Appreciating Systems

Appreciating Systems for Genuine Efficiency
Home » Posts tagged 'learning' (Page 4)

Setting the world on fire with respect to #appreciativeinquiry or #strength ideas! A @linkedin discussion

Hey!

There’s that discussion that seems to be really promising (or at least energizing) about what we could do to disseminate Appreciative Inquiry ideas to the whole Planet Earth.

I just extended the ideas to strength approaches.

What else?

Please join in and participate here!

 

A fresh look at behaviour management in schools from @guardian: #solutionfocus for @EducationFrance ?

Here’s another rgeat article from The Guardian about using Solution Focus in schools.

A fresh look at behaviour management in schools | Teacher Network Blog | Guardian Professional.

Someone’s from the french ministry of education to test it ?

Somehow, I can’t help but relate this classroom story with what happens in organizations. People are under constant monitoring from their boss, not by him constantly watching over their shoulder (though, sometimes…) but because of that more or less mean year-end review. You know you’ll be evaluated, a bit on what you did done right, but mostly about what you did wrong or not good enough and that you’re supposed to improve next year. Indeed, your bonus relies on that evaluation (despite it not being the most motivating factor)

Doesn’t it look like the same as in school? No wonder there’s so few people engaged at work! Besides, pushing people toward some forced behaviors is a sure way to make them resist. Doesn’t everybody in the change business knows that by now?

 

Systems Thinking #howto #video from @systemswiki #stwg

SystemsWiki is a great web site for those that want to learn more about Systems Thinking. It relies heavily on the LinkedIn group Systems Thinking World (which I invite you to join if you’re so inclined). The group’s description is the following:

We believe a systemic perspective provides the best foundation for creating effective approaches for dealing with situations and shaping a better tomorrow. Our purpose is to create content which furthers understanding of the value of a systemic perspective and enables thinking and acting systemically.

Now, after some free webinars, SystemsWiki releases the training videos on Youtube. Check them out!

Don’t play with your kids’ toys, it’s bad. #Lean

December 22nd, 2011 Posted in Lean Tags: , , , , ,

I’m still in awe as to how managers that want to please their people do that by solving their problems in their place. Though this is based on good intent, I’m not sure people would find it a nice thing to do to play with their toys in place of their kid?! Sure, dads love remote-controlled cars as much as kids. But the toy’s for the kid, not the dad.

Problems are toys to the mind.

And if you appeared to have bought a too complicated toy for your kid, isn’t the best thing to do to explain the kid how to use it? This is the basis of the kata (as seen in Toyota Kata by Mike Rother): coaching in order to develop people.

What presents will Santa bring to your people? Who’s gonna play with them, you or them?

How come people don’t learn #Lean #management? #linkedin Answers

December 6th, 2011 Posted in Lean Tags: , , , , , , , ,

I asked this question on LinkedIn some days ago and got some really good answers (well, from my point of view anyway!). I plan to do a best of by combining some of the best answers because I see links between them… some time in the future!

Here’s the question and the answers.

Reblog: Seth’s Blog: Cities don’t die (but corporations do)

So long for command & control: Seth’s Blog: Cities don’t die (but corporations do).

One ruler cannot have the requisite variety to manage a system entirely on its own, except for chance.

Give up control and adopt direction. Better yet, share direction setting with your collaborators. Co-create. Help them rather than direct them. Use Appreciative Inquiry!

Probably something to do with Servant Leadership

Also, when people participate and build something, they learn and can adapt to changing setting. Like building resilience in. When you’re in charge, they don’t learn. Or they don’t learn what could save you all later. The less they learn, the more reluctant you’ll be to give them the reins. That’s shifting the burden… You’re setting up yourself for failure…

#Lean is social constructivism and constructionism (#stwg #systemsthinking)

A few days ago, I attended a Lean conference in Paris (with Michael Ballé) and had an insight with respect to what Lean senseïs (such as Michael) are trying to do.  Or, to be more accurate, I attached some specific meaning to a senseï-deshi relationship (which should be that of a manager with his collaborators, by the way). The details of this kind of relationship and what it entails is well described in Toyota Kata by Mike Rother (a book I yet have to read as I can’t keep pace with the TAKT of Toyota books being released… More info from Mike Rother is available on his own homepage for Toyota Kata with summary slides).

What is it that I had an insight about? Well, one recalls that:

  • a manager should spend most of his time on the Gemba, coaching his collaborators
  • the coaching consist mainly in having people repeat the PDCA loop: grasp the situation (by going to the gemba again), make hypothesis, test solutions and adjust/genealize through standardization where applicable.

One utterly important point (to me) is that the manager/senseï always stresses that grasping the situation, hypothesis formulation, solution testing and standardization must be done with all people impacted, on the gemba.

Testing is where constructionism as a learning theory occurs and co-thinking on a problem is where social constructivism happens. Let me explain below.

