In making something, whether it is a business, an app, a book, or art, we bring something into the world that could come only from us.
Mathieu Nebra place la communauté au cœur de sa plateforme de MOOCs | L’Atelier : Accelerating Business
Excellente initiative, très proche du #Labso également !
Last month my colleagues and I completed a pilot of what well may be the most interesting project of my life. It was the pilot of a new type of MOOC that pushes the MOOC design envelope by blending a globally transformative platform with an eco-system of deep personal, locally grounded learning communities.
Basically, when I teach A3 thinking to people, I tell them that it’s not about the page format nor is it about a convenient way to display all about an issue on one sheet of paper (though, this is very convenient for sure). The important part about the A3 is hidden when you present it: it’s all the hard work that happened before presentation, when creating it.
In Lean, there’s a term for that, it’s called nemawashi which is about patiently building consensus of all stakeholders around some issue:
- reaching agreement about the problem (and that it’s an important problem to solve now)
- reaching agreement about the root causes
- reaching agreement about possible solutions (more than one as the first one that comes to mind rarely is the most efficient)
- reaching agreement about timing for implementation of experimentation
- reaching agreement about measuring results
- and finally reaching agreement about standardising lessons learned
So, what about all the fuss regarding making the A3 as visual as possible? Because it’s the most efficient way of having people quantify elements of the A3.
Without enforcing graphs or picturization of issue, people will spurt lost and lost of text on their A3, most of which will rely heavily on adjectives like “this is an important issue”, “process X have too much problems”, “we need to produce more parts per people”, etc.
Put a graphic and show the problem, damn it! A problem, in Lean, is a gap between reality and a target! So:
- devise a way to represent the problem (select the kind of graphic that will show the problem, even at a distance, without lengthy explanations)
- measure reality (I mean, quantify it with numbers so you can plot it on your graphic)
- show the target. For this, you have two possibilities: either the customer specifications (quality or delays) or company’s goals (costs, safety)
- it the target’s too far, you might want to first give you a smaller (though a bit stretchy), more attainable goal
What’s important is that the goal or target is NOT arbitrary. It should be based on measures as well. If you aim for 30% defect reduction for instance, it means that you somehow measured the defects, made a Pareto chart, identified what you imagine will be able to tackle in a specific time frame, and chose the corresponding defect sources as improvement goals.
It’s been a while since I’ve been pondering the fifteen properties of wholeness as expressed by Christopher Alexander. Although I have yet to read one of his book, his work has transpired up to me already through the well know pattern languages.
Being found of Systems Thinking and the transdiscplinarity this permits, I couldn’t help but wonder how these 15 properties could apply to mind and mental models as well, and how it could inform our feeling of wholeness or explain when we feel like being one and belonging to a bigger, encompassing one as well. Sounds like spirituality to me, although I consider myself an atheist!
Of course, feeling also attracted to radical constructivism and social constructionism, I can safely affirm that you both are influenced by what you distinguish in the world around you and that you construct what you’re looking for. So, I hope the interpretation I give below (which is purely empirical… or my own construct) may be useful both as a way to construct that feeling of wholeness than as a way to find where it may exist when you didn’t feel it in the first place. Now, back to constructivism: where’s the difference between building and finding-and-constructing at the same time?
Here is my inner travel through the fifteen properties of wholeness. Fancy a trip with me? Here we go… Read more »
It’s with great pleasure that I propose below the first translation of our french leaflet regarding the #labso. That will be the base for the translation of the official website (http://labso.org/) once we find the time to do so.
The source document will be uploaded to some shared repository as soon as possible as well. Meanwhile, feel free to drop us a note if you have comments, requests or else @nicolasstampf or @alexis8nicolas.
Enjoy: QUAD LabSoTech v1.2 EN
I’ve been told a very old study, dated back ni 1948 reported a negative correlation between designing and resisting to a change: the more you participated in designing a change, the less you resisted it.
Of course, we all know this (albeit still try to push our ideas onto others, making them resisting), but knowing it’s really old facts, with measures is really interesting to me.
I don’t have the full paper yet, but below is the information I was given about it. Update: I did finally found it, see bottom of this paper. Thanks to Patrick Hoverstadt for the references!
Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we’re nearing collapse | Cathy Alexander and Graham Turner | @Guardian #systemsthinking
Simple article, effective in sending the message (like others did dozens of year ago). Now, people listen, but they don’t hear.
I love the graphs with superposition of calculated trajectories and real values.