Les's blog has moved

Go to http://enablingchange.posterous.com/

See you there!

To increase the success rate you have to increase the failure rate

I was at the Berry Charity Chook Auction on Sunday and found myself sitting in the shade next to a chook enthusiast from Woodhill Mountain named Julia. We were talking about the value of letting kids injure themselves in order to learn, and she suddenly said:
"To increase the success rate you have to increase the failure rate."
I said: "Did you think of that yourself?"
She said: "Yes."
I said: "Just then?"
She said: "Yes."
I said: "Can I use it?"
She said: "Yes."
To increase the success rate you have to increase the failure rate. Something to carve on the heads of politicians and bureaucrats who are terrified of risk.
Failure is good. It's how you learn. The only real failure is a failure to learn from experience.
Which reminds me of my friend Geoff Brown's comment on a previous post which read: 
Lately I have been communicating the need for a mindset shift to tackling these complex problems. Like you say in this post, we need to be trying lots of different things and be aware that most of them will fail. Dave Snowden (Google Cognitive Edge) talks about a shift away from Fail-Safe strategies (where control of outcomes is assumed) to Safe-Fail strategies (where failure won't end in disaster, but we quickly learn from them). I like Clay Shirky's quote on this when he talks about the complexity of getting stuff to spread on the internet ... "We need to learn to try lots and lots of new things and fail informatively so that you and others can find a skull on a pikestaff somewhere".

On kooks and kooky ideas

Without kooky ideas, workshops tend to rehash the conventional wisdom. Which, if you're trying to design change projects, is worse than useless. I believe that change projects absolutely depend on left-field ideas that shake up people's assumptions and stimulate creativity. 

An example: brainstorming ideas for a backyard biodiversity program, one team member blurted out "garden party". Afterwards she admitted she wasn't being serious and didn't expect anyone to take her seriously, but her team got excited and garden parties became their central tactic.

Another: Some years ago Newcastle City Council was running public workshops to develop community progress indicators. One workshop was on the verge of agreeing that GDP was a suitable indicator, when the Greeny down the back said something like "I think we should all learn to be poor together". You can see the conventional thinkers in the room whacking their foreheads, thinking "Who let this guy in?" But it led to a discussion and the group recognised that disparity in wealth is a much better indicator of community wellbeing. Which, of course, it is.

But one thing I've noticed is how HAAARD it is for participants in planning sessions to liberate their inner kooks. It's like extracting teeth. "Pllleeeeeaase," I feel like saying, "Just give me just one wacky idea. You're safe here. No one will bite you..."  On the other hand, a minority of people seem to be comfortable with their inner kook. They relish upsetting the status quo. So here's my thought: AIM TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE OPINIONATED ODD-BALL IN EVERY PLANNING SESSION. They may ruffle feathers, but that's the whole point. People need to have their assumptions challenged. 

On this subject I was stimulated by a superb article in ODE magazine "In Praise of Dissent" by Canadian journalist Jeremy Mercer. He looks at the scholarly research on the power of dissenting opinions, and explains why dissenters make groups produce better results.  http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/71/in-praise-of-dissent

A taste: 

However it wasn’t until a landmark study conducted at the University of Virginia in the 1970s that dissent ceased being an ephemeral ideal and started becoming a tangible commodity that might be exploited. Researchers were analyzing the dynamics of jury deliberations, and after viewing hundreds of hours of videotape, they noticed a curious trend. When there was friction and fighting among jurors, the jury engaged in a better decision-making process than when it arrived smoothly at a unanimous verdict.

As a rule, the dissent resulted in more information heard at the trial being taken into consideration and a greater variety of perspectives voiced by jurors. There was, however, one small problem. The person who instigated this discord, the principle dissenter, tended to be ridiculed and ostracized by other jurors. The abuse was so blatant that when mock juries were held, the student assigned to play the dissenter actually requested “combat pay” because the role was so harrowing.

“Dissent makes the group as a whole smarter and leads to more divergent thinking, but the people who stand up with those sorts of opinions often get beaten up for it,” says Charlan Nemeth, the lead psychologist on those studies. “The results made a lot of us sit up and ask, ‘What exactly is going on here?’”

But basically most of us seem to be terrified of being different, so our kooky ideas can be fragile. Self-censorship is the enemy of good brainstorming. I came across this helpful advice on brainstorming from Jeffrey Baumgartner, author of Report 103. I give a version of it before every brainstorming session.

"Write down every idea that comes to mind. Even if the idea is ludicrous, stupid or fails to solve the challenge, write it down. Most people are their own worst critics and by squelching their own ideas, make themselves less creative. So write everything down. NO EXCEPTIONS!"

"[Because] other people are also involved, insure that no one criticises anyone else’s ideas in any way. This is called squelching, because even the tiniest amount of criticism can discourage everyone in the group for sharing their more creative ideas. Even a sigh or the rolling of eyes can be critical. Squelching must be avoided!"

