REPLY "Flawless Consulting" and SD (SD6631)

[SDMAIL Bill Harris]

Posted by  Bill Harris <bill_harris at facilitatedsystems.com>

"SDMAIL Kim Warren" <Kim at strategydynamics.com> writes:
>> My take on this is that SD provides a rigorous up-front architecture for
>> how things actually work, so that data collection seeks the appropriate
>> information. My impression is that others who use SD also place heavy
>> emphasis on the early mapping - which itself requires discussion with
>> participants in the situation. A common consequence of this is the
>> discovery that most of the data actually available is of no relevance,
>> and that some small key fraction of essential data does not exist - so
>> that data collection often has to include originating information the
>> organisation has never previously tracked.


Kim,

Thanks for your response.  I do think you're right in the contribution
of SD to finding the key data needed to address a problem, and that
describes what I try to do.


>> I can't speak for how consultants in general approach the challenge of
>> embarking on data collection, but have come across everything from [a]
>> "give us everything you have got, and we will see what it tells us", to
>> [b] " we have this 'issue tree' of possible cause-effect structure of
>> the situation, so give us the data on the items in this picture", to [c]
>> "our hypothesis is that the causes of the issue are X, Y, Z ... So give
>> us data on that so we can show we are right".


If you're not familiar with it, Peter Block wrote "Flawless Consulting,"
which many consider to be the classic organization development
consulting guide.  He gives a rather clear description of data
collection and interpretation as he sees it, which is quite open-ended
in collection (interviews) and quite participatory in interpretation
(facilitated, deep group discussion among all those who provided the
data plus perhaps others).  I don't think the flawless consulting
approach fits any of your [a], [b], or [c].

Having used that process, I can say it can be quite powerful in its
impact on an organization.  The people who provide the data are quite
likely to end up owning its interpretation in a very intellectual and
emotional way, since they had primary responsibility for both the data
and its interpretation.  That (presumably) leads to more ownership in
the process of resolving the problem.  It also is broad-based; people
tend to look at logical problems in the organization and emotional
issues that are holding them back.

What it may not do is address the challenge of needed or useful external
expertise, whether it be SD or something else.  What I'm wondering is if
there are better ways to incorporate (SD or other) expertise into a
participatory process to keep the ownership while improving the quality.

Look at it from the perspective of sociotechnical systems (STS) design.
STS assumes that there are business, technical (process), and social
(people) issues inherent in organizational problems, and effective,
sustainable solutions need to address all three areas appropriately.  OD
seems to have its kernel centered on the business and social aspects,
with more perhaps qualitative approaches to the technical side.  SD
seems to have its kernel centered on the business and technical aspects,
with less attention (relatively) to the social side.  I'm trying to
create synergy between the two types of approaches to bring the best of
the participatory and expertise approaches to bear on problems.

One easy answer is to say that the process for addressing serious
organizational issues starts with STS, and SD becomes a component pulled
in as needed to address specific issues.  I sense most SD practitioners
don't see it that way, though; I sense most of us see SD as a (largely)
complete, overarching approach in itself.

I've got an approach I think looks promising, but I'm curious what
others think.

Bill
Posted by  Bill Harris <bill_harris at facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date  Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:16:26 -0700