Even if you don't care for it, you have probably seen people eating chili. Fast food chains like Wendy's and Burger King sell it. In most places, chili is made with dried and ground chile peppers - RED chiles (note that a pepper is a chile, a stew made with chiles is chili). Chili can be made with ground beef, or with chicken, or even meatless with tofu and vegetables. It can have beans - or not. The basic style that places like Wendy's make, includes tomatoes, bell pepper, onions, ground red chile, cumin, and other spices - along with ground beef and red kidney beans.
But in the Land of Enchantment - New Mexico - the cuisine evolved differently. In the immortal words of that great traveller Bugs Bunny, "must have mnade a wrong turn at Albuquerque." In New Mexico, when you order chili, or chile sauce atop your burrito or burger, you will be offered a colorful choice. "Do you want that red, green, or Christmas?" (the latter meaning you want both read AND green chile sauce on your food).
You can get whole roasted and peeled green chiles in a can at your local grocery store. But nothing compares to the flavor and aroma you get from fire-roasting your own at home. The best green chiles arguably come from Southern New Mexico. The local varieties are similar to the Anaheim chiles carried by your grocer. The pods are long and not too wide. Eaten raw, they vary in intensity from mild to medium heat.
I've been a fan of new Mexican cuisine since my first visit in 1985. One of the dishes I had, that is easy to make at home, is the wonderful green chile stew. This is typically made with chunks of chicken or pork. The meat is braised and simmered in a flavorful infusion of chicken broth with chopped roasted green chiles, together with onion, salt, and not much else. White potatoes are added at the end, roughly chopped and chunky-tender. Done right, the meat is fall-apart tender, thoroughly saturated with the flavors of the broth.
This is a simple dish with many layers of flavor. But unlike the typical Tex-mex creations, you won't find green chile stew in many restaurants outside New Mexico. On a recent visit to Minneapolis, I stopped for lunch at a branch of a Tex-Mex restaurant chain. They advertised "Green chile stew with pork" on the menu. I eagerly ordered up a bowl. Folding back the soft tortilla on top, I was shocked to loko down at a bowl of - RED stuff. Yes it had green chiles in it, but it was most defintiely NOT authentic Green Chile Stew. Not even close. A letter to the home office followed - with no reply to date.
So go make yourself a big pot of true New Mexican delight. Hearty green chile stew is perfect on a cold wnter's night. Or anytime. Maybe you'll even get ambitious and make some blue corn posole to go with it!
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
From Blogology to Mobocracy
From Blogology to Mobocracy
Web-based collaboration and the implications for government
Recently I received an email with an attached PowerPoint file. A near-daily occurrence. My friend and colleague shared a presentation about the use of "web 2.0" technologies for online citizen engagement in Canada. The slides describe wikis, podcasts, blogs, and other on-line tools. I am an "early adopter" of these collaborative technologies. I have been using chat, groupware, ListServs, and other collaborative tools for around 20 years. The wiki and blog technologies are just the latest software tools to help groups of people make better decisions together. Microsoft Sharepoint technology is a simple form of a collaborative computing environment. You may know that Microsoft acquired the groupware system called Groove. Groove was created by Ray Ozzie - the guy who created Lotus Notes. Groove is now a centerpiece of Microsoft's expanded Sharepoint and collaborative platform. The XO laptop - the so called "hundred dollar laptop" - uses a unique mesh network technology. The computer automatically connects with others of its kind within range. Users can surf the web together, adding notes and comments in real-time, that can be seen by everyone in the group. Networked XO users can also collaborate in shared journals, containing text, images, media files, and so on. Start-up firms are developing this kind of mobile social network for cell phones.
Systems like the citizen web sites in Canada and elsewhere point to some of the key features - and challenges - of newer web systems. For example:
- do you want to control who can post to your blog, or wiki?
- if so, how will you assure the identity of new users?
- do you want to control what people say? We usually want to review submissions in advance of posting, to assure legality, and appropriateness.
- how will we decide what is appropriate? Who will define the standards, and who will apply them?
.. "information wants to be free" is a famous quote from the internet era. The rise of music and other file sharing has re-defined notions of intellectual capital
.. implicit in government sites is the issue of "governance." Collaborative technologies are by their nature and design, typically self-organizing. The objectives of the initiative in part drive the degree of oversight and control that should be implemented.
.. the complex self-organizing dynamics of wikis and blogs also reveal patterns of self-regulation. In many cases "control" emerges spontaneously, as participants express approval or disapproval of posted content. Ideas that may be controversial, often just fade out from the lack of ongoing interest and response. We see that we may be able to influence the direction of a group, even if we can not control it. The exact outcome may be probable, but uncertain.
.. one of the major concerns in the use of the internet for mass collaboration is what we may call "mobocracy." We know that the majority may always prevail, but they may not always be right. Likewise, they may not always know about the Next Big Idea which will trigger innovation. Those of us committed to quality and continuous improvement understand that there needs to be a perceived gap between where we are and where we want to be. Stability might be good in a manufacturing process, but it equates to complacency, stagnation, and eventual extinction in communities and organizations. The dynamics of the internet may be having the effect of moving mass thinking and opinion towards a central tendency of status quo, and thus denying the creative tension needed for growth.
