Finding a consultant - remotely

In less than a month, Facilitated Systems will have been in business for eight years. I've worked with people in Asia-Pacific, Europe, and the Americas, and yet I've rarely seen a client, for I work mostly from my office.

In today's world, that has distinct advantages. For those of you not used to working remotely with a consultant, I'll list a few:

Responsiveness

If I came to your site to work, I'd likely save up tasks until I had half a day, a full day, or perhaps several days of work at once (depending upon how far away you are), because it's more economical. That's a delay for you.

If I work remotely, you can get my attention in the size chunks you need: minutes, hours, days, weeks, or months. The delay from asking a question to getting an answer drops; if I'm available when you call, you'll start getting help immediately. If you do have to wait, the wait will likely be shorter.

Speed

You can get my help now, without waiting for me to fly, drive, or take a train. If I'm working on someone else's tasks, you need to wait for me to finish those. That's where responsiveness kicks in: if it's appropriate, you may well get some of my time starting today, rather than having to wait until I have full days available.

Lean

If I'm traveling, I'm not working for you. Sure, I try to work on planes when I can, but there is much to the travel experience that represents pure muda. Moving me to you is the essence of transportation and waiting waste.

Cost

If there's no travel, you don't pay for travel. Simple.

Carbon friendly

If I'm not traveling, I'm not generating as much CO₂.

Petroleum friendly

If I'm not traveling, I'm using less petroleum.

Congestion friendly

If I'm not traveling, I don't add to traffic congestion.

Resources

If you need a team, assembling a remote, distributed team from my contacts world-wide to help you brings all these benefits in spades.

How did I discover this? You folks taught me. When I started out, I expected to spend significant time in a car or on a plane, even as I expected to do some of my work remotely using the phone, email, and other online tools. With rare exceptions, you who hired me were quite happy to have me sit here and work there. As times have changed over the last eight years, your insights seem wisely prescient.

Some tasks do require a consultant at your site. I've done that, I will do it again, and I do enjoy working together with you in person. So call if you think that's what you need.

I have also discovered that it's possible to share ideas, build trust, work on problems, and make a joint contribution without being there in person. If that's what you seek, call me, too.

Which serves you best?

Multitasking

I recently saw a television advertisement promoting someone's smart phone that could make you more productive by helping you multitask more.

In light of what I'm reading elsewhere about the risks of multitasking, I thought it worthwhile reflecting on what multitasking does.

In the old days, computers did one thing at a time. That was efficient for them, but it wasn't always great for us. We humans began to see the advantages to us of their doing more than one thing at a time. That is, I benefit if I can be printing a document, updating software, and reading my email, all at the same time. In that case, I'm only doing one thing: reading email. I told the computer to print the document, and I'll pick it up later when I walk by the printer. I told the computer to get the latest version of a certain application; I don't have to do anything else, and it will be ready for me when I next use it. I can now read my email without waiting on the other tasks to finish. In addition, the computer may be doing other useful things (for example, getting new email) without me having to even ask. That can be very good for me.

From the computer's standpoint, that can be a problem. The computer has to do more work multitasking than if it were only doing one thing at a time. The good news is that computers have gotten faster, and they've gotten features that help them multitask more efficiently, so they have the capability to keep up with our demands (at least most of the time).

So when someone talks about productivity and multitasking in the same sentence, make sure you know whose productivity they're talking about. If this multitasking stuff works as it has in the past, your multitasking may enhance someone else's productivity, but it makes you work harder. That can only work if you have the excess capacity (time) to get all your work done and manage to switch between tasks efficiently. Did you get that quad core brain implant last week?

Management style

Recently I discovered A love affair with micro-management,
courtesy of the TP! Wire Service. That led to The ins and outs of corporate control and Why Companies Love Micromanagers. The basic premise is the same: managers are increasingly hiring micromanagers, and that is hurting their companies.

Then, this morning, I read Dear Boss: You're a jerk; see you in court, an Associated Press article about states giving workers the rights to sue their superiors for creating abusive work environments. Perhaps you've seen that in your news, too.

Years ago, there was emphasis on theory X, theory Y, and, eventually, theory Z as ways to manage. Theory X was seen as the way to get poorer results, but these news stories seem to be saying it's making a comeback.

I'm curious: do you see this trend in your organizations? If you're a manager, what's your approach to management? Why did you pick it? How is it working for you, your organization, and the people who report to you?

