In a previous blog, Co-Opetition at 20-Something, I gave myself a memory jog for the book of the same name. One of the reasons I was re-reading this book was to know what the concept has to say about Co-Opetition and Non-Profits [1].
Continue readingCanada has the highest rate of multiple sclerosis (MS) in the world, with an estimated 1 in 340 Canadians living with the disease. While it is most often diagnosed in young adults aged 15 to 40, younger children and older adults are also diagnosed with the disease (source, MS Society). Each June the MS Society of Alberta and the NWT runs the Leduc to Camrose ride over two days and about 150km.
In the Spring I run a weekly program called ‘Wheeleasy Wriders‘ which teaches newbie cyclists how to go from a painful 20KM ride to thinking that a 60KM ride is a breeze. Although this is a hobby, the techniques that I use are directly translatable into a work environment and the reverse as well – Wheeleasy Wriders makes me a better manager – last week is a good example.
Many new riders are scared of their gears. Although a marvel of engineering, they do require a small investment of time to learn how to use them properly. But using gears effectively is not what this blog is about (however the blogs listed below DO talk about such things). Last week I took a page out of my work environment and did the following:
The result was that most of the newbies self-assessed their gear knowledge higher after the explanation than before. Why, for the following reasons:
I use similar teaching methods at work when I need to train people. Rather than standing around in a parking lot explaining bike gears, at work this is done through webinars and conference calls. One of my ‘rules’ is that I actively encourage cheating on my exams. Thus, other audience members are encouraged to help the ‘trainer’ out. Because the audience knows they be asked next to provide an explanation, there is better attention and retention for the content. I have learned a few cautions/guidelines though:
Good luck with your efforts to train and explain in your organization. Also, if you want to learn more about riding or how to use your gears, be sure to read:
People are central to Organizational Biology (orgbio) and orgbio is composed of two fundamental elements: Mass (machinery, intangibles such as patents and policies and procedures) and the ephemeral quality of Adeptness which is the human application of mass toward an organizational objective.
Continue readingI have been able to call upon friends and colleagues to help me craft articles:
In all of these cases, the contributors provided me with excellent advice and the resulting articles were much better as a result. This article is no exception: SharePoint as a Documentation Tool; Life Beyond the “Big Honkin’ Binder”.
Of course no good deed ever goes unpunished and to that end, the following are the folks who have helped me with the friendly-peer-review. Hopefully I can return the favor in the future. Also, if you are on the list and are logging this as professional development, feel free to refer to this post and notice below.
|
Person |
Organization |
| Chad B. | Government of Alberta |
| Eric S. | Government of Alberta |
| Howard T. | Government of Alberta |
| Mavin K. | Government of Alberta |
| Mona E. | Self Employed |
| Paul B. | Government of Alberta |
| Terry E. | Retired |
| Uday D. | United Nations |
To whom it may concern, the above individuals were asked to perform a friendly-peer review of an article (2017 – Life Beyond the “Big Honkin’ Binder” ) published in the Financial Management Institute of Canada January, 2017, FMI*IGF eJournal. The estimated time to perform this review was between 2 to 3 hours completed in early September, 2016. All of the above individuals demonstrated a firm grasp of the subject matter and helped to create-net-new original thought and critique through this peer-review which will be reflected in the final article.
On November 17, 2016, FMI Edmonton hosted: CPAs and the Public Service. Now that CPA Alberta is almost a toddler (16+ months old at time of writing), it is time to ask the question: How Can CPA Alberta help the members who work in the public service?
Continue readingOn September 21, 2016, the Edmonton FMI Chapter hosted the following session (detailed description found below in the ‘blog-annex’: Fostering Innovation in the Public Service When Money is Tight. Part of the conference was a game entitled ‘Innovation Bingo’. The objectives of the game were as follows:
The following conclusions were drawn from the results of the game:
Fostering Innovation in the Public Service When Money is Tight.
Public servants are expected to be innovative while working in a risk averse environment. This inherent conundrum is compounded during times of fiscal restraint when ideas are solicited but resources to execute few. This session will investigate innovation in the public services from a number of facets.
What is innovation, how do you get it, how do you keep it and when should you ignore it? Next, how to propose, implement and sustain an innovative idea or culture in an environment that is less than ideal. Finally, thoughts and strategies of making the case for innovation during times of fiscal restraint; after all, never let a good crisis go to waste.
Proofs of Concept (PoC) are great. They allow one to test a small component and then apply success (or failure) to future endeavours. Certainly the all time champion of the PoC are the Myth busters. Adam and Jamie would start each myth with a small-scale test before going big (and with the obligatory BIG explosion).
PoCs come in many sizes. At one end is the developer who experiments and comes up with a workaround or a more elegant way to achieve a result (aka a good ‘hack’). On the other end is an organization that incrementally works toward a final objective. For example sending a series of Apollo missions into space with each one adding on to the knowledge and experience of its successor. This blog considers more than a midnight pizza fueled hack-a-thon but much less than sending humans into the unknown.
Buzz Aldrin Apollo 11 – the beneficiary of a series of Proof of Concepts.
One of human’s greatest achievements was the development of the Scientific Method which involves (courtesy of dictionary.com):
noun; 1. a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
The following Six PoC Questions for Success is loosely based on the above method. The intent is to help an organization understand why a PoC is a good idea and the result. At the same time, this is ‘just-enough’ formalization. After all, it is important to let the brilliant folks develop ‘elegant-hacks‘ without too much paper work.
Why was a PoC identified? Generally this is to address a specific business problem. Pure research is okay as an objective for a PoC. That is developing technologies or techniques with no immediate application but future potential value for an organization.
