tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27527416344342346932024-02-27T09:17:26.772+00:00Bruce's BlogA blog about the uses of Social Networking, Project Management and Systems Thinking in the public sector, plus other stuff that takes my fancy.
<p><a href="http://www.blogcatalog.com">BlogCatalog</a></p>Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-76951537521816997692024-01-28T15:42:00.003+00:002024-01-28T15:45:57.284+00:00My love-hate relationship with DuoLingo<div>DuoLingo is a language app available on Android and IOS as well as a web browser version. I have been using it every day for eighteen months to learn Ukrainian, usually on my phone (Android) and sometimes on my iPad (IOS) and once or twice on my PC. My experience, therefore, is based on just one language, so some of my comments are specific to that, whilst others are more generic.</div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div><br /></div><div>You will have guessed from the title that I am not entirely happy with it, and I’m writing this in the hope that DuoLingo folks might actually read it and make some improvements, because they have so far not responded to any other communication (see below for more on this).</div><div><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #b45f06;">DuoLingo Positives</span></h3><div>Let’s start with the good stuff.</div><div><br /></div><div>Firstly, the app is completely free, and although there is advertising in the free version, it is not too intrusive. Other language apps also offer free versions, but as far as I know DuoLingo is the only one where the free version gives access to the entire language course. There are some extras in the paid-for version (called Super), which I cover below, but the good news here is that you can take the full language course of your choice for free. So thank you DuoLingo – I can forgive all the criticisms below for this one feature!</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.levitan.co.uk/images/duolingo-eng-ukr.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Screenshot of a DuolIngo excercise" border="1" data-original-height="686" data-original-width="626" height="320" src="https://www.levitan.co.uk/images/duolingo-eng-ukr.png" width="292" /></a></div>Secondly, it uses a reasonable range of lesson types to help you learn: there are listening questions where you hear a word or a phrase and see a number of words in the language to choose from. There are speaking exercises, where you see a word or phrase in the language and have to speak it out loud (you can listen to the phrase first if you wish). There are also multiple-choice questions where you see a number of words in your native language (English in my case – I will refer to English from now on in place of “native language”) and also the words in your target language and you have to match them up. Another type of listening question is where you hear the word or phrase and them have to match it to the equivalent in English. Sometimes you have to match a spoken word to pictures. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.levitan.co.uk/images/duolingo-pairs.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Screenshot of a DuolIngo pairing-up excercise" border="1" data-original-height="419" data-original-width="593" height="226" src="https://www.levitan.co.uk/images/duolingo-pairs.png" width="320" /></a></div>And for questions where you have to choose the answer in the target language you can choose to type it in instead of picking from displayed words – but you’ll need the appropriate language keyboard for this, e.g. Ukrainian Cyrillic. Some questions include a partial phrase in your target language and you have to choose the word to complete it. There is also a section where you can learn the letters of your language – how they look and how they sound.</div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.levitan.co.uk/images/duolingo-league.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Screenshot of a DuolIngo leaderboard" border="1" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="568" height="320" src="https://www.levitan.co.uk/images/duolingo-league.png" width="227" /></a></div>A third positive is the gamification aspect. You do not have to engage in this, but if you wish you can join in Friend Quests where you pair up with someone in your selected group and work together to complete a task and get rewards in the form of “gems” and “XP-boosts”. XP (experience points) measure your progress and accumulate over time, and are also used in leaderboards and quests. You earn a basic amount of XP for each question you answer, and each group of questions in a round will then give you the XP you have earned. Gems can be exchanged for advanced (so called Legendary) level questions where you earn extra XP, and XP-boosts which last 15 or 30 minutes depending on the boost, give you double the normal XP during that time. Each week you will be included in a group of around 20 players drawn at random (not all of whom are studying the same language), and during the week the amount of XP you earn is compared with the other players to get your place on the leaderboard. If you succeed in reaching the top of the leaderboard you progress through different leagues up to the top Diamond league, and there are also rewards for getting top three places in the form of extra gems. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.levitan.co.uk/images/duolingo-dailyq.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Screenshot of a DuolIngo Daily Quest" border="0" data-original-height="397" data-original-width="633" height="201" src="https://www.levitan.co.uk/images/duolingo-dailyq.png" width="320" /></a></div><br />You can also use gems to take part in the “Ramp-up” exercises that feature in the leaderboards. These provide higher rewards as you answer each set of questions, but each set becomes more challenging due to time limits. Each day there are three Daily Quests – these vary a little and include things like getting a set number of perfect lessons, spending a specified amount of time learning, earning a set amount of XP, etc. Over time you also earn badges, some of which also grant you rewards in gems. </div><div><br /></div><div>The philosophy is that the gaming gives an extra incentive, and I guess it will work for some and not for others; but it isn’t forced on you and you can just ignore it if you wish. </div><div><br /></div><div>Fourthly, and finally, In terms of the breadth of what you are taught, I can only speak for Ukrainian. By the time you finish the course you will have been exposed to around 1100 words which include nouns, verbs (and verb-forms), adjectives and adverbs, prepositions, etc. For the most part the choice of words you are exposed to is useful for learning a language – nouns about people, places, forms of transport, parts of the body, occupations, and so on; verbs about seeing, hearing, speaking, doing, etc. There are gaps, though, and odd choices (see below).</div><div><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #b45f06;">DuoLingo Negatives</span></h3><div>There are just too many niggles, mistakes and bugs for me to really love the app. I have contacted DuoLingo about most of these and have never had any response, nor seen any of them fixed.</div><div>[1] Which brings me to my number one criticism: user support. This is basically non-existent. I don’t know if it’s any better for those who subscribe, but I suspect not. To begin with they make it very difficult to actually raise issues directly. You have to go to your profile, choose settings, help and then scroll to the bottom where you can submit a bug. I have done this more than once and have never received a response. I guess they have millions of users, but that’s no excuse.</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.levitan.co.uk/images/duolingo-nice1.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="DuoLingo example of question with a mistake by them in the answer" border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="369" height="320" src="https://www.levitan.co.uk/images/duolingo-nice1.jpg" width="148" /></a></div>[2] Criticism number two is that some questions have mistakes (at least I’m sure they are mistakes, but since I have never had a response to explain the issue I can’t be 100% on this). Here’s an example. One question I get from time to time is the short phrase “nice to meet you too” and I get to choose from “мені теж” (pronounced meni tezh) which means literally “me too”, “дуже приємно” (nice to meet you) and “але” (but). The mistake I have encountered is that Мені теж is the supposed correct answer as shown in the two screenshots, when in fact none of the three choices is correct, though “дуже приємно” is closer than “мені теж”.</div><div><br /></div><div>[3] Related to this is that DuoLingo’s dictionary often varies from other dictionaries, so one wonders quite how applicable to real life their version is. For example they use довідка for information desk, but Google translate provides довідковий стіл and translates довідка as certificate, information or reference. Another example is the above-mentioned phrase “дуже приємно” which DuoLingo says means “nice to meet you” but Google says means “very nice”; and DuoLingo also has “мені теж дуже приємно” which it says means “I am also pleased to meet you” but Google says just means “I am also very pleased”. Moreover DuoLingo also provides “дуже приємно мені теж“ meaning “Nice to meet you, me too” but Google says still just means “I am also pleased to meet you”.</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.levitan.co.uk/images/duolingo-nice2.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="DuoLingo example of question with a mistake by them in the answer" border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="369" height="320" src="https://www.levitan.co.uk/images/duolingo-nice2.jpg" width="148" /></a></div>[4] My next issue is the vocabulary. As noted above, for the most part the words you learn are useful, but there are a lot of strange inclusions and many omissions. In the latter case, for example, you get to learn the words for head, ear, eye, throat, hand, leg, foot, stomach and back but no other parts of the body, and on the other hand you learn words like superstition, non-governmental organisation, advertising, strike (as in going on strike), rally and postmodernism! Other omissions include hours of the day but not parts of the hour, hryvnia (Ukrainian currency), dollar and euro – but no other currencies. In fact the English in DuoLingo is heavily American-oriented, for example Denver and Atlanta are frequently used in questions, as well a American football and baseball as sports. Related to this is that the total number of words you can learn on the course (which I have completred) is around 1100, but DuoLingo’s achievements for number of words go up to 1500 – a target I can never reach just from Ukrainian. </div><div><br /></div><div>[5] Next is the listening engine. When you speak a phrase it’s very hit and miss as to whether you get it right or not. I guess the sensitivity of your device plays a part in this, but I get the same issues on both my smartphone and iPad, and also it’s inconsistent (i.e. sometimes I’m marked right and other wrong for the exact same phrase), so my guess is the listening engine itself. Examples of what goes wrong: one time I will speak a phrase and get it marked right, and then the next time the same phrase is marked wrong when I speak it. Another example – sometimes I will start speaking and get marked right before the phrase is complete, and sometimes wrong before the phrase is complete (even though I have got it right before). Also, sometimes I know I have muffed it up completely but I get marked right. It seems particularly hard to get it to recognise when I say words like дід (grandad, pronounced “did” with a slight ee inflection on the i) and дім (home, pronounced “dim” with similar inflection on the i), but also tongue twister numbers like двадцять (20: dvadtsyatʹ), тринадцять (13: trynadtsyatʹ) and тридцять (30: trydtsyatʹ).</div><div><br /></div><div>[6] Sixth is the variable pronunciation of the male and female voices used. They often pronounce the same word very differently so it’s hard to learn what’s correct. Moreover the Ukrainian refugee family who were living with us a while ago often said that they were mis-pronouncing the words with the stress in the wrong place. One example is the word довідка which means information desk as noted above. This should (I think) be pronounced “dovidka” but the female voice often distinctly says “dovidikaiya” (i.e. довідікаія (which means evidence)).</div><div><br /></div><div>[7] The advertising on my Android phone goes wrong when I get either of the two DuoLingo adverts (one for DuoLingo Super and one for DuoLingo Family) – what happens is that the advert plays through and then when you tap the close button it just plays again and again... You have to exit and close the app and re-start. This doesn’t occur on the IOS version. When this bug happens, quite often the reward I would be due from the Daily Quest is not awarded – though this is variable, because sometimes it is.</div><div><br /></div><div>[8] Related to this is a bug in the Android version (on my phone at least). Once an hour you can choose to watch an advert and receive some gems (usually 7 or 15). This works fine on my iPad, but on my phone when you watch and advert you get the notification of so many gems being awarded… except that they aren’t! </div><div><br /></div><div>[9] As noted above, I have completed the Ukrainian course, so now I simply get to practice from the final section – “Daily Refresh”. This provides five sets of normal questions (i.e. you earn the basic amount of XP for completing them) and one “Daily challenge” round that give doubles XP. Now I wouldn’t mind repeating exercises from earlier in the course – in fact I’d welcome it – but each day I get the exact same set of around 20 questions repeated across the five “normal” sets. Why on earth DuoLingo doesn’t randomly draw from the entire course I do not understand. At east I can also do “Practice to earn hearts” questions, which are drawn from the wider pool (only Android, though, not on IOS – see next point). In mitigation, one can go back and redo earlier sections in the course, but as I also like to play for XP and you only get half the amount for redoing questions, I don’t bother.</div><div><br /></div><div>[10] Number ten is the difference between platforms. On the iPad I cannot do repeated “Practice to earn hearts” exercises if my hearts complement is full (5 hearts), but I can on the Android smartphone. Also (though now resolved) at one time the cost in gems of doing some questions was different across the platforms. A minor niggle (but still a niggle) is that on IOS and PC (browser) achievements are shown as a list with an exact score – for example I know that I have learned 1099 words as a “Scholar” but on Android the equivalent “Word Collector” is simply an icon and “8 of 10” shown; if I tap on it it tells me I have collected 1000 words. Also on the PC there are ten types of achievement but on Android there are thirteen.</div><div><br /></div><div>[11] Finally there is the leaderboards. I find that sometimes I am matched with a set of people who tend to earn about the same amount of XP in a week as I do on average, which gives me a (and them) a fair chance of getting a top three placing. But far more often there is huge disparity with the top placers getting as much as five or ten times as much XP as the rest of us. These are usually people on the paid-for subscription (Super DuoLingo) where it is much easier to earn XP (I know because sometimes I get given three free days trial) – this is because, for example, you can do Legendary level questions, which earn double XP, without having to spend gems, plus you get to do the Ramp-up questions for free (i.e. no gems cost); and you also get access to the practice your mistakes section which only Super users can get to. Now I don’t mind at all that Super users get more features and easier “earning” power, but it seems unfair to match them them against non-Super users in the leaderboards.</div><div><br /></div><div>My overall verdict on DuoLingo is that it is a good app and you can learn a lot if you use it and practice. But the sheer number of issues and niggles makes it a frustrating experience at times, and I only persevere because learning the language is important to me. I certainly would not even consider the paid-for version (which is not cheap) with all these problems.</div><div><br /></div><div>So, DuoLingo if you read this, I hope you will take on board the issues reported and do something about them. You have created a tremendous, but flawed, resource.</div><div><br /></div>Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-9560728204814250392022-08-26T17:18:00.011+01:002022-08-26T17:27:56.959+01:00Even the “Greens” are capitalists!<div>I am a supporter of the “green lobby” – that is, anything to do with helping to mitigate the effects of climate change. But sometimes the things you do just seem to come back and slap you in the face, and a case in point is green energy.</div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #990000;">Green Energy</span></h3><div>Many years ago my family decided to move to a green energy supplier because although we knew it would cost us more, we felt it was for a good cause as the “premium” we paid helped investment in green energy.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now switching to a green energy provider is not as simple as you may think because there are, unfortunately, shades of green! And here they are (in very simple form, for electricity only as gas is more complex):</div><div><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>100% green energy supplied from a company’s own resources, e.g. wind farms and solar. There are no energy companies in the UK in this category.</li><li>100% green energy supplied from a mix company’s own resources and energy it purchases directly from other green energy generators. There are only a handful of such companies in the UK – we use one of them, Good Energy – because at the time we switched there were actually only two contenders.</li><li>100% green energy supplied from a mix company’s own resources and renewable energy certificates (RECs) it purchases. </li></ol></div><div>Here’s the rub – a number of companies in category (3) claim to be green, but in fact the purchase of RECs is not a green activity as it means the energy that was generated by the green company who provided the RECs was not necessarily purchased by the utility company. It’s a loophole that is being looked into, but in the meantime many utility companies are misleading the public by saying they are green when in fact all they are doing is buying certificates, and not the actual energy! <small><sup>[Ref 1]</sup></small> This activity is known as greenwashing (and there are other activities that also fall into this category, beyond the scope of my piece here – but here’s a good case study on Shell <small><sup>[Ref 2]</sup></small>).</div><div><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #990000;">Green capitalism</span></h3><div>So anyway, we were perfectly happy with Good Energy for many years. When they recently sold off all of their own energy generators we were a bit unhappy, but they remained 100% green in that they still directly purchased the energy <small><sup>[Ref 3]</sup></small>.</div><div><br /></div><div>And then came the recent energy crisis. For whatever reason (and it isn’t all due to Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine) gas and electricity prices have soared in recent months, and look set to continue to increase at previously unheard-of rates. Everyone is being impacted by this, as the news shows.</div><div><br /></div><div>However, green energy generators are not impacted by these forces because they don’t rely on the worldwide energy trading market. So you would think that they would not need to raise their prices alongside the fossil fuel based generators.</div><h4 style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #990000;">But they are!</span></h4><div>So for us it’s a double-whammy because we have been paying over the average price for many years in order to support the green energy industry. And now that there ought to be some pay-back in terms of not having such steep price hikes, nothing happens.</div><div><br /></div><div>I challenged our provider about this, and their agent said that the generators they purchased from have raised their prices:</div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;">“the price of electricity at any one time is typically set by the last type of generator that needs to switch on to meet electricity demand. In the UK, this is often gas. If that gas is very expensive, then the whole electricity market will be high.” <small><sup>[Ref 4]</sup></small></div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div>This is simply mad! It’s like saying that if supermarkets have to put prices up because of increasing prices of imports, then local producers’ prices will "have to" go up too.</div><div><br /></div><div>Well I get that Good Energy can’t absorb this so have to pass it on <small><sup>[Ref 4]</sup></small>. But why are the generators raising their prices? They don’t need to! This seems like capitalism at its worst.</div><div><br /></div><div>We will continue to purchase our energy from a green supplier, but it hurts that the green generators are not playing fair with their own long-term supporters.</div><div><br /></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Ref 1: Greenwashing in the Energy Industry? Here’s How to Spot It, Karsten Neumeister, EcoWatch, Apr 12, 2022, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/greenwashing-energy-guide.html" target="_blank">https://www.ecowatch.com/greenwashing-energy-guide.html</a></li><li>Ref 2: Greenwashing Files: Shell, ClientEarth, <a href="https://www.clientearth.org/projects/the-greenwashing-files/shell/" target="_blank">https://www.clientearth.org/projects/the-greenwashing-files/shell/</a></li><li>Ref 3: Good Energy completes sale of wind and solar farms, <a href="https://group.goodenergy.co.uk/reporting-and-news-centre/press-release-news/press-release-details/2022/Good-Energy-completes-sale-of-wind-and-solar-farms/default.aspx" target="_blank">https://group.goodenergy.co.uk/reporting-and-news-centre/press-release-news/press-release-details/2022/Good-Energy-completes-sale-of-wind-and-solar-farms/default.aspx</a></li><li>Ref 4: Standard Variable Tariff Price increase July 2022 – FAQs <a href="https://www.goodenergy.co.uk/price-change-faqs/" target="_blank">https://www.goodenergy.co.uk/price-change-faqs/</a></li></ul></div>Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-86819699000187308722021-07-26T16:21:00.002+01:002021-07-26T16:27:28.173+01:00It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World<p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWfEBd5rTBZf5AiwubbAn5wF2bmOq2jjjMBPbM4CZIWFa6mji5UQ9Z5G-jjwfkmelo_JKZECQXP9hIvFpV7Ai6k9ZENygmpaWjuUj_p3xb8nR4iASg6v2SQkXZmjKGBhiG-2Rb2RU8chHO/s1200/mmmmw-web.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="750" data-original-width="1200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWfEBd5rTBZf5AiwubbAn5wF2bmOq2jjjMBPbM4CZIWFa6mji5UQ9Z5G-jjwfkmelo_JKZECQXP9hIvFpV7Ai6k9ZENygmpaWjuUj_p3xb8nR4iASg6v2SQkXZmjKGBhiG-2Rb2RU8chHO/s320/mmmmw-web.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source: <a href="https://kansaspublicradio.org/blog/kpr-staff/cinema-go-gos-its-mad-mad-mad-mad-world" target="_blank">Cinema a Go-Go</a></td></tr></tbody></table><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div><br />We live in the strangest of times. It feels like the 1963 movie's title that heads this article is more true of our world today than it was of the crazy comedy for which it was the title. Here are my contenders for why this is so.