the meeting progresses, you start to feel like the group is spinning its wheels. The stories begin to resemble a jumble of personal anecdotes that share no common elements: “Well, on project X, we tried doing something new, and this is what happened…” or “This reminds me of the time when we implemented process Y and we were carrying spare parts in brown paper bags…” Lots of interesting stories are being exchanged, but they do not seem to be leading to a common understanding of the root causes.

The Storytelling Trap

Stories can be a powerful tool for engaging a group’s interest in a problem or issue. The specific details about people and events make it easy for most people to relate to stories, and they often provide a firm grounding in the day-to-day reality of the situation. But storytelling’s strength is also its Achilles heel: when we remain at event-level storytelling, it is difficult to generalize the insights to other situations, and so the solutions are often situation-specific. Without a deeper understanding of why something happened, the most we can do is find ways to react faster to similar events in the future.

FROM EVENTS TO VISION: STRUCTURED PROBLEM-SOLVING

By using a modified version of the “Vision Deployment Matrix,” a team can look at a particular problem under study from different perspectives. The “Current Reality” and “Desired Future Reality” columns allow you to differentiate between diagnosis of the current situation and proposed solutions for the future

Storytelling at Multiple Levels

One way that managers can move beyond event-level storytelling to a deeper understanding of an issue is to use a modified version of the Vision Deployment Matrix (see “Vision Deployment Matrix: A Framework for Large-Scale Change,” February 1995). In particular, applying the first two columns of the matrix (“current reality” and “desired future reality”) to a particular problem can provide a framework for both analyzing the current situation and designing an effective, long-term solution (see “From Events to Vision: Structured Problem-Solving”).

The matrix distinguishes between different levels of seeing and understanding a situation. The “Events” level captures stories about specific incidents or events that indicate a problem. The next level,“ Patterns,” expands the time horizon. At this stage, the team might ask, “Are these individual events or stories part of a larger pattern that has been unfolding over time?” Next, the “Systemic Structures” level looks at the structures that might be producing the observed pattern of behavior. Since those systemic structures are usually physical manifestations of deeply held mental models in the organization, the “Mental Models” level prompts the team to surface them. Finally, at the “Vision” level, the group considers how the vision of what the organization is creating might be influencing those mental models.

Analyzing a problem or situation from multiple levels can be useful in several ways. First, it forces us to go beyond event-level storytelling, where our ability to affect the future is low, to a perspective that offers greater leverage for creating systemic change. Second, the matrix provides a way to distinguish between different ideas and experiences (e.g., “Does this story illustrate a problem situation or a prevalent mental model?”). Finally, when the conversation does jump from events to specific systems to assumptions and so on, the matrix can provide a coherent framework for mapping everyone’s contribution in real time.

Using the Matrix

By filling in the matrix around a particular problem or issue, the team members can work together to raise their understanding from the level of events to patterns, systemic structures, mental models, and vision. For example, in the product launch situation, the team started with stories of a particular launch failure. After some discussion, the team discovered that the proper tests for verification were never conducted. But instead of going further into the details of why that process was neglected, the team can ask questions designed to draw the stories up to the patterns level, such as, “Was this indicative of a pattern that happens on all products?” Additional stories can then be used to establish whether that is indeed a pattern.

The next step is to identify the underlying structures that may currently be responsible for such behavior. In this example, the test and verification efforts all relied on a central group of people who were chronically overused by all the products under development, hence verifications were rarely done to the level specified. When the group tried to understand how engineers could justify skipping such an important step, they revealed an implicit mental model: “not knowing there is a problem and moving forward is better than knowing there is a problem and moving forward.” In short, the division had been operating according to an “ignorance is bliss” strategy.

To understand where this assumption came from, the group asked, “What is the implicit vision driving the process?” The most common answer was “to minimize unwanted senior management attention.” In other words, no one in product development wanted to have problems surface on their “watch.”

Although this team focused on the “Current Reality” column, they could also fill out the “Desired Future Reality” column by asking what kinds of new structures might be needed to prevent these problems from happening in the future.

Guiding Questions

The following set of questions can be used to guide conversations as a team moves among the different levels of perspective. In looking at current reality, it may be easier to start at the level of events (since that is where stories usually begin) and work your way up the levels. When mapping out the desired future reality, however, it may be better to begin at the level of vision and go down to the other levels so that your desired future reality is not limited by the current reality. Having said that, it is likely that in actual meetings the conversation will bounce all over the place. The main point is to use the matrix to capture the conversation in a coherent framework.

Current Reality

• What are some specific events that characterize the current reality?
• Are those specific events indicative of a pattern over time? Do other stories corroborate this repeated pattern?
• Are there systemic structures in place that are responsible for the pattern? Which specific structures are producing the most dominant pattern of behavior behind the current results?
• What mental models do we hold that led us to put such structures in place? What are the prevailing assumptions, beliefs, and values that sustain those structures?
• What kind of vision are we operating out of that explains the mental models we hold? What is the current vision-in-use?

Desired Future Reality

• What is the espoused vision of the future?
• What sets of assumptions, beliefs, and values will help realize the vision?
• What kinds of systemic structures are required (either invented or redesigned) to operationalize the new mental models and achieve that vision?
• What would be the behavior over time of key indicators if the desired vision became a reality?
• What specific events would illustrate how the vision is operating on a day-to-day basis?

