Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Up::1
Davin
I have tweaked the text a little, removing the direct references to complexity apart from the initial prompt and the final slider’s end points
The URL is the same https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/WGB_V2
Do you want a paragraph to introduce it to participants or will the text in the survey be sufficient?
I’m exploring the possibility of using my demo license for SenseMaker to run a pilot
Steve
Up::2Fascinating post by a leader in the successful implementation of public sector IT projects
Steve has pioneered the approach of leaving the core platforms alone and making progress using Agile developments over the top of the platforms
He has been kicking goals
It might not translate to every context but the principles are valuable
Up::1I have included the additional question suggested by Santosh in the survey tool
The revised survey can be accessed here
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/WGB_V2
Any and all comments most welcome
Up::1I tidied up the previous SurveyMonkey structure and did what I could take account of points made by the rest of the team
I might have missed some nuances in my notes so please shout if anything jars
The revised survey is available at https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/WGB_V1
See you Thursday
Steve
Up::1These characteristic types are useful as are the questions that have been proposed to explore advice from people with experience
I am still concerned that we are asking for advice framed by our own understanding of the challenges associated with having complexity acknowledged and taken seriously
Can’t help feeling there will be matters we miss and responses we inadvertently influence due to our expectations being embedded in what we ask
My attempt at a lightweight Sensemaker style approach might not hit the mar, judging by the absence of any feedback, but something that opens the door to unconditioned input from the target audience seems to be worth pursuing
Up::1I have drafted a mechanism for gathering input from people with experience of complex projects.
The form of the survey might not be familiar to everyone. It is based on the ideas of Cognitive Edge and if it were to be used more widely would have to be implemented using their proprietary system but I believe a rough version in Survey Monkey can be very useful although the triangular signifiers are a lot more elegant in the CE system.
The indirect approach it embodies can elicit inputs that would not otherwise arise. The WG is an opportunity to expose the method while hopefully generating some useful insights.
The theory behind the approach is that the responses are led by what the participants feel is important rather than what we are interested in, so our inadvertent blinkers don’t limit the exercise.
The triad signifiers elicit respondents’ priorities and concerns without telling them what we believe they should think about, except in so far as the labels on the signifiers raw their attention to specific terms and concepts. As opposed to a set of 0-10 scales for each of the factors mentioned here, the triads reduce the chance of getting simplistic responses such as everything being marked critical or scoring 5 down the middle for everything.
Similarly the slider at the end offers a choice between two things that most people would want some of. Such mechanisms force a lot more thought to go into the response than “Rate these two factors between unimportant and very important”.
I don’t know for sure if it will work with this cohort but I am confident it is worth a try.
Finally, it is high level and short both because we are necessarily starting high level and a short survey is more likely to be answered than a long one.
You can access the survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ICCPM_WGB_V0
It should allow multiple responses if you want to play with it.
Please DO NOT release it outside this group until we have had a chance to discuss it at the next meeting.
Steve
Up::0I think it would be useful to draft a question and pass it around to see what it prompts among us and whether we all see the same themes at work
Up::1The risk map is a useful summary of what we have discussed. I believe we have not really grappled with the core, perhaps root cause, of the problem, which the current topic encapsulates. People don’t understand or see the presence of complexity.
On the question “Is the issue one of waking up project leaders and stakeholders…… or having complex projects use more appropriate approaches and tools that deal effectively with complexity?” I say it is the former. We can devise the most elegant tools we might imagine but, unless senior people realise why they are required, it will all be in vain.
Imagine an archetypal 60 year old director of major projects who has installed detailed approvals, monitoring and reporting processes to keep track of his (and it will usually be ‘his’) empire. How do you pitch to him the fact that he is missing the point?
Crafting clever risk analysis and management techniques is seductive but it will be no use if the key stakeholders are not interested.
Up::0I have found n-square matrices useful for analysing all sorts of systems of related items including risks where I have generally used a relationship A tends to exacerbate B
Rearranging the order of items to find clusters with closer linkages within themselves than with the rest of the system can be very powerful – identify dominant items, feedback loops, isolated items that offer an opportunity to break a loop, groups of items that can be joined into a higher level concept to simplify understanding
I uncovered a toxic feedback loop in a public sector job once in this way. Inadequate senior management horsepower was allowing people at the working level to do things that upset stakeholders, who spoke to the press to vent their irritation, who published the information in the local newspaper that was picked up by the Minister who called in the senior management to demand reports and briefings that reduced the amount of attention they could give to the working level and allowed even more spot fires to develop
The DSM movement advocates these ideas
Tools can make it a lot easier than working by eye
Lattix is one I have found very good but there are others including some listed in the DSM website
Up::2Pondering the initial question about waking up people who are oblivious to complex emergence and its implication
- It is not likely that we will succeed by defining an ideal end state for project leaders and stakeholders or by seeking to shift their view of the world in one move
- There might not be one ideal end state because everything is context dependent so we will probably be well advised to keep an open mind
- Even when confronted by a serious ‘burning platform’ no one will turn their back on the way they have functioned for years and embrace something novel in one step
- Picking up the idea of the adjacent possible, a modest shift in the direction we would like to see established, can we see a small move in outlook that would lay the foundations for further shifts? The idea is that making the small shift gains some benefit, is not unduly disruptive and is less likely to be resisted than presenting people with a large shift, and encouraging that small change might provide an opportunity to develop insights into the longer term process. It’s similar to the minimum viable product in Agile approaches to implementing projects.
This is all a bit different from thinking about how we manage risk in complex projects. If we can’t get people thinking clearly about complexity, the best management advice on the subject will be moot.
Up::1I think we are drifting away from the issue of waking people up to complexity into how to manage risk in complexity
I have found myself doing that as much as anyone
Probably worth giving the original task a bit more thought or we risk coming up with yet another set of good ideas for which there only a very limited audience
-
AuthorPosts