On social constructivism in Lean

Lean is very high on socialization of workers (and managers! Western companies should learn from that) and the A3 document is where this most evidently occurs: the A3 holder should not work on his problem on his own but meet with all stakeholders with the A3 as a central point of discussion and summary of discoveries about the problem.

What this process is all about is plain social constructivism: people make meaning of their work environment by constantly exchanging between them about it, either in groups (in Obeyas) or face to face.

Here’s what wikipedia says about social constructivism:

Social constructivism is a sociological theory of knowledge that applies the general philosophical constructionism into social settings, wherein groups construct knowledge for one another, collaboratively creating a small culture of shared artifacts with shared meanings. When one is immersed within a culture of this sort, one is learning all the time about how to be a part of that culture on many levels. Its origins are largely attributed to Lev Vygotsky.

(emphasis mine)

Sounds familiar to Lean people, huh?

Social constructivism is a way of seeing knowledge as meaning made out of social interaction. Any other “knowledge” is just hypothesis making and needs to be confronted (dialogued) with other people to check for validity and build meaning “into” it.

We all know how senseïs work hardly at breaking our (often wrong) mental models and replacing them with 1) Dialogue with stakeholders and 2) genchi genbutsu. This is where the second part happens.

On constructionism (learning theory) in Lean

With Lean senseïs striving for everybody to meet on the gemba where the real stuff happens, Lean is rooted in constructionism as well. Constructionism as a learning theory is defined as follow by Wikipedia:

Constructionist learning is inspired by the constructivist theory that individual learners construct mental models to understand the world around them. However, constructionism holds that learning can happen most effectively when people are also active in making tangible objects in the real world. In this sense, constructionism is connected with experiential learning, and builds on Jean Piaget‘s epistemological theory of constructivism.

(emphasis mine; the page further elaborates on problem-based learning… hint, hint)

What this means is that those that do something learn and know (quite) for sure. What you know in your head without prior testing is only belief (which unsurprisingly rythms with bullshit in Michael speech…)

I recall having read about or heard some of the most impotant questions regarding A3 thinking:

  • how do you know this is a problem? Have you gone to the gemba to check?
  • what are you going to do to test your hypothesis? (constructionism)
  • how will you convince your co-workers about your solution? (constructivism)

Merging social constructivism together with constructionism

The beauty of it all is to have both social constructivism and constructionism learning combined into the same management principles: meaning making occurs on the gemba with people dialoguing together.

That’s what a Lean senseï is trying to do: design learning experiments on the gemba where his deshi could learn something.

Footnotes

Here are some other notes that came to my mind while writing this post. Causation or Correlation? Probably both, the reader will decide…

Michael’s doctorate work on mental models

Michael is the son of Freddy Ballé who introduced Lean in France and Catherine Ballé, an organizational psychologist. Michael did his doctorate thesis on change resistance, especially in the context of introducing Lean into manufacturing companies. That work resulted in the writing of a book (french only it seems): “Les modeles mentaux. Sociologie cognitive de l’entreprise” (which could be translated as “Mental models. Cognitive sociology of organizations”) where these topics are described in deep details along with hypothesis, experiments and their analysis – all on manufacturing gembas. Already.

TWI Job Break Down Sheets improvement by Toyota

Looking back into Toyota history, one can compare the way teaching is done today to how it was done at the time of TWI at the end of World War II.

  • TWI’s Job Breakdown Sheets originally had two columns: “Major Steps” and “Key Points“.
  • Toyota’s JBS have one more: “Justification for key points“.

They obviously realized early that meaning at work was very important for employees. This of course also relates to their “Respect for People” pillar which implies that people know why they’re asked to do things…

Now, I hope you’ll understand better what is meant by “mono zukuri wa, hito zukuri“: “making things is about making people” (Toyota saying as said by Mr Isao KATO here [last page]).

 

#Lean quote: “The most important person who needs to learn from shop floor experiments is the top executive visiting with the sensei” Michael Ballé

August 17th, 2011 Posted in Lean Tags: , , , , , ,

This powerful quote I’ve just read on Michael Ballé’s Gemba Coach Column.

That few of top management goes to the shop floor, let look and learn something might be the great explanation (root cause) of Lean failures.

You can only convince a top manager with blatant results and the most convincing results are those he can see and feel for himself.

If you’re not walking the gemba with top management, you’re doing work for yourself, for your own pleasure (with some results as a side effect), but not working for the long term benefit of the organization.

Lean projects are just that: projects, with a beginning and an end. Gemba walks with top management should be transformational.

*sigh*

 

David Kolb #Learning Styles (a #mindmap uploaded on @biggerplate)

June 23rd, 2011 Posted in Lean Tags: , , , ,

I’ve just uploaded a new mindmap over there: http://www.biggerplate.com/mindmaps/BtuCBNdT/david-kolb-learning-styles

It might be useful to know these as different people as different learning styles.

Useful to inquire attendants before starting a training or, better yet, build a training session that appeal to all kind of learning styles and build that into your training as specified by TWI.

Mail List

Join the mailing list

Check your email and confirm the subscription