By elevating the conversation from events to systems structure and beyond, this simple tool can help managers make clearer sense of their own experiences, and use those experiences to formulate more effective solutions to the problems at hand.

Daniel H. Kim is co-founder of the MIT Center for Organizational Learning, and of Pegasus Communications, Inc. He is a public speaker and teacher of systems thinking and organizational learning.

The post From Event Thinking to Systems Thinking appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

The Strategic Action Map

A strategic action map is a tool that helps teams think through, articulate, and implement high-leverage action strategies. It could be called a double loop strategy development tool, because it forces teams to go beyond seeking solutions within their current framework to take actions on that framework (for more about double loop learning in teams, see “Working in High-Leverage Zones with the Double-Loop Learning Matrix” in The Systems Thinker, V12N8).

In “Example of a Strategic Action Map,” notice that the gray portion in the middle (steps 8, 9, and 10) contains only three elements: phases, activities, and a timeframe. This is where the action is specified and

EXAMPLE OF A STRATEGIC ACTION MAP

A strategic action map is a tool that helps teams think through, articulate, and implement high-leverage action strategies.

progress is tracked. Notice also that this section contains pictures, for a little right-brain reinforcement of each item. Now, look at the surrounding areas of the map (steps 1-7). These sections literally frame the action portion of the map. This is where the framework, or basis, for the action is made explicit. When someone asks, “What are you planning to do?” you can show them the center of the map. When they ask, “Why are you doing that?” you can refer them to the frame around that action.

The map summarizes the following information: “We intend to go from our current condition (2) to our desired condition (3) by operationalizing the strategy (1) listed at the top of the page, and this is why we think this strategy will work (4). We have named the barriers we must overcome (5), we know what ‘success’ will look like (6), and we have considered the perspective of key stakeholders (7). What we will actually do is specified by the phases (8), timeframes (9), and activities (10).” Isn’t this the very stuff that a board of directors or leadership team would expect to know?

The Power of the Map

A strategic action map incorporates several of the organizational learning disciplines. In encompasses systems thinking by taking into account the “big picture” and the interests of key stakeholders throughout the system. It includes shared vision by establishing creative tension between our vision (desired condition) and our current reality (current condition). Additionally, a strategic action map supports team learning. Because teams complete the map together, members must make their assumptions about the change process explicit: Why are we trying this strategy, and what are we trying to create—really?

Because a strategic action map is more of a conversation facilitation tool than a precision planning tool, it is not a substitute for project management tools. However, we have found that, as a result of the high-quality conversation that this tool generates and the visual way in which the information is presented, we have less of a need for a deadline-driven tracking system. The work just seems to get done because of the high levels of synergy and alignment that creating the strategic action map as a group engender.

Completing the Map

As a first step for completing a strategic action map, the project team must analyze the problem situation and discover some new insights for addressing it. Team members then ask themselves specific questions at each of the 10 steps and enter the answers into a blank process map (you can easily create a template using Microsoft Visio or some other business drawing software package). A facilitator is usually helpful in guiding a group through the process.

1. Strategy. What is the goal and how do we intend to achieve it? Naming the “how” is the same as naming your strategy for this change initiative.

2. Current Condition. What is the current condition of the goal? What symptoms are you seeing? What data do you have? A little soul-searching goes a long way here. If a team has not already done so, developing causal loop diagrams at this point is helpful in describing “what is.”

3. Desired Condition. What is the desired condition of the goal? What is your vision for this change initiative? Notice that the team has just established creative tension by juxtaposing the current condition with the desired condition.

4. Strategy Assumptions. What leads you to believe that this change initiative will work? What has been tried in the past and why didn’t it work? Why do you even want this goal? This is where you test the strategy you have named in step 1. You must define clear reasons why you selected this strategy, so you can defend it when others ask you about it. Test the validity of the assumptions by asking questions such as: How often is this assumption true? When would this assumption not be true? What are some examples? Does anyone see it any differently?

5. Barriers/Obstacles. What barriers must we overcome for this change initiative to be successful? What are we up against?

6. Desired Accomplishments. How will we know that we have achieved the desired condition? What measurable outcomes will we see?

7. Key Stakeholders. What groups are affected by this change initiative? Whose view do we need to consider?

8. Phases of the Process. What phases (groups of activities) must we go through to move from the current condition to the desired condition? Add a symbol to represent each separate phase.

9. Timeframe. What are the dates by which each phase must be completed?

10. Activities. What specific actions or events must occur during each of the phases for them to be completed successfully?

Strategic Action Maps in Action

At GMHS, we develop strategic action maps for our organizationwide initiatives, as well as for smaller projects. We create our diagrams over the course of several meetings, refining and changing them as our thoughts percolate. The team that completes the map shares it with other associates to track progress, communicate action strategies, and induce further learning.

As an organization, we have found many of the mainstream business tools to be “too hard,” in that they fail to take into account the insights that emerge when participants compare their mental models. We have also found some of the organizational learning tools to be “too soft,” in that they don’t integrate enough measurement and concrete action steps. So, we have developed this hybrid tool that we think encourages insight for action—a way to operationalize our systems thinking all on one page.

The post Operationalizing Systems Thinking on One Page appeared first on The Systems Thinker.