Thoughts about Complexity and Surfing

My brother-in-law tried surfing and wind-surfing for the first time yesterday and it got me thinking about complexity and a few similarities became apparent to me.

Managing complex projects is a bit like surfing. You need to position yourself right and paddle like crazy to catch a great ride. It takes time to watch and try before you understand the patterns of the surf, but the result is a thrilling ride and lot of distance covered with very little effort. I am always amused by the elite swimmers of the business world who claim it was their paddling alone that was responsible for the wave in the first place.

Five rules for Improv

Yesterday, Prof. Mike Askew spoke about the Wisdom of Improv at CPX in Melbourne.

He shared 6 rules of improvisation that I think you will agree can apply to more than just that:
1. Always accept offerings
2. Make the other person look good
3. Listen and be attentive
4. Spontaneity (not pre-planning)
5. Fail joyfully
6. Trust others

Have you done each of these once today?

See more about the morning here.

Measuring Collaboration

Michael Sampson's June newsletter talked about how we measure collaboration.

How do we know if a group or team is being collaborative (or even an organization for that matter)? Are there objective attributes we could look for that would define collaborativeness?

He goes on to offer three possible ideas:
1) Collaborative technologies,
2) Collaborative langueage,
3) The presence of well-formed collaborative interaction routines


For me the answer might lie in looking at some definitions:
"Cooperation" is when we both work on complimentary tasks to achieve a shared goal.
"Collaboration" is when we both work on the same task for a shared benefit.

So indicators of collaboration would revolve around two areas (two that have been taking a lot of my time lately): Ambient Awareness and Adaptive Ability.

By ambient awareness I mean an awareness of the business around you outside the normal hierarchy. ie: talking about another person's project or problems, reading a few customer feedback letters before they are processed, glancing through an online industry forum, picking up when workmates are stressed or upset.
In terms of collaboration, this isn't so much about awareness of work loads, as it is about where a person or teams speciality can fill a gap. Collaboration could be evidenced by regular formal or informal discussions about current events and also possibly by a give-and-take economy, ie: I'll scratch your back in anticipation that you will either pay it back or forward so I will get a benefit eventually when I need it.

By adaptive ability I mean how well set up is the individual, team or entire organisation to respond to opportunities or threats, especially those outside their base responsibilities. This responsive ability could be measured in terms of people's:
- resources (do they have the time and budget to collaborate?)
- inclination (are they characterised by serving others and being dependable?)
- focus (are people open to change or over-reliant on set procedures and tasks?)

Following this logic then, the term "I don't know and I don't care" would be the very antithesis of collaboration.

>.<

If you are interested, Michael has written some fantastic books around collaboration and helping your business adopt collaboration solutions like Sharepoint for greater effectiveness.
Check them out here: www.michaelsampson.net/books.html

I Like Frogs!

The Knowledge Management Leaders Forum (KMLF) hosted Nigel Paine in Melbourne last night and what a great night of introspection, conversation, exasperation and revelation it was!

Nigel (@ebase on twitter) is an international management consultant with leadership experience in KM at places like the BBC. See his profile here.

Nigel spoke about teams or businesses being more like a frog than a bike. You can't just pull a frog apart, put it back to together again and expect it to work the same. When teams are forcefully manipulated, people fired without notice, changes made to the leadership structure, there is a residue left over. A lot of times that residue is lost trust and a fear of what could happen in the future. As a result people are only capable of working at a reduced capacity.

My favourite statement of the night went something like this:

"We spend millions getting 3% business improvements from systems like SAP when research shows many people operating at only 60% efficiency. We will simply be forced to start learning how to manage people to get the most out of their talents."

Of course saying this and knowing that our people are actually people, not machines is one thing.
Translating that in to how a CEO actually makes a business or division run is something else altogether.

Nigel and Shawn Callahan mentioned a few good books for those seeking to get their heads around these issues and start learning how they can configure their business to get the most out of its people.

• What got you here won't get you there - Marshall Goldsmith
• Immunity to Change - Robert Keegan

Finally, he talked about the coming death of what he called tactical HR - those HR departments simply focused on transactional, hiring and compliance issues. He foresees a continual frustration with companies thinking this way about their staff and seeing Talent as something held by people they haven't hired yet.

Instead there is a definite kinship between Knowledge Management and Strategic HR Management, focused on getting the best out of everybody in the business. About helping people grow and fit their vocations to the betterment of the company holistically, not just the bottom line.

If you would like to hear more about Nigel, visit his Blog here. A Storify summary of the evening can be found here.

KMLF meets once a month in Melbourne. You can find all their details and up-coming meetings on Meetup. We welcome newcomers and after tonight I hope we get a few more strategic HR people coming along to explore how they can become agents for strategic change in their businesses.