People really need permission to walk on their wacky side. So far, as a facilitator, things I've found that work are:

1) begin with some kooky inspirations (remind people about the World Naked Bike Ride, bicycle fashion shows, a beer dispensing bicycle, a bicycle-powered music festival, bicycle polo*) 

2) fearlessly model kooky thinking myself;

3) celebrate whatever kooky ideas that pop out. 

It's a slow process, but I know those kooky ideas are out there somewhere!

* All of which illustrate how creative ideas come from ramming seemingly unrelated ideas together.

How to avoid thought

I totally love this kind of thing.

http://designthinking.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55095d9cd8833013480065166970c-pi

It's from the blog of Australian futurologist Ross Dawson http://rossdawsonblog.com/ who actually looks like very useful guy in terms of saving me having to think for myself.

OpenIDEO - changing the world with friends

Just had coffee with Grant Young, a web consultant who’s working at the convergence of design thinking, social media and sustainability. His company is Zumio and his work includes community-building web sites for WWF and the NSW Cancer Institute. He introduced me to a whole world which, narrow-minded dolt that I am, I’ve managed to remain ignorant of.

So what is ‘design thinking’? It’s a convergence of industrial design and anthropology, in some ways re-invention of good old 1970s Participative Action Research, but applied to the design of products and services. IDEO and Live|Work are firms at the cutting edge of this field.

The simple idea is, when you’re designing a product or service, spend time becoming intimately acquainted with the lives of users. If possible, become immersed. Then proceed by designing and testing prototypes. This makes perfect sense for designing gizmos and widgets. So why not use the same method to design services and solutions to social problems? Why not indeed!

He sent me some wonderful links (below).

The most exciting of these is OpenIDEO. It’s so fantastic it makes me feel faint.

Have a look. http://openideo.com

OpenIDEO is a web site that enables a community of collaborators to design new products and services together, sharing their inspirations and concepts as they go. The beautiful thing is – you can use it to solve social problems too. And the community of collaborators can be virtually unlimited.

Just check out the brilliant range of ideas it generated to tackle childhood obesity. http://openideo.com/open/how-might-we-give-children-the-knowledge-to-eat-better/concepting/

OpenIDEO solves one of the biggest problems that bedevil designers of change programs. It’s the small gene pool of inspiration and creativity available to the typical project team/committee. You are always limited by the number of active collaborators x the time they have to think. With OpenIDEO you can invite creative input from a huge range of people and spread the collaborative process beyond the time available for meetings.

What I also love is the attention to the Inspiration phase. We always cut this short, or forget it entirely. But it’s vital. OpenIDEO requires and enables an expansive trawl for inspirations before we start to assemble solutions.

Promise to me: I’m gonna find a way to use this!

Grant’s blog is at: http://zum.io

Some illuminating links he sent me after our talk:

http://www.livelocal.org.au/ - the sustainability community developed by Digital Eskimo

http://johnnyholland.org/2010/07/13/mobile-diaries-discovering-daily-life/ - a bit more info on the "Mobile Diaries" process (from Penny Hagen, who I mentioned in conversation, with the article based in part on the work we did together for WWF-Australia)

http://www.rethinkclimate.org/debat/rethink-technology/ - introductory post from Ezio Manzini on the small, open, local, connected concept

http://sustainable-everyday.net/SEPhome/home.html

has a host of case studies of social innovation towards sustainability.

Perfectly said

Some nice aphorisms for those working on change projects:

"It’s difficult to remove by logic an idea that is not placed there by logic in the first place."

"If the map doesn’t agree with the ground, the map is wrong."

"We are what we do."

"Feelings follow behaviour."

"Not all who wander are lost."

"We flee from the truth in vain."

"Mental health requires freedom of choice."

"The only real paradises are those that are lost."

"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."

All from ‘Too Soon Old, Too Late Smart’, a pithy book that lists 30 things Gordon Livingston learnt in his career as a therapist.

Mysterious trends and fads

From Google Trends, a popularity chart of social change buzz words over time (in Australia).

Noticeable:

...the decline of "environmental education" and (thankfully) "capacity building";

...the rise and rise of "social marketing";

...the steady popularity of "behaviour change";

...the strange invisibility of "diffusion of innovations" (arguably the only one of these buzz words that represents a coherent body of knowledge!)

A nice insight – teams of two

One of the problems of organisational life is the weird centrifugal force that spins people into their own corners of the office where they become pressurised teams of one. And of course this isn't great for motivation, imagination, creativity, or morale.

I always thought the solution was “multidisciplinary teams”. But what about the Team of Two?

Here’s an insightful article that just changed my mind on this subject:

http://www.jpb.com/report103/archive.php?issue_no=20100818

P.S. It’s true. I just finished a complicated Cycling Strategy where I was unintentionally in a team of two with a passionate cycling advocate. The team work was enjoyable and effortless. I can’t imagine it being that way with a bigger team. 