The implications of this technology for those in government have to be significant. We have the opportunity to engage a much larger portion of our citizens in meaningful dialogue than ever before. Are we up to the challenges of adapting our systems of governance to meet the new expectations of our customers ?
cmplxty is an associate of the Plexus Institute. cmplxty can be reached at cmplxty@gmail.com
Web-based collaboration and the implications for government
Recently I received an email with an attached PowerPoint file. A near-daily occurrence. My friend and colleague shared a presentation about the use of "web 2.0" technologies for online citizen engagement in Canada. The slides describe wikis, podcasts, blogs, and other on-line tools. I am an "early adopter" of these collaborative technologies. I have been using chat, groupware, ListServs, and other collaborative tools for around 20 years. The wiki and blog technologies are just the latest software tools to help groups of people make better decisions together. Microsoft Sharepoint technology is a simple form of a collaborative computing environment. You may know that Microsoft acquired the groupware system called Groove. Groove was created by Ray Ozzie - the guy who created Lotus Notes. Groove is now a centerpiece of Microsoft's expanded Sharepoint and collaborative platform. The XO laptop - the so called "hundred dollar laptop" - uses a unique mesh network technology. The computer automatically connects with others of its kind within range. Users can surf the web together, adding notes and comments in real-time, that can be seen by everyone in the group. Networked XO users can also collaborate in shared journals, containing text, images, media files, and so on. Start-up firms are developing this kind of mobile social network for cell phones.
Systems like the citizen web sites in Canada and elsewhere point to some of the key features - and challenges - of newer web systems. For example:
- do you want to control who can post to your blog, or wiki?
- if so, how will you assure the identity of new users?
- do you want to control what people say? We usually want to review submissions in advance of posting, to assure legality, and appropriateness.
- how will we decide what is appropriate? Who will define the standards, and who will apply them?
.. "information wants to be free" is a famous quote from the internet era. The rise of music and other file sharing has re-defined notions of intellectual capital
.. implicit in government sites is the issue of "governance." Collaborative technologies are by their nature and design, typically self-organizing. The objectives of the initiative in part drive the degree of oversight and control that should be implemented.
.. the complex self-organizing dynamics of wikis and blogs also reveal patterns of self-regulation. In many cases "control" emerges spontaneously, as participants express approval or disapproval of posted content. Ideas that may be controversial, often just fade out from the lack of ongoing interest and response. We see that we may be able to influence the direction of a group, even if we can not control it. The exact outcome may be probable, but uncertain.
.. one of the major concerns in the use of the internet for mass collaboration is what we may call "mobocracy." We know that the majority may always prevail, but they may not always be right. Likewise, they may not always know about the Next Big Idea which will trigger innovation. Those of us committed to quality and continuous improvement understand that there needs to be a perceived gap between where we are and where we want to be. Stability might be good in a manufacturing process, but it equates to complacency, stagnation, and eventual extinction in communities and organizations. The dynamics of the internet may be having the effect of moving mass thinking and opinion towards a central tendency of status quo, and thus denying the creative tension needed for growth.
The implications of this technology for those in government have to be significant. We have the opportunity to engage a much larger portion of our citizens in meaningful dialogue than ever before. Are we up to the challenges of adapting our systems of governance to meet the new expectations of our customers ?
cmplxty is an associate of the Plexus Institute. cmplxty can be reached at cmplxty@gmail.com
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Government Quality Promo Video
My friends and colleagues have been asked to do some blogging in behalf of quality and organizational improvement in the public sector. This is a brief promotional video I created with the excellent Visual Communicator software, and my $99 Logitech quickcam. As the slogan says, Government Quality - all that you deserve, more than you may expect.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Imagine...
We are hopelessly mired in the Iraq war. Whether you believe we were justified in starting it or not (and I believe we were not), there is no way we can justify continuing. Those who would characterize supporters of immediate cessartion of hostilities as "surrendering to the enemy" or "assuring that we lose," do not really understand the possible outcomes of this conflict. What would "winning" mean in Iraq? Is winning even possible? In my view, we can not "win" in the way that most Americans, and certainly the Administration's remaining supporters, would define victory.
America has squandered an immense fortune on the war. We have lost thousands of courageous volunteer soldiers, and seen many many more come home crippled both physically and emotionally. Our great nation has spent an incredible amount of its political capital and energy in the pursuit of stability and democratization in Iraq.
What if there was another way to proceed. What would an army waging PEACE look like? Who would be in it, and what would it do? By what rules of engagement would such a force interact with enemy groups or nations?
If tens of thousands of ordinary people, all dressed in simple white clothing, landed in Baghdad, and began to go about the tasks of just helping common Iraqis with the activities of daily living - food, clothing, shelter - what would happen? Would the peaceful warriors be murdered? Would they be captured and beheaded? If the army of peace took no political stance, advocated no faith, and simply stood for loving one's neighbor as we do ourselves, how would the Iraqis respond?
Is this Gandhi's dream, or Dr. King's dream? Do we need a new dreamer to imagine the possibility, and bring it to life?
America has squandered an immense fortune on the war. We have lost thousands of courageous volunteer soldiers, and seen many many more come home crippled both physically and emotionally. Our great nation has spent an incredible amount of its political capital and energy in the pursuit of stability and democratization in Iraq.
What if there was another way to proceed. What would an army waging PEACE look like? Who would be in it, and what would it do? By what rules of engagement would such a force interact with enemy groups or nations?