<span><a name='more'></a></span><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #660000;">1. The World Leader Lies Club</span></h3><p>The USA has only just gotten rid of Donald Trump, but it was close - <a href="https://www.cfr.org/blog/2020-election-numbers" target="_blank">nearly half</a> of the population of voters supported him. Yet without doubt Trump is a bare-faced liar. I won't bother to cite much of the evidence as there is just so much of it - just search for "Trump lies" and you'll see what I mean (with articles from the likes of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html" target="_blank">New York Times</a>, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/" target="_blank">Washington Post</a> and <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/16/politics/fact-check-dale-top-15-donald-trump-lies/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>!). And here in the UK we're still stuck with his look-alike "kid brother" Boris Johnson whose grasp on veracity is equally greasy (e.g. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/30/accusations-of-lying-pile-up-against-boris-johnson-does-it-matter" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>, <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2021/07/politics-lies-boris-johnson-and-erosion-rule-law" target="_blank">New Statesman</a> and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56624437" target="_blank">BBC</a>).</p><p>What is it about politicians of this kind that allows them not only to take power, but to continue in the popular mindset? Maybe we're in the throes of national and international mind-control? Or did the world experience a "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_of_the_Triffids" target="_blank">Day of the Triffids</a>"- like wave of blindness from which only a minority survived to see the truth?</p><p>Whatever the explanation, the "The World Leader Lies Club" is alive and doing very well, thank you!</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #660000;">2. Steering for the Iceberg</span></h3><p>Yes, sorry for the Titanic metaphor, which I'm not alone in using - but it's so appropriate! The current <a href="https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/climate-change/facts-about-climate-emergency" target="_blank">Climate Emergency</a> that keeps cropping up in the news is not a new phenomenon, and we have known for a few decades now that things have been going wrong. Al Gore's film "<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/" target="_blank">An Inconvenient Truth</a>" is already 15 years old, but his wasn't the first documentary on the subject - look back at "<a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/warming-warning-1981-tv-documentary-warned-climate-change" target="_blank">Warming Warning</a>" from 1981 for instance! So back to that Titanic metaphor - if you are steering a very large ship and you get information that there is a major hazard ahead (let's say an iceberg) - you need to take early and major action to avoid it. Just ignoring it and hoping it will float away certainly won't work (which is basically what we've done for most of the time). Or you could pretend you're taking it seriously - for example hold some life boat stations rehearsals and put up posters saying that the ship is unsinkable anyway. Maybe even make a minor course change. Well this may induce a misguided feeling that enough is being done, but the reality is very different.</p><p>In 2008 I wrote an <a href="https://bruce-levitan.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-this-progress.html" target="_blank">article on this blog</a> summarising a 2004 book, "<i>A Short History of Progress</i>" by Ronald Wright - he used the same metaphor. I quoted his opening remarks back then and I think they are worth repeating:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p><span style="color: #660000;">Our civilization, which subsumes most of its predecessors, is a great ship steaming at speed into the future. It travels faster, further, and more laden than any before. We may not be able to foresee every reef and hazard, but by reading her compass bearing and headway, by understanding her design, her safety record, and the abilities of her crew, we can, I think, plot a wise course between the narrows and the bergs looming ahead.</span></p><p><span style="color: #660000;">And I believe we must do this without delay, because there are too many shipwrecks behind us. The vessel we are now aboard is not merely the biggest of all time; it is also the only one left. The future of everything we have accomplished since our intelligence evolved will depend on the wisdom of our actions over the next few years. Like all creatures, humans have made their way in the world so far by trial and error; unlike other creatures, we have a presence so colossal that error is a luxury we can no longer afford. The world has grown too small to forgive us any big mistakes.</span></p></blockquote><p>It's unimaginable to me that we are still doing so little to avoid this "big mistake" that we have made regarding our use of the world's resources. And the problem is that while the vast majority of people in the developed world continue to ignore it, so will the politicians!</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #660000;">3. You Too Can Be President!</span></h3><p>Back in 2001 George Bush (another world leader in the no. 1 category above) told C-Grade students at Harvard "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext052101.htm" target="_blank">You too can be President</a>". This is part of that "great American dream" whereby anybody can become rich, famous and successful so long as they work hard enough. Which is another lie, because in order to be at the top of the pyramid, the vast majority have to be at the bottom. Only a <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/22/global-millionaires-just-09-population-now-own-nearly-half-worlds-361-trillion" target="_blank">very small percentage</a> can become millionaires, etc.. But the problem is that so many people are duped into believing that not only is this goal possible, but it's also worthwhile and leads to happiness and fulfilment. (The theme of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_a_Mad,_Mad,_Mad,_Mad_World" target="_blank">the movie</a> that this article's title is taken from is the pursuit of a $350,000 cache, worth around $2.5 million today). </p><p>In the UK it is epitomised by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/08/what-is-thatcherism-margaret-thatcher" target="_blank">Thatcherism</a>. Thatcherism rejected the idea of social prosperity through the welfare state, nationalised industry and regulation of the British economy, opting for free market forces, privatisation and neoliberalism (she <a href="https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/105454" target="_blank">famously said</a> that if Gladstone were alive, he'd feel happy in the Conservative Party (page 4 of her speech)). What this led to was a doubling in the relative poverty rate: Britain's childhood-poverty rate in 1997 was the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB116674870703357351" target="_blank">highest in Europe</a>. </p><p>In other words, if you focus on making people rich, what happens is that the very few who succeed do so on the back of the many who (have to) become poor.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #660000;">4. There is such a thing as Perpetual Motion</span></h3><p>According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, <a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/perpetual-motion" target="_blank">Perpetual Motion</a> is where "the action of a device that, once set in motion, would continue in motion forever, with no additional energy required to maintain it." However we know that this is in fact impossible - at least on earth - because of the first and second laws of <a href="https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics/#:~:text=The%20first%20law%2C%20also%20known,any%20isolated%20system%20always%20increases." target="_blank">thermodynamics</a>. Yet our industries and economics, in the developed world, has been based on the idea that perpetual motion is possible (in the sense that economic development can continually improve forever). And this is the lie that is sold to people so that they vote for the likes of Thatcher, Trump and Johnson; and so that they continue to live a life of consumerism as if there is no end to what it promises. </p><p>But all our development is based on the use of resources, be it fossil fuels, minerals, agriculture or human labour. All of these are finite resources, so a model that says you can continue to develop and exploit forever is fatally flawed! Initially the resource base upon which we were drawing was so vast that it appeared to be infinite, like the so-called perpetual motion machine you can see in the Royal Society - an endlessly spinning bicycle wheel called <a href="https://royalsociety.org/blog/2018/09/perpetual-motion/" target="_blank">DREADCO</a>, but which is really just an illusion. However, over time we have both eaten into this resource in a cumulative fashion, and also with increasing avidity. And now we can see the resources are running out. Yet even knowing this, companies still invest in finding more <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/all-fossil-fuel-exploration-needs-to-end-this-year-iea-says/" target="_blank">fossil fuels</a> (for example) even if it means doing so by increasingly environmentally devastating means (e.g. <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-12-732.pdf" target="_blank">fracking</a>).</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #660000;">5. And they all lived Happily Ever After</span></h3><p>So ends the traditional fairy tale. The Prince has met and freed his Princess. The dragon has been slain (oops, now extinct, never mind). But we are not living in a fairy tale, so why do we act as if we are? If we continue in our current way of life (in the developed world) there will be no happily ever after. Maybe we won't experience it in this generation, but our children might and our grandchildren definitely will. <i>Do we even care?</i></p><p>I often write to my MP on environmental matters. He's a Tory who votes on party lines on almost everything - so even though I keep trying, he keeps coming back with party line platitudes about how the UK is leading the world in terms of climate emergency responses, etc., and often votes against climate action proposals (<a href="https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25841/robert_largan/high_peak/votes" target="_blank">Robert Largan, MP</a>). But even if the UK <i>were</i> in first place (though it most definitely isn't), it's irrelevant if everyone is running much too slowly! No one is going to make it past the finish line unless we speed up by a very large amount, and do it now! </p><p>The <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-57461670" target="_blank">G7 meeting</a> was disappointing: more platitudes and little action. Will <a href="https://ukcop26.org/" target="_blank">COP26</a> be any better? </p><p>If you've read this far, all I ask is that you take what action you can - write to your MP, join an environmental group (<a href="https://friendsoftheearth.uk/climate-change" target="_blank">Friends of the Earth</a>, <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/declaring-climate-emergency-looks-like/?source=GA&subsource=GOFRNAOAGA024K&gclid=CjwKCAjwuvmHBhAxEiwAWAYj-C-hzYopl0wMGUZDFhq5K2qIqHbdlW7YqFooGsJ65P8uvMiJxKSsLBoCkXIQAvD_BwE" target="_blank">Greenpeace</a>, <a href="https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/what-do-climate-emergency" target="_blank">WWF</a>, etc.), make <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181102-what-can-i-do-about-climate-change" target="_blank">personal sacrifices</a>. We all have our part to play and we have to start right now.</p>Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-19046476599379969292020-12-24T16:17:00.003+00:002021-07-26T16:27:58.011+01:00The Crown - Netflix's often untrue history of the Royal Family<p>I have a love-hate relationship with The Crown, I love it because it is so well made and acted. The choices of actress and actor have been inspired. The production values are high and the filming is sumptuous. In short, it's great to look at, impeccably acted and very entertaining.<span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><p>So why hate it? Well I'm no royalist, but I have to squirm at the obvious bias that runs through most episodes - a bias that presents the Royal Family as a whole, and the Queen in particular, as self-interested, selfish and out-of-touch with real life. And in the Queen's case, rather stupid and insensitive at times. The writers clearly don't like their subjects and have an axe to grind. It becomes rather tedious after a while.</p><p>What makes it worse is that there is a lot of inaccuracy interwoven alongside the truth, so what seems like genuine "history" is actually far from that, and as many (if not most) viewers won't bother to research this, a popularly accepted but wrong picture of the "truth" about the Royal Family emerges. This is dangerous because people will start to see the real Royal Family through Netflix's distorted lens.</p><p>Netflix should have included a large notice before each episode saying that this is "dramatised history" and not everything shown in the series is historically accurate. The Royal Family almost never publicly react to inaccurate portrayals about them - in this Netflix are lucky: other real-life people would doubtless have taken them to court for libel! As Carline Hallemann puts it "[Peter] Morgan is painting a version of history, and he's picking and choosing which moments best highlight his point of view. The events he chooses to leave out of the plot are, perhaps, just as telling as what he includes." [1] And Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins wites: "Laws of privacy, defamation and slander have been built up over years to protect individuals against ever more surveillance and intrusion into personal lives. Most people support them, and increasing numbers use them. The Crown has taken its liberties by relying on royalty’s well-known – and sensible – reluctance to resort to the courts. This is artistic licence at its most cowardly as well as casual." [2]</p><p>And here, for the record, are just some of the inaccuracies of the Netflix view of history (I have concentrated more on Season 4 as this is the current season):</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #783f04;">Season 1:</span></h3><p>In Season 1 Winston Churchill is shown as entirely unconcerned about the impact of "The Great Smog" and it isn't until his assistant Venetia Scott, whom he likes very much, is killed in a traffic accident that he takes any action. Venetia Scott is entirely fictitious, and Churchill's unconcern is borne more out of ingnorance (was was general at the time and not particular to him) [1.1].</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #783f04;">Season 2:</span></h3><p>In series 2 Prince Philip is depicted as a hedonist where he engages in riské activites and is associated with the Profumo scandal. In fact he was never associated with this scandal in any way and certainly never attended the sex parties as shown [2.1].</p><p>In the same series Philip is also shown as an insensitive father who calls Charles "bloody weak" over the latter's struggles at school (Gordonstone). But according to a palace insider, things didn’t exactly play out that way in real life. "The queen realizes that many who watch The Crown take it as an accurate portrayal of the royal family and she cannot change that," the insider said. "But I can convey that she was upset by the way Prince Philip is depicted as being a father insensitive to his son’s well-being. She was particularly annoyed at a scene in which Philip has no sympathy for a plainly upset Charles while he is flying him home from Scotland. That simply did not happen.” [2.2]</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #783f04;">Season 3:</span></h3><p>Prince Philip becomes fascinated by the Apollo moon landing, and when the astronauts visit Buckingham Palace he engineers a meeting with them, only to be disappointed that they are ordinaryu blokes with no deep thinking about what they have achieved. The idea here, I think, was to show something of the prince's deep thinking character, but it done through fiction because the meeting never took place and he was no more than passingly interested in the moon landing [3.1].</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #783f04;">Season 4:</span></h3><p>In episode one, Lord Mountbatten writes a letter to Prince Charles telling him why he must get over his infatuation with Camilla Parker Bowles and marry someone more suitable. Although it's true that Mountbatten disapproved of Camilla as a potential wife for Charles, there is no evidence that this letter was ever written [4.1].</p><p>Diana visits the Royal Family at Balmoral and is a great success with everyone, even shooting a magnificent trophy stag on a hunting trip with Prince Philip. Whilst it's true she did make a good impression, she had in fact had visits with the Royal Family already, this wasn't her first time at Balmoral, and she did not shoot the stag [4.2].</p><p>Margaret Thatcher also visits Balmoral, but unlike Diana, is a fish out of water and hates the experience so much that she leaves early. Again the central truth is correct: Thatcher did not like her visits to Balmoral (she went more than the once shown in The Crown), but there is no evidence she ever left early and the awakward parlour game scene almost definitely never happened [4.2].</p><p>When Prince Charles first meets Diana (she's 16 at the time) she is dressed up as a tree for her school play, and whimsically stalks the Prince from behind various items of furniture - this never happened. In fact they met in a field, and were introdcuced by Diana's older sister (who Charles did date for a short time) [4.3].</p><p>Of much greater importance in the Charles-Diana story is the place of Camilla. Whilst there is no doubt that Charles did evetually eventually resume his affair with Camilla, he steadfastly insists this was not before 1986; whilst The Crown implies that they never really left off. And although there is a brief period when Charles and Diana appear to try and make a go of things (on their Australian tour), The Crown's portrayal of the courtship and marriage is basically one where the whole Royal Family are unloving, unsupportive and lacking in understanding of Diana throughout [4.4]. </p><p>For me this is the epitomy of The Crown: it takes a basic truth (Charles and Diana's marriage is unsuccessful) and presents it with a very particular lens that portrays the Royal Family as uncaring and beastly, so support its overall approach to the Royals throughout the series.</p><p>Another good example of this is the episode in which Michael Fagan breaks in to the palace and has a cosy chat with the Queen about the troubles of the times under Thatcher, and the "fact" that the Royals are so out of touch. Netflix uses the Fagan break-in as the framework for giving this view of the Queen, but in fact no such conversation ever took place and the Queen actually called in a maid and he was taken out of her bedroom [4.5].</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #783f04;">References</span></h3><p>1. <i>Town & Country</i>, <a href="https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/a29873503/the-crown-netflix-tv-show-accuracy/" target="_blank">Is The Crown Accurate? The Answer Is Complicated</a></p><p>2. <i>The Guardian,</i> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/16/the-crown-fake-history-news-tv-series-royal-family-artistic-licence" target="_blank">The Crown's fake history is as corrosive as fake news</a></p><p>1.1 <i>People</i>, <a href="https://people.com/royals/the-crown-historically-accurate-netflix/" target="_blank">Fact-Checking The Crown: 5 Things That Are True (and 3 That Aren’t!)</a></p><p>2.1 <i>Marie Claire</i>, <a href="https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a19634414/the-crown-prince-philip-fact-check/" target="_blank">Fact-Checking Prince Philip's Portrayal on 'The Crown'</a></p><p>2.2 <i>Glamour</i>, <a href="https://www.glamour.com/story/queen-elizabeth-wasnt-happy-with-the-crown-season-2-scene" target="_blank">Queen Elizabeth Reportedly Wasn't Happy With This Scene in Season 2 of The Crown</a></p><p>3.1 <i>Marie Claire</i>, <a href="https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a19634414/the-crown-prince-philip-fact-check/" target="_blank">Fact-Checking Prince Philip's Portrayal on 'The Crown'</a></p><p>4.1 <i>Radio Times</i>, <a href="https://www.radiotimes.com/news/on-demand/2020-11-15/the-crown-how-did-lord-mountbatten-die/" target="_blank">How did Lord Mountbatten die? Truth behind The Crown storyline</a> </p><p>4.2 <i>Radio Times</i>, <a href="https://www.radiotimes.com/news/on-demand/2020-11-15/the-crown-balmoral-test-thatcher-diana/" target="_blank">Does the Balmoral Test really exist – and did Diana and Thatcher both go through it?</a></p><p>4.3 <i>Radio Times</i>, <a href="https://www.radiotimes.com/news/on-demand/2020-11-15/the-crown-charles-and-diana-relationship-timeline/" target="_blank">How did Charles and Diana meet?</a></p><p>4.4 <i>Radio Times</i>, <a href="https://www.radiotimes.com/news/on-demand/2020-11-15/the-crown-charles-affair-camilla-cheating/" target="_blank">The truth behind Charles and Camilla’s affair storyline in The Crown</a></p><p>4.5 <i>History Extra</i>, <a href="https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/the-crown-season-four-real-history-netflix-michael-fagan-queen-opinion-falklands-war/" target="_blank">Michael Fagan’s Buckingham Palace break-in and the Falklands crisis</a></p>Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-68099014759036353572020-04-11T20:16:00.002+01:002021-07-26T16:28:10.205+01:00What can we learn from COVID-19?It’s a truism to say that prevention is better than a cure <sup><small>[1]</small></sup>, and no sane person would deny it’s better to stop something bad from happening than to deal with its consequences after it does.<span><a name='more'></a></span><br />
<br />
Prevention measures cost money, and the problem is that it’s very hard to tell that they are working because if successful, bad things don’t happen (or happen less frequently and/or with less impact). And that means when governments are looking to cut funding, they often turn to those services that are at the forefront of prevention: health, social care <sup><small>[2]</small></sup>, education and service infrastructure.<br />
<br />
This is basically what successive Conservative governments have done for years – in 2018 The King's Fund, Nuffield Trust and the Health Foundation wrote a joint letter to the government stressing that NHS funding needed to be much higher than the current practice <sup><small>[3]</small></sup>, this was ignored <sup><small>[4]</small></sup>. And even Labour governments have made cuts, though to a lesser extent. The thing is, that when things are on an even keel, making these cuts doesn’t have a hugely negative impact. Oh yes, it affects some people (usually the most vulnerable), but by and large it isn’t very noticeable because it’s slow.<br />
<br />
Then, eventually, something bad does happen; disaster strikes. And the impoverished services can’t cope – they can’t cope with the consequences because they can’t scale up quickly enough. Resources aren’t in place. Supply chains aren’t in place. Plans haven’t been made. It's a lesson in <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.com/2015/10/project-viability-cybernetics-approach.html" target="_blank">Requisite Variety</a> that governments just never seem to learn!<br />
