This article is part of a series of reflections on the Global Network Annual Conference. To view the previous article, click here.
The Positive Participative Innovation (PPI) workshop was an important milestone on my journey of discovering the STS Roundtable and the STS community.
I greatly appreciated the way three theories (Appreciative Inquiry, Design Thinking and Open Systems Theory) were merged to demonstrate positive participative innovation. This year the word “innovation” seems following me everywhere: in my professional work (I conducted an evaluation of an innovation project and why the intended change is not happening) and my personal development (so, what is innovation after all? And how do you define it?). I was curious to see how one can make the experience of innovation positive and participative. I loved this workshop. Everything made sense.
I greatly appreciated the diversity of participants in terms of their nationalities, professional background, interests, the way they see the world around us. Diversity is the main ingredient of any innovation: it helps to discover new perspectives on the same issue and uncover hidden dimension of possible solutions just by listening to how others see or perceive the problem.
The language used by the workshop facilitators in line with the Appreciative Inquiry philosophy: “Let’s envision the “wow” future,” “dream-storm innovations” and “model & iterate the innovations.”
I have already borrowed a number of tools that were used in the workshop:
– Building a 3-D model to explain a concept or an idea;
– Using visuals to explain a strategy or a proposal;
– “Less words more visuals” was a great slogan of the day;
– Rotating participants in each group during the initial brainstorming helps to diversify the flow of idea and, at the same time, ensures its continuity as half of the table are people from the previous discussion flow;
– There were several seemingly unrelated objects on each table and as I learned they had their own specific purpose: to help people with various learning preferences to remain present during the workshop (Thanks you Carolyn, for a great tip!);
– “Burning questions list” is not really new to me (thanks to Don!) but seeing it outside the class room was a powerful experience.
I would also like to underline the spirit of openness, inclusiveness and encouragement of the inter-generational sharing of knowledge, insights, and outcomes of their ongoing projects.
This article is part of a series of reflections on the Global Network Annual Conference. To view the previous article, click here.
Positive Participatory Innovation (PPI) Workshop engages participants in a live-case study on how to purposefully pursue the creation of healthy, humane, and innovative futures.
Despite all my planning and preparation, the week of the conference was harrowing, as I had to deal with a destabilizing work-related issue. My situation is not unique as many of us, perhaps too many, know that workplaces are at times sites in which larger systemic issues are played through people and by people, as victims and perpetrators caught in the web of a maladapted society.
In a turbulent environment in which feeling unsafe at work is just one item on a depressingly long list of issues, the PPI workshop was a hopeful experience. It was beautifully designed by DBD (Don, Bernard, Doug) and brought us together to build on each other’s strengths while experiencing work in a productive and innovative temporary organization.
Although the groups experienced occasional fight/flight dynamics, my first ‘striking’ moment happened during the second day of the workshop, when participating in a large- group-data-clustering exercise. As I experienced the high-energy of a creative working mode, that might be the exact time when I realized that people with diverse affiliations and backgrounds are truly building on each other’s work and generating a great momentum for future collaboration. As we were envisioning an issue-based ecosystem for more humane workplaces, I started to feel less tired, more energized, and definitely engaged.
Now, we are back in our organizations, communities, and families. Will we (GLOWIN) be able to maintain this momentum? Can we embody and enact in our local networks and workplaces the changes that we want to create?
This article is part of a series of reflections on the Global Network Annual Conference. To view the previous article, click here.
My first contact with the STS community occurred on the first morning of the pre-conference Positive Participative Innovation (PPI) workshop. As a student of Human Systems Intervention at Concordia, I had studied various approaches to organizational structure and change, one of them being Socio-Technical Systems. However, my knowledge of the theory was just that — theoretical. I therefore arrived the morning of the pre-conference with many questions on how I would be able to contribute to the workshop’s end goal of designing prototypes for a global organization on workplace innovation.
The workshop design integrated principles of Appreciative Inquiry (AI), Open Systems Theory (OST), and Design Thinking (DT), and unfolded through a three-phase process of Inquiring, Imagining and Invigorating. One of the key features that effectively held these processes together in one workshop was the constant reforming of small groups. By ‘doing the shuffle’ between each activity, the facilitators maximized interactions between participants, thus maintaining the high energy level of the group, enabling community building, and fostering creativity. The effect was so striking that even by the end of the first day ‘do the shuffle’ had become a buzzword for the nascent community!