If you're managed by others (that should be most everyone), which approach is used by those you report to? Why did they pick it? How is it working for you, your organization, and those to whom you report?

For each case (many of you are, no doubt, in both situations at once), would adjustments to the current style be an improvement or not? If so, is there anything keeping you from experimenting with a change?

Multi-Skill Pay System Design and Implementation

Okay, that sounds like a real exciting workshop, doesn't it? Yet if you've ever fostered the development of a high-performing team, you might have wondered how you can reward people who are now doing so much more than they did in the past.

Bob Gilbert, of whom I've written from time to time, is leading a workshop by that name at the University of North Texas Center for Work Teams annual conference on September 25, 2007. I first met Bob when he was the plant manager at the Rohm & Haas Bayport plant, and I had organized a tour of plants with innovative work systems in the US Southwest for manufacturing management at my company. While I haven't heard this presentation, I'm confident it will offer much of value.

While you're there, check out cellist Benjamin Wolff's The Art of Teams: Lessons in Self-Direction from the World of the Arts. I'm not familiar with his work, but I like the idea of linking art and business.

Perceptions count

One of the features of many system dynamics models created to make sense of complex situations is the differentiation between the real thing and the perception of the real thing. We people don't often react to reality; we react to what we perceive as reality. That perception typically comes with some distortion and after some delay. To understand the system that created a problem we now face, we need to attend to those perceptions as well as to that reality.

Now there is Wharton's Out of Stock? It Might Be Your Employee Payroll -- Not Your Supply Chain -- That's to Blame which gives an example of how this works in retail. You can download the research paper by Marshall L. Fisher, Jayanth Krishnan, and Serguei Netessine, too.

Thanks to the TP! Wire Service for this lead.

Thinking about large

Chris Nel has an interesting essay on the tompeters! Dispatches From the New World of Work blog called Purpose beyond Profit.

Whether your organization is large or small, I encourage you to read this and take some time to think about it.

I sense some sort of connection to my More on growth from a year ago, although there is a distinct difference.

More on factorial designs and simulation

Factorial designs and simulation: apparently Professor Barlas is teaching it in Istanbul!

For the analytically-minded among you, I'd note that MCSim, coupled with a bit of infrastructure you can develop, can make running small factorial experiments (up to a few hundred runs) a fairly quick and painless task. That includes their development, their execution, and their analysis. If a system dynamics model is deterministic, as many are, there's no need for replication.

You can see a simple example in my upcoming TAFTO contribution. I was pleased at the way in which a factorial design approach enabled me to generate and see useful results from a relatively simple model.

"Scientific thinking" the modern way

Yesterday I wrote about Barry Richmond's notion of "operational thinking." I encourage you to read that essay; Barry had many good and important things to say. If you're not familiar with system dynamics but are curious, his essay offers a good introduction to pieces of the thinking approach that gives system dynamics its power.

Nevertheless, I disagree with his description of "scientific thinking," and I figure I should clarify that before others call me on it. On page 19, he writes, "People thinking scientifically modify only one thing at a time and hold all else constant." That used to be true, before Sir Ronald A. Fisher began describing a process for the design of experiments. Fisher and others gave us means to vary multiple factors at a time in a series of experiments and to learn more accurately, effectively, and productively that way.

One can do such designed experiments using any of the common system dynamics simulators, of course, but one of the reason that I like MCSim so much is that I found myself automatically doing factorial experiments using MCSim from the very beginning without thinking about it, thanks to the way it's designed. With other tools, I have tended to start with simpler approaches and then find myself having to make explicit decisions to design better experiments. Besides, MCSim can give results in a format that seems especially suited to this type of analysis.

Some of you might note that two of Fisher's attributes of designed experiments are randomization and replication. Those don't quite apply to many system dynamics models, those created without modeling any random effects. That's okay; it's still important to understand the effect of changes in various parameters, and, if the system is nonlinear (most are), it's important to understand interactions among those parameters, all of which is done effectively using methods pioneered by Fisher.

What does this all mean? It simply means that Fisher's designed experiments give us better and faster means to extract insight from tests on system dynamics models than the old one-factor-at-a-time approach.

I thank Deb Schenk, then (and perhaps now) statistician at Hewlett-Packard Company, for teaching me and others about the design of experiments using Statistics for Experimenters: An Introduction to Design, Data Analysis, and Model Building back in 1981-82.

Now go read Barry's essay.

A systems language for business

Some time ago, I had an opportunity to teach system dynamics to a particular work team. It was a small team of perhaps 8-10 people, (only) one of whom had some system dynamics experience and one with some exposure to what system dynamics was all about.