<br />
This is what we have seen with COVID-19. If the NHS and other essential frontline services had been better funded over the years, they would have been able to mount a much faster and more effective response than they did (for example Germany has had a much better testing regime than the UK, able to test around 500,000 people a week in April 2020, whilst UK had only tested about 214,000 by the beginning of April) <sup><small>[5]</small></sup>.<br />
<br />
What workers in the NHS, police and other frontline services have done is nothing less than miraculous. But they shouldn’t have had to perform miracles; they should already have been well enough resourced.<br />
<br />
And now a government that has in the past said it can’t afford to fund the NHS to the tune it needs, is pouring billions into the service. So it wasn’t impossible to do this after all! And if they had done it sooner the impact of COVID-19 would have been better contained. There would have been fewer deaths.<br />
<br />
Now I don’t want to “Tory bash” – what I want is that lessons be learned from this and for things to change. After the crisis is over, let’s not go back to the regime of austerity and cuts to our social infrastructure services.<br />
<br />
Because an even bigger crisis than COVID-19 is looming. Climate change hasn’t gone away. And if we don’t act in a far better, more concerted fashion than at present, it won’t just be the millions in Africa and India and SE Asia who are suffering already: it will be us too. Globally crops will start to fail, and there will be a worldwide food crisis <sup><small>[6]</small></sup>. Sea levels will continue to rise, and major cities like London will face flooding on a scale never seen before, with new predictions showing that a rise of 2m might occur by 2100 <sup><small>[7]</small></sup>.<br />
<br />
Learn the lessons of under-funding social infrastructure - and never let our governments make cuts like those of the past again: learn the lessons of not funding prevention measures to the scale they need. We know now what was needed for COVID-19 and magically the money is now being found.<br />
<br />
Well we also know what’s needed for climate change: massive funding for green energy, not just the trickle that’s currently in place <sup><small>[8]</small></sup>. And stop fossil fuel exploitation – dead, instead of the rebates and tax breaks <sup><small>[9]</small></sup>. Oh the Shells and BPs and Essos will wail and moan, but things must change. Stop people flying unless they have to. If, as a result of COVID-19, some airlines go bust, let them <sup><small>[10]</small></sup>. Fewer planes and fewer airlines is a good thing. Foreign holidays are a luxury not a necessity!<br />
<br />
The madness of HS2 should be cancelled immediately. If it’s allowed to continue it will overspend much much more than it already has (The original estimate was £36 billion, now it’s estimated it’ll cost around £88 billion, but costs are still rising <sup><small>[11]</small></sup>). The money could and should be used for local public transport measures. We don’t need to have to travel long distances at high speeds, we need economies that are based on local communities and local productivity.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
Sources:
<br />
</h3>
<h4>
1. Prevention is better than a cure:</h4>
Royal College of Nursing, ‘Prevention is better than cure’<br />
(<a href="https://www.rcn.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-with-us/prevention-is-better-than-cure" target="_blank">https://www.rcn.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-with-us/prevention-is-better-than-cure</a>)<br />
<h4>
2. Social Care funding:</h4>
The King’s Fund, 21 November 2018, ‘Prevention is better than cure – except when it comes to paying for it’<br />
(<a href="https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2018/11/prevention-better-cure-except-when-it-comes-paying-it" target="_blank">https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2018/11/prevention-better-cure-except-when-it-comes-paying-it</a>)<br />
<h4>
3. NHS funding: </h4>
The King’s Fund, 6 June 2018, ‘An open letter: a long-term funding settlement for the NHS’<br />
(<a href="https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/pm-letter-funding-settlement-nhs" target="_blank">https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/pm-letter-funding-settlement-nhs</a>)<br />
<h4>
4. NHS funding: </h4>
Full Fact, 9 July 2019 , ‘Spending on the NHS in England’<br />
(<a href="https://fullfact.org/health/spending-english-nhs/" target="_blank">https://fullfact.org/health/spending-english-nhs/</a>)<br />
<h4>
5. COVID-19 testing: </h4>
Guardian online, 7 April 2020, ‘UK must learn from German response to Covid-19, says Whitty’<br />
(<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-must-learn-from-german-response-to-covid-19-says-whitty" target="_blank">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-must-learn-from-german-response-to-covid-19-says-whitty</a>)<br />
<h4>
6. Climate change and crop failure:</h4>
Science Advances Vol. 5, no. 7, 3 July 2019, ‘Synchronous crop failures and climate-forced production variability’<br />
(<a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaaw1976" target="_blank">https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaaw1976</a>)<br />
<h4>
7. Climate change and sea level rise:</h4>
PNAS Vol 116 (23) 4 June 2019, ‘Ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise from structured expert judgment’<br />
(<a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/116/23/11195" target="_blank">https://www.pnas.org/content/116/23/11195</a>)<br />
<h4>
8. Renewable energy funding by government:</h4>
Energy Voice, 13 February 2019, ‘UK Government increases renewables funding following review’<br />
(<a href="https://www.energyvoice.com/otherenergy/192634/uk-government-increases-renewables-funding-following-review/" target="_blank">https://www.energyvoice.com/otherenergy/192634/uk-government-increases-renewables-funding-following-review/</a>)<br />
<h4>
9. Tax breaks for fossil fuel producers:</h4>
Energy Voice, 8 April 2020, ‘UK regime sees Shell pay no taxes on North Sea business in 2019’<br />
(<a href="https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/233416/uk-regime-sees-shell-pay-no-taxes-on-upstream-business-in-2019/" target="_blank">https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/233416/uk-regime-sees-shell-pay-no-taxes-on-upstream-business-in-2019/</a>)<br />
<h4>
10. COVID-19 impact on airlines:</h4>
<div>
Guardian online, 15 March 2020, 'UK airlines call for multibillion bailout to survive Covid-19 crisis'<br />
(<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/uk-airlines-call-for-multibillion-bailout-to-survive-covid-19-crisis" target="_blank">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/uk-airlines-call-for-multibillion-bailout-to-survive-covid-19-crisis</a>)</div>
<h4>
11. HS2 costs: </h4>
Oakervee Review of HS2, December 2019 (para 7.4)<br />
(<a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/870092/oakervee-review.pdf" target="_blank">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/870092/oakervee-review.pdf</a>)<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-56838445008676984962020-02-26T19:08:00.000+00:002020-02-26T19:08:07.620+00:00So what can I do about climate change?I am a foster carer and one of the 15-year-old girls in my care (we also care for her twin sister) is very keen on campaigning about climate change, having been on two recent climate school strikes. However, when I talk to her about what she could do personally, it's a struggle as she sees the problems as:<br />
<br />
a) too big for an individual to make a difference;<br />
b) the responsibility of the adults (who are to blame).<br />
<br />
So this post is a kind of response to that, because I think everyone can make a difference - no matter how small. And a lot of small differences add up! Now there are lots of online resources that provide great advice about what you can do, and I have provided links to some of them below. I don't pretend to offer better or different options; this is simply my personal response to the issue. If it makes even one reader stop and think, and maybe take personal action as well, then I'll be well pleased!<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><h3>
1. Who's responsible?</h3>
<br />
First, let me deal with the issue that "adults are to blame" as per my 15-year-old's accusation. Well, yes in a way we are, but it's not just adults! I think we can break it down into three categories:<br />
a) Government<br />
b) Industry<br />
c) People<br />
<br />
<h4>
Government</h4>
Government is responsible for the way the country is governed and managed, and for legislation (among other things). The former has a very large potential impact on climate change because it includes things like the balance of spending on road building versus public transport, the extent to which development is allowed to take-over countryside, and the footprint that the wheels of government have on the environment (both national and local). I would like to see our government taking much great responsibility and real action. For example by redressing the balance of spending so that <b><u>much</u></b> more is invested in public transport, and measures are put in place to dissuade people from driving (the latter can only be fair if the former takes place as well so that a real, feasible alternative is available). And for example by ensuring that its own footprint is reduced by looking for significant carbon- and plastic-reduction measures in all areas of government work. By the way, although the current intention to support electric vehicles seems laudable, it's only addressing one aspect of environmental damage (fossil fuels) - what about all the dame cause by the extraction and manufacture of all the materials used to make the cars, and the problems of dealing with cars that are no longer in service?<br />
<br />
And then in terms of legislation, the government can have a huge impact because measures can be put in place that encourage environmentally friendly ways of working, and which discourage those that aren't. For example by refusing runway extensions at Heathrow and other airports; by providing business rate tax breaks for companies that take real environmental action; by penalising companies that continue to pollute.<br />
<br />
We can have an influence on this by writing to our MPs and councillors. The more of us who do this, the more notice they are likely to take.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Industry</h4>
If government is a big cause of environmental damage, and also a potential force for change, then industry is too, and probably of far greater impact and importance. Industry is responsible both for the environmental footprint of its processes (be they manufacturing, service, or whatever), and for the impact and damage caused by the products they provide. At one end of the scale we see companies like Unilever, one of the world's biggest producers of single-use plastics, taking precious little real action to change its ways, or the likes of McDonalds (worldwide) which is responsible of forest clearance in order to grow beef (admittedly not so much in the UK), and at the other end of the scale are the many service companies that employ people who have to drive long distances every day (often one per vehicle), or use the cheapest forms of produce and labour no matter what that environmental impact. The list is endless!<br />
<br />
As noted above, government can have an influence through legislation and regulation. We, too, can have an influence both by writing to these companies (and signing petitions) and through our personal buying choices.<br />
<br />
<h3>
2. So what can I do?</h3>
<h4>
Personal</h4>
Which brings me to the personal level. Each of us is responsible for our own environmental footprint, and though each person's footprint may be small, they all add up. What choices do we make when we buy stuff? When we travel? When we use energy? And what, if anything, do we do to campaign for change? So here's some of the things you can do.<br />
<br />
<i>1. Contact your MP / Councillors</i><br />
I have already noted above some of the things we can do in terms of campaigning. Don't underestimate the power of writing to MPs, councillors and companies. As I've already stated, the more people who do this, the more they will take note. If you don't know who your MP is, or who your local councillors are, check out the links at the end of this article.<br />
<br />
<i>2. Join a campaigning or petitions service</i><br />
There are now several reputable services that actively campaign on environmental (and other) issues, and you can sign up to one or more of these to receive invitations to take part in particular campaigns, usually by signing an online petition. I have provided links to three of these in the links section below. One is the government petition website - here you can search for petitions to sign, or even start your own. Any that gain more than 10,000 signatures are guaranteed to be debated in parliament. The others are campaigning websites: Change is a worldwide petitions website where you can sign petitions and/or start your own. 38 Degrees is an online campaigning organisation for the UK. Many charities and NGOs frequently run their own campaigns, and ones that centre on the environment include Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and WorldWide Fund for Nature.<br />
<br />
<i>3. Change your buying habits</i><br />
The biggest change you can make in your buying habits is not to buy! Obviously I don't include necessities here, so it's the things that we don't really need, especially the luxuries. Do you really need that latest technical gadget you saw advertised? (What would Alexa say!) The next time you want to upgrade your mobile phone, or laptop (or whatever) stop and think: do you actually need to? Does the one you have currently do what you need it to do? Now I'm not advocating you cut out all luxuries; just that you think more about each one before you buy, and maybe make some sacrifices.<br />
<br />
The next thing to think about is where to buy from. Clothing, for example: maybe shop more from charity shops. Do you always look for the cheapest deal? Well maybe that is not the best thing for the environment! A cheap dress made in China or India has had to be transported here (and that's not even considering the issues about fair trade, i.e. are the workers paid a fair wage?) Or those apples imported from South Africa or New Zealand (versus ones produced closer to hand or ideally in the UK). Buy meat from a local butcher who sources their meat locally and ensures animals are raised in good conditions (though, ideally, buy less meat as meat production is big contributor to climate change). You may end up paying more, but remember that the search for the cheapest deal is the driver for exploitation.<br />
<br />
Plastics! It's hard to avoid them. They are everywhere! It's impossible to cut them out entirely, but we can do our best by avoiding them if possible. Buy fruit and veg from a greengrocer where you can buy them loose and usually have them bagged in paper bags. Use a metal water bottle and refill it (don't buy endless plastic bottles of water or juice) - many public places are now providing water fountains to refill your bottle at. Look for things in glass bottles if possible - squash, cooking oil, etc. Use your local milk delivery instead of buying plastic bottled milk in supermarkets.<br />
<br />
<i>4. Conserve energy</i><br />
<b>In the home:</b> switch off lights and electrical appliances when not in use. Try not to run water too much - if you shower or bathe every day, is that really necessary? Do you turn on then tap and leave it running whilst brushing your teeth? If your central heating is set to above 19 degrees Celsius consider turning it down and wearing more layers (be sensible - I'm not advocating people suffering in too cold conditions!). Don't leave windows open if the heating's on. Do you iron your clothes? Maybe consider ironing fewer items, or not at all?<br />
<br />
<b>Travelling:</b> try not to use the car. If possible walk or cycle, or use public transport. If you do have to use the car can you car-share or plan things so that you take fewer journeys? If you have to have a car consider changing to hybrid or electric (but best not to have a car at all). Try not to fly at all - yes that holiday in Florida or Majorca might be wonderful, but you can have great holidays closer to home. If you must go overseas, can you take the train instead?<br />
<br />
<i>5. Contact the companies</i><br />
Tell the people you purchase stuff from that you want them to change. Most companies provide a Freepost address you can use (or search for their online contact details). Write to them and say that you want them to be more environmentally responsible and ask them what they are doing about it. Challenge on specifics, for example what are their plans to cut down on plastics, non-sustainable palm oil? I've provided links to some of the bigger ones below.<br />
<br />
<h3>
3. Conclusion</h3>
I hope, if you've read this far, that you have got some ideas for practical changes you can make. Please consider doing something, even if it's only very small!<br />
<br />
<h3>
4. Links</h3>
<div>
The links below are UK centric, there may be similar services in other countries</div>
<div>
<br />
<h4>
For campaigns and petitions:</h4>
<a href="https://home.38degrees.org.uk/" target="_blank">38 Degrees</a> (campaigns and petitions)</div>
<a href="https://friendsoftheearth.uk/" target="_blank">Friends of the Earth</a><br />
<div>
<a href="https://www.change.org/" target="_blank">Change.org</a> (petitions website)</div>
<div>
<a href="https://petition.parliament.uk/" target="_blank">Government Petitions website</a><br />
<a href="https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/" target="_blank">Greenpeace</a></div>
<div>
<a href="https://www.wwf.org.uk/" target="_blank">WorldWide Fund for Nature</a><br />
<br />
<h4>
For Government:</h4>
</div>
<div>
Councillors - <a href="https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-councillors" target="_blank">Find you local councillor</a></div>
<div>
MPs - <a href="https://members.parliament.uk/FindYourMP" target="_blank">Find your MP</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
For companies:</h4>
<a href="https://www.complaintsdepartment.co.uk/" target="_blank">Complaints Department</a> - a useful searchable website that provides links to hundreds of companies throughout the UK<br />
<br />
Amazon <a href="mailto:complaints@amazon.co.uk" target="_blank">email address</a><br />
ASDA <a href="mailto:customer.services@asda.co.uk" target="_blank">email address</a><br />
ASOS <a href="mailto:care@asos.com" target="_blank">email address</a><br />
BP <a href="https://www.bp.com/en_gb/united-kingdom/home/who-we-are/contact-us/general-enquiries.html" target="_blank">feedback form</a><br />
Esso <a href="mailto:customer.care@exxonmobil.com" target="_blank">email address</a><br />
KFC <a href="https://help.kfc.co.uk/hc/en-gb/requests/new" target="_blank">feedback form</a><br />
Cadbury <a href="https://contactus.mdlzapps.com/form?siteId=Zv0BAiPw9HLxCuKyFDGRiyYZfufseHmj" target="_blank">feedback form</a><br />
Lidl <a href="mailto:customer.services@lidl.co.uk" target="_blank">email address</a><br />
Matalan <a href="mailto:cs@matalanonline.co.uk" target="_blank">email address</a><br />
Marks and Spencer <a href="https://www.marksandspencer.com/c/help" target="_blank">feedback forms</a><br />
McDonald's <a href="mailto:customerservices@mcdonalds.co.uk" target="_blank">email address</a><br />
McDonald's <a href="https://customerservices.mcdonalds.co.uk/hc/en-gb/requests/new" target="_blank">feedback form</a><br />
Mars <a href="https://www.mars.com/contact-us" target="_blank">feedback form</a><br />
Morrison <a href="mailto:fresh@morrisons.com" target="_blank">email address</a><br />
Next <a href="mailto:complaints@next.co.uk" target="_blank">email address</a><br />
PepsiCo <a href="https://contact.pepsico.com/pepsico/contact-us" target="_blank">feedback forms</a><br />
PepsiCo <a href="mailto:PepsiCoDMKSG@pepsico.com" target="_blank">email address</a><br />
Primark <a href="https://www.help.primark.com/hc/en-gb/requests/new" target="_blank">feedback form</a><br />
Sainsbury's <a href="mailto:customer.service@sainsburys.co.uk" target="_blank">email address</a><br />
Shell <a href="mailto:generalpublicenquiries-uk@shell.com" target="_blank">email address</a><br />
Tesco <a href="mailto:customer.service@tesco.co.uk" target="_blank">email address</a><br />
Tesco <a href="https://www.tesco.com/help/contact/" target="_blank">feedback forms</a><br />
Unilever's CEO (Paul Polman) <a href="mailto:paul.polman@unilever.com" target="_blank">email address</a><br />
Unilever <a href="https://www.unilever.co.uk/contact/contact-form/" target="_blank">feedback form</a><br />
<br />Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-88139985215216529612019-11-27T12:31:00.001+00:002020-02-26T15:26:28.948+00:00Is Labour anti-Semitic?Is the Labour Party anti-Semitic? I don't think anyone will ever know all the facts, but it seems to me that the media are playing up this label because
<br />
<ol>
<li>it's sensational, and the media love sensation, and</li>
<li>it's an easy way to tar Labour's image without actually analysing its policies or politics.</li>
</ol>
I'm Jewish by birth (though I became a Christian in my teens) - so that makes me Jewish by race, if not religion. I'm also a Labour supporter. That's because I believe that Labour's policies are the best for the country as a whole (and I'm not just talking 'Brexit' here).
My take on Labour's so-called anti-Semitism is as follows:<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h3>
Parties are made of people, and they sometimes get things wrong! </h3>
There are some Labour MPs and members who have said unfortunate things about Jewish people. That is wrong and they are being investigated about this. No large political party will be totally clear of prejudices, and it would be unrealistic to expect it. What you need are clear, robust and transparent processes for dealing with prejudice when it arises. Labour aren't perfect in this sense, but they are trying to be better. See my section about the Tories, below.
<br />
<br />
<h3>
Anti-Semitism versus anti-Zionism</h3>
Current Labour views on political Zionism are more left-wing than previous ones (e.g. under Blair): basically this means they are more openly critical of Israel's political Zionist policies than in previous times (and much more so than the Tories). Political Zionism isn't the same as Judaism - the former is a political stance about the sovereignty and geographical extent of the nation Israel [1], and it gets confused with Judaism all the time! You can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic! It's worth noting that the pro-Zionist lobbies in the US and UK are very powerful, and are possibly behind the smear campaign because they fear what a Labour government would mean in terms of continued support for Israel's Zionist policies. <br />
<br />
For example Richard Burgon is under fire, but his comments were about Zionism, not Jews; quote "The enemy of the Palestinian people is not the Jewish people, the enemy of the Palestinian people are Zionists and Zionism is the enemy of peace and the enemy of the Palestinian people. We need to be loud, we need to be proud in support of a free Palestine." [2] <br />
<br />
That is a valid <i>political</i> view, it has nothing to do with religion or race! One may not support that view, just as one may or may not have supported the Falklands War, but if you didn't support the Falklands Ware that didn't mean you were anti-British!