On the morning of the first day, after a few shuffles, I found myself among yet another set of new faces to conduct AI interviews with a peer. The exercise impacted my entire experience for the day and the rest of the week, as in the course of the interview, I discovered that I did have something to contribute to this community that we were creating from scratch as a group of diverse practitioners seeking to connect and work with an even wider range of practitioners to create better workplaces that work better. Thanks to my AI partner Sam’s probing questions, I discovered that I had valuable experience in making organizations work across cultures. What’s even more interesting, I found that I could compare notes with Sam, who, as a Ph.D candidate from Belgium, had quite a few experiences working across cultures of his own under his belt. I wasn’t alone!
From that moment on, I felt energized and confident in my ability to participate in the workshop and contribute to the organization we were in the process of creating, and as we cycled through the Imagine and Invigorate stages, that feeling grew. Thanks to the positive and participatory nature of the overall workshop process, I left the two-day workshop with the sense of having contributed to taking GLOWIN, the organization we were in the process of creating, one step ahead on the road to coming into being.
This article is part of a series of reflections on the 2014 Meeting of the Global STS Network. To view the previous article, click here.
Positive Participative Innovation (PPI) was an opportunity to review some key concepts of Socio-technical Systems Design, Appreciative Inquiry, and Design Thinking. One of the first questions was: “What hopes/aspirations and/or capacities do you bring to this workshop?” Based on the fact that “The future is created with what we have,” this serves as a reminder for all groups that we can already find richness and variety in our competencies and backgrounds. It also reminds us that people in the system are their own experts in finding solutions.
The innovation challenge starts with a process to Inquire through conversation by asking ourselves novel questions — remember, asking questions is an intervention. Systems begin to move in the direction of the questions we ask — about a Transformational Inquiry topic: How have we…
This prompts a reflection on the importance of asking powerful questions:
-What we ask determines what we find;
-What we find determines how we talk;
-How we talk determines how we imagine together;
-How we imagine determines what we achieve together.
The next step, Imagine, requires that we put the result of our conversation (How might we… ) into images, and that we take the conversation to a deeper level. We transition from Metaphor to Models, using sketches, diagrams, or any other means to dream our future.
During the 3rd step, Invigorate, we ask ourselves how we can test, mobilize and scale our proposal (How will we…), we plan the way to engage new participants and make sure that our innovation is viable, feasible, repeatable and scalable. We detect where is the energy that will make our project a success and how will we ignite this energy.
I liked this process as it is fueled by passion and bold ideas. It echoes ideas about continuous improvement that were explored during Sylvie’s Pecha Kucha presentation, where we were reminded that the light bulb wasn’t invented by improving candles.
Other ideas I heard during the PPI workshop include:
-We live in an emergent world, rather than a predictable one.
A group of students and graduates from the Human Systems Intervention M.A. program at Concordia University in Montreal attended the 2014 Meeting of the Global Socio-Technical Systems Network and met several times after the conference to discuss their learning and experiences.
They selected a number of striking moments — moments when something struck them as profound, exciting, insightful or emotional, something they will remember — and wrote a short description of that moment and what it meant to them. In this way they captured as much as possible of the whole experience, getting at the essence of why the Global Network is of such high value.
We will be posting their reflections weekly here on this blog site, in the sequence of the unfolding of the conference.
Contribution written by Helen Maupin M.A. in her blog.
For the purposes of improvement and/or innovation, organizations redesign their strategies, structures, systems and processes. Over the past 25 years of collaborating with organizations to accomplish their redesign efforts, I witnessed their significant performance improvements. However, only recently (see timeframe below) has the importance of collaborative design, in the context of mapping organizations’ reporting structures and workflows, been recognized.
Organization design contextually and traditionally fell within the organizing function of management. An organization’s design or framework — the creation of structures, roles, processes and reporting relationships — determines the what, how and who necessary to achieve an organization’s stated purpose and vision.
The core components comprising an organization’s design are illustrated below in The Anatomy of an Organization. In addition, the following 5-minute animated videoclarifies how these core components fit within the design process.