On the first morning of the week-long class, I overheard a discussion between two or three of the participants during a break. They were talking about some issue they faced at work; one person said (let me paraphrase), "ABC," and the other said, "XYZ." The first repeated "ABC," and the second repeated, "XYZ."

You've probably heard these discussions before; you may even have participated in them. Both parties were stating their positions in what they saw as a clear and convincing manner. Neither either saw the need or had a way to try to link the two statements together so they could make progress deciding which was more useful to them, and so they kept talking past each other. It continued until the end of the break; there was no natural resolution. It was polite, it was friendly, and it wasn't very productive. I've heard those discussions many times in my career.

The system dynamics course was fun and intense: three full days of work learning system dynamics and working example problems, intermingled with two homework days in which they worked together as teams to solve some fairly difficult problems using simulation and without my help except by email. It must have been successful, too; while I had hoped to get the opportunity to come back and help their organization address specific problems using system dynamics, they felt comfortable enough afterwards to do it themselves.

I enjoyed working with that group for a number of reasons. One thing particularly caught my attention. In a break on the last day, two or three people, perhaps the same group, again started a discussion about a problem they faced at work. This time, instead of stating and restating their positions without a way to achieve resolution, the first person said, "DEF" (different problem this time) and then drew a stock and flow diagram that helped make that position clearer. The second person said, "UVW" and drew a stock and flow diagram to clarify that view. Then they started talking productively, using those models, about how their world really worked, about specific questions they had about each model, and about what they might need to change in one person's or the other's view to align more closely with reality and to be more useful for their work. While they didn't (yet) agree on answers, they gave every sign that they understood and appreciated each other's thinking and that they could converge on a common answer that was good for the organization, not necessarily one that agreed with their originial position.

Four and a half days of serious thinking on their part had taken them from being a normal workgroup to being one that could express ideas clearly, advocate for them effectively, and engage in serious dialog on ways to test their ideas and come to a resolution about how to proceed. While they didn't create a simulation model in that 15-minute break, they gave every sign they could likely have done so, given a bit more time.

Moreover, I think they had learned how to peer into each others' now rather explicit mental models to find the crux of problems or differences, which should let them focus their simulations on the essence, the core, of the situation and not the entire problem.

I was proud of them. In four and a half days, they had learned and decided to use what Barry Richmond called "operational thinking." I'm not sure they would have done that without the experience of learning to model and of seeing what their simulations could bring.

Do you see people saying "ABC" and "XYZ" in your organization? Do you wish your people had a better language for wrestling with tough problems? What techniques do you use?

While I like Barry's article quite a bit, I do have one point I'd like to take issue with. I'll save that for tomorrow.

A commuting fantasy

Yesterday, I had occasion to drive to the airport and back. That's at least a 40-mile trip each way. With local traffic, the trip can take quite a while, no matter what time of day (except, perhaps, around 3-4 in the morning).

Two nights ago, though, we had a snowstorm that wreaked havoc with the evening commute, and we were being told yesterday that we should stay home unless we had to venture out. People seemed to listen, traffic was light, and driving to the airport, even with occasional slick spots in the roadway, was a dream. It was if we had turned the clock back 20 years as far as traffic goes.

As someone who does most of his work remotely, using phone, email, Web conferencing, and the like, I had a fantasy. What if people really didn't need to drive to work each and every day? What if we could keep the roads available for the times we really need them? We wouldn't have to spend as much on roads. Companies wouldn't have to spend as much on office buildings. We wouldn't have to spend as much on fuel. We wouldn't have to spend as much on cars. We wouldn't emit as much in the way of greenhouse gases. When we did drive, we'd have a more pleasant experience. When we didn't drive, we'd have more time for family, friends, and leisure. We'd injure or kill fewer people on the roads.

Could we do it? Really?

Top postings of 2006

Here are the top ten postings on Making Sense With Facilitated Systems for 2006. Technically, this is a bit premature, for the data was captured on December 27, but I don't think things will change much.

Admittedly, there is a statistical problem with this list. Entries made last January have had more time to be viewed than entries made late in December. As I suspect most entries get their heaviest readership shortly after they're posted, I'm ignoring that potential problem and simply ranking postings by the total number of entries received from January 1, 2006 through December 27, 2006. Besides, the most popular item is also one of the most recent.