<br />
<br />
<h3>
Tory prejudices</h3>
By the way, it's not just Labour. Does anyone recall Boris Johnson's comments about women who choose to wear the burqa? quote: "absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter-boxes" [3] - offensive stuff if you ask me! And how about this statement, again from Johnson: "It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies" [4]? Both of these were things he wrote, not just off-the-cuff remarks. He later apologised for both these remarks and said the latter was satirical and not meant to offend - but no one is dragging the Tories through the mud for their prejudices! <br />
<br />
<h3>
References: </h3>
[1] <a href="https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/a-definition-of-zionism">https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/a-definition-of-zionism</a> <br />
[2] <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/richard-burgon-zionism-shadow-minister-jeremy-corbyn-comments-a8872896.html">https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/richard-burgon-zionism-shadow-minister-jeremy-corbyn-comments-a8872896.html</a> <br />
[3] <a href="https://www.timesnownews.com/the-buzz/article/boris-johnson-says-burqa-clad-women-look-like-bank-robbers-letterboxes-won-t-apologise-for-his-comment/266176">https://www.timesnownews.com/the-buzz/article/boris-johnson-says-burqa-clad-women-look-like-bank-robbers-letterboxes-won-t-apologise-for-his-comment/266176</a>
<br />
[4] <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3571742/If-Blairs-so-good-at-running-the-Congo-let-him-stay-there.html">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3571742/If-Blairs-so-good-at-running-the-Congo-let-him-stay-there.html</a>
Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-66532909604401859862015-12-03T14:22:00.000+00:002020-02-26T15:26:48.535+00:00Project Viability – a cybernetics approach, part 4So far this series I have looked at the idea of <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/project-viability-cybernetics-approach.html">Requisite Variety</a> (part 1) in project management communications in terms of <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/project-viability-cybernetics-approach.html">assessing the environment</a> (part 2) and <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/project-viability-cybernetics-approach_26.html">internal communications</a> (part 3) within the project. In this final part we return to the environment this time looking at how we get the project messages “out there” effectively.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Systems 1 and 4</span></h3>
You’ll recall that the role of “listening” to the environment falls to systems 4 and 1 of Stafford Beer’s Viable Systems Model (VSM). In the VSM system 4 is responsible for the wider environment and for "horizon gazing” whilst system 1 only looks at the immediate environment in terms of what it needs to deliver.<br />
<br />
These same levels of responsibility hold true for the outgoing communications too.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">What are the outgoing communications?</span></h4>
These fall into two main types:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>I want something</li>
<li>Let me tell you about…</li>
</ul>
<br />
The former focuses on internal needs where a solution is required from the environment. Using our Reception System project scenario (purchasing an IT system to enable a customer-facing reception desk to log calls (a mini-CRM)).<br />
<br />
The immediate environment will include:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Suppliers we are using to provide the products/services;</li>
<li>Direct customers of the service we’re providing;</li>
<li>Any aspect of the immediate environment that will impact on operations.</li>
</ul>
<br />
The wider environment will include all of the above from the perspectives of a longer timeframe (e.g. future customers) and a wider perspective (e.g. alternative suppliers). It will also include other potential areas regarding emerging markets, competition and so on.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">I want something</span></h3>
This can range from researching to gather information to conducting tenders and engaging with suppliers. The project and associated methodologies deal with this sort of thing quite well. For example tenders will generally follow well established processes, and researches – assuming they are sufficiently experienced – will have a range of mechanisms at their disposal.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, in my experience things still go wrong – usually because the amplification process is ill thought through. (And part of the problem is that there is no conscious realisation that it is amplification that needs to be achieved).<br />
<br />
Let’s take tenders as an example.<br />
<br />
At the weighty end of the scale is large scale tendering using European Union regulations (for EU countries – outside the EU there may well be similar schemes). The problem here is that the system is so bureaucratic that it can put off some of the audience you wish to attract.<br />
<br />
At the other end of the scale is where you selectively tender from a chosen few suppliers. Here the problem is that your selection may well be cutting out other, possibly better alternatives.<br />
<br />
Both of these have amplification problems because the process is actually acting as an attenuator. What is needed is for the initial stages to be amplified – so that we can get the message that we need something to as wide an appropriate audience as possible, and then use the attenuator later on when making a decision about what solution to choose.<br />
<br />
Most of us know this instinctively and would carry out some form of marketplace analysis pre-tender. What I’m saying is that this is really essential, and that the marketplace analysis should be properly conducted and resourced so that it’s an effective amplifier.<br />
<br />
The basic point here is that we often accidentally use attenuation when we are seeking information when actually initially we need an amplifier to broadcast the fact that we want the information.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Let me tell you about…</span></h3>
When we want to get information “out there”, there is usually no such confusion about the roles of amplifiers and attenuators. The problem is how to amplify effectively so that our messages get picked up by those for whom they are intended. Volume is not the answer because the louder we shout, the louder everyone else will too. Metaphorically speaking, how do we make sure our voice is heard above the hubbub in a crowded room?<br />
<br />
Companies still take the “shout loudly” approach – cold calling, bulk mailing, advertising campaigns, etc.. but how effective is it really? What we’re beginning to see, with the onset of “big data” and the tools to analyse it, is more carefully targeted campaigns. Google, Amazon, and the like, are selecting what adverts you get shown depending on your browsing and other web-based activites. Of course this can misfire as well: if I have just bought a new TV online, I don’t want to see adverts for TVs! But it will get better as the technology develops and the learning of how to use it advances (as in the movie Minority Report).<br />
<br />
The underlying feature of this is personalisation: the messages are being honed to the preferences of the people they are sent to.<br />
<br />
Just as with the “I want something” stream above, the trick is that you need to plan carefully the messaging before you execute it. Wide-channel broadcasting is too hit-and-miss; the personalisation approach is thinking along the right lines.<br />
<br />
In project terms, this is about carefully defining who needs to hear your message and understanding their needs. Project management already has great tools for this (Stakeholder Management, for example). What is required, in many cases, is putting more effort into understanding stakeholder needs so that the “personalisation” of the messages can be more effective.<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;"><br />In summary</span></h3>
Project management already has pretty good tools in place for communicating outwards. When using them, the important points to consider are:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>ensuring we don’t confuse amplification and attenuation;</li>
<li>putting sufficient effort into understanding the environment (e.g. market research);</li>
<li>putting sufficient effort into understanding the needs of people and organisations in the environment (e.g. stakeholder management).</li>
</ul>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Conclusion</span></h3>
Over the four articles in this series we have seen that project management actually has many good tools and techniques for handling communications along viable systems lines, but there are some gaps that arise because there is insufficient understanding of the cybernetics involved. Using an approach such as Stafford Beer's VSM and understanding of requisite variety these can be more clearly identified, and the project management tools used to greater effect.Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-33321591405231238152015-11-26T09:40:00.001+00:002015-12-03T14:23:17.933+00:00Project Viability – a cybernetics approach, part 3In the<a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/project-viability-cybernetics-approach.html"> first part</a> of this series I introduced the idea of Requisite Variety and attempted to outline how it might apply to project management. The <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/project-viability-cybernetics-approach.html">second part</a> looked in more detail at the inputs into a project from its external environment and the need for Attenuation (or filtering). This third installment covers information flows within the project.<br />
<a name='more'></a><h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">A bit of VSM</span></h3>
Before considering project information flows internally, it’s important to understand how a cybernetic approach might work, drawing on Stafford Beer’s classic Viable Systems Model<sup><small>[1]</small></sup> that I have been using so far. The diagram shown here illustrates the five systems within the model, and these can be very roughly defined as:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/vsm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Stafford Beer's Viable Systems Model" border="0" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/vsm.jpg" height="320" title="" width="311" /></a></div>
<br />
<ul>
<li>System 1: Operations = project teams</li>
<li>System 2: Operational Coordination = team leaders & project manager</li>
<li>System 3: Operational Control and Audit = project manager / project assurance</li>
<li>System 4: Research = project board</li>
<li>System 5: Policy and Strategy = project board</li>
</ul>
<br />
Systems 3-5 are part of “management”, system 1 is wholly operational and system 2 bridges the gap between them. All of these components need effective inter-communication to work effectively, but with communication lines running between everything, the system could easily get overloaded. An example of this, in project terms, would be if every task was reported in detail to the project board.<br />
<br />
Project methodologies such as PRINCE2 recognise this, and put structures in place to prevent this overload and to maximise effectiveness of communication. Indeed much of these methodologies can be mapped directly to the VSM. However this correspondence is not deliberate or conscious (I don’t think, for example, that the authors of PRINCE2 considered the VSM when creating the methodology). So this means there are also gaps. It’s in identifying these gaps that we can make the most improvement in projects, because once we know about them, we can fix them and thus improve project communications.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Attenuation and Amplification</span></h3>
Harking back to <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/project-viability-cybernetics-approach.html">Part 1</a> of this series, you will recall that incoming information needs to be attenuated (filtered) and outgoing information needs to be amplified. So if you imagine there are an attenuator and an amplifier connecting every part of the VSM, you’ll have an idea of how this works. The VSM diagram above shows just one linking line in order to keep it uncluttered but in fact every connection has an attenuator and an amplifier.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Operations communication</span></h3>
Looking at the VSM diagram we can see there are four obvious communication links for operations, plus a fifth less evident:<br />
<ol>
<li>Between the environment and the operation (dealt with in <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/project-viability-cybernetics-approach.html">Part 2</a> of this series);</li>
<li>Between the different operations themselves (e.g. O1.1 and O1.2). All the operations should be interconnected. The diagram doesn’t show this (for simplicity), but O1.1 is also connected to 1.3.</li>
<li>Between each operation and its system 2 coordinator</li>
<li>Between system 3* (three star) and each operation: 3* is the audit function</li>
<li>Between the operations and systems 3/4/5 – this is via system 2</li>
</ol>
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">Inter-team communications (system 1)</span></h4>
The operational units equate to project teams. In the project scenario introduced in Part 2 (purchasing an IT system to enable a customer-facing reception desk to log calls) we might have a tender preparation team, a purchasing/contracts team, a system implementation team, and so on.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/comm_links_1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/comm_links_1.png" height="189" width="200" /></a></div>
Gaps can and do occur if we don’t ensure that there are communications covering all of the above teams. For example, if there are four project teams, there needs to be six interconnections as shown to the right. However even this more detailed diagram simplifies the true picture because recall that there are attenuators and amplifiers for each operational unit. The next diagram illustrates this for one pair of units: each unit has one amplifier (shown in blue) and one attenuator (red) so that’s four links, and therefore 4 x 6 = 24 links overall in our four unit model. If you add more units the number of lines of communication grows exponentially!<sup><small>[2]</small></sup><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/comm_links_2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/comm_links_2.png" height="49" width="200" /></a></div>
In projects there are often gaps of communication between teams for this very reason, and this usually leads to problems because things get overlooked as a result (e.g. leaving something out of the tender requirements). But if all the teams communicated according to the model they could easily get flooded out – and that’s just the inter-team communications, let alone the others listed above.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/comm_links_3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/comm_links_3.png" height="266" width="320" /></a></div>
The trick is to use the attenuators to filter what’s not needed, and the amplifiers to make sure the communications are properly addressed. Anyone who works on IT networks will recognise this system because it’s a classic networking communications protocol. If you look at the diagram on the right, imagine that each team is “listening” to the communications traffic that’s flowing around the network. What they are listening for is some kind of flag that tells them this communication is pertinent to them – if they detect that flag, they pick up the communication packet and look at its content, otherwise they just let it flow on past. The red arrows are the attenuators, which are “listening” to the communications traffic and picking out what’s meant for them, so O1.3 will pick out the packet O1.3-ABCD but will ignore O1.1-1234.<br />
<br />
The amplifiers work in reverse: if O1.4 needs to make sure that O1.1 listens, then its packet is labelled O1.1-XXXX so that O1.1 picks it up.<br />
<br />
There might also be some special message that everyone needs to hear, so an agreed flag (e.g. XX) can be used: thus all teams will pick up the packet labelled XX-9999.<br />
The point is that there is:<br />
<ul>
<li>a communications network that connects up all the teams, and</li>
<li>an agreed protocol for how the teams message each other.</li>
</ul>
I have rarely seen anything like this actually created in a project environment, though Agile “stand ups” come close.<br />
<br />
Here are just a couple of examples of how something like this might work in reality:<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: #990000;">Use a Twitter feed</span></b><br />
Agree the feed’s hashtag (i.e. the project name, e.g. #callogger) and then the hashtags for the individual teams or types of message. The Twitter feed is set to filter on the main project hashtag [#calllogger] and you only pick out the hashtags meant for you/your team such as [<span style="color: #990000;"><i>#calllogger #team1 we need advice on IP – team 2</i></span>] – Team 1 will pick this up and know to contact team 2. Team 2 is not tagged here because it’s the sender. Another message, such as [<span style="color: #990000;"><i>#calllogger #ALL there is a milestone meeting in room 99 on 12 December</i></span>], gets picked up by everyone because of the #ALL tag.<br />
<br />
NB: I’ve chosen Twitter because it forces you to keep messages short, but other social media channels like FaceBook or LinkedIn would work as well.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: #990000;">Email</span></b><br />
Twitter is great because – like other social media channels – it allows you to see all the communication traffic, and you can also filter it. With email there is the danger that the sender can “over filter” – because email can be point to point as well as broadcast. So if I choose to send an email to team 1, the other teams will have no chance of seeing it (unlike in the Twitter example).<br />
<br />
The trick is to have a joint email account that everyone can see, and to use the subject line for the filter. The joint email account equates to the #callogger project hastag, so that doesn’t need to go in the subject line. This the messages above would be headed simply [<span style="color: #990000;"><i>Team1 we need advice on IP – team 2</i></span>] and [<i><span style="color: #990000;">ALL there is a milestone meeting in room 99 on 12 December</span></i>]. This could be further refined by using colour coding (e.g. in Microsoft Outlook you can set categories up for each of your “hashtags”).<br />
<br />
As well as having flags for individual teams and “ALL”, you can define other special purpose flags such as HELP and INFO – just don’t go overboard with too many or you defeat the object!<br />
<br />
What you end up with is a shared communications channel so all teams can see the information flow, with a handy means within that to flag individual communications so that attenuation and amplification work effectively.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">Systems 1 and 2 communications</span></h4>
Each team needs to be able to communicate with its system 2 coordination function, and each of the systems 2s need to be able to communicate with each other and also with the “master” system 2 coordinator which is seated in “management”. In project terms the system 2 function is taken on by team leaders, and the master system 2 function is the project manager.<br />
<br />
They also need to be able to communicate in the same way as has been described, i.e. all system 2 nodes need a shared communications channel. This will work in exactly the same way as the above: in fact the very same channel can be used.<br />
<br />
So a tweet might read [<span style="color: #990000;"><i>#callogger #PM we need extra resource TL1</i></span>] – which decodes as a message for the project manager (#PM) from team 1’s team leader (TL1).<br />
<br />
The type of communication will be higher level, but the same channel can be used, and the same protocols.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">System 2 and systems 3/4/5 communications</span></h4>
This is no different: all we need is additional tags to identify the new components. System 2 will need to communicate regular items to management, such as project update reports, budget status, etc., and also have the ability to flag extraordinary or <i>ad hoc</i> messages. So if the message [<span style="color: #990000;"><i>#callogger #PM help run out of money T3</i></span>] is picked up by the project manager, the PM can then message [<i><span style="color: #990000;">#callogger #SPON need urgent budget meeting PM</span></i>].<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">System 3* communication</span></h4>
In effect we now have a project wide, shared communications channel and a mechanism for filtering out what we don’t want, plus amplifying our messages so that they get picked up by the right target audience.<br />
<br />
System 3* has a special role in the VSM: it provides an audit function to check at a detailed operational level that everything is running fine. System 3 is the primary recipient, hence the 3* label, and system 3 would then pass on any necessary information as result of the audit, e.g. to the project manager or project board. The problem that audit has is getting to the information - but this shared channel solves that, and the auditor can simply randomly sample all of the communications, or selectively filter parts they want as appropriate.<br />
<br />
In project terms, audit is project assurance. This is a role I have seldom seen carried out well, or at all, and I suspect it’s because the way the system is configured isn’t sufficiently viable. The VSM helps solve that, and the above example illustrates how.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">What about rich information?</span></h3>
The Twitter, and to some extent, email examples are fine for short messages – but what about richer information such a project plans, the Invitation to Tender document, the system Functional Design Document, etc.? This is just a type of “packet content” in network terms, and all you need is the vehicle to carry and expand it as required. So a tweet that says [<i><span style="color: #990000;">#callogger #TL2 draft ITT is </span><u><span style="color: blue;">here</span></u><span style="color: #990000;"> PM</span></i>] includes a hyperlink to the ITT (Invitation to Tender document) - NB there is no actual link in this example.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Responsibility to listen</span></h3>
This process only works where every part of the system takes the listening role very seriously. If the shared communications channel is ignored the mechanism will fall apart. In the human body, if a muscle stops “listening” to its system 2 nerve coordinator, it can’t respond when the brain says “run”. Likewise, if the brain stops listening, it won’t pick up the muscle’s “help I’m starting to cramp”. Similarly each component system of the project must keep a weather eye on the communications channel – this is just as true of the sponsor as it is of a team leader.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">In conclusion (for this part)</span></h3>
<ol>
<li>We can provide more effective internal project communications if we have a shared, broadcast style communications channel and agreed protocol for how to flag the messages within it.</li>
<li>Each component of the system has a responsibility to monitor the channel on a frequent and regular basis.</li>
<li>Because the channel is shared across the whole project, project assurance is made easier because there is access to all project communications.</li>
</ol>
In the <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.com/2015/12/project-viability-cybernetics-approach.html">final part</a> of this series I’ll look at amplification and the environment.<br />
<hr />
<b><span style="color: #990000;">References</span></b><br />
[1] Beer, S. (1972) <i>Brain of the Firm</i>, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, (2nd edition with new material published 1981)<br />
[2] Brooks, F. (1975) <i>The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, </i> Addison-Wesley, Boston (Anniversary edition with new content published 1995)Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-67573767149492517172015-11-20T15:05:00.000+00:002015-11-26T09:41:33.724+00:00Project Viability – a cybernetics approach, part 2In the <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/project-viability-cybernetics-approach.html">first part of this series</a> I introduced the idea of Requisite Variety and attempted to outline how it might apply to project management. This second part will look in more detail at the inputs into a project and the need for Attenuation (or filtering). There are two aspects to this: where attenuation should occur and how to attenuate effectively. The terms attenuation and filter are used interchangeably below.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">1. Putting Attenuation in the right place</span></h3>
This is probably the easiest step, and one that many projects get right. Methodologies like DSDM Atern<sup><small>1</small></sup> consciously recognise that you can’t always identify everything that needs to be done up front and that actually it is OK to introduce additional requirements so long as they are effectively prioritised; but also that you can’t allow things to be added uncontrolled<sup><small>2</small></sup>. At a higher level, one also sees the idea of a prioritisation funnel or filter being used for portfolio management<sup><small>3</small></sup>. So the idea of having an input attenuator is firmly embedded in project management, but perhaps needs greater prominence in the various methodologies and bodies of knowledge. I would like to see them adopting a diagram similar to the one I used in part 1 of this series (based on Beer’s work) because it clearly shows the importance of this step. The diagram below focuses on the attenuator in order to highlight where it should occur for projects.<br />
<br />
There are multiple input paths into a project, but they can be broken down into the following key stages:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Project set-up: includes mandate, brief and business case</li>
<li>Project approval</li>
<li>Change control during project implementation</li>
<li>Formal monitoring throughout project lifecycle (plan, budget, risk, etc.)</li>
</ul>
<br />
The four stages listed above can be further summarised as “Project approval” and “Project implementation”, and we need attenuators for each of them. Stafford Beer’s <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/viable-systems-modelling-for-project.html">Viable Systems Model</a> provides the mechanism by which we can see where these attenuators should be placed because Project approval is a management function and sits with VSM’s system 4, whilst implementation is operational so sits in system 1.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/beer_vsm_2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/beer_vsm_2.jpg" height="320" width="266" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Viable Systems Model (Stafford Beer)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
At each of these, without an adequate attenuator, there is the risk that the external environment’s variety may flood the project inputs.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Case study example</span></h3>
For illustration, we shall use the simple example of purchasing an IT system to enable a customer-facing reception desk to log calls (a mini-CRM). The system will also provide analysis and reporting so that the staffing levels on the reception desk can be planned more effectively and intelligence about the kinds of issues that customers raise will be gained. This will be referred to throughout as the Reception System Project.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Variety in the environment and system 4</span></h3>
At the stage where approval for the Reception System Project is being sought, the key tool is the Business Case. So this document needs to successfully attenuate in order that requisite variety is provided. This is the System 4 role: and projects need effective analysis of their environments whereby the unnecessary “noise” is filtered out, but also changes are noted so that the filtering can be adjusted if necessary.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">Filter 1: Business Case</span></h4>
The Business Case for Reception System Project needs to include the normal why, what, when and how information, and in order to obtain this an analysis of the environment is needed (among other things). For example the why might include benefits such as better information about customer needs and better workforce planning. A typical tool to use here is benefit mapping<sup><small>4</small></sup>, as this helps focus on what the project aims to achieve, and thus automatically provides the filtering (attenuation) that is required. Similarly part of the how will be a cost analysis, and the business case only needs enough financial information to determine cost and affordability (cost-benefit analysis) – it doesn’t need a very detailed project budget breakdown. These, and other typical Business Case tools (e.g. PESTLE and SWOT analysis) are all attenuation tools.<br />
<br />
System 4 is one of the roles of the Project Board, but one that in my experience is seldom understood or done effectively. The Board’s role in this respect is to filter out unnecessary environmental noise so that the project can concentrate on the key inputs. The vehicle for this is the Business Case, but too often it is not written with the full engagement of the Board. My personal experience is that usually the Project Manager writes the Business Case and there is little or no input from the Board other than to sign it off.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">Filter 2: Business Case review</span></h4>
The environment will change over time. All good project methodologies mention that the Business Case should be reviewed throughout a project: how often does this take place in reality? Very rarely in my experience. A second role of the Project Board, therefore, is to review the Business Case both in terms of internal project delivery (I will return to this in a later post) and to see whether things have changed to the extent that the scope needs revisiting. The Project Board is responsible for continued review of the Business Case to ensure that relevant changes to the environment are spotted and taken into account.<br />
<br />
In Reception System Project we might find that customers start to prefer to contact us online rather than in person (this should come out of the system 4 environment scanning role). This will alter the justification for the system – for example we might decide to close our reception altogether and set up a virtual online reception instead. Again, in my experience, such reviews of the Business Case seldom take place, and projects that are either no longer needed or that need to change their scope, drift on regardless.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Variety in the environment and system 1</span></h3>
The focus of system 4 is on the larger environment, and how that might impact the goals of the project. The focus of system 1 is on the immediate environment and how that might impact the delivery of those goals. The key players here are the project teams and team leaders.<br />
<br />
In the Reception System Project example where customer contact preferences change, this could manifest itself locally, at system 1 level, as well as at system 4 level. If system 4 is working well, we might be able to see the change before it hits us. However, if this is not identified, then system 1 will feel the impact through the changed patterns of contact. This should be fed back into the internal information flows (which will be the subject of the next post).<br />
<br />
Smaller environmental issues will also be detected at system 1 level (which may not impact the project as a whole). For example we might discover that customers are finding it hard to park (in order to visit the reception) and a small change in operations (e.g. reserving customer spaces) can fix this.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">Filter 3: Business Change Manager / Project Manager</span></h4>
In both cases there needs to be a mechanism for effectively capturing the information that matters so it can be dealt with, but typically projects do not have such mechanisms in place. The closest I have seen is in the Managing Successful Programmes methodology<sup><small>5</small></sup>, where there is the suggestion that there is the role of Business Change Manager (which, incidentally, comes from the Benefit Realisation Management approach<sup><small>4</small></sup>).<br />
<br />
Since most projects will lack this role, it will normally be the project manager who fulfils the role. In Beer’s VSM the project manager is part of system 2, and in fact this works well because the system 2 role is around regulating the information flows between the operations (system 1) and management (systems 3 and above).<br />
<br />
So the good news is that project management has reasonable structure in place to carry out effective attenuation of incoming information. The weaknesses are that:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>The Project Board often does not fulfil its role effectively;</li>
<li>Attenuation during implementation is perhaps not explicit enough in terms of the project manager’s role.</li>
</ul>
<br />
The <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/project-viability-cybernetics-approach_26.html">next post</a> in this series will look at information flow within the project (system) and where attenuation/amplification fits in.<br />
<hr />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">References </span></h4>
1) DSDM Consortium (2010) <i>Agile Project Management Handbook</i><br />
2) McKinlay, M. (2007) ‘Managing Requirements’ in<i> Gower Handbook of Project Management</i> (Turner, R. ed), 4th ed., pp. 261-273<br />
3) Thiry, M. (2007) ‘Managing Portfolios of Projects’, in <i>Gower Handbook of Project Management </i>(Turner, R. ed), 4th ed., pp. 58-68<br />
4) Bradley, G. (2010) <i>Benefit Realisation Management</i> (2nd Edition)<br />
5) Office of Government Commerce (2007)<i> Managing Successful Programmes</i>Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-18147771211634317862015-10-19T12:01:00.002+01:002015-11-20T15:08:32.183+00:00Project Viability – a cybernetics approach, part 1A lot has been said and written about why projects succeed
and why they fail. Surveys are carried out and analyses published. And whilst
many common themes emerge when you read about them, not a lot seems to change. It
leaves me wondering whether we’re on quite the right track when we ask about
project success or failure. I wonder of we should ask about project
“viability”. Let me explain…
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
In 1953 the brilliant systems theorist and cybernetics expert, W.