If tens of thousands of ordinary people, all dressed in simple white clothing, landed in Baghdad, and began to go about the tasks of just helping common Iraqis with the activities of daily living - food, clothing, shelter - what would happen? Would the peaceful warriors be murdered? Would they be captured and beheaded? If the army of peace took no political stance, advocated no faith, and simply stood for loving one's neighbor as we do ourselves, how would the Iraqis respond?
Is this Gandhi's dream, or Dr. King's dream? Do we need a new dreamer to imagine the possibility, and bring it to life?
Sunday, November 18, 2007
One bean
At the age of 54, I suddenly developed a liking for coffee. No one can explain this. I always disliked the taste. Too bitter, to acidic, too thin, too strong. The only coffee I had previously enjoyed was a small pot I got at a cafe just off Ipanema Beach in Rio de Janeiro.
So now that I like coffee, I make it myself. I have a small electric grinder. I use a French Press to brew it perfectly.
When my perfectly brewed coffee is steaming in my large mug, I clean up and throw away the grounds. Staring at the large layer of spent beans in the bottom of the Press, I think about the energy that it takes to bring this drink to me. Coffee is not grown anywhere near my home in the mid-Atlantic region. Each bean requires energy to grow and mature. The beans are picked, packed, shipped from their remote origin to some place near me. Mine come from Dunkin Donuts, and started life probably in Central America. A long journey. More energy goes to roasting the beans, a necessary step to make them usable for coffee.
What is the energy cost of my cup of coffee? What did it really take to produce each bean, and get them to me.
It occurs to me that in an era of diminishing oil, and significantly rising prices, we will someday see labels on food and other products that give the emergy cost. It will be like the calories and nutritional value on food labels now. We forget that calories are units of energy too. The growing local food movement, and the movement towards once again living close to the source of what we consume, are leading indicators of this trend. All things being equal, we should choose a product with a lower energy cost. In time, we will.
Assuming I am neither the first nor the only person to think about the "energy cost of food," I Google search the phrase. I find one article. It is by professors at the University of Florida, in 1993. Look it up. Use a bit of energy to finnd it and read it. The percentage of our total energy use that just goes into transporting our food is astonishing. Of course this is just as true for the cheap goods from China and elsewhere, that we Americans love.
What will the balance of trade become, when rising energy costs level the fact of cheap foreign labor? Will America see a re-emergence of manufacturing when it becomes cost-effective to compete with local production once again?
Maybe one day we will have hothouse hydroponic farms in abandoned buildings in every town, and some clever entrepreneur will be able to grow coffee in the Garden State.
cmplxty
So now that I like coffee, I make it myself. I have a small electric grinder. I use a French Press to brew it perfectly.
When my perfectly brewed coffee is steaming in my large mug, I clean up and throw away the grounds. Staring at the large layer of spent beans in the bottom of the Press, I think about the energy that it takes to bring this drink to me. Coffee is not grown anywhere near my home in the mid-Atlantic region. Each bean requires energy to grow and mature. The beans are picked, packed, shipped from their remote origin to some place near me. Mine come from Dunkin Donuts, and started life probably in Central America. A long journey. More energy goes to roasting the beans, a necessary step to make them usable for coffee.
What is the energy cost of my cup of coffee? What did it really take to produce each bean, and get them to me.
It occurs to me that in an era of diminishing oil, and significantly rising prices, we will someday see labels on food and other products that give the emergy cost. It will be like the calories and nutritional value on food labels now. We forget that calories are units of energy too. The growing local food movement, and the movement towards once again living close to the source of what we consume, are leading indicators of this trend. All things being equal, we should choose a product with a lower energy cost. In time, we will.
Assuming I am neither the first nor the only person to think about the "energy cost of food," I Google search the phrase. I find one article. It is by professors at the University of Florida, in 1993. Look it up. Use a bit of energy to finnd it and read it. The percentage of our total energy use that just goes into transporting our food is astonishing. Of course this is just as true for the cheap goods from China and elsewhere, that we Americans love.
What will the balance of trade become, when rising energy costs level the fact of cheap foreign labor? Will America see a re-emergence of manufacturing when it becomes cost-effective to compete with local production once again?
Maybe one day we will have hothouse hydroponic farms in abandoned buildings in every town, and some clever entrepreneur will be able to grow coffee in the Garden State.
cmplxty
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Complicated vs. Complex - Part Two
Back again for another short journey into the minds of automobile engineers. My son recently returned for his Junior year of undergraduate study. This is the first time he has brought his car along. We thought he should keep the spare key and fob for the remote entry in his apartment. But just in case something should happen, I wanted a key to have back home. So we stopped by the local Ford dealer. A friendly person in the parts depaqrtment asked if we had the car with us. It is a 2002 Ford Escape. No, it was back in the college parking lot. We were told that these cars used a "smart" key that had to be programmed to the exact vehicle. It wasn't clear if this was part of a theft-protection scheme, or served some other purpose. But it was clear that the car knew if its properly programmed key was in the lock or not. Moreover, getting a new key cut and programmed would cost $106! We looked at the key closely and sure enough, there was a small removeable part that presumably gave access to the programmable memory chip inside the key.
We decided that it was not worth the time or money to have a third key made.
Cost of a key to get into my home - a few bucks at the hardware store.