When organizations redesign for the purposes of improvement and reinvention, strategizing is merely one step in the change process. Clearly defining and aligning structure, processes, rewards and people to that strategy, directs its execution into better overall performance. IMO, an organization’s performance is enhanced significantly when its members come together and practice the following collaborative design principles. In other words, they collectively design to ensure —
Collaborative relationships, openness and connection
Whole system (people, purpose, planet, profit) optimization
Profound respect for the ecology
Shared governance (leadership and decision making)
Profound respect for human dignity
Minimal critical specifications (specify only what is absolutely critical)
Designing with these four principles in mind is more likely to birth a participative organic organization structure, which may or may not be your preferred workplace environment. As you consider the two extreme forms of organization depicted in the table below, ask yourself these questions—
In which type of organization would you like to work?
Are you a risk taker or do you avoid risk?
Do you like to think about the big picture or stay immersed in the detail?
Do you like to solve problems and make decisions?
Do you like to be told what to do?
On the continuum displayed below, where would you place yourself?
1 2 3 4 5
As an employee or employer, each of us needs to think deeply about the organization design that optimizes our passion, potential and purpose — our strategies. Just as an organization needs to align its structure with its strategy, we need to align our potential with the organization design most able to enhance our performance.
For more on organization design and transformation, click here.
Participation is a major root in SocioTechnical Systems (STS) origins and practice. STS began when a group of coal miners, autonomously, met in a pub, decided to reorganize their work, and demanded that they get “a common pay chit.” This was a naturally occurring organizational experiment originating with them without consultants, managers, or researchers. The context was the mechanization of coal mining with conveyors and the implementation of work fragmentation and incentive pay for particular tasks. This was good “scientific management.” It did not work because coal mines did not have predictable work content and much work was expended on non-incentive tasks. Cornish mining competence goes back over a thousand years. The miners simply adapted that experience to organize their operation of the mechanized mine face and were very successful. In effect, they acted as a large cooperative subcontractor earning a common pay chit for the coal they delivered. We only know about the “experiment” because researchers got wind of it and gained permission to observe.
Participation may be defined as group acts of sensemaking and/or decision making, separable from the typical hierarchical arrangements dictated by organization structures. Autonomous participation lives on in what is called the “informal organization” and around ubiquitous coffee machines. Facilitated participation has roots in the group process studies of Kurt Lewin and has been the central activity in Organization Development consultancy. Facilitated participation has organizational sanction with the limitations that such sanction requires.
Participation, usually facilitated, is an important principle in STS design practice for two reasons. It is understood as a central value and as a critical design principle. The distinction is significant.
Participation as a value defines a relationship to the people whose work is being designed. There is a long tradition of treating people who work as being less than human. Hannah Arendt noted the distinction in many languages between work and labor. Labor was associated with slavery, necessity, and unfreedom. Adam Smith noted that the division of labor removed from workers “the exercise” of “invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties” whose absence makes workers “as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become.” F.W Taylor saw laboring work as more suitable for a “gorilla” or a “cart horse” than an intelligent human being. He describes a pig iron handler as “so stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental make-up the ox.” Before World War I, it was common to advertise for “hands,” not people. The Division of Labor was explicitly a process imitated by manufacturers to control behaviors of laborers and liberate employers from dependence on their skills.
Participation as an STS Value
Participation, as a Socio-technical value, requires that people be actively engaged in inventing their own work lives. It expects workers to be agents in designing their future work organization as was the case with those coal miners in Durham, England. Participation might be understood as having workers as Origins, i.e. central actors in their own narratives rather than Pawns subject to imposed designs by others. Facilitation, under this value, becomes functional support rather than “empowerment.” Participation, as a Socio-technical value, recognizes human agency rather than granting it.
Alternatively, participation is a design principle. The Durham coal mine experiment provides a vivid example. Herbst studied the movements of the miners as work progressed in the coal getting cycle. As conditions changed along the mine face, the miners exhibited “task continuity.” No one told them what to do. They knew enough to undertake whatever next tasks were needed. In other words, the miners as a “team” readily redeployed themselves in terms of the contingent conditions of the mine face. Being very experienced miners and respected coworkers, they adapted their work very effectively. Operationally, that is a very valuable capacity. We cannot expect to replicate the long collective mining experience of Cornish miners.