Ross Ashby noted: “Only variation can force variation down”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><sup><small>[1]</small></sup></span></span></span>,
which he published in his 1956 book <i>An
Introduction to Cybernetics</i> as The Law of Requisite Variety: “[only]
variety can destroy variety”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><sup><small>[2]</small></sup></span></span></span>. To put it another way, “control can be
obtained only if the variety of the controller … is at least as great as the
situation to be controlled”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><sup><small>[3]</small></sup></span></span></span>.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Variety is the number of distinguishable items or states<sup><small>[4]</small></sup>,
so if you’re in a situation where there are 100 possible states, you can only
effectively deal with it if you can mimic those 100 states yourself: you have
to have the same variety capacity, otherwise you simply can’t deal with all the
variety you encounter. Of course in reality the amount of variety we encounter
is far greater than this: possibly almost infinite. Stafford Beer, another
brilliant cyberneticist, took Ashby’s work and built a model for how to deal
effectively with variety, which he called the Viable Systems Model (VSM: of
which more later). Basically, Beer stated that in real life it’s impossible to
match variety 100%, so the controlling system needs to be able to deal with
variety in such a way that it remains viable as a system (i.e. it can survive).
He called this requisite variety.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What has this got to do with projects and project
management? Putting this into project management terms, a project can only
successfully deliver if it can deal with the variety it encounters effectively.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If this sounds like common sense, so it is. But how do you <i>do</i> that. How do you cope with variety
effectively given that you can’t deal with it 100%? Beer’s VSM is all about
having a model that can understand enough about the variety to deal with it
effectively, without being flooded with all the variety that there is. And to
do that you need some kind of filter (Beer calls this an attenuator) so that
the incoming variety is reduced. You also need an amplifier on the output side
so that your output isn’t just lost in the noise of the variety that’s out
there.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/variety-loop.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Variety loop illustration" border="0" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/variety-loop.png" height="279" title="" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To use a very simple
human analogy: we filter out background noise in a crowded room so we can
listen to the person we’re speaking to. How does our attenuator work? We make
sure we are looking directly at the person we’re speaking to so we can pick up
visual signals to help us filter auditory input. They help by amplifying their
output to help you focus on it, for example by saying your name to help you
“pin” their speech. They might write something down or draw a diagram. And so on.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So now we have a basic model of how to deal effectively with
variety, as illustrated here<sup><small>[5]</small></sup>.<br />
<br />
However there are four problems that I believe commonly occur in projects that
cause this loop to fail somewhere:</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 18.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">1. Putting attenuation in the right place</span></h3>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 18.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One of the biggest problems with projects is getting the
attenuator and the amplifier right, and there are two issues here. The first is
getting them on the right side of the loop – as shown in the diagram. Often we
do the reverse and have the amplifier on the incoming route – making our
ability to deal with variety worse, not better; and the we attenuate the
output. Let me give a very simple example. We gather requirements for a system.
An awful lot of them. We talk to lots of stakeholders to get their points of
view. We get a lot of those too. Some of them are in conflict. But we strive to
“gather <b><i>all</i></b> the requirements” (amplifier). Out of this welter of
incoming variety we create a product of some sort, but we fail to engage fully
with the customer (attenuator) so it’s never fully deployed. The recent article
by Mark Phillips in PMT had a great example of this with a development project
that failed because the scope kept increasing (amplified input)<sup><small>[6]</small></sup>.<br />
<br />
So the first thing to do is make sure you have attenuation in place on the
input side of the project. Next we’ll look at how this should be configured so
you cut out what isn’t necessary but don’t cut out important stuff.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">2. Getting attenuation right</span></h3>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 18.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Assuming we are attenuating the input, how do we do it
correctly? In DSDM Atern the use of MoSCoW<sup><small>[7]</small></sup> is recommended to prioritise requirements: MoSCoW can be an effective
attenuator if use correctly. However, in spite of tools like MoSCoW and
methodologies like DSDM Atern, we still seem to get it wrong too often. This is
sometimes because the attenuation is not effective (e.g. people don’t
prioritise effectively: everything is a “must have”).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Another attenuator we don’t use effectively enough is
stakeholder management. A good stakeholder analysis will reveal those
stakeholders who will have a lot of power and influence over the project, and
also those who may not be so powerful but will be key users. We can then
effectively ignore all other stakeholders in terms of getting input: we don’t need
to know what they want! <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sometimes the attenuation works fine and still the project
fails! This can be cause amplification isn’t working properly, as we’ll see
next.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 18.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">3. Getting amplification right</span></h3>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 18.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A third problem is ensuring that the output is properly
amplified assuming the product is completed effectively and the input side of
the loop is OK. A typical example of poor output amplification is when a product
is successfully delivered – and then is either not adopted or not effectively
adopted. This is very common in IT systems implementation where the grand new
system ends up causing more problems than it solves because staff don’t like it
and find workarounds. Often there is insufficient work done to prepare people
for the new product so their expectations are misaligned with what is
delivered. This is poor amplification on the output loop.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Typically we use communication methods such as emails and
posters and web sites. But these can get lost in the noise: they aren’t effective
amplifiers. We need to explore what the users will take notice of and use
those. This will differ from one situation to the next. One very successful
project I was involved with, where schoolchildren were the intended users, created
a piece of live, interactive drama that was delivered to the schools, and this engaged
attention and got a good result.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 18.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">4. Dealing with internal variety</span></h3>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 18.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The diagram also includes the box on the right side of the
loop – the actual project itself. Will the project deliver its products
effectively, even if we get attenuation right? Often we fail in this too, and a
big contributor is that we don’t treat the project as a system. Beer’s Viable
Systems Model is a generally applicable model for the cybernetic organisation
of how a system should work. Projects are systems, so the model can be applied
to projects as well. I have written a series on this topic, the first part of
which you can <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.com/2013/09/why-i-hate-project-management.html">find here</a>. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.com/2015/11/project-viability-cybernetics-approach.html">My next article</a> in this series will look at these the first two problems in a little more detail, applying the cybernetic principles of Beer. It will attempt to show how projects might be run on better lines. If at the end of reading this you think it’s common sense; then yes it is. But ‘hindsight explains the injury that foresight would have prevented’<sup><small>[8]</sup></small><br />
<hr />
<br />
[1] See the Ashby digital archive, and page 4659 of his Journal, available online at <a href="http://www.rossashby.info/index.html">http://www.rossashby.info/index.html</a> [Accessed 19 October 2015]<br />
<br />
[2] Ashby, W.R. (1956) <i>An Introduction to Cybernetics</i>, Chapman & Hall Ltd, London, p. 207<br />
<br />
[3] Beer, S. (1972) <i>The Brain of the Firm</i>, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, p. 41 (2nd ed 1981)<br />
<br />
[4] ibid<br />
<br />
[5] Based on a diagram used by Stafford Beer in his 1973 lectures Designing Freedom, available online at <a href="http://scio.org.uk/sites/default/files/designing_freedom.pdf">http://scio.org.uk/sites/default/files/designing_freedom.pdf</a> (p. 11) [Accessed 19 October 2015]<br />
<br />
[6] Phillips, M. (2014) ‘Agile + R&D: A Match Made in Heaven?’ <i>Project Manager Today</i>, Vol <b>XXVI</b> Issue 4 (May 2014), pp. 24-26<br />
<br />
[7] DSDM Consortium (2008) <i>DSDM Atern Pocketbook</i>, White Horse Press, Whistable, p. 35 (4th ed)<br />
<br />
[8] Charles Caleb Colton (1780-1832), English cleric, writer and collector, famous for his many aphorismsBruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-13620969305563756452015-10-15T10:39:00.000+01:002015-10-15T13:55:32.854+01:00The five powers of “why”As a parent I well remember when my daughters were little and they would often ask the question “why?”… repeatedly, and sometimes to the point of frustration! Intuitively they knew the power of why: it’s so much more important than what or how or who or when.<br />
This article briefly discusses several ways in which why is so powerful.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">The first power of why: symbols</span></h3>
Simon Sinek writes and speaks of his discoveries about the power of why. His golden circles have why at the centre of three concentric circles; surrounded by how and then what. Most organisations, he says, define themselves from the outside in, e.g. “We make great computers (what) that are fast, well designed and full of features (how): do you want to buy one?” – so there is no why included. Then he gives a company like Apple as an alternative. They start with the why and work outwards, e.g. “Are you an individual who likes to be independent and buck normal trends? Then we have something for you – everything we do is first class quality aimed at people like you. We happen to make computes: want to buy one?” The latter is more compelling because it appeals to us as people and individuals, and – very cleverly – pins its product line to a personality type (independent, perhaps even revolutionary), so people who feel they are like that (or aspire to) are attracted to it. In other words, when they buy an Apple it’s because they identify with Apple’s purpose (its “why”) and the Apple device becomes a symbol of who they are: “look at me, I’m an individual kind of person”. This breeds brand loyalty because the brand becomes associated with the person’s self-identity, and is why Apple owners get annoyed if you attack Apple: it’s also an attack on them.<br />
<br />
So the first power of why is to use it in defining ourselves as people and as organisations. At a party, when you meet someone for the first time, do you ask the question “what kind of person are you?” – usually not; normally it’s “what do you do?” as if the job someone has is a symbol of who they are. Now sometimes it is, when it’s highly vocational (“I’m a doctor”)… but what if it’s “I’m an estate agent”! When we describe ourselves to others we automatically fall into this kind of thing and avoid the real “whys” of who we are. We’ll say “I’m a project manager at So-and-So-dot-com, I also am married and have three children. I play tennis. I like fast cars.” Now some of this is reasonably good symbology, but it’s not as accurate as a description such as “I’m the sort of person who invests more importance in family and enjoyment of life than in work. So although I’m a project manager at So-and-So-dot-com, I also am married and have three children. I play tennis. I like fast cars.”<br />
<br />
Including the why is so much more powerful – yet in our descriptions of ourselves and our companies it’s so often missing.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">The second power of why: root causes</span></h3>
Readers who are familiar with Lean and with the Toyota Production System (TPS – from which Lean sprang) will know that central to any initiative for improvement lies an understanding of the current state. Both Lean and TPS provide several tools for this, including things like process modelling, keen observation of the actual processes that go on and root cause analysis. The last of these includes things like cause and effect diagrams and “the 5 whys”.<br />
<br />
The 5 whys is a simple technique that is used to dig deeper than the initial observation about a situation, issue or problem. For example one might observe that students in a university typically don’t attend their lectures very often. If we ask the question why, the first responses (from academic staff) might be along the lines of “they’re too lazy” or “they think they can just read the course materials”, etc.. The trick is not to accept these initial responses, but to dig deeper: “Why are they too lazy? Why do they think just reading the materials is good enough?” and continue up to five times – usually that’s enough – until a key underlying cause is identified. For example:<br />
<br />
<table border="0" class="tg">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th class="tg-yw4l" colspan="6"><div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #cc0000; font-weight: normal;">Students in a university typically don’t attend their lectures very often… Why? [1]</span></div>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-yw4l"></td>
<td class="tg-yw4l" colspan="5"><span style="color: #cc0000;">They’re too lazy… Why? [2]</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-yw4l"></td>
<td class="tg-yw4l"></td>
<td class="tg-yw4l" colspan="4"><span style="color: #cc0000;">They don’t have a strong enough work ethic… Why? [3]</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-yw4l"></td>
<td class="tg-yw4l"></td>
<td class="tg-yw4l"></td>
<td class="tg-yw4l" colspan="3"><span style="color: #cc0000;">They think that lectures are a waste of time… Why? [4]</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-yw4l"></td>
<td class="tg-yw4l"></td>
<td class="tg-yw4l"></td>
<td class="tg-yw4l"></td>
<td class="tg-yw4l" colspan="2"><span style="color: #cc0000;">They say that the lectures are boring… Why? [5]</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tg-yw4l"></td>
<td class="tg-yw4l"></td>
<td class="tg-yw4l"></td>
<td class="tg-yw4l"></td>
<td class="tg-yw4l"></td>
<td class="tg-yw4l"><span style="color: #cc0000;">The lectures often just cover the same ground that’s in the reading materials without adding any real insight</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The result is often a more profound insight into the issue, and often also reveals something entirely different than the superficial response. For example if we acted on the “student is lazy” issue we might put in place measures to enforce lecture attendance. However if we miss the fact that lectures aren’t actually very interesting (and therefore don’t improve them) we don’t make significant and useful change (we just end up with students who are annoyed at being forced to attend lectures they find boring).<br />
<br />
The problem is that we often don’t try to dig deeper when faced with issues and problems in the workplace (or in our personal lives). Using a few whys can help change that.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">The third power of why: outcomes</span></h3>
This is really just a variation of the root cause example, but it’s worth separating out because of the difference in objective. Root cause analysis aims to find out why something is happening so that (usually) it can be improved. Here we are looking instead at risk-taking – the reasons why we want to do something (or not do it); for example a new business venture.<br />
<br />
Those of us who are project managers will be very familiar with the difficulty of getting clarity here. When we write business cases one of the key things to tease out is the justification for doing the project – it’s “why”. Too often the why is about the output rather than the outcome (or benefit). For example “We want to implement a new CRM so that we can get a 360<sup><small>o</small></sup> view of our students’ activities.” Well a CRM may well provide this, but that’s just an output. What use will this be?<br />
<br />
Within a project management environment I have found the best tool to use here is Gerald Bradley’s Benefit Realisation Management (I have written an <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/project-and-programme-management-05.html">article on this</a>, so won’t repeat the detail here). It allows you to identify the benefits you want to achieve, and thus to much more effectively justify the project. Done well, it also sometimes questions the initial solution and allows you to come up with a much better one (just as the 5 whys allows you to find the true root cause of a problem).<br />
<br />
Using the CRM example, it might emerge that the benefits are that we want students who progress more successfully through their degrees and achieve better degree outcomes. We think CRM will help because by tracking students at all points through their journey we’ll have a better picture of their challenges, and thus be better able to deal with them in a more timely fashion. Well, maybe so, but perhaps if we put in place a more structured and personalised tutor-based support network this would achieve the same outcome without the need for a CRM. This is the sort of thing that emerges when you do a benefit realisation analysis because it forces you look at the underlying reasons and then at different ways of achieving them.<br />
<br />
The third power of why is that by putting more effort into defining why we want to do something, we’ll be better equipped to do it successfully: we’ll have better outcomes.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">The fourth power of why: advancement of knowledge</span></h3>
We’re back at the start of this article: the persistent child who constantly asks why and doesn’t just an answer “just because”. The young child has a thirst for knowledge and their persistent questioning is a positive outpouring of this desire. Answers like “because I say so” not only do not satisfy that urge, they can shut it down. So instead of getting frustrated with their persistence we should openly welcome and encourage it. Often we won’t know the answer, but that’s just an opportunity to investigate (and do it with our children).<br />
<br />
Like all of the above whys, this approach is time-consuming, so more often than not we don’t do it. But if any of these whys is most important, it’s this one. So let’s look at a couple of typical scenarios.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">Why things are</span></h4>
One sort of questioning is wanting to investigate why things are so: “Why is the moon out at night and not during the day? Why do dogs bark and cats meow?” The response here should be to provide information: and if you don’t know the answer, to find it out together with the child who asked the question. This will often open up further whys, so you need to provide boundaries that the child can understand. Rather than shutting them down with “just because”, we explain that we only have so much time to spend on this right now, and we can come back to it at a later date. (And if they ask why, refer to scenario two, below).<br />
<br />
Spending time in this way has many positive benefits – it helps develop close bonds with one’s children; it helps them develop a healthy questioning mind: it helps them – and you – advance their (and your) knowledge: it feels good!<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">Why are there rules</span></h4>
Another sort of questioning is about rules: “Why do I have to eat my greens? Why do I have to take my shoes off when I come indoors?” Frustrating as it is, this is a great line of questioning to allow your child to pursue: instinctively they are doing a “5 whys” on you! So allow it to be an opportunity to explore for yourself, as well as your child, the underlying reasons for the rules. Sometimes this will branch off into the “why things are” line of questioning (e.g. eating one’s greens could open up in this way). Sometimes it will lead you to re-evaluate – and therefore renegotiate – the rule. For example the shoes off rule could be renegotiated according to how clean they are when the child enters the house.<br />
<br />
As well as the benefits already mentioned, spending time examining and perhaps changing rules is showing respect for the child and helping to develop their self-esteem.<br />
<br />
Oh, and by the way, this doesn’t just apply to children!<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">The fifth power of why: self-actualisation</span></h3>
Readers may recognise this term as one used in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Self-actualisation is at the top of the hierarchy – it’s the pinnacle we can reach in terms of creativity, morality, spontaneity, self-expression, etc.. So in this context, why is a question to ask ourselves: “Why do I do what I do?” For example you might have a job you hate, but because of high unemployment it’s the best you can get. In Maslow terms the job is addressing the second tier (safety) which includes things like security of body and family, for which you need to earn enough to feed, clothe and house yourself and your family. Recognising this allows you to more easily accept your job for what it is, and also not to expect it to deliver anything higher up the hierarchy (e.g. it’s not going to enhance your self-esteem).<br />
<br />
Once you have realised this, you can then treat that situation accordingly: for example if there are stresses at work, you can learn to take them less personally once you have realised that work does not contribute to the higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. And you can make decisions about what does contribute. (By the way there are other schemes like Maslow’s, such as Spiral Dynamics – they all have the same general thrust, so use the one that suits you best).<br />
<br />
There’s a song by the American group Casting Crowns called American Dream. In it the father spends all his time working hard so that he can give his family the best in life. But in doing so he actually ignores their need to have time with him. (It’s not a new idea, but the song expresses it well and succinctly, and there’s a great video that accompanies it).<br />
<br />
So the fifth why is a personal one: it’s about making sure you know why you do what you do, and to re-evaluate your own priorities in life.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Conclusion</span></h3>
You probably have realised that all five whys are related – essentially they are all about digging deeper:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Defining why we do what we do</li>
<li>Understanding why the things we see are happening</li>
<li>Being clearer about why we want to do something new</li>
<li>Helping our children and ourselves to understand why things are as they are</li>
<li>Understanding our own personal why of existence</li>
</ul>
<br />
Great leaders instinctively understood these things. When Martin Luther King said “I have a dream” he was doing all of the above. When Jesus questioned the rich young ruler, he was making the ruler examine his own inner motivation. It’s interesting that Buddha literally means “the enlightened one”, and much of Buddhism is about understanding oneself at a deep level.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">References</span></h3>
All of the URLs below were accessed 15 October 2015. I cannot guarantee that they will still be live when you follow them.<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Simon Sinek’s ideas can be found in his many presentations that are available online: for example <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokBj14p4Mc">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokBj14p4Mc</a> </li>
<li>Apple’s advertising - a typical example can be found here: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmwXdGm89Tk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmwXdGm89Tk</a>.<br />Compare it with a typical Dell advert here (NB I’m not singling out Dell, this could equally be IBM, HP, etc.): <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAUVMcCoLz8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAUVMcCoLz8</a></li>
<li>5 Whys: there are many sites that describe this technique and its links to Lean. This one is as good as any: <a href="http://www.leanapplication.com/blog/the-simplest-lean-tool-ever-the-5-whys">http://www.leanapplication.com/blog/the-simplest-lean-tool-ever-the-5-whys</a> </li>
<li>Gerald Bradley’s Benefit Realisation Management – it’s best to buy the book! The publisher provides a good sample chapter here: <a href="https://www.gowerpublishing.com/pdf/SamplePages/Benefit_Realisation_Management_2nd_Ch4.pdf">https://www.gowerpublishing.com/pdf/SamplePages/Benefit_Realisation_Management_2nd_Ch4.pdf</a> and you can buy the book here: <a href="http://www.gowerpublishing.com/isbn/9781409400943">http://www.gowerpublishing.com/isbn/9781409400943</a> </li>
<li>Children asking why: <a href="http://www.livescience.com/5892-kids.html">http://www.livescience.com/5892-kids.html</a> </li>