Examples of Complicated and Complex in Business

This morning I was asked by a friend for an example of complicated and complex systems/procedures in business. I threw back this small example to him.

Do you have a few to add of your own? Please let us know in the comments below.

Hi mate. It's not one or the other, but a sliding scale.

Examples in business:
Simple: Buying stock from Bunnings. Margin Low, Risk Low.
Complicated: Buying stock from multiple vendors. Margin Medium, Risk Low.
Complex: Buying Stock from eBay. Margin High. Risk Medium.

Basically, the definition of Complexity in business is where there are multiple forces at play, one or more hidden and some interacting with others.

The way to operate in the Complicated is to set good procedures that ensure the lowest cost vendor is used each time when stock and forecasted demand are taken in to account.

The way to work in the Complex is to focus on improving:
1) your awareness, both of new stock on eBay, and future possible demand requirements, and
2) your adaptability, including contracts that stipulate slightly different materials may be used depending on availability, different stock-keeping procedures which change based on constant review of market forces, and workers having access to refinishing tools to touch up incoming stock that is damaged or below quality.

Moving towards your goal in a complex environment

In my Complexity and Go talk, I use the analogy of Inline Hockey to make my point about the difference between the words "Management" and "Control" in a complex environment.

Some of you know I started coaching Inline Hockey to be more involved with my son's chosen sport. It has become a passion and I love helping the kids (U14s, and some other Jnr teams) to develop in to their full potential, both personally and as a team.

At high levels of the sport, if you were to video and study the movement of the puck as it moves forward toward the goal you would notice something. Far from travelling in a straight line, or even a zig-zag, it follows quite an erratic path. Not only do the opposition players get a stick to it, it also bounces off players skates, the boards, assorted other body parts, the Ref's skates and from time to time, the player's own stick.

Isn't this a problem? Surely more control is better? Simple maths says a straight line along would get you to your goal faster right?


Wrong.

Part of the problem with those statements is that simple (Newtonian) maths doesn't apply to complex environments where many co-evolving variables are at play, not all of them in view.

Then who is in control of the pucks direction? Does the player just skate hard and leave the rest to chance? Of course not. To break that question down in this way suggests more control is required. But more (conventional) control actually decreases the players chance of getting the puck in the goal!



My son Niko is pictured above after stealing the puck from two New Zealand attackers. Notice he has tapped the puck but doesn't leave his stick on the it at all. The All-Black on the left has just slashed at the puck but Niko has moved it away so his launching leg protects it and takes the blow. The stick of the opposition player on the right is swinging around to smash the puck away. A split second after this photo Niko deflected that stick with his own, kicking the puck forward with his back leg, then bouncing it off the boards around a New Zealand defender for a shot on goal.

Now consider the traditional "more control" notion of keeping the puck on the stick at all times. Now the opposition player not only has to hit the puck, he can hit the blade or shaft of Niko's stick, his hand, arm or even shoulder and the puck will fly away beyond his reach. Not only that, while concentrating on puck control, Niko would lose his greatest weapon in protecting external influences on the puck...his own stick!

In the complex environment of a hockey game,
MORE CONTROL = LESS CHANCE OF SUCCESS

Obliquity
This concept is captured in the concept of Obliquity. The idea of taking an indirect approach to achieving your goals.

John Kay says "The most striking instance of obliquity in business is the profit-seeking paradox, which is the idea that the most profitable businesses are not the most profit-oriented" and this doesn't just apply at the upper strategic level of business. "Those who assume an oblique approach tackle problems whose natures emerge only as they are being solved" and this applies to almost all situations where some of the factors are not fully known.

The journey from Simple to Complex
Young players new to the game (just like new Go players or business people not used to complex environments) try to achieve this sort of complete control. In hockey they aim to keep their stick on the puck at all times.

In business, more metrics are called for, KPIs implemented and enforced, robust fail-safe systems employed. This gives them a sense of security and for hockey players at least this seems to be a right of passage. A player needs to know how to control the puck directly before he can learn how to "massage" it in the general direction in a series of seemingly happy accidents.

How can we apply this to business?
Maybe this right of passage is the same in the business world? Not all situations are complex that's for sure and even ones that are, can have simple parts that can be controlled with a quality system or better procedures and metrics. The big difference with complex environments is that although patterns emerge, each new situation is subtly different. Metrics still apply, but now they need to be instantaneous. Success isn't about what worked last time and measuring to ensure you are doing the same way this time. Success instead is about measuring as much as possible about the current environment so you can mindfully and constantly adjust your course of action.