Ask workers why they are executing a particular task in a particular way. Often the only answer is that is how they were told to do it. A group of workers so uninformed about their own roles and tasks is unable to redeploy when necessary. They can only follow orders. The fragmentation of work based on Taylor’s separation of thinking from doing is maladaptive since it reserves all adaptive functions for management.
Participative Design of Work
A condition for reorganizing a group’s efforts on the fly in the face of emergent conditions and demands is to have them participate in the design of their initial work organization. Fully understanding the assumptions that lead to the definition and allocation of their work roles and tasks empowers them to revise those deployments as needed. That capability only comes from participative design. That assertion can be readily tested.
Participative design develops remarkable adaptive capacities in work teams. That capacity grows with experience as problems are addressed and solved and learning is shared. Imposed designs cannot match that capacity since they must assume limited capacities, safety factors with respect to capacities, and the separation of learning from work.
In Socio-Technical Systems organization design, participation as both a value and as a design principle is conceptually separable but not functionally so. A focus on the value without empowering participants in a process of design becomes manipulation. A process of design without valuing participants is simply co-opting them. Our rich involvement in hierarchical organizations often blinds us to the conditions for effective meaningful participation.
Let it be said that there are multiple paths to the same truth. Ancient tribes possessed knowledge of the environment and man’s place in the natural world that we are just now confirming through science.
The discovery of what works in the life of organizations, as in the life of society, may be discovered and described in many different and equally accurate ways. The world of management literature is populated by competing theories and sources of knowledge: Socio-technical systems, systems thinking, whole-systems theory, complexity and chaos theory, engagement, participation, and the currently most popular Toyota Production System or “lean management.” In all those words there is much that is common truth. Yet writers, consultants and managers seek the comfort of one path and one explanation. From the view of the practical manager it is easier to follow one book, one theory or set of practices. From the viewpoint of the academic or theorist, it is easiest to gain recognition by attaching yourself to one favored theory.
It is the habit of the Western intellectual mind to dissect, divide, disaggragate and separate parts of a whole into small pieces that can be put under the microscope and thereby lose the connections to the whole. In the world of the Lakota Sioux there is the Sacred Hoop with no point of beginning or end that represents the unity of all things. Below I am arguing for unifying that which is the practical experience of Toyota and others, with the theory and practice of socio-technical systems. Each can learn from the other and they have much in common.
Unity of Thought: Theory and Practice
About twenty five years ago, Norman Bodek, an early proponent of “Japanese management,” gave me an article by Lou Davis at UCLA on socio-technical systems. It was one of those “ah-ha” moments when something becomes obvious and useful. The theory of STS is simple and elegant. In every organization there are work or technical systems (the work process, task definitions, machinery, information flow); and, there aresocial systems, the “people” systems or culture that surrounds the work process. The social system includes how people are organized, the definition of jobs at each level, the decision making process, the systems of motivation, training and anything else that affects human performance. It seems rather obvious that the technical system and the social system are interdependent. Each impacts the other. It should then also seem obvious that each should be designed along with the other. They should be aligned and mutually supportive.
However, organizations often act in contradiction to simple truths. In most organizations these two systems have been designed independently and are misaligned, producing sub-optimal performance. Engineers design the flow of work, the placement of machinery, and define how the machinery will be used. The organization of people, the structure, the systems of motivation, are all designed by someone else who may have little appreciation for the demands of the work system. At the same time, the engineers may fail to understand the value of teamwork and the elements of intrinsic motivation so important to today’s work force.
In the early 1960’s an innovation in work systems was discovered by faculty (Eric Trist) and students (Ken Bamforth) at the Tavistock Institute in Great Britain. Ken Bamforth had worked in coal mines and as a doctoral student had been encouraged to return to his previous field of work to study their organization. What he discovered was a new seam of coal in which new technology was being applied and where the workforce had been allowed to develop their own system of organization and cooperation. Bureaucratic divisions of labor specialization and Taylorism had become the norm in coal mines. And with that came a 20% rate of absenteeism, high turnover and low productivity. But, in the new seam, in which the workers had designed much of their own system, productivity was high, absenteeism was low and cooperation among groups was evident. Studying this case Trist concluded that the following principles were involved in the success:
The work system, a functioning whole, now became the basic unit of focus rather than single tasks and jobs.