<li>There are many articles available on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Here’s an example that includes a video by Maslow himself: <a href="http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html">http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html</a> </li>
<li>For Spiral Dynamics, go here: <a href="http://spiraldynamics.org/">http://spiraldynamics.org/</a> </li>
<li>The Casting Crowns song lyrics and video for American Dream: <a href="https://www.castingcrowns.com/music/lyrics/american-dream">https://www.castingcrowns.com/music/lyrics/american-dream</a> </li>
<li>Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream…” speech: <a href="http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf">http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf</a> </li>
<li>Jesus and the Rich Young Ruler: <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-22&version=NKJV">https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-22&version=NKJV</a></li>
</ol>
Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-16908060615585190262015-09-21T14:40:00.000+01:002015-09-21T14:45:14.052+01:00The little law of project managementOK, so you think project management is an overhead. You know what has to be done, so why not just get on with it? All this paperwork just adds time (and cost)!<br />
<br />
If I could have a penny for every time I’ve heard this or seen it written I’d be as rich as the proverbial millionaire! (Well a bit of an overstatement, but you get my meaning).<br />
Well, for anyone who is a PM sceptic (and maybe even those who aren’t) let me introduce you to Little’s Law.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Little’s Law</span></h3>
Dr. John D.C. Little, Institute Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, developed a queuing theory law known as Little’s Law, in 1961. This states:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The average number of customers in a system (over some interval) is equal to their average arrival rate, multiplied by their average time in the system."</blockquote>
Or, more formally:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“the average number of items in a queuing system, denoted L, equals the average arrival rate of items to the system, λ, multiplied by the average waiting time of an item in the system, W . Thus, L=λW.” [1]</blockquote>
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">What on earth has this got to do with project management?</span></h3>
Well, a lot, actually. Little’s Law can be applied to any situation, not just queuing, where work of some kind has to be done because the three variables in the Law are present in all types of work:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>L is also known as Work in Progress (WiP)</li>
<li>λ is also known as Throughput (T)</li>
<li>W is also called Cycle Time (CT, or sometimes Lead Time)</li>
</ul>
<br />
All three of these pertain to projects as this very simple example shows.<br />
<br />
Let us assume that on average a team is delivering 5 projects at any one time. WiP = 5. Let us also assume that Throughput is, on average, 2 projects per month completed. Using Little’s Law, we can change the formula to calculate cycle time – i.e. W = L/ λ or (dispensing with the Greek) CT = WiP/T.<br />
<br />
This gives us 5/2 = 2.5 months (per project).<br />
<br />
Let’s now say that the boss says we need to take on two new projects this month, in addition to those we’re already doing. No need for project planning, etc. … “Just do it”. Well this will actually impact all other projects as well as the two new ones, because Little’s Law tells that that WiP has now increased from 5 to 7 so cycle time now is 7/2 = 3.5 months.<br />
<br />
This seems a bit counter-intuitive, but Little’s Law has been shown to hold time and time again. The above figures are, of course, averages – but if the average time it takes to complete projects increases this means that although some may still get finished on time or earlier, on average most will take longer than before.<br />
<br />
Information Technology (IT) departments are often under pressure to take on additional projects for their customers, thus increasing WIP. This immediately causes the project completion time (CT) for all projects to increase and may explain why so many IT projects take longer than expected. This is worth repeating: new projects added to the list of projects immediately causes the time it takes to complete each individual project to increase!<br />
<br />
What you get is a slowdown in the delivery of all projects because resources get too thinly spread or you get bottlenecks emerging where a scarce resource is present (e.g. the one or two expert database administrators). So you start to fail to meet delivery times (even with projects already underway), have poorer performance, and a resultant reputation that projects are never finished (on time). All because you tried to do the “right thing” by responding to customer demand and taking on more projects.<br />
<br />
That’s just one reason why project management is so important, because planning forces you to take account of the resources you have and to schedule the project accordingly.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-weight: normal;">Reference</span></h3>
[1] Little, J.D.C.(2011) ‘Little’s Law as Viewed on Its 50th Anniversary’ <i>Operations Research</i> Vol. <b>59</b>, No. 3, May–June 2011, pp. 536–549, available online at: <a href="https://www.informs.org/content/download/255808/2414681/file/little_paper.pdf">https://www.informs.org/content/download/255808/2414681/file/little_paper.pdf</a> (accessed 21 Sept 2-15)Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-9310363957821904722015-07-10T16:01:00.001+01:002024-01-28T16:10:29.549+00:00Business as unusualThe great InThinking thought-leader <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1066484">Bill Bellows</a> gave an inspiring talk at the recent Lean Management Journal (LMJ) <a href="http://lmjannualconference.com/">Annual Conference</a> in Amsterdam (8-9 July 2015). A lot of what is written below draws from his insights<small><sup>1</sup></small> but I have added some of my own thoughts and references as well.<br />
<div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><div>
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Business as Usual</span></h3>
Most of us think about day-to-day management in terms of business as usual (BaU): what are the things we need to do to effectively manage the regular activities of our organisations. </div>
<div>
But traditional BaU thinking can and does lead us awry. There are many reasons for this, but three key causes are as follows.</div>
<div>
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">1. We disregard context (seeing in parts). </span></h4>
Here's a typical type of question that the great W. Edwards Deming would ask: "What do you need to clean a room?". Most of us would come up with a good list of stuff such as vacuum cleaners, cleaning cloths, window cleaner, people to do the work, etc.. All good BaU type answers. Deming, however, would challenge this because he'd point out we'd missed a key element: context - i.e. asking "What sort of room?" The list of stuff would be very different for a hospital operating theatre versus a domestic kitchen, etc.. Yet we all do this - we jump to conclusions based upon our beliefs and assumptions.</div>
<div>
<br />
<div>
Another example of this, which I picked up from the great project management thinker, Eddie Obeng, several years ago, is as follows: You show an audience a slide of two horizontal, parallel lines. The top line has arrow heads at each end, the bottom one has reverse arrow heads at each end. The bottom line appears to be very slightly longer than the top one (see <a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/assets/arrows.pdf">example here</a>: page 1). You ask people to vote - (a) top line longer, (b) bottom line longer, (c) both the same. Most, if not all, will vote (c) because there's a well known optical illusion where this is the case. Except in your version, the bottom line actually is longer (and you then demonstrate that - page 2 of example file above).</div>
<div>
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">2. We separate the relationships (treating in parts).</span></h4>
By this I mean that you look at components of things disregarding their relationships. This can lead to creating waste because managing entities separately that then need to be brought into relationship is more liable to this than if you managed the relationship. Here's an example: in 1983 the Ford Motor Company discovered a dramatic difference in warranty claims between automatic transmissions designed by Ford and produced in two locations, one in Batavia, Ohio, the other by Mazda in Japan. The parts concerned were a valve and the casing into which this was inserted. Clearly the valve needed to have a smaller bore than the casing, but not too small. Ford's manufacturing focus was on the valve diameter and the bore diameter, taken separately. Mazda’s focus was to actively manage the gap between the outer diameter of the valves within the transmission and the corresponding diameter of the valve bore. Mazda had worked out what the ideal gap needed to be and measured according to this, ensuring that variation in gap size was kept under control. In other words, Mazda managed the relationship between the parts.</div>
<div>
<br />
In my own experience, when working for the NHS many years ago, an improvement project in A&E was very successful and resulted in faster throughput of patients needing to be admitted to the hospital. Unfortunately, the availability of beds - which was only just coping under the old regime - came under additional stress and led to queues building up for admission, with patients on gurneys lined up in hospital corridors. Again, a failure to deal with relationships.</div>
<div>
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">3. We manage problems (defining in parts).</span></h4>
</div>
</div>
When thinking about what we need to do to keep our services running smoothly we often look for problems to solve - troubleshooting at best, fire-fighting at worst. This seems like the right thing to do: after all, if we don't solve the problems they'll get worse!<br />
<div>
<br />
<div>
But actually what we need to do more often is manage what's going right. For example, when you're driving a car you'll keep an eye on the petrol gauge and, usually, won't allow it to run out before you refill. However you also don't go to the petrol station all the time and there is no set point at which we say "this is when we need more petrol" - some days we might fill up when the tank is nearly empty, and others when it is still half full. This is not managing a problem, it's managing something that's OK so that it doesn't become a problem.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yet in BaU we manage things like fire fighting:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>the project is late;</li>
<li>the customer has complained about this.</li>
</ul>
and troubleshooting:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>prevent the risk that this will break;</li>
<li>find contingency to manage this going beyond budget.</li>
</ul>
We all know that we'd rather not have to deal with the first, but surely the troubleshooting is what we do to prevent it happening? The issue is - we're looking at the problem and not the process; it's as if all we're interested in is when the petrol gauge reaches empty.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's a subtle difference, but it leads to thinking like "you have to fill the tank when it reaches quarter full in order to prevent it running out" instead of "keep an eye on the gauge and make sure there's always enough petrol". There's also a subtle hidden agenda here which is "I don't trust you to work out what needs to be done, so I'm giving you rules to follow" (see section 3 in the business as unusual part of this blog).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Business as Unusual</span></h3>
<div>
So if all of the above is BaU, what we need instead is business as UNusual. Though the reality is what we call BaU is actually "unusual" and what I'm now calling business as unusual should really be the usual practice!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Hopefully you'll have realised that the three things above are all related because they all look at things "in parts" - the components of what to do rather than context; the components of what to make instead of their inter-relationships; the components of what might go wrong instead of the flows that keep things going. It's a lack of holistic thinking that permeates the way we do management - even the traditional organisational chart is an example of that!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The organisational chart dates back to the mid 19th century and work that was done by George Whistler and Herman Haupt, both West Point graduates working for the Pennsylvania Railroad. The normal story<small><sup>2</sup></small> is that Whistler created the organisation chart following a train crash in 1847, and used his knowledge of military organisation to come up with a chart that basically identified who to blame if and when a problem occurs. The reality is not quite so simple<small><sup>3 </sup></small>as Whistler had been developing his organisation plans as early as 1841, and his work was taken up by Haupt in the 1850s. However what is not in question is that one of the purposes of the chart was to show lines of responsibility. The legacy leaves us saddled with organisational silos and managing things in parts rather than as relationships.<br />
<br />
So how do we fix it? The answers are at hand, but too few organisations seem interested in them. My own "starter for ten" (well, three actually) is...<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">1. Organisations as systems.</span></h4>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/vsm.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/vsm.jpg" width="311" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Viable Systems Model</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The most familiar system to us all is our own body. The human body is made of of millions of "parts" that all function together remarkably well, but there is no "organisation chart" of management - the brain is not the CEO! There is no Director of Nerves or Director of Muscles. As the brilliant cybernetician Stafford Beer realised over 50 years ago, if you were to model an organisation on how the human system works you might come up with a more viable scheme than the current one. His Viable Systems Model<small><sup>4</sup></small> describes how this can be done, but apart from a few honourable exceptions, not many organisations have taken this on board. He even wrote a book explaining how to put his model into action<small><sup>5</sup></small>. <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/viable-systems-modelling-for-project.html">Earlier posts</a> in this blog describe VSM in more detail (especially in relation to project management).<br />
<br />
VSM helps you to both model how the systems within an organisation actually work together, and identify the gaps that are causing de-stabilisation. For example, in his interesting talk about his research at the LMJ conference mentioned above, Torbjørn Netland looked at success factors for improvement programmes in Volvo<small><sup>6</sup></small>. One of his findings was that lean audits did not contribute towards success, and he acknowledged that this isn't their purpose anyway. That's obvious in the VSM, where audit is part of system 3*.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">2. Organisations as members of dynamic systems.</span></h4>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/images/stock_flow.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/images/stock_flow.png" width="257" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Predator-prey stock and flow model</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Beer's VSM recognises that each system interacts with its environment, but what it doesn't really do is show how this interaction is managed over time. VSM puts in place the systems to manage the interactions, but we also need some way of understanding how the interactions work. This is where System Dynamics comes in. This was developed about the same time that Beer was doing his VSM work, by Jay Forrester initially in an industrial context, but later in a much wider organisation and societal context<small><sup>7</sup></small>.<br />
<br />
System Dynamics has, perhaps, had a greater success than VSM, and there are many software tools available to help with SD modelling and simulation. It uses a simple set of ideas based on causal loops, stocks and flows, and equations. The (hard) trick is in doing the modelling. Typical models that are used to show how SD works include population dynamics models such as predator-prey (e.g. this <a href="http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/RabbitsAndWolves/" target="_blank">online simulation</a> of forest, rabbits and wolves). An example stock and flow diagram for this type of simulation is shown here (click to expand).<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">3. Organisations as people.</span></h4>
You often hear phrases like "the greatest asset of an organisation is its people" - but just as often you see organisational behaviour that belies this through the flagrant lack of care for these "assets". One of the founders of lean thinking (though he wouldn't have described it as such) is Genichi Taguchi who developed the Quality Loss Function<small><sup>8</sup></small>. A key part of this is "loss to society". The important thing here is not so much the QLF itself as the recognition that you can't do something without impacting something else, and that "something else" includes people.<br />
<br />
The problem is that organisations think of people in boxes: by this I mean that they place them into constrained containers called "jobs" which have job descriptions, person specifications and role titles. Oh, and they also assess how "important" they are by giving a salary. Is it any wonder that you end up with behaviours like "that's not my job, it's Sam's responsibility to do that", or "I'm not going to do this extra piece of work because it's outside my role and you don't pay me to do that"?<br />
<br />
Herein lies a dilemma because VSM and System Dynamics don't seem cope with this aspect very well. In VSM a component of system 1 (operations) can't suddenly start doing a system 5 (policy setting) role, and in System Dynamics a wolf won't start to eat grass instead of sheep!<br />
<br />
But we're missing the point, because VSM and SD define roles and interactions between them: they are agnostic as to whether Sam is in this role or that, or indeed whether Sam might do both. But our organisational hierarchies aren't agnostic: they fix people into place. And when this rigidity starts to break down, what do we do? We re-organise and restructure!<br />
<br />
So what can we do instead? Well, for a start we can borrow from project management (PM). In PM you have teams, and teams are not static or permanent. They are formed to do a task and made up of the right people to do it. When it's done the team disbands. A person can be in more than one team. Teams can be made up of people with different skills, knowledge and experience. Team leaders are not managers in the traditional sense: they are there to help coordinate (they do a Systems 2 role in VSM terms: see my <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/viable-systems-modelling-for-project.html">blog series</a> on this topic). Projects have project boards - these too are not permanent and their make-up can change over time. The board's role (system 5) is to set the direction but not to interfere with the work. It's also to provide the resources (system 3). I'm not suggesting we should manage our organisations as if they are projects, but we can borrow from the project model to rethink the organisation structures.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Conclusion</span></h3>
Business as usual is a mixture of seeing things in parts, treating things in parts and defining things in parts - we need a new paradigm, and it's been around for a long time. Bill Bellows calls this Business as Unusual... well let's try to be unusual!<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<hr />
<b><span style="color: #990000;">References:</span></b><br />
1: A different presentation by Bellows, given to the 7th Annual Southern California Quality Conference, November 8, 2014 covers much the same ground is available online here: http://www.in2in.org/insights/Bellows-ASQ-8November2014BusinessasUnusual-handout.pdf (accessed 10 July 2015)<br />
2: Chandler, A.D. (1977), <i>The Visible Hand</i> (Harvard University Press) and also Scholtes, P. (1998) <i>The Leader's Handbook: Making Things Happen, Getting Things Done</i> (McGraw-Hill Professional)<br />
3: Hoskin, K.W. and Macve, R.H. (2002) <i>PENNSYLVANIA ($)65000?</i> (Accounting, Business & Financial History Conference, Cardiff Business School, 17th-18th September 2002) Available online at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/accounting/pdf/Macveabfhconf02a.pdf (accessed 10 July 2015)<br />
4: Beer, S (1981) <i>Brain of the Firm</i> (John Wiley 2nd Edn) and also Beer, S (1979) <i>The Heart of Enterprise </i>(John Wiley)<br />
5: Beer, S (1985) <i>Diagnosing the System for Organizations</i> (John Wiley)<br />
6: Netland, T.H., Schloetzer, J.D. & Ferdows, K. (2015) 'Implementing corporate lean programs: The effect of management control practices' <i>Journal of Operations Management</i>, Vol. <b>36</b>, In press. Available online at: http://better-operations.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Netland-Schloetzer-Ferdows-2015-Management-Control-Practices-Lean_JOM_author-version-A4.pdf (accessed 10 July 2015)<br />
7: Forrester, J.W. (1961). I<i>ndustrial Dynamics</i> (Pegasus Communications) and also Forrester, J.W. (1971) 'Counterintuitive behavior of social systems' in <i>Technology Review</i> <b>73</b>(3): 52–68<br />
8: Taguchi, G., El Sayed, M. & Hsaing, C. (1989) <i>Quality engineering and production systems</i> (McGraw-Hill)</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-1771276582632073452015-06-16T14:35:00.001+01:002015-06-16T14:35:15.034+01:00Is our fishbowl too big?Imagine you are in a fishbowl. Imagine that you can see all around it, so you're completely aware of what's going on inside it. If you saw other fish causing havoc to the fishbowl environment so that the water is getting polluted and that the bowl has sprung a leak, would you ignore that? "<i>Gosh, the water is running out and if I/we don't stop it draining the bowl, soon we'll have no water left!</i>" If that was your reality, would you act?<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Well it's the reality of the fishbowl called earth, but not nearly enough of us are doing anything about the water that's, metaphorically, running out.<br />
<br />
Maybe it's because our fishbowl is too big. We can't actually see the water draining out because it's not obvious that the oil reserves are running out, the world climate is going out of control, the disparities between the very rich and the very poor are getting ever greater...<br />
<br />
Or is it that we can see this happening, but the rate of change is such that we think it won't happen in our lifetime? What do we care of the water runs dry 100 years from now - we won't be affected!<br />
<br />
The Ten Commandments have something to say about this state of affairs, in commandment number two:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. [Exodus 20:4-6; NIV]</span></blockquote>
<br />
It seems to me that our idols are the materialistic pursuits that are leading to the destruction of the planet: and it may well not be our generation that suffers for this - but our children's children certainly will.<br />
<br />
Even if you are not religious, surely this is a truth you can accept?<br />
<br />
It is not an excuse to say "<i>the fishbowl's too big: I can't solve the problems</i>", because that's like dropping litter in the street thinking "<i>my one little wrapper can't do any harm</i>".<br />
<br />
Every little helps. Time is running out. Start changing the way you live: <b><span style="color: #990000;">NOW</span></b>.<br />
<hr />
Also posted on <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/our-fishbowl-too-big-bruce-levitan">LinkedIn Pulse</a>.Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-23422076994191718012015-06-10T20:50:00.003+01:002015-06-10T20:50:56.596+01:00If people want to do a good job, why don't they?You often see it written or hear it said that people don't want to do a bad job at work. They may not love their job ("it's a means to an end") and they may not be workaholics ("I work the hours I'm paid"), but nevertheless while they are at work they don't want to do a bad job because it's demoralising and not good for self-esteem.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Well, that's the argument anyway. But in my 35+ years of working life I've seen many examples of people doing a bad job, and have worked in organisations that struggle to improve. Why?<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">What is a "bad job"?</span></h3>
A fundamental must be a definition of constitutes doing a bad job. Many organisations will have some form of appraisal whereby an employee has targets set and gets some feedback on how they have done. So it shouldn't be that difficult to identify when someone hasn't met the targets. But it's not as easy as it sounds. If I set a project manager the target of successfully managing a project, how does one measure that? Projects are subject to delays outside the control of the PM, so timescale is an unfair criterion; for similar reasons so is cost, and indeed even quality! If you're reading this you're probably thinking that it was a silly or ill-defined target (I hope so, anyway) - but it's illustrative of my first two points:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1. We often set unreasonable targets.<br />
2. We often don't define the behaviours and outcomes we expect well enough.</blockquote>
So, if employees aren't very clear what constitutes a "job well done", or if they are submitted to unrealistic expectations, is it any wonder that they (sometimes) fail?<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">It's all about personality type, isn't it?</span></h3>