Cost of an allegedly "smart" key for the Ford - $106.
The value of simplicity in design and manufacturing - priceless.
We decided that it was not worth the time or money to have a third key made.
Cost of a key to get into my home - a few bucks at the hardware store.
Cost of an allegedly "smart" key for the Ford - $106.
The value of simplicity in design and manufacturing - priceless.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Iraq and the Great Red Spot
With increasing frequency, the news reports tragic losses in Iraq. We tend to focus on the injuries and deaths of Americans, but of course, the suffering of the Iraqi people is many times greater. Public support for the war has significantly diminished.
Without arguing the politics of the conflict, it appears that the overwhelming majority of military and other analysts believe that this is a war we can not win. Devising an exit strategy has become problematic as well. There is little doubt that when the U.S. troops withdraw, Iraq will become embroiled in chaos and bloodshed. If we know this, and if we can not prevent this, what should we do?
What would be our objective in Iraq after we withdraw our forces? That seems comparatively clear. We hope for a stable government and society in Iraq. We hope that those inside Iraq who would do us harm, stay where they are.
Perhaps our exit strategy can be shaped by a look at the massive planet Jupiter. Its atmosphere is a constant swirl of enormous complex whorls and turbulent storms. Yet amidst the chaos there are clear and recognizable patterns of order. One feature known to observers for centuries, is the Great Red Spot on the surface of Jupiter. At its boundary, the Spot is surrounded by smaller vortices that spin and interact with it. But the vast Spot remains relatively calm. The chaos and conflict at the edges seems to act in defining the boundary, and containing the Great Spot from spreading more.
In a post-war Iraq, perhaps U.S. force could be deployed a the boundaries. Both military and diplomatic pressure might work to constrain the Great Red Stain that is sure to flow in Iraq. Perhaps we can influence the turbulence there to stay largely within itself. The red spot that engulfs Iraq may persist as long as the Great Spot on Jupiter. With luck, some form of order will prevail over chaos, and both the U.S. and Iraq can grow healthy again.
cmplxty
Without arguing the politics of the conflict, it appears that the overwhelming majority of military and other analysts believe that this is a war we can not win. Devising an exit strategy has become problematic as well. There is little doubt that when the U.S. troops withdraw, Iraq will become embroiled in chaos and bloodshed. If we know this, and if we can not prevent this, what should we do?
What would be our objective in Iraq after we withdraw our forces? That seems comparatively clear. We hope for a stable government and society in Iraq. We hope that those inside Iraq who would do us harm, stay where they are.
Perhaps our exit strategy can be shaped by a look at the massive planet Jupiter. Its atmosphere is a constant swirl of enormous complex whorls and turbulent storms. Yet amidst the chaos there are clear and recognizable patterns of order. One feature known to observers for centuries, is the Great Red Spot on the surface of Jupiter. At its boundary, the Spot is surrounded by smaller vortices that spin and interact with it. But the vast Spot remains relatively calm. The chaos and conflict at the edges seems to act in defining the boundary, and containing the Great Spot from spreading more.
In a post-war Iraq, perhaps U.S. force could be deployed a the boundaries. Both military and diplomatic pressure might work to constrain the Great Red Stain that is sure to flow in Iraq. Perhaps we can influence the turbulence there to stay largely within itself. The red spot that engulfs Iraq may persist as long as the Great Spot on Jupiter. With luck, some form of order will prevail over chaos, and both the U.S. and Iraq can grow healthy again.
cmplxty
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Hyperbolic Planes
Check out the work of Daina Taimina on Google. She has become very well-known for her discovery that the craft of crochet could be used to create the surface known as a hyperbolic plane. The geometry we learned in high school does not work the same way on a hyperbolic surface. The image at the right is of a piece she graciously made for me. We spent several hours at her home, talking about this surface, and what it might represent as social metaphor.
At a recent Princeton lecture, Daina's work was used by freelance geometer Jeff Weeks, to talk about the possible shape of the universe.
cmplxty
Resonant Coupling and Community Psychology
From time to time I work as a guest leecturer to classes of doctoral students in psychology. these are primarily students in the field of community school psychology. More recently, I've worked with classes in the broader field of community psychology.
Preparing for a recent guest stint, I borrowed the textbook being used by the instructor. It was a very current release, with references to Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. The book is very well-written, and I spent a couple of hours going through it. Several things struck me about this textbook. One was the fact that the authors chose not to define "community" right away. Instead, they chose to first present a list of seven foundation principles that underlie the field and practice of community psychology. These principles were generated by attendees at a pivotal conference some years ago.
While most fields of endeavor have standardized bodies of knowledge, I thought about the process by which this one and others are generated. How did people get invited to that conference? Were any non-psychologists included in the dialogue? Stakeholders such as community activists, or just "orinary citizens?" Among the seven prionciples are things like "social justice" and "advocacy." Clearly citizens are encouraged to take a direct role in shaping their communities. But how does it happen that a list of defining principles for the profession emerges?
Ralph Stacey, a thought-leader in applying complexity concepts to both management and psychology, talks about "complex responsive processes of human relating" (CRPR usually). To Ralph, iterated patterning of the "gesture and response" of human communication gives rise to our norms, values, and ideologies.