The work group was central rather than the individual job-holder.
Internal regulation of the work system by the work group was possible and effective, rather than the external regulation of individuals by supervisors.
Work teams developed members who were multi-skilled, therefore more flexible and capable of self-regulation.
The discretionary, rather than the prescribed, aspect of the work was valued.
The team structure increased the variety of work done by individuals, thereby increasing intrinsic motivation.
From these observations emerged the theory and practice of socio-technical systems. The theory expanded to include not only the immediate work system, but the whole organizational system and the macro-social system that inevitably impacts the work of the organization and the behavior of its members. The theory recognized that every system is a sub-system of a larger system and no system can be understood without understanding its interaction with both the larger system and parallel systems.
In the coming years the theory and practice of STS would lead to the development of the first self-directed team plants in the United States (Gaines Topeka and others) and the thorough adoption of the method by Proctor and Gamble, Corning and other successful companies. Perhaps due to its academic sounding language or the failure of its leading figures to write popular management books, it has remained relatively obscure to most practicing executives.
The Practical Practice of Lean
The Toyota Production System did not emerge from any academic theory or research. On the contrary, it was born and bred on the shop floor by practicing managers, engineers and front line employees. The language of lean, phrases like “the elimination of waste” and “respect for people” reflect its shop floor origins.
Taiichi Ohno and Shigeo Shingo are the two individuals at Toyota who are most credited with developing and promoting this new system of work. It emerged as Shigeo Shingo worked with die press operators to reduce change over time from one stamped part to another. At Ford in the 1960’s it required one day to change dies. There was a die change department, die change workers and die change managers. If it takes a full day to change over from one part to another you are naturally going to want to run each part for a long time, many hundreds or thousands of units before changing over. You must then have a warehouse to put them in, a forklift to move them, warehouse workers and warehouse managers. Shingo observed the work and timed the actual value adding time and the total time. He only considered the actual time that the die was stamping the metal to be value-adding. Everything else was waste. Asking the press operators to think, to experiment and find ways to reduce the non-value adding time, the process increasingly became “lean.” The last time I was in Marysville, there was poster next to the world’s larges stamping press. The poster was written by hand and said“.54!” That is fifty-four seconds to change dies on the world’s largest stamping press.
When you reduce change over time you reduce the need for work-in-process inventory and you make small lots rather than large lots. You eliminate waste. This is where it began.
It is an important point of history that both in the coal mine and at the stamping press, it was the workers who used their own practical knowledge of how things work and the relationships among people, to create what became historically important innovations in work systems.
In the mid 1980’s I became involved at Honda America Manufacturing in Marysville, Ohio as they built their U.S. manufacturing capacity. They were very forthright that their system was an adaptation of the Toyota Production System. At the same time I was working at Ford and several other large American manufacturing companies. The contrast was glaringly obvious, particularly in the culture. At Honda every employee, and “every” means every manager including the president, wore the exact same uniform. Every new manager or engineer worked on the production line for six weeks to gain respect for those who did the value adding work of the organization. There were no private office and the president sat in the middle of a large open office area. Every employee was on a team and every team met every day to seek improvement. The factory was as clean as any kitchen or operating room. Discipline for negative behavior was the result of a judgement by a “jury of your peers” rather than a judgement by management. There was a spirit of unity rather than a spirit of division. All of these were in stark contrast to the then current state of U.S. manufacturers.
But, the differences were equally clear in the technical system. In U.S. manufacturing companies at every work station there was a bin, or simply a pile of incoming work to be done. There were always two other piles: work completed and ready to be moved to the next station, and a bin for bad parts. The parts didn’t move until the piles grew high. At Honda, as at Toyota, there were very small piles and no bin for bad parts. I learned at Honda that anything that is not moving is waste. Therefore, the larger the piles the more the waste. Honda was constantly trying to make things move and not allow parts to stand still.
Lean is a moving target because, at its heart, lean is a process of learning and improvement. It cannot be defined as something that is standing still or fixed. It is not simply mimicking what happened at Toyota or anywhere else. And, most importantly, it is not a kaizen event, a project, or something done by a consultant.
