Accelerating the Distribution of Capability and Benefits around Systems Thinking-Like Methods

This article is an extension of this post:

Introduction

An important way to accelerate the positive impact of Systems Thinking (ST)-like methods, training and practice is to focus on creating what I have long called simply “the effect”. “The effect” is something that I have observed in ActionMap workshops (see links below) and that I infer from reports is also observed in ST-like workshops in general.

I have more recently attempted to describe “the effect” more analytically, and have arrived at this.

Definition of "The Effect'

1) “The effect” is a type of group cognitive experience. In this experience there are feedback loops which are initiated and driven by the ST-like modeling methods.

2) Those methods systematically surface (i.e. bring to explicit, descriptive awareness), capture, organize and share personal, experiential, tacit knowledge of the group members’ activities, values, ideas and plans, transforming that knowledge into shared, descriptive, explicit knowledge.

3) The perception of this surfaced, organized and shared knowledge causes a cascade of surfacing of such knowledge, through associational memory and related cognitive functions, by each individual and across the group, which knowledge is further captured, organized and shared, in a positive feedback loop.

4) At the same time the ST-like methods knit those knowledge elements together through surfacing, etc. of the relationships among those knowledge elements, in similar cascades.

5) The overall revelation of knowledge feeds group members’ natural process recognition, sense making, mental modeling and understanding construction capabilities, arousing further associated knowledge surfacing and sharing.

6) That results in a creative vortex of positive feedback loops in cognitive activity, resulting in an “explosion” of strong, detailed, eye-opening shared understanding of the situation being modeled.

Is "the Effect" real?

I have personally observed “the effect” happening over 100 times in workshops, and have deliberated induced "the effect" as a primary selling tool for consulting services, to the tune of several million dollars.

The formats and procedures of ActionMap were implicitly and iteratively optimized in flip chart-based sessions to increase this effect in as reliable, mechanical, and widely applicable a manner as possible. The software produces the same effect, as described in the testimonials at actionmap.com/testimonials.

I offer this “promotional” information as evidence of what is possible.

If there are methods that produce better results even more efficiently then I encourage the use of those.

How this can make a difference

The way this relates to accelerating the positive impact of ST-like methods is as follows.

The strong, shared detailed understanding created in ST-like workshops is the foundation for motivation, alignment and commitment around taking positive actions that produce positive benefits. (That translation of the understanding into the positive actions, including the oft-cited 70% attrition rate, is a whole system of cognitive events in itself, deserving of its own ST-like modeling.)

For a certain percentage of people involved, the increased production of benefit will cause them to ask “how did that happen?” Leading some of them to eventually sponsor additional use of ST like methods, to further produce instances of the effect. That is the positive cascade that stems from simply creating the effect at all.

An action point

In that context, a very valuable thing that can be done to accelerate the benefits of ST like methods is to simply create the effect as broadly, frequently, and intensively as possible.

Something similar is happening in a kind of dreamlike, legs-can’t-run slow motion through the use of conventional collaboration approaches.

People pursue what works.

Further effects, and a more detailed action point

Another result of this approach is that the “capability to create the effect” then becomes a measure of the value of facilitation skills, proprietary methods and academic theories. Which could be expected to converge, much as the appearance of automobile sedans has converged around the principles of aerodynamics, still leaving plenty of room for SUVs, pickup truck and sports cars.

Another important action point then becomes describing and explaining the value of “the effects”, which is, in summary, the cognitive experience associated with the rapid creating of strong, shared detailed understanding of complex situations.

And while the understanding itself might be the objective goal, the energetic development of that understanding in group sessions is an important factor in giving it power to lead to external benefits.

A definition of understanding

This requires a clear understanding of understanding (boing!), another topic. However, briefly, understanding is a relationship between a situation that is the focus of attention (which can be a single object), and a person’s mental models of that situation. ?

“Degree of understanding” is based on the degree of correlation between the elements of a situation, and the relationships among those elements, ??and the elements and relationships within the person’s mental model.

The correlation can be classified in terms such as scope, completeness, accuracy and precision.

All this is massively subjective, debatable and error-prone. However, that is the real world experience of understanding: subjective, debatable and error-prone.

What's next?

I'm working on distributing ActionMap, as a way to scale the creation of The Effect.

actionmap.com/introvideo, actionmap.com/valueprop, actionmap.com/jobmaps, actionmap.com/bizdevvideo, actionmap.com/demo, actionmap.com/signup

What do you think?