The answer to this question is that it is often not solved, done through intuition or completed via a manual/semi-automated process. This question helps the organization understand what to do the with the results of a PoC. If the manual process is only slightly more costly then a fully automated variety, why bother with the complexities of automation?
In effect this is the hypothesis portion of the scientific method. Ideally this question should be a simple Yes/No. If the nature of the question changes through the PoC process, that is okay – but the evolution of the question should be included as part of the final report. Thus we may have started asking question X but we ended up answering question Y. The reason is that X was too big/small/wrong and Y was answerable.
Defining the question is important so your PoC team does lose its way and they have a touchstone to come back to. A bit of formalization around how they can change, extend, shrink or otherwise amend the question is important.
This question should have two parts, a) and b). Part a) is the predicted result. By including a prediction, the PoC can stay focused on the intended result. This is not to discount secondary benefits or chance discoveries but it does help to ensure that a PoC does not become its own self-sustaining cottage industry. Consider keeping part a) secret from the PoC team if you want the benefits of the double blind effect.
Part b) is what happened, what were the results? This should support the response to the question answered above. Ideally the result is Yes or No but it might be Maybe. Of course everyone wants a momentous discovery every time. However failure should be seen as a positive result – such a result may have saved an organizations considerable time, talent and treasure.
This should be a very practical listing of how to use these results. Examples of next steps may include refining a subsequent PoC, engaging in a larger scale test or moving the resulting solution to production.
Question five focuses on the practical and immediate application of the PoC results. Question six let’s the team blue sky a bit and extrapolate findings to larger contexts. This is part of the fun and value of the PoC – the larger application of something new.
Sorry, unlike the Mythbusters, there is no end of blog explosion. Instead, these questions are a handy reminder of the things to consider when a PoC is being suggested. Let me know your thoughts on the six questions. Would you add a question or take away one or more of them?
This week I will be going into an operational planning meeting. Like most of the operational planning meetings I have attended, three questions are being asked:
The first two questions are relatively easy to answer and there is a plethora of information on How, Why, When, Where and What to plan. In this blog, I want to focus on the Stop question, specifically:
What does “Stop” Mean in the Context of Operational Planning?
In my career, I have been in dozens of planning meetings and I cannot really recall something identified as ‘should be Stopped’ that was actually stopped. At the same time, over my career, I have stopped doing many things that I used to do with out the ‘thing’ being part of a planning meeting. Why is it so hard to identify a process to stop and then actually stop it?
A quick stop for a definition and in this case the word ‘Process’ which is one of these wonderfully loaded terms. Fortunately the good folks at the International Standards Organization can help: (source: http://www.iso.org, ISO 9000:2015; Terms and Definitions, 3.4.1, accessed 2016-04-02):
3.4.1 process: set of interrelated or interacting activities that use inputs to deliver an intended result (Note 1 to entry: Whether the “intended result” of a process is called output (3.7.5), product (3.7.6) or service (3.7.7) depends on the context of the reference.).
Assuming that an organization wants to stop a process, the challenge of doing so is built into the definition – when you stop something, you must deal with the inputs, the outputs and the impact on the inter-relation between potentially numerous activities.
Fortunately the above definition also gives us a methodology to evaluate what processes we can stop, change or that we are stuck with. The Process Focused Way of Stopping uses a 2 x 2 matrix which asks two simple questions: will Inputs or Outputs Cease or Continue? Inside the resulting matrix is a gradient between the extremes of fully stopping or continuing to deploy inputs and outputs. The four themed quadrants can help an organization understand the challenges and execution of stopping a process and interrelated impacts on the organization of doing so.
Or how to manage the “Law of Unintended Consequences“.
‘So What?’, how can this model be used? At a minimum I plan to bring it with me to the next planning session and when someone identifies an activity to ‘STOP’ I will point to the quadrant the thing falls into. This is not to prevent good organizational design, new ideas or planning; but it is to focus on the practicalities of planning and execution.
The model has its limits. The first is that is micro-biased. It assumes the organization, processes, outputs, and the like remain relatively constant. If your company is bought and the division shut down, the model is mute. The other limitation is technology. AI is seen as an automation tool but what happens when it becomes a game change at the macro level.
Nevertheless, hopefully you can start using this Stopping Model the next time you begin a planning meeting!
I have been able to call upon friends and colleagues twice to help me craft articles. In both cases IAEA Property, Plant and Equipment Framework and LATE the group provided me with excellent advice.
A huge note of thanks (and a libation or coffee on me next time I see you) to the following individuals who provided ‘friendly-peer-review’. As in the last go round, the result was a much better article. The article itself can be accessed through my “Antifragile Strategic Planning: director’s cut” or directly from the FMI website: January 2016.
Of course no good deed ever goes unpunished and to that end, the following are the folks who have helped me with the friendly-peer-review. Hopefully I can return the favor in the future. Also, if you are on the list and are logging this as professional development, feel free to refer to this post and notice below.
|
Person |
Organization |
| Anne-Marie A. | Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute |
| Pam Q. | Athabasca University |
| Stacey D. | Government of Alberta |
| Shakeeb S. | Government of Alberta |
| Peter N. | Retired |
To whom it may concern, the above individuals were asked to perform a friendly-peer review of an article intended to be published in the Financial Management Institute of Canada journal, FMI*IGF Journal. The estimated time to perform this review was between 2 to 3 hours completed in early December, 2015. All of the above individuals demonstrated a firm grasp of the subject matter and helped to create-net-new original thought and critique through this peer-review which will be reflected in the final article.
The above activity meets the definition of Charter Professional Accountant – Alberta’s verifiable continuous professional development. Evidence for this include this web page attesting to the involvement as well as the emails and responses provided to myself. I welcome contact if further confirmation is required.
Organizational Biology 