It is best captured as a philosophy rather than a particular method or technique. If you don’t have the philosophy, you don’t get it.
Here are some ways of describing lean philosophy and practice:
Lean is a culture of continuous improvement practiced at every level of the organization and by every team.
Lean is the application of the scientific method of experimentation and study of work processes and systems to find improvements.
Lean is respect for people. It is respect for the voice of the customer and it is respect for those who do the work, who are “on-the-spot” and are, therefore, the “world’s greatest experts” in their work.
Lean is the elimination of waste in all its forms. Lean is the ability to distinguish between work that actually adds value to your customers and work that does not. By eliminating waste, you free resources to devote to value-adding activity that serves your customers.
Lean is a work environment that assures the quality and safety of all work for both customers and staff.
Lean is a focus on improving the work process and not on blaming people or creating fear.
Lean is a culture of teamwork, shared responsibility and ownership that cuts through organization walls or silos.
Lean is a culture that returns the joy to work. Honda speaks of the three joys of buying, selling and making the product. We do our best work when we have joy in our work.
Lean is flow. Lean is an interruption free process that flows from beginning to end without interruption.
As companies have implemented lean management in the U.S. and Europe there are two major causes of failure that have proven to be all too common. First, it is often viewed as a way of reducing costs and the focus has therefore largely been on the work process and the social system or culture has lagged behind. Changing the culture requires complete management understanding and buy-in. Reducing waste on the factory floor requires little commitment to personal change on the part of leaders. The second cause of failure has been the lack of engagement by employees in the implementation process. Too often it is done TO them, rather than BY them. STS provides lessons that can help to solve both of these problems.
STS is Not Only What, But How
STS theory views the organization as a whole-system, both technical and social. However, in my own practice I have found it most useful to expand the meaning of the whole-system to include the economic system. In reality, every organization depends on the flow of money, even charitable organizations. The design of the system, to optimize the whole, must include an understanding of the flow of money, the revenue and costs associated with production. You could design and improved work process and an improved social system, yet do so in a way that resulted in greater costs. This would result in failure.
Socio-technical system design is a change methodology as well as a way of looking at the nature of the system. STS design is based on a process of co-creation, in which the stakeholders in the process together analyze the current state and design a future ideal state.(Cherns, 1976) (Trist, 1980) The theory is that by having managers and employees who work in the system, as well as customers, suppliers and anyone else who knows, cares or must act on the system engaged together, not only will the future design be more effective for all, it will also have their ownership and commitment which will lead to successful implementation. This is the principle of co-creation and it is a key element in successful change. It is frequently absent in lean implementation and it is at the core of STS design.
This is a significant difference between lean and STS. STS design can be facilitated by a consultant, but it cannot be done by a consultant. The magic of the process is largely in the learning, the understanding gained by management and a design team comprised of individuals from different levels and different functions, as they analyze the external environment, the work system, the culture and then design the whole system to be capable of meeting the demands of the future environment. STS creates a learning organization, a group of people who learn to think well, to analyze the work and organization in a systematic manner. This capability is an asset to the organization and can become the framework for migrating change to subsequent units of the organization.
Lean and STS have more in common than not. They both focus on the work process as well as the culture or social system. They both promote the value of those who do the work, those at the Gemba. They both value continuous improvement by those who do the work.
What can they learn from each other? STS practitioners can learn the many practical lessons that have been learned on the shop floor of Toyota and produced one of the world’s most successful companies. Lean practitioners can learn to study and align the whole system while engaging all stakeholders in the design process. Together, they area powerful combination.
(Cherns, A. (1976). The principles of sociotechnical design. Human Relations, 29(8), 783-792.)
(Trist, E. (1980). The Evolution of Socio-Technical Systems. Perspectives on Organizational Design and Behavior.)
The purpose of the STS-RT blog is to foster dialogue between STS-RT members and the larger community of organization development and change management professionals, as well as practicing managers and those in academia.
We hope that the blog will address not only STS theory, but the application of that theory to issues of daily management and even larger issues in our society. We also hope to show the integration of STS theory and practice to sister theories such as complexity theory, whole-systems design and other theories of organization that seek to integrate the often disintegrated functions within organizations. We welcome your contributions.