But what IS a community? Do I have to be physically proximate? With the internet, can't I just have my social networked "friended" on MySpace? If I am aware of all of you, but none of you are aware of me and my interests, am I a part of the "community?" What if I have read your work, and am thinking or even blogging about it - but none of you have seen it? If a blog falls in the forest, does anyone care?
In the amazing world of sub-atomic and quantum physics, scientists have made discoveries that seem to defy our understanding. Two particles may co-exist in an atom, and share similar properties, such as rotation or spin. When these are physically separated, I believe scientists have found that changing the spin on one produces an immediate and identical change in the other. can we say that these particles have some kind of unique bond of "community?" Clearly they are coupled and resonant, one with the other.
Is it sufficient for us to say "I am here, and I am a part of you. . ." without anyone else knowing? Can we really say we aer a part of the community in that case? If "I feel your pain. . ." in terms of some social issue, are we "coupled" like the particles?
cmplxty
Preparing for a recent guest stint, I borrowed the textbook being used by the instructor. It was a very current release, with references to Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. The book is very well-written, and I spent a couple of hours going through it. Several things struck me about this textbook. One was the fact that the authors chose not to define "community" right away. Instead, they chose to first present a list of seven foundation principles that underlie the field and practice of community psychology. These principles were generated by attendees at a pivotal conference some years ago.
While most fields of endeavor have standardized bodies of knowledge, I thought about the process by which this one and others are generated. How did people get invited to that conference? Were any non-psychologists included in the dialogue? Stakeholders such as community activists, or just "orinary citizens?" Among the seven prionciples are things like "social justice" and "advocacy." Clearly citizens are encouraged to take a direct role in shaping their communities. But how does it happen that a list of defining principles for the profession emerges?
Ralph Stacey, a thought-leader in applying complexity concepts to both management and psychology, talks about "complex responsive processes of human relating" (CRPR usually). To Ralph, iterated patterning of the "gesture and response" of human communication gives rise to our norms, values, and ideologies.
But what IS a community? Do I have to be physically proximate? With the internet, can't I just have my social networked "friended" on MySpace? If I am aware of all of you, but none of you are aware of me and my interests, am I a part of the "community?" What if I have read your work, and am thinking or even blogging about it - but none of you have seen it? If a blog falls in the forest, does anyone care?
In the amazing world of sub-atomic and quantum physics, scientists have made discoveries that seem to defy our understanding. Two particles may co-exist in an atom, and share similar properties, such as rotation or spin. When these are physically separated, I believe scientists have found that changing the spin on one produces an immediate and identical change in the other. can we say that these particles have some kind of unique bond of "community?" Clearly they are coupled and resonant, one with the other.
Is it sufficient for us to say "I am here, and I am a part of you. . ." without anyone else knowing? Can we really say we aer a part of the community in that case? If "I feel your pain. . ." in terms of some social issue, are we "coupled" like the particles?
cmplxty
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Emergency response: Self-organization, emergence, and beyond resilience
The cover story on Government Executive magazine this week, is about RESILIENCE. The article is an excellent piece about the need for this capacity in responding to emergency incidents. But while this is a necessary capacity for individuals and organizations, I don't believe it is sufficient.
In 2004, my employer hired a firm to develop a business process recovery plan. After spending more than $100,000 the consultants delivered a 65-page report. All but two paragraphs were about the need to protect computers and data. There was nothing about the human beings who run the machines, run the computers, and who do the work of the firm. Not one word about the lessons learned from 9/11, where first responders and those trapped, were all dealing with the fear and confusion that accompanied the situation. There were rapidly-changing conditions, emergent circumstances that were not foreseen, and the need for groups of people to make literally life-or-death decisions in the moment. I wrote a four-page analysis for my COO, in which I outlined the capacities of individuals and the organization, that I thought were truly critical in the midst of an emergency.
RESILIENCE is about the capacity to absorb some measure of adversity on the path towards our objective. The late, lamented Dr. Hunter S. Thompson famously wrote "when the going gets tough, the weird turn pro." My frend and colleague Dr. Richard Knowles noticed that as a plant manager for Dupont chemicals, people suddenly came together and figured out what to do in the midst of a crisis. The more resilient we are as individuals and organzations, the greater our chances of successful response and survival.
Two other skills seem to me to be necessary in these times of emergency. We must be AGILE. The quicker we can respond to changes, and use other alternatives, the better. We must also heed Darwin's advice and be RESPONSIVE to changes in our environment. I have some "intellectual property" that describes this approach in slightly different terms. But this will do for blogville.
The dynamics of an uncertain and fast-changing emergency, result in people SELF-ORGANIZING. No one will tell you what to do with others in the heat of the moment. Through very fast DIALOGUE and the NEGOTIATION OF MEANING AND PURPOSE, decisions get made. Action is taken. Leadership and the capacity to collaborate, EMERGE from the wild vortex of the crisis.
I am pleased to see that DHS and others advising the Federal government, are thinking about resilience. I just hope they agree that these other skills are also essential.
cmplxty
In 2004, my employer hired a firm to develop a business process recovery plan. After spending more than $100,000 the consultants delivered a 65-page report. All but two paragraphs were about the need to protect computers and data. There was nothing about the human beings who run the machines, run the computers, and who do the work of the firm. Not one word about the lessons learned from 9/11, where first responders and those trapped, were all dealing with the fear and confusion that accompanied the situation. There were rapidly-changing conditions, emergent circumstances that were not foreseen, and the need for groups of people to make literally life-or-death decisions in the moment. I wrote a four-page analysis for my COO, in which I outlined the capacities of individuals and the organization, that I thought were truly critical in the midst of an emergency.