On tackling wicked problems

I recently stumbled across a fantastic publication, one that ought to be on the reading list for anyone working in the business of change.

It’s called Wicked Problems, A Public Policy Perspective.

It published by the Australian Public Service Commission and carries its authority. The author(s) are anonymous, but they have done a beautiful job of crisply summarising a literature and critically assessing its huge implications for government.

Firstly, what are “wicked problems”?

Wicked problems are complex multi-dimensional problems like indigenous  health, climate change, catchment management, and school bullying. In fact, practically every problem we deal with in environment or health is a wicked problem.

Wicked problems:

- are difficult to define (it depends on who is asked);

- are often unstable…(understandings evolve over time, presenting a moving target);

- have many interdependencies and causes;

- have no clear solution (solutions “are not verifiably right or wrong, but rather better or worse or good enough” (p4) and solutions often have unforseen consequences);

- are socially complex (“it is the social complexity of wicked problems, rather than their technical complexity, that overwhelms most current problem-solving and project management approaches p4”);

- hardly ever conveniently sit within the responsibilities of one organisation;

- involve changing peoples’ behaviours;

- are characterised by chronic policy failure.

Stumbling upon this publication was timely because I was just writing up recommendations for organisational change in the Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority. It handed me a really useful framework for assessing the organisation’s capacity as a change agency.

It’s this: An effective change agency should exhibit seven capacities:

1) Capacity for innovation;

2) Capacity for learning and adaptive management;

3) Capacity to work across silos, in multi-disciplinary teams;

4) Capacity to collaborate with multiple stakeholders and the public in understanding problems and devising and implementing solutions;

5) Capacity to influence the behaviours of stakeholders and the public;

6) Staff capacity in communication, big picture thinking, influencing others and the ability to work cooperatively.

7) Capacity to critically review accountability frameworks.

Of course, as soon as you think about these capacities, it’s obvious why of most government agencies and local councils are hopeless at tackling difficult problems. The authors say this so much more diplomatically:

“A traditional bureaucracy, divided into vertical silos, in which most of the authority for resolving problems rests at the top of the organisation, is not well-adapted to support the kinds of process necessary for addressing the complexity and ambiguity of wicked problems. Bureaucracies tend to be risk averse, and are intolerant of messy processes. They excel at managing issues with clear boundaries rather than ambiguous, complex issues that may require experimental and innovative approaches.” (p13)

In short, if you want to change the world you can’t afford be a traditional, hierarchically managed, value-free, service-delivery agency like a Department or local Council. You just can’t. You need to be small, nimble, passionate, and happy to “fail informatively”. CMAs are one promising model; PCPs (Primary Care Partnerships in Victoria) are another; Alliancing is another (used for large infrastructure projects); outsourcing to NGOs like Landcare groups and local Environmental Centres is another.

Here are some nice quotes from Tackling Wicked Problems:

“Because of social complexity, solving a wicked problem is fundamentally a social process. Having a few brilliant people or the latest project management technology is no longer sufficient.” (p28, quoting Conklin, L. 2006)

“It has been argued that the public sector needs to adopt more systematic approaches to social innovation as opposed to the current rather ad hoc approach: ‘How many departments or agencies have a board level director responsible for innovation..? How many have significant budgets for innovation..? How many can point to the flow of new models in their service that are being cultivated, developed, improved and tested.’” (p13, quoting Mulgan G. 2006)

“A concomitant condition to increasing adaptability is a broad acceptance and understanding, including from governments and Ministers, that there are no quick fixes and that levels of uncertainty around the solutions to wicked problems need to be tolerated.” (p15)

“Critically, tackling wicked problems also calls for high levels of systems thinking. This big picture thinking helps policy makers to make the connections between the multiple causes and interdependencies of wicked problems that are necessary in order to avoid a narrow approach and artificial taming of wicked problems…A multi-disciplinary team approach is one practical way to garner all the required skills and knowledge for tackling any particular wicked problem.” (p33)

“Collaborative strategies are the best approach to tackling wicked problems which require behavioural change as part of the solution.” (p10)

“The fact is that a true understanding of the problem generally requires the perspective of multiple organisations and stakeholders, and that any package of measures identified as a possible solution usually requires the involvement, commitment and coordination of multiple organisations and stakeholders to be delivered effectively.” (p11)

“Is the requirement to tightly specify programme outputs and outcomes useful in an environment where even defining the problem and solution is difficult?” (p23) 

“There is increasing evidence that some types of pre-set performance measures, especially lower-level indicators, may undermine the responsiveness of the delivery of complex services and could even distort or constrict the services by making the indicator (or the target) rather than the service the focus of provision. In the case of devolved services both service providers and service users can find themselves playing second fiddle to programme reporting regimes.” (p24)

----------------------

Australian Public Service Commission (2007) Tackling Wicked Problems – A Public Policy Perspective, downloadable from www.apsc.gov.au/publications07/wickedproblems.htm