10. Last year, I had several postings on the use of systems thinking approaches, especially system dynamics, in program evaluation. System dynamics and program theory (evaluation) was number 10 on the list of most popular postings for the year.
    
    
9. Work is changing, and, for many of us, our work locations and time are becoming more flexible. Number 9 on the list of most favorite postings for 2006 was ROWE: Revolution IN work, a description of Best Buy's changed work environment.
   
   
8. People in mature organizations often wish their employees were more entrepreneurial. Number 8 on the list is Becoming more entrepreneurial, which sheds light on what Saras Sarasvathy and others call effectual reasoning. That's the style she finds most prevalent in entrepreneurs. Are you ready for that approach?
   
   
7. I am a fan and user of open source software, as I've explained multiple times. Number 7 on the list is OO.o tips, intended to help those thinking of switching to OpenOffice.org as their office suite.
   
   The next highest essay on the list, The Joy of Thinking Small, was published in November of 2005, and so it doesn't deserve a place on the top ten list for 2006. I'm mentioning it because it did earn the spot through popularity, and it might give you a pointer to some small tool you can use to make youself more productive.
   
   
6. Number 6 on the list concerned growth, another topic I've covered several times. S-curves, growth, and discerning your position was written to help us all think about whether growth was a good goal for our organizations at this point.
   
   
5. Decisions, decisions, decisions, one of several notes comparing Gary Klein's recognition-primed decision model with other approaches, was number 5 on the list. This essay also touched on Saaty's Analytic Hierarchy Process.
   
   
4. Introducing Systems Thinking into Your Organization, number 4 on the list, announced the temporarily free availability of an article by that name that I wrote for Pegasus Communications' Systems Thinker. The article is still good, and it's still available for a small fee from Pegasus Communications.
   
   
3. Number 3 on the list was Thinking systemically: Limits to Growth, my favorable review of Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. I found it to be both a good treatise on the subject of growth and a good, non-technical introduction to system dynamics.
   
   
2. Growth also occuppied the number 2 spot with More on growth, perhaps my most reflective essay on the subject in 2006.
   
   
1. By far, the most popular essay for 2006 was the recent Making sense with numbers. It used an example from the business of classical music to show how an esoteric-sounding concept called Bayes' Rule could help us make better sense of the statistics we may hear in meetings or read in reports. Its popularity was no doubt aided by those of you who blogged about it yourselves. Thanks!
   
   

While all of these essays describe ways of making sense of the world, I see four categories as being important to you.

First, four of those entries, numbers 1, 4, 5, and 10, are about making sense of general situations. That's the theme of this blog and the central theme of my work.

Second, the environment and organization's responses are key in numbers 2, 3, and 6. While I suspect not many companies are yet modulating their growth in response to the environment, many of you seem to be thinking about it. I was fortunate to have been able to work in the environmental arena last year, and I enjoyed it immensely.

Third, number 7 and its 2005 partner showcase ways to do things more productively. As I hope that's one of the benefits people get from my work, I'm glad it came out in my essays.

Fourth, numbers 8 and 9 speak to the ways we work in organizations. As I focus on helping people through helping the organizations in which we work, I'm glad that came through, too.

By contrast, which essay was the least popular? That turns out to have been A wake-up call with positive ideas, an essay about Clyde Prestowitz' Three Billion New Capitalists: The Great Shift of Wealth and Power to the East, one of several essays I've written about what I see as the importance of those of us in the U.S.A. connecting better with those of us who live in other parts of the world.



What's the map, you ask? That's where you live—you who voted on these essays by viewing them during the course of the year.

Thank you for reading these essays and for the comments you've made. I'll try to focus even more on issues you care about in 2007, and I'll try to throw in a few new areas, too, just to keep things interesting.

I welcome comments from even more of you in the coming year. Email me, call me, or add a comment to a blog entry. I'd especially appreciate your feedback on what you found helpful in 2006 and what you'd like to see me cover more thoroughly in 2007.

Dunbar's number

Nancy White recently blogged about Dunbar's number as it applies to online communities and workgroups (Full Circle Online Interaction Blog: Dunbar's Number and More on Group Sizes Online). If you're working with communities of any sort, whether virtual or collocated, you might benefit from reading those articles and the links that Nancy provided.

Towards a theory of online communities

Online communities (distributed workgroups) are relatively new, at least in the ways we're seeing them today, and there's not as much research about them as we might wish. That's why I was glad to see Rosanna Tarsiero's posting on Dunbar Numbers in her blog Scrapbook of My Life.