RESILIENCE is about the capacity to absorb some measure of adversity on the path towards our objective. The late, lamented Dr. Hunter S. Thompson famously wrote "when the going gets tough, the weird turn pro." My frend and colleague Dr. Richard Knowles noticed that as a plant manager for Dupont chemicals, people suddenly came together and figured out what to do in the midst of a crisis. The more resilient we are as individuals and organzations, the greater our chances of successful response and survival.
Two other skills seem to me to be necessary in these times of emergency. We must be AGILE. The quicker we can respond to changes, and use other alternatives, the better. We must also heed Darwin's advice and be RESPONSIVE to changes in our environment. I have some "intellectual property" that describes this approach in slightly different terms. But this will do for blogville.
The dynamics of an uncertain and fast-changing emergency, result in people SELF-ORGANIZING. No one will tell you what to do with others in the heat of the moment. Through very fast DIALOGUE and the NEGOTIATION OF MEANING AND PURPOSE, decisions get made. Action is taken. Leadership and the capacity to collaborate, EMERGE from the wild vortex of the crisis.
I am pleased to see that DHS and others advising the Federal government, are thinking about resilience. I just hope they agree that these other skills are also essential.
cmplxty
Monday, June 11, 2007
Where's the Dipstick? - Complicated versus Complex
The current issue of Car and Driver magazine has an item that illustrates the distinction between COMPLICATED and COMPLEX.
Apparently BMW, like Mercedes, has done away with a time-honored part of every internal combustion engine, the humble dipstick. Since engines generate a lot of heat and friction, they need oil to lubricate teh moving parts inside. You know about going to Jiffy Lube every few months to get the oil changed. But in between, you can - or could - check the oil level yourself by taking a look at the dipstick.
Our friend the dipstick works on a very simple basis. Put a stick into a tank of liquid, pull it out, and see how high up the level of wetness goes. In our engines, the dipstick resides in a scabbard, its tip down in the depths of the oil reservoir. It awaits our gesture to loose its thin steel blade, and look for the tell-tale mark of golden oil. Too low? Add a quart. About all you need to make this a complete process is a rag or paper towel to wipe the dipstick clean before taking your "official" reading.
But now, those crafty Alpine engineers at Mercedes and BMW have eliminated the dipstick. Did you feel the earth move? Did the stock market tumble in a cataclysmic fury? Maybe not. But maybe it should have. In order to know the level of oil in your precious German auto's crankcase, you must take the car to your authorized dealer. They then drain the oil, measure it, decide if you need more, and then pour it back in. Of course, the dealer will tell you that you CAN check your oil by looking at the in-car computer. However this just checks pressure in the system, not actual quantity.
Now I know what you're thinking. This can't possibly be true. Must be an urban legend. Well, sadly, it is true. The crafty Alpine engineers have created an astonishingly COMPLICATED and I daresay COSTLY process for something that every car owner had the unalienable right to do for themselves with a single stroke of the stick. How much time and money are consumed by making those redundant computers? How much time and money are wasted by making the owners of all those Autobahnstormers bring their cars in for an oil check.
However complicated this process is, it is not COMPLEX. We can follow the path of the new process from beginning to end. It always works out the same. Pay your money, add a quart. Got oil? Pour it back in and thank the gods of Vallhalla for this latest stroke of genius. And say farewell to the once-mighty dipstick.
cmplxty
Apparently BMW, like Mercedes, has done away with a time-honored part of every internal combustion engine, the humble dipstick. Since engines generate a lot of heat and friction, they need oil to lubricate teh moving parts inside. You know about going to Jiffy Lube every few months to get the oil changed. But in between, you can - or could - check the oil level yourself by taking a look at the dipstick.
Our friend the dipstick works on a very simple basis. Put a stick into a tank of liquid, pull it out, and see how high up the level of wetness goes. In our engines, the dipstick resides in a scabbard, its tip down in the depths of the oil reservoir. It awaits our gesture to loose its thin steel blade, and look for the tell-tale mark of golden oil. Too low? Add a quart. About all you need to make this a complete process is a rag or paper towel to wipe the dipstick clean before taking your "official" reading.
But now, those crafty Alpine engineers at Mercedes and BMW have eliminated the dipstick. Did you feel the earth move? Did the stock market tumble in a cataclysmic fury? Maybe not. But maybe it should have. In order to know the level of oil in your precious German auto's crankcase, you must take the car to your authorized dealer. They then drain the oil, measure it, decide if you need more, and then pour it back in. Of course, the dealer will tell you that you CAN check your oil by looking at the in-car computer. However this just checks pressure in the system, not actual quantity.
Now I know what you're thinking. This can't possibly be true. Must be an urban legend. Well, sadly, it is true. The crafty Alpine engineers have created an astonishingly COMPLICATED and I daresay COSTLY process for something that every car owner had the unalienable right to do for themselves with a single stroke of the stick. How much time and money are consumed by making those redundant computers? How much time and money are wasted by making the owners of all those Autobahnstormers bring their cars in for an oil check.
