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.

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

Kuhn and Galbraith on habitual ideas

Regarding your thoughts on habitual ideas Karla...I thought you might enjoy the following quotes.

Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, wrote that an accepted body of knowledge “does not aim for novelties of fact or theory, and, when successful, finds none.” (p52)

 

Even when confronted by severe and prolonged failure “though they may begin to lose faith and then to consider alternatives, they do not renounce the paradigm that has led them into crisis.” (p77)

J.K. Galbraith, in The Affluent Society, sought to explain the persistence of "the conventional wisdom". He wrote that “Numerous factors contribute to the acceptability of ideas. To a very large extent, of course, we associate truth with convenience – with what most closely accords with self-interest and personal well-being or promises best to avoid awkward effort and unwelcome dislocation of life. We also find highly acceptable what contributes most to self-esteem.” (p7)

“Ideas are inherently conservative,” he concluded. “They yield not to the attack of other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstances with which they cannot contend.” As a result. “like the Old Guard, the conventional wisdom dies but does not surrender.” (p17, p12)

Sources: Thomas S. Kuhn 1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Third edition 1996, The University of Chicago Press

 J.K. Galbraith, The Affluent Society (1958) Penguin Books edition 1999

The short answer is that habitual ideas often provide pay-offs, in career, prestige, income, power and convenience etc for those who hold them. These ideas become part of people's identity, so its not surprising they defend them to the death. Such ideas are rarely defeated by frontal attack...they have to be slowly exterminated by the social triumph of better ideas!

- Les

Permission to innovate

Institutions tend to be lousy innovators.

Why?

Partly, I think, because power-holders don’t put their reputations on the line to push novel ideas. Also, nowadays, because employees are so crazily overworked after decades of so-called ‘productivity’ reforms.

Innovation, like all things, needs permission and a space to thrive.

I stumbled across this nice example of a public corporation that's doing it right.

South East Water in Melbourne has a board at the entrance to their staff cafeteria that records the passage of staff-initiated innovations from ‘raw idea’ to ‘evaluated’ to ‘testing’ to ‘project’ to ‘success’.

Beautiful!

It’s a conspicuous signpost that says ‘permission to experiment’, and ‘we value your ideas’.

(Thanks to the energetic Rebecca for posing with the board.)