Let's assume that we can and have defined what a "good job" really looks like, and that it's within the grasp of employees to do it. Would we then see 100% success? I don't think so. I have seen people who appear to go out of their way to do the least possible work and not seem to care about the quality of their output, no matter how well their objectives are defined (more about this below).<br />
<br />
We're into trickier territory here because we cannot possibly know exactly why anyone does anything, except possibly for ourselves - and even then we may not always understand our own motives! Social psychologists have long tried to come up with some general rules or predictors about human behaviour, ranging from Maslow's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs">hierarchy of needs</a>, through Myers' and Briggs' <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator">personality types</a>, to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence">emotional intelligence</a> as posited by Goleman and others. These are just three of a very long list of overlapping theories on what we're like and why we're like that. If it was easy to define we'd have one universally accepted schema - that fact that we have literally scores of them illustrates how difficult it is and what complex animals we are! Does anyone recall the TV series "<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061287/">The Prisoner</a>" (the original with Patrick McGoohan, not the recent remake)? His mantra was "I am not a number" and his struggle, throughout the series, was to regain and prove his independence and individuality.<br />
<br />
My third point, then, is:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
3. We should not try to pigeon hole people - each person is a unique individual.</blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">So, how do we understand motivation?</span></h3>
I am not against the psychologists' schemes (though I like some, e.g. Maslow, better than others e.g. Myers-Briggs) - but we have to use them with caution, and no single scheme tells the whole story. But the best way to understand someone is to get to know them and to ask them what matters to them. Part of the problem with management and big organisations is that inter-personal relationships turn into impersonal relationships! Here's an example. My sickness/absence record is good - the last time I was off sick was over 5 years ago. About 3 years ago I received a letter from the Director of HR thanking me for my good attendance record. This was my organisation's (and I assume her) idea of how to thank and reward people. It just made me cross because it felt like lip-service to me. Far better would have been a personal phone call, or better still, a visit from her. I'm sure her excuse would have been that there are a lot of staff with good attendance records and she hasn't the time to see them all. Really?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
4. Treat people as individuals, with respect and a personal touch.</blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">No hopers</span></h3>
Suppose we did all of the above: would that make an end to people doing "bad jobs"? No, of course not. In some cases people do "bad jobs" because of mistakes (these should be forgiven) or because they are not sufficiently skilled or trained (this should be remedied). But unfortunately there are some people who, for reasons I can't fathom, just don't want to do a good job. Who are "time servers" and will look for any excuse to work the system and get away with doing as little as they can. You can try your best to work with them, but nothing seems to work.<br />
<br />
We need to be better at identifying and dealing with such people because if we do not it sends a negative message to the rest of us, and reinforces for them that they can get away with it.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
5. We need to be tough and decisive with the minority who are genuinely disruptive and destructive.</blockquote>
Ironically, we don't do enough to recognise and uplift the people who do care, and we undermine them by not taking decisive enough action against those who don't.<br />
<hr />
Also published as a <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/people-want-do-good-job-why-dont-bruce-levitan?trk=pulse_spock-articles">LinkedIn "Pulse" article</a>Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-21974996050321855682015-06-02T11:37:00.002+01:002015-06-02T11:38:28.686+01:00Viable Systems Modelling for Project Management part 8In this series so far we have looked at each of Stafford Beers 5 Systems within the Viable Systems Model, relating them to project management, and also <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.com/2014/01/viable-systems-modelling-for-project.html">how the model is recursive</a> so that the 5 systems are repeated at both lower and higher levels. I promised a round-up final post that proposed a VSM check-list for project management. That was over a year ago - how time flies! But I have got there eventually.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">The Viable Systems Model check-list for Project Management</span></h3>
In the check list below you will find tags for which part of the systems things are in (systems 1 through 5) and whether or not they are to do with variety accentuation or amplification.<br />
<div>
<span style="color: #990000;"><br /></span></div>
<b><span style="color: #990000;">1. Ensure that you have requisite variety:</span></b><br />
<ol>
<li>Identify the right resources and put them in place:
This means that people need to be freed to do the work needed within the project, and we need the right people to do the job. Without this the project (the system) will be unable to cope properly with the <b><span style="color: #990000;">variety </span></b>within the project. For example, hand-offs between teams where a team is no ready or able to take on the demands from other teams within the project. This is a <b>Project Board</b> responsibility.</li>
<li>Ensure that external variety is properly handled: This is the job of the <b>Project Board</b>, and is essentially about scope management. Demands for changes in scope (external variety) need to be properly <b><span style="color: #990000;">attenuated </span></b>(filtered) so that scope change is managed. If all change demands are allowed, the project resource would soon be swamped and unable to cope.</li>
<li>Ensure that good two-way communications exist between the teams and up to the Project Board: This is another resourcing issue. Communications don’t happen without time and effort. We need to set aside resource to make sure this happens. Communications are a key <b><span style="color: #990000;">amplifier </span></b>for projects (i.e. to ensure that project messages are properly heard and understood). A typical example of this not working is when new systems and processes are not adequately embedded in the business environment. To help enable this:</li>
<ul>
<li><b>Project Manager: </b>Ensure that team leaders know their role in communicating information to the rest of the system (other teams, the project manager). </li>
<li><b>Project Manager: </b>Provide fit for purpose tools for the collection and communication of the information. </li>
<li><b>Team Leader: </b>Acting on information received, plan one’s own team work, passing back information about any re-planning that is necessary. </li>
<li><b>Project Manager</b> and <b>Team Leader: </b>Carry out effective filtering to ensure that teams are not distracted by out of scope requests, but ensure the project manager knows about them.</li>
<li>The Project Board does not make good decisions because it is either flooded with too much information, or starved of information - it's the job of <b>Project Manager</b> to ensure this works properly. </li>
</ul>
</ol>
<b><span style="color: #990000;">2. Provide adequate autonomy:</span></b><br />
<ol>
<li>Don’t micro-manage what project teams do:
<b>Project Boards</b> should not interfere with the day-to-day work of the project team (<b><span style="color: #990000;">system 1</span></b>). Once the overall instructions have been issued, leave them to get on with their job.</li>
<li>Avoid the <b>Project Manager</b> being too "operational", where he or she takes on too much responsibility - in effect this is Project Manager as superhero. It's simply not sustainable! The Project Manager should stick to the higher level coordination of project activities (<b><span style="color: #990000;">system 2</span></b>).</li>
<li>Project Teams may compete for resources or not align their input/output links well enough. In this case the <b>Project Manager</b> should be involved - this is all about being sensitive to when project teams can be left to their own devices, and when it's necessary to intervene (a classic <b><span style="color: #990000;">system 3</span></b> role).</li>
</ol>
<b><span style="color: #990000;">3. Make audit work:</span></b><br />
<ol>
<li><b>Project Assurance </b>is the <b><span style="color: #990000;">3* system</span></b> of project management. Its role must be to check that the project is working well enough so that the desired outputs and outcomes are being produced (if possible, on time and within budget; but certainly within the constraints set by the Project Board). Avoid making the mistake that checking the process of project management is the same as doing adequate assurance. Checking risk logs or Gantt charts is not the same as checking outputs and outcomes!</li>
</ol>
<b><span style="color: #990000;">4. Beware of the environment:</span></b><br />
<ol>
<li>Projects must be aware of the external environment in both the short-term and long-term. The former is dealt with by direct links between the teams (<span style="color: #990000;"><b>system 1</b></span> operations) and the environment. For example, if you are planning a system upgrade, you need to link it into the operational cycles of your business (e.g. you don't do it at critical busy times). This is the job of the <b>Team Leaders</b> and to some extent the <b>Project Manager</b> (to check it's happening).</li>
<li>The long-term concern is a <span style="color: #990000;"><b>system 4</b></span> function, and this is the job of the <b>Senior Supplier</b> and <b>Senior User</b>. For example is the Senior User knows a change is on the horizon in terms of the normal operational cycles, this needs to be fed into the project and the short-term environment scanning won't pick this up.</li>
<li>Sometimes big changes will happen, and if system 4 is doing its job well the project should get enough warning to review and potentially adjust. This could lead to scope changes - but these need to be controlled by the <b>Project Board</b>. (this is a <b><span style="color: #990000;">system 5</span></b> role).</li>
</ol>
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">When things go wrong</span></h3>
<div>
<span style="color: #990000;"><b>Change</b></span><b><span style="color: #990000;">:</span></b></div>
<div>
Things go wrong in projects when there is a breakdown in one or more of the system roles. Change is a constant for all projects, so one of the first things to note is that each system must play it's proper role in dealing with change. Change in project jargon is defined by risks and issues (risks identify possible sources of change, and issues are when change happens).</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li><b>Project Teams</b> will be sensitive to changes in the immediate environment and to changes in resources, and part of their <b><span style="color: #990000;">system 1</span></b> role is top ensure that changes are communicated to system 2 (the Project Manager) </li>
<li>Such change will be subject to fluctuation, so the <b>Project Manager</b> needs to assess whether the change is serious enough to escalate it (to system 3) - this is part of the <b><span style="color: #990000;">system 2 </span></b>role.</li>
<li><b><span style="color: #990000;">System 3</span></b>'s role in this respect is to decide whether adjustments need to be made in operations as a result of change, and whether to flag this up to systems 4 and 5. This is another of the <b>Project Manager</b>'s roles.</li>
<li>At the Project Board, the changes are considered in the light of the larger environment and the wider business implications (with input from <b>Senior Supplier</b> and <b>Senior User</b>) - this is <b><span style="color: #990000;">systems 3 and 4</span></b> at work.</li>
<li>The <b>Project Sponsor</b> has final say (along with the <b>Project Board </b>as a whole) in deciding what to do about the change - <b><span style="color: #990000;">system 5</span></b>.</li>
</ol>
<b><span style="color: #990000;">Scope:</span></b></div>
<div>
Change can also happen if the scope is redefined. A project that is being properly managed as a viable system will have structures in place to identify potential scope changes and to deal with them.</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Identification is the responsibility primarily of the <b>Senior User</b> (<b><span style="color: #990000;">system 3</span></b>) and the <b>Senior Supplier</b> (<b><span style="color: #990000;">system 4</span></b>), to some extent the <b>Project Manage</b>r (system 3).</li>
<li>Decisions about scope change fall within the remit of the <b>Project Board</b> and <b>Sponsor </b>(<b><span style="color: #990000;">system 5</span></b>).</li>
</ol>
<b><span style="color: #990000;">Risk management:</span></b></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/vsm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/vsm.jpg" height="320" width="311" /></a>Risk has an impact on change (see above), and is often glossed over in projects because it is situated within the wrong part of the overall system. Most Project Boards would, where risk management is poor, define the responsibility for risk management as part of the Project Manager's role. However identifying risk is about an awareness of the external environment at system 4 level, and an awareness of the business at system 3 level. This puts the remit for risk firmly within those two systems, and thus management of risk as a <b>Project Board</b> (<b><span style="color: #990000;">system 5</span></b>) function.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The complete VSM diagram here can be clicked to enlarge.</div>
<div>
<ol>
</ol>
</div>
Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-87202454395330246672014-01-13T14:02:00.000+00:002015-05-29T16:38:27.252+01:00Viable Systems Modelling for Project Management part 7If you have followed this<a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/viable-systems-modelling-for-project.html"> series so far</a> you’ll know that we have looked at each of Stafford Beers 5 Systems within the Viable Systems Model, relating them to project management. What more is there? Well Beer’s model is recursive, or fractal, and this is what this article covers.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/vsm.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/vsm.png" height="320" width="311" /></a></div>
The by-now familiar VSM diagram, reproduced here, shows the 5 Systems and how they are interconnected. If you look at System 1, you’ll see that each sub-systems (O1.1, O1.2 and O1.3) are represented as a circle topped by a square (though it looks like a diamond because the systems are skewed to the right). This is because each of these sub-systems can be viewed as a system in its own right, and thus will have its own Systems 1 through 5.<br />
<br />
In project management terms, each sub-system could be a team within the project. So each team has its operational level (System 1) and so on. For example the team supervisor is the equivalent of the project manager, so as well as being System 2 in terms of the whole project system, is System 3 in terms of their own system. And the project manager role represents higher level to the team system so is the equivalent of Systems 4 and 5.<br />
<br />
This recursiveness continues: each person within a team is a system in their own right.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://smallshire.org.uk/sufficientlysmall/wp-content/russian_dolls.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://smallshire.org.uk/sufficientlysmall/wp-content/russian_dolls.png" height="131" width="200" /></a></div>
And the project is embedded within a larger system: for example is could lie within a programme, or within a portfolio.
So just as the VSM helps with an individual project to see if all systems are in place (and hence viable), it also helps as you move up or down through the nest of Russian dolls that is the VSM recursion!<br />
<br />
There is both a powerful message and a danger in this. The powerful message is that each operation (system 1) has it's own 5-system structure, including management. Looking at the big green square in our diagram (the "system in focus"), the message is that it should not become too involved in the detailed management of the operation (the large system 1 circle), because that it the responsibility of the next level of recursion - the smaller green squares. An example is work package management: once a work package is handed off to a team, it is not the job of the project manager or Project Board to plan exactly how that work should be carried out, allocate it to team members, etc..<br />
<br />
The danger is that the lower level management function misunderstands the recursive model and tries to do the higher level management functions as well. An example of this would be if a team directly requests work from another team beyond what has already been agreed within the project. A case like that should be managed by the project manager.<br />
<br />
In the final post in this series (coming next) I’ll try to summarise everything and come up with a VSM for projects checklist (if such a thing is not an oxymoron).Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-59564649109248227042013-12-17T16:00:00.000+00:002015-05-29T16:30:03.186+01:00Viable Systems Modelling for Project Management part 6We have finally reached System 5 in our survey of the Viable Systems Model and how it applies to project management. As noted in the<a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/viable-systems-modelling-for-project.html"> previous article</a>, System 5 is responsible for top-level decisions.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Good decision-making comes from several key attributes, but critical amongst them is having good information: not so much that one is drowned in data, and not so little that you don’t know what’s going on. System 5, therefore, needs to be aware of inputs from systems 3 and 4 and make sure they are correctly balanced.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/vsm.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/vsm.png" height="200" width="194" /></a><br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">The role of System 5: Policy and strategic direction</span></h3>
The VSM diagram (repeated here for convenience – click to enlarge) shows that system 5 is at the apex of the system, a bit like in an organisation chart where the CEO sits at the top. This doesn’t mean it’s the most important role. Remember this is a system model – everything is critical to the system – everything must play its part properly for the system to remain viable.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/org-chart.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/org-chart.png" height="102" width="320" /></a></div>
Stafford Beer devoted several pages of his book Brain of the Firm to a discussion of why the hierarchical model of organisation structure, with the CEO at the top, is fallible and prone to failure. I have reproduced Beer’s org-chart here (click to enlarge): MM is the CEO role, M1, M2 etc. are middle layers of management and a, b, etc. are operational level. In a project management chart, the Sponsor chairs the Board (MM) with the board members being M1, M2 etc. and project teams being a, b, c, etc.. It will seem very familiar. Beer notes that this structure is “competent to apportion blame” [p.201], and Peter Scholtes describes this structure thus: “a fundamental premise of the ‘train-wreck’[1] approach to management is that the primary cause of problems is ‘dereliction of duty.’ The purpose of the organizational chart is to sufficiently specify those duties so that management can quickly assign blame” [The Leader’s Handbook, p. 4]<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">How does System 5 work?</span></h3>
The problem we have is: how can System 5 get all the right information without being flooded out by too much detail? This issue was central to a LinkedIn discussion starter I saw recently, that posed this question: “If you were a CEO and could only use one performance metric to guide the company, what would that metric be?”<br />
<br />
The originator of that discussion then went on to divulge his ideas, which centred around the common sense wish to include measures of value and the “velocity” of change in terms of what the organisation currently produces and what customers’ changing demands require (which he termed: velocity of value, or VOV).<br />
<br />
At first glance this is an interesting idea because it appears to understand that “good” metrics are not single dimensional measures such as profit or cash flow. However, it reminded me of a story a wise teacher once told me about exam revision back in my school days (a long time ago!).<br />
<br />
A student was studying a Shakespeare play and decided to make summary notes of all the aspects he needed to remember. The summary ran to ten pages of notes. “Too long”, he thought, so he summarised the summary down to five pages. Still too long. After several further iterations he ended up with a single word. He then went into the exam, having memorised this precious nugget and then found, when the Shakespeare question came up, he couldn't recall in enough detail the information he'd so condensed... and failed the exam.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that leaders who want to so condense and summarise information about their organisation that they have one (or a very few) simple metrics to go on are making exactly the same mistake. And even though the VOV metric proposed by the originator of the LinkedIn topic is in fact a weighted combination of a number of contributor metrics, it isn't good enough. You simply cannot understand the workings of a complex organisation based on one measure! A good CEO will want to understand the complexity.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Balanced Scorecard</span></h3>
I then got to thinking about things like Balanced Scorecards, which seem to tackle this issue more effectively. The Balanced Scorecard, as originally envisaged by Kaplan and Norton, takes the view that financial measures alone are not enough to understand organisational performance. So they added additional dimensions (or perspectives): customer, business process and learning and growth as well as financial.<br />
<br />
Learning and growth looks at staff training and development (i.e. not just training) and at cultural attitudes at both individual and corporate levels. It tries to establish how well an organisation learns, and how it grows as a response to that learning.<br />
<br />
The business process perspective, very crudely, looks at quality: how good we are at doing what we do. To use a Juran phrase: is what we produce “fit for purpose” from a customer perspective? And looking beneath the surface: what processes do we have to maintain our quality outputs?<br />
<br />
Customer perspective is, hopefully, self-explanatory. Kaplan and Norton wrote about measuring customer satisfaction and customer focus. They noted that customer satisfaction is a leading measure (as opposed to financial measures, which are trailing measures). Personally I feel that customer satisfaction is not a true leading measure because by the time you pick up that customers are dissatisfied the situation has already arisen and they may already have left.<br />
<br />
The Balanced Scorecard has much to commend it – not least the central idea that you need a balanced mix of information in order to understand your organisation’s performance, and hence make decisions about its future direction. But it is inextricably linked to the above idea of organizational structure.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">Why the Balanced Scorecard is not enough</span></h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/multinode.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/multinode.jpg" height="212" width="320" /></a></div>
Returning now to Stafford Beer. In his discussion of organisational hierarchy he went on to sketch out how the human brain deals with decision making based on a multiplicity of information, and it looked nothing like the traditional org-chart above. Beer goes on to describe system 5 thus: “System 5 is not the collection of nodes, logically organized to be precise and well mannered, that our first model suggested. It is instead, whether made of neurons or managers, an elaborately interactive assemblage of elements. I call it the ‘multinode’.” [p. 205] His diagram of the multimode appears here (click to enlarge).<br />
<br />
The Balanced Scorecard is like the student’s revision summary and the neat organisation chart. It has the right idea: let’s take in a set of balanced information; but it fails because it tries to simplify too much in order to feed information along a single conduit to the decision making top-level process. What we need is Beer’s multimode where there are multiple pathways to the decision-making centre and also interconnections between the nodes that feed in to it. In other words, the underlying model of decision making is wrong!<br />
<br />
I don’t have space here to go into exactly how Beer models the working of the multimode (he devotes twenty pages to this, including quite a lot of decision algebra). Suffice it to say that the system works because the nodes are all interconnected, and the evaluation that takes place at the nodes balances out to form an holistic model on an heuristic basis.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">System 5 responsibilities</span></h3>
<ul>
<li>Absolutely, to make strategic decisions;</li>
<li>To ensure that inputs from both system 3 and 4 are taken into account when doing this;</li>
<li>But not to do so in an autocratic, command and control structured way – a key responsibility is to ensure that the rest of the systems are in place so that sufficient information is received.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul>
</ul>
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">System 5 in projects</span></h3>
All of this has a major implication for the way Project Boards, and the project Sponsor, should behave.<br />
<br />