However complicated this process is, it is not COMPLEX. We can follow the path of the new process from beginning to end. It always works out the same. Pay your money, add a quart. Got oil? Pour it back in and thank the gods of Vallhalla for this latest stroke of genius. And say farewell to the once-mighty dipstick.
cmplxty
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Six Sigma and Complexity
About a week ago, I received an email from a person in India. He is a Six Sigma Black belt, and works for a financial services firm. While I was intrigued with the application of Six Sigma methods to the delivery of financial services, this person wanted to ask me about the quality-complexity connection.
In part, this person's email read
that this subject has greater promise in enhancing the quality management in the coming future as more and more companies are now looking out at developing Innovation Capability.... 1. Quality talks about reduced variability & greater discipline whereas complexity talks about managing in uncertain and variable times through variations or so called fluctuations at the border of chaos and order (Managing Order and Chaos at the same time to give rise to newer forms of Creativity / Innovation) which is very challenging. If there is a fusion possible with respect to Six Sigma (or) Lean and Complexity theory, we would have put forth the right rules for the Future Corporations. Maybe integration of DMAIC six sigma / Lean with the Complexity Principles could make it more robust and could provide the right approach to managing quality in future corporations.
What interests me in this corespondence is the recognition that variation - differences in our perception of a process's outputs - is at the heart of both the TQM/Quality Improvement mindset, and the insights into complexity. In the complicated but fundamentally linear world of manufacturing or service delivery, we seek to define spcial causes of variation that make outputs deviate from our specification. In the non-linear complex world, we understand that we can not "bring a process into control." Neither can we predict the future response to our inputs or changes with any high degree of certainty. But we can and we shuold look for those individual agents in the system who have found some unique way to do things, and who are getting superior results. Instead of seeking process control, and eliminating causes of variation, we need to define the "positive deviants" who have successfully innovated. Then we can work on replicating their superior results.
One key challenge for us, is to develop what Dee Hock, the founder of VISA cards, calls a "chaordic" mindset. We need to see that living systems simultaneously act in processes that are both linear and predictable, and non-linear and complex. Keeping that "both. . .and. . ." concept in our minds is not easy for many people.
Cheers,
cmplxty
In part, this person's email read
that this subject has greater promise in enhancing the quality management in the coming future as more and more companies are now looking out at developing Innovation Capability.... 1. Quality talks about reduced variability & greater discipline whereas complexity talks about managing in uncertain and variable times through variations or so called fluctuations at the border of chaos and order (Managing Order and Chaos at the same time to give rise to newer forms of Creativity / Innovation) which is very challenging. If there is a fusion possible with respect to Six Sigma (or) Lean and Complexity theory, we would have put forth the right rules for the Future Corporations. Maybe integration of DMAIC six sigma / Lean with the Complexity Principles could make it more robust and could provide the right approach to managing quality in future corporations.
What interests me in this corespondence is the recognition that variation - differences in our perception of a process's outputs - is at the heart of both the TQM/Quality Improvement mindset, and the insights into complexity. In the complicated but fundamentally linear world of manufacturing or service delivery, we seek to define spcial causes of variation that make outputs deviate from our specification. In the non-linear complex world, we understand that we can not "bring a process into control." Neither can we predict the future response to our inputs or changes with any high degree of certainty. But we can and we shuold look for those individual agents in the system who have found some unique way to do things, and who are getting superior results. Instead of seeking process control, and eliminating causes of variation, we need to define the "positive deviants" who have successfully innovated. Then we can work on replicating their superior results.
One key challenge for us, is to develop what Dee Hock, the founder of VISA cards, calls a "chaordic" mindset. We need to see that living systems simultaneously act in processes that are both linear and predictable, and non-linear and complex. Keeping that "both. . .and. . ." concept in our minds is not easy for many people.
Cheers,
cmplxty
Friday, May 25, 2007
Re-naming the Baldrige award: Adapt or Die
Here's a post about proposed changes to the name of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. For years, business in America has lost interest in the Quality Improvement movement. The ideas of TQM pioneer W. Edwards Deming, centenarian Joe Juran, and others, have lost none of their intrinsic value. But the "quick fix" mentality, coupled with the fundamentally flawed linear/mechanistic paradigm of organizational dynamics, have greatly diminished the appeal of "the Q word" (Quality). So now there is consideration of changing the name of America's premier award for business and organizational excellence.
My thanks as always to my friend and colleague Dale Weeks, for passing this along. For many years I have felt like a "voice in the wilderness" as I have advocated a marketing move away from "the Q word." While I am more sure than ever of the value of Deming's teachings, I am also sure that most businesses are simply not interested in "that quality stuff" as a method of improvement. I think we'd agree that the value of Deming and Baldrige is great, but that the attraction of these methods has faded significantly in recent years. Changing the name of the Baldrige award is just one aspect of responding to changes in the marketplace. If Baldrige was a for-profit business, they would have had to reinvent the brand a long time ago. It is the classic "innovator's dilemma" situation. Do you want to be the last great buggy whip and quality improvement maker, or do you want to adapt to the new landscape of business that has emerged around you?
The situation parallels recent developments in New Jersey's own quality award system. The Governor's Award (formerly the New Jersey Quality Achievement Award), was never actually awarded by the Governor. The award process was managed by Quality New Jersey (www.qnj.org). Sadly, interest in QNJ and in the award have waned. The current QNJ Director, Tom Ligas, tried to drum up business and volunteer support last year. It did not work, and QNJ is about to close up shop. Section and regional leaders from the American Society for Quality graciously offered to help, and to assist in sustaining the award process.
But I spoke to Tom Ligas the other day, and his story suggested that it is time to let QNJ die peacefully. Tom told me about award winners, one after the other, who bailed out on their support for QNJ the minute they got their awards. According to Tom, NJ applicants saw the QNJ award as another stepping stone to Baldrige. Once they got the recognition they were seeking, Tom said they just walked away to tout their victory.
This is not the story of a true endless journey of continuous improvement. But it IS the story of a brand and idea that has failed to adapt to changing times. I thought briefly about trying to salvage the wreckage of QNJ, but I ultimately agreed with an ASQ section leader, who believes QNJ should cease, and perhaps in time a new entity can emerge.
My studies and work with complexity science suggest this is so. It is the natural order of things, despite the belief of those who would deny evolution. Systems are born, they live, and they either adapt to changes in their environment, or they become extinct. It is painful to watch an old friend go. The good work of many good people will fade away into the back pages of history. But it is a necessary part of the process of growth and renewal. Only by releasing the energy and resources of this failing endeavor, can we then re-direct those resources to a new initiative.
Take care all, and best wishes for a safe and enjoyable weekend.
cmplxty
My thanks as always to my friend and colleague Dale Weeks, for passing this along. For many years I have felt like a "voice in the wilderness" as I have advocated a marketing move away from "the Q word." While I am more sure than ever of the value of Deming's teachings, I am also sure that most businesses are simply not interested in "that quality stuff" as a method of improvement. I think we'd agree that the value of Deming and Baldrige is great, but that the attraction of these methods has faded significantly in recent years. Changing the name of the Baldrige award is just one aspect of responding to changes in the marketplace. If Baldrige was a for-profit business, they would have had to reinvent the brand a long time ago. It is the classic "innovator's dilemma" situation. Do you want to be the last great buggy whip and quality improvement maker, or do you want to adapt to the new landscape of business that has emerged around you?
The situation parallels recent developments in New Jersey's own quality award system. The Governor's Award (formerly the New Jersey Quality Achievement Award), was never actually awarded by the Governor. The award process was managed by Quality New Jersey (www.qnj.org). Sadly, interest in QNJ and in the award have waned. The current QNJ Director, Tom Ligas, tried to drum up business and volunteer support last year. It did not work, and QNJ is about to close up shop. Section and regional leaders from the American Society for Quality graciously offered to help, and to assist in sustaining the award process.
But I spoke to Tom Ligas the other day, and his story suggested that it is time to let QNJ die peacefully. Tom told me about award winners, one after the other, who bailed out on their support for QNJ the minute they got their awards. According to Tom, NJ applicants saw the QNJ award as another stepping stone to Baldrige. Once they got the recognition they were seeking, Tom said they just walked away to tout their victory.
This is not the story of a true endless journey of continuous improvement. But it IS the story of a brand and idea that has failed to adapt to changing times. I thought briefly about trying to salvage the wreckage of QNJ, but I ultimately agreed with an ASQ section leader, who believes QNJ should cease, and perhaps in time a new entity can emerge.
My studies and work with complexity science suggest this is so. It is the natural order of things, despite the belief of those who would deny evolution. Systems are born, they live, and they either adapt to changes in their environment, or they become extinct. It is painful to watch an old friend go. The good work of many good people will fade away into the back pages of history. But it is a necessary part of the process of growth and renewal. Only by releasing the energy and resources of this failing endeavor, can we then re-direct those resources to a new initiative.
Take care all, and best wishes for a safe and enjoyable weekend.
cmplxty
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Welcome
Welcome to the blog. I'm your blogologist, cmplxty. From a long career as a change agent rooted firmly in the world of Total Quality Management, I became aware of the new sciences of chaos and complexity about nine years ago. Since then I have been engaged in the study and application of metaphor and methodology from the complexity perspective. I've a broad range of interests, from organizational change and leadership, to politics; from dual-line sport kites to the ethereal delta blues of Skip James; from the sublime green chiles and blue corn of New Mexican cuisine, to the authentic teaching of Laibl Wolf.
A few words here about complex systems. For 400 years we humans, especially those in the West, have looked at the universe around us through the eyes of one admittedly great scientist. Sir Isaac Newton figured out a lot of stuff. But the one thing he missed, was that the world of complex living systems does not follow the tidy linear laws that Newton described. We humans observe complex non-linear systems in nature and society all the time. Think about the weather, or the stock market, for example. Think about your relationships at home or work.
So if we do not follow the tidy linear laws of Newton, what do we do? Complex adaptive non-linear systems exhibit several important characteristics:
- self-organizing. No one has to tell birds how to move in a flock.
- sensitive to initial conditions. Small differences get amplified over time to have big impact.
- emergence. Knowing all the parts does not help you predict observable patterns of behavior that emerge spontaneously through the local interactions of the parts.
There's more, but that's enough for now. For more information, check out the websites of folks like Ralph Stacey, Margaret Wheatley, Patricia Shaw, Bruggs and Peat, Glenda Eoyang, and more.
Welcome. We have lots to talk about.
cmplxty
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)