One the one hand I have seen Boards get too operationally involved. This is wrong because it would be like the brain wanting to consciously control the heartbeat. Chaos would result because we would neither be fleet of foot enough to properly control the heartbeat, nor free enough from all the work that would entail to keep a weather eye open on the rest of the system.<br />
<br />
On the other hand I’ve seen Boards be too aloof. They hardly ever read the reports that come through from the project manager, or take time to understand the key issues in (just) enough detail to be able to make well-informed decisions.<br />
<br />
I’ve also see project Boards where its members work to their own agendas.<br />
<br />
Above all what the VSM tells us is that System 5 must concern itself equally with the system as a whole.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">VSM lessons</span></h3>
Project Boards are too often like an afterthought: it’s almost as if the project works on its own without a Board, but has one stuck on because it is supposed to there! But then projects fail because they lack the high level decision making that’s necessary to keep them viable.<br />
<br />
This isn’t the end of my series on VSM and project management because we haven’t yet looked at the recursive nature of the model: within each operational node of the system (system 1) is a whole system of its own; and the whole system (the project) is itself embedded within a larger system. We’ll look at this <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.com/2014/01/viable-systems-modelling-for-project.html">next time</a>.<br />
<hr />
Notes<br />
[1] Scholtes used the train-wreck term because he was discussing this in the light of a real train crash disaster in 1841 that gave rise to this kind of management structure being created.Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-81784172646767501402013-11-22T11:20:00.000+00:002015-05-29T16:25:07.297+01:00Viable Systems Modelling for Project Management part 5You can divide project management into three very broad areas of activity: governance, management and work stream activity. If you’ve followed <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/viable-systems-modelling-for-project_29.html">this series on VSM</a> so far you’ll hopefully realise that System 1 (operations) maps on to work stream activity, and Systems 2 and 3 map on to management. So it doesn’t take a genius to realise that governance maps on to Systems 4 and 5.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>In very simplistic terms, System 4 is concerned with “research and design” or the combination of looking at the environment and future gazing with communicating adjustments within the system to accommodate this. Indeed Stafford Beer described System 4 as “the big switch”. System 5 is the part that decides what the policy is going to be – as we’ll see in the next part. But for now we’ll concentrate on System 4.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/vsm.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/vsm.png" height="200" width="194" /></a></div>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">The role of System 4: The “big switch”</span></h3>
The diagram I’ve been using (repeated here for convenience – click to enlarge) shows that system 5 is connected to the environment. Strictly speaking, it’s actually system 4 that has the direct connection, but I wanted to convey that fact that system 5 needs to be aware of the environment to do its job properly (I’ll touch on that in the next part).<br />
<br />
So far in this series I have avoided quoting Stafford Beer directly because his language is sometimes technical, and his explanations necessarily detailed and long. However I think he describes the function of system 4 pretty succinctly. In <i>Brain of the Firm</i> he writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We have set up the three-tier autonomic system intended to maintain a homeostatic internal balance, and even to optimize performance within an accepted framework and under established criteria. The successful operation of that autonomic system is dependent … on a steady stream of appropriate instructions descending … from System Five. The environment for decision at this top level … includes representation of the autonomic condition, together with filtered information … Both sorts of input into System Five … are switched by System Four. … [A] second major component of input to top-level decisions: information about the environment set by the outside world … [is] collected by System Four … and … switched into System 5. (Chapter 13, p. 181)</blockquote>
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">System 4 responsibilities</span></h3>
This means that System 4 is responsible for:<br />
<ul>
<li>Keeping tabs on what’s going on in the external environment at a meta level - e.g. what kinds of things are coming up in the future that might require a change in direction;</li>
<li>Ensuring system 3 is aware of and reacting appropriately to the environmental changes;</li>
<li>Filtering this as appropriate for communication to System 5.</li>
</ul>
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">System 4 in projects</span></h3>
In PRINCE2 terms the Senior User and Senior Supplier roles are key system 4 components.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">Senior User role:</span></h4>
The Senior User (working with and through the Project Manager) ensures that needs of the business are properly reflected. For example, if the business areas involved with the project are over stretched in terms of resources, it’s the role of the Senior User to reflect on the issue, provide potential solutions and bring them to the Board. It’s also part of their role to ensure that the business actually does what the project requires. More importantly, the Senior User should be aware of the future plans for his/her services and what is being done to keep pace with external demands and changes. This needs to be fed into the project both in terms of constraints and scope review.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">Senior Supplier role:</span></h4>
Traditionally the supplier role is seen as implementing the chosen technical solution. (NB the supplier may be internal, external or a mixture of both). The VSM model throws a different light on the role. It’s more one of making sure the right technical solution is chosen! This is not necessary a one-off decision: in large, long-term projects, the environment and business may change, so the solution may need to change too. So the role includes not only coming up with the proposed solutions, but continually horizon scanning to make sure they stay relevant.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">VSM lessons</span></h3>
So far in this series the VSM lessons have been to highlight things we know in our heart of hearts should be done, but which aren’t always done sufficiently well. Here, for the first time, VSM is – I think – drawing our attention to an area where projects often are completely lacking. Both the Senior User and the Senior Supplier roles have critical impact on ensuring a project remains properly aligned with the environment. This is especially the case for big, long-term change projects.<br />
<br />
These two roles are critical to the success of projects because they are the health checks, if you like. Through them the Project Board is aware of how well the project (system) is performing in terms of meeting internal business needs and taking due note of the external environment. Personally I have almost never seen this being done adeqautely. If we don’t do it, the system (project) will not be viable.<br />
<br />
For example, you might successfully deliver a working product, but its output is no longer what the business needs to provide!<br />
<br />
The<a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/viable-systems-modelling-for-project.html"> next installment</a> will look at the final system: System 5, the policy maker.Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-45501776645681538322013-11-19T16:23:00.000+00:002013-11-19T16:28:12.845+00:00Flow and bottleneck gameThis game simulates the flow of items between workstations and can be used to demonstrate a number of Lean flow and variation principles. The basic set-up is to have a number of “workstations” (these could also represent teams or single workers) in a chain. Items are added to one end of the chain and output at the other. Each workstation uses dice to decide how many items are processed (the throwing of the dice simulating random variation within the limits of 1 - 6). The number of outputs is recorded over a number of cycles.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Here’s how to play the game – you’ll need 4 or 5 workstations (i.e. 4 or 5 people), plus a customer and a monitor, so 6 or 7 people overall. You can have multiple “teams” if you want to run this with several groups. (In fact this is interesting in itself as you can then simulate team performance across different teams).<br />
<br />
Each workstation has an in-box, which is where incoming items/tasks are stored and a processing unit which is the person throwing a dice to see how many items they can process and pass along the chain. At the beginning of the simulation the workstations each have 3 items in their in boxes.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/bpmn/wip_team.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Set-up for the flow game" border="0" height="90" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/bpmn/wip_team.jpg" title="" width="400" /></a></div>
You can use coloured card, tiddly-wink counters, etc. to represent the work items. You’ll need a stock of these to run the simulation – maximum 120 for a 20 cycle run.<br />
<br />
The customer introduces new work items to the chain and the monitor records the output for each cycle.<br />
So a typical set-up is as shown below.<br />
<br />
The rules are as follows:<br />
<ol>
<li>At the beginning of each cycle everyone throws their dice and “processes” their inbox accordingly (before anything is added).</li>
<li>Each workstation passes on the number of items according to their dice throw.</li>
<li>If there are fewer items in their inbox than the number thrown they simply transfer what they have and no more.</li>
<li>Each workstation cannot wait for the preceding one to complete their transfer before doing their own transfer (as per rule 1).</li>
<li>At the end of each cycle the monitor records the number of items processed (i.e. what comes out of the end of the chain).</li>
</ol>
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Let’s take an example:</span></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/bpmn/wip_table1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Table showing results for 20 cycles of the game" border="0" height="258" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/bpmn/wip_table1.jpg" title="" width="320" /></a></div>
On cycle 1 the customer throws a 4, A throws a 4, B throws a 3, C throws a 4, D throws a 6. A can only move 3 items to B even though they rolled a 4. Once they have moved their items, the customer’s 4 items are added to A’s inbox. So at the end of the cycle A now has 4 items. B moves their 3 items to D and then gets three items from A, so ends up with 3 items. C, like A moves 3 items over even though they threw a 4, and then gets 3 items from B so ends up with 3. Similarly D can only transfer 3 items even though a 6 was thrown, and they too receive 3 items. The monitor records a first cycle output of 3. So we end up with…<br />
<br />
A = 4, B = 3, C = 3, D = 3, cycle output = 3<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/bpmn/wip1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Plot of WIP data from flow game" border="0" height="203" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/bpmn/wip1.jpg" title="" width="320" /></a>We continue in this fashion for 20 cycles. The table above (click to enlarge) shows an example (the dice throws were simulated using Excel’s randbetween function, but in the exercise real dice throws are used.<br />
<br />
The last column in the table, WIP, is the total amount of work in progress for that cycle. We started with 12 and ended with 43, so obviously the system is not terribly efficient because if it were you’d expect the WIP to stay fairly constant.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/bpmn/wip_table2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Second table of flow data (extra resource added)" border="0" height="257" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/bpmn/wip_table2.jpg" title="" width="320" /></a>If we plot the WIP data and the input for each cycle we get a chart like the one shown here (click to enlarge). You can see that the total WIP line is steadily increasing!<br />
<br />
Let’s now imagine management look at this pattern and decide workstation A is a problem because they don’t seem to be processing as efficiently as everyone else. In fact they might have looked at the data after the first week (i.e. cycle 5) and used a measure such as average WIP. For the four workstations, the average WIP after 5 cycles is<br />
<br />
A = 5.4, B = 4.8, C = 4.4, D = 3.6<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/bpmn/wip2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Second plot of flow data (extra resource added)" border="0" height="206" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/bpmn/wip2.jpg" title="" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
So they decide to add extra resource (another dice) to the least “efficient” workstation: A. We now run another 15 cycles, starting off from where we left off and the dice throws as shown in the able below (exactly the same as above except that A’s throws are now randomised for 2 dice, i.e. between 2 and 12).<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/bpmn/wip_table3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Third table for flow data (extra resource moved around)" border="0" height="258" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/bpmn/wip_table3.jpg" title="" width="320" /></a>Something very odd seems to be happening: the amount of WIP doesn’t appear to have diminished at all! For the cost of extra resource there has been no improvement. The chart shows this too:<br />
<br />
The point here is that – like all batch and queue systems, of which this is a simplified example – there is no real flow. In Lean terms the system would work on a pull basis, so would react to customer demand. So on cycle 2, after 4 items were introduced in cycle 1, the throughput at each workstation ought to be 4, and on cycle 6 the throughput needs to increase top 6 items per workstation. In this way the flow through the system reacts to customer demand and you don’t get queues forming.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/bpmn/wip3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Third plot of flow data (extra resource moved around)" border="0" height="202" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/bpmn/wip3.jpg" title="" width="320" /></a>So how might management react? Well if you’re lucky they’ll be a bit more finessed than the second scenario above and say they’ll move the extra resource around. The third scenario, below, uses a weekly review with the additional resource being moved to the “worst” workstation at the end of each week. It does appear to make some difference as the WIP does seem to have been reduced – though not by a huge amount.<br />
<br />
But apart from this small improvement, the tactic doesn’t seem to have worked. Yet this is the sort of thing management usually do! And then they look for someone to blame when there is no, or little, improvement!<br />
<br />
This little experiment is a great way of demonstrating that you can’t fix processes in that way and what you need to do is understand customer demand and then set up systems that can react to that effectively.Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-49934412373930463292013-10-29T14:47:00.002+00:002015-05-29T16:16:07.631+01:00Viable Systems Modelling for Project Management part 4In Stafford Beer's VSM systems, Systems 1 and 2 are concerned with the operations of the system (see <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/viable-systems-modelling-for-project_22.html">previous posts</a>). However in any system there is the need to intervene if the operations are potentially in conflict (which can cause oscillation) or not doing what the system needs in a changed environment. This is where the higher-level systems, 3, 4 and 5, come in, and this article deals with System 3.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">The role of System 3: Synergy Centre</span></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/vsm.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/vsm.png" height="200" width="194" /></a></div>
As noted above, whilst System 2 looks after communications between operational units (System 1), it doesn't deal with potential conflict that emerge. These it reports up to System 3 for decision/action. So System 3's role is optimisation and generating synergy between Operational units (project teams). The diagram (click to expand) shows this by the fact that there is a link from system 3 to the top system 2 triangle.<br />
<br />
Note the 3* triangle which feeds down to the operational units. (It's shown separately from the 3 rectangle). This is the audit function. Management cannot know everything that goes on within operational units - nor need it (that would contravene requisite variety), but it does need to know that things are as they should be. For that to occur there needs to be the ability to check that they are so: this is done via the 3* function, or audit.<br />
<h3>
<br /><span style="color: #990000;">So System 3 is responsible for:</span></h3>
<ul>
<li>Ensuring resource allocation between each Operational unit is appropriate.</li>
<li>Monitoring and changing the environments with which each Operational unit (project team) is involved if improvements can be made (usually in response to changing external conditions, but also if internal conflicts arise).</li>
<li>Leading on from the above, changing the way outputs and information flow between the Operational units (but not tinkering otherwise).</li>
<li>Reviewing the capacity of Systems 2 and 3 to deal with the entire complex of Operational units. This will involve both making the relevant decisions and making sure they are implemented. </li>
<li>Ensuring information systems are capable of producing thorough and up-to-date information, as follows:</li>
<ul>
<li>The Operational units must be accountable, so appropriate measures of what they do must get to System 3.</li>
<li>System 3* does audits and surveys - it is an information service to System 3, looking at whatever is of relevance.</li>
<li>System 3 must have a thorough model of all that it needs to know about the goings-on within the entire complex of interacting Operational units (project teams). Otherwise it will be making decisions in ignorance. </li>
<li>An information system must be capable of generating alerting signals so that the organisation can find out that something has gone badly wrong as soon as it happens. Stafford Beer called this "<a href="http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/ALGEDO_LOOP.html">algedonics</a>".</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<h3>
<br /><span style="color: #990000;">System 3 in projects</span></h3>
This sounds awfully like the role of a project manager! Two very important principles emerge from this:<br />
<ol>
<li>The project manager is not responsible for doing the work of the operational units. How many project managers find themselves getting involved with the actual production work of the project? This is anathema to the VSM because it compromises System 3's ability to be independent.</li>
<li>A critical role of the project manager is as an information exchange - receiving information from the Operational units (via System 2) and acting on it accordingly by issuing instructions back down the line and passing information up to Systems 4 and 5 if need be. In project terms this would be when tolerance is exceeded. Systems 5 and 4 communicate via System 3, so if strategic changes occur, System 3 is the nexus point for receiving the new strategy and translating this into appropriate actions for the Operational units (project teams).</li>
<li>The 3* function is not a project manager role - it is more the role of project assurance. My experience is that this usually does not happen at all, or if it does happen it's conducted by "professional auditors" who are not domain experts and who therefore concentrate on the wrong sort of information. In audit it's very tempting to gather lots of data and "analyse" it. For example looking at Board minutes, Risk Logs, Gantt charts. Instead project assurance (audit) should be about checking to see that actions are followed through and feedback loops are working correctly (e.g. escalation to Project Board, follow-up on work package actions).</li>
</ol>
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">VSM lessons</span></h3>
<div>
I have seen countless projects where:</div>
<ul>
<li>The project manager is too "operational", where he or she takes on too much responsibility - in effect this is project manager as superhero. It's simply not sustainable!</li>
<li>The project board does not make good decisions because it is either flooded with too much information, or starved of information - this is a project manager role issue. Boards may also make poor decisions for other reasons, which we'll explore in a later post.</li>
<li>Project teams compete for resources or don't align their input/output links well enough.</li>
<li>Project assurance is more about checking whether the "process" of project management is correct than about whether the project management is working.</li>
</ul>
VSM shows us that the project manager role is critical in these respects. As before, this possibly sounds very familiar, and what VSM is - again - doing very clearly, is to illustrate the proper role and emphasise gaps or inconsistencies.<br />
<br />
<div>
With Systems 1, 2 and 3 we have a complete model for the working of a system when the environment remains stable. But as we know only too well, things change over time, so the system needs the ability to monitor and adapt to the environment. This is where Systems 4 and 5 come in, as we'll see in <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.com/2013/11/viable-systems-modelling-for-project.html">the next</a> and later posts.</div>
Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-90989485876388983682013-10-22T14:54:00.001+01:002015-04-15T15:16:41.620+01:00Viable Systems Modelling for Project Management part 3My <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/viable-systems-modelling-for-project_14.html">last post</a> explained how the first of Stafford Beer’s VSM systems, System 1, can be applied to project management. Now we continue with looking at System 2. For a reminder of the whole VSM model see my <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/viable-systems-modelling-for-project.html">overview post</a>.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">The role of System 2: Regulatory Centre</span></h3>
Last time we looked at the role of the individual Operational Units (System 1) and found that in the model they needed to have two-way communications between themselves and the rest of the system. We also saw that variety had to be properly dealt with. It’s the control of this inter-communication and variety that falls to System 2.<br />
<br />
There are two key functions involved within System 2 – to provide local regulatory control of System 1 and to prevent undue oscillation. Whilst the first function is hopefully reasonably obvious, the second may not be so, thus bears some further explanation.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/vsm.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/vsm.png" height="200" width="194" /></a></div>
Imagine two operational units (A and B). A produces materials that are used by B. These materials are passed directly from A to B (in the diagram of the VSM (click to enlarge), this is denoted by the double headed arrows between the operational units O1.1, O1.2 and O1.3). In ideal circumstances, A would produce just what B needs, when it is required. B would not suffer lost time waiting for A, and A would not suffer from having to store stock through over production. “Lean” readers will recognise that this is central to “flow”. The regulatory function within System 2 knows whether the exchange is in balance or not, both at any given moment and also over time (I envisage it having its own version of a process control chart). Let’s now further imagine that A in fact supplies other units as well (C, D and E). Say that A becomes under productive for some reason. Not just B, but also C, D and E are now threatened. Do they therefore get together and share what A produces to minimise the overall impact? Unfortunately, left to their own devices, normally they don’t. Normally they actually become competitive and try to build up their own stockpiles, and damn the consequences to anyone else! Trust and collaboration is lost. The systems start to work in extreme fashions. Oscillation sets in.<br />
<br />
So System 2 works by making sure everyone knows what’s going on (local regulatory). A’s system 2 simply presents the information about production capability to all the other systems and also to higher order systems (corporate regulatory). In the diagram, the System 2 triangle is the corporate regulatory function, and the intersections of the vertical line that leads down from it and the horizontal lines that connect to the operational units are the local regulatory functions of System 2. The other units’ System 2 functions can then replan according to the new information, and higher order systems can take a view on whether intervention is needed to prevent potential oscillation.<br />
<br />
System 2 also regulates variety. One way of doing this is to divide up the instructions that are coming down from higher levels according to what's relevant to System 1 units. Thus when the brain issues commands to walk, the nervous system doesn't convey this information to every muscle in the body, but only to those ones that need to know.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">System 2 in projects</span></h3>
Project teams should work together towards a common goal. In reality they often compete with each other because of scarce resource (money, staff, expertise), and they certainly sometimes aren’t very good at sharing information! Yet project teams have a potential System 2 function available in the person of the team leader. Yet I have seldom seen it articulated that the team leader’s role is as much about communication between teams as it is about regulation of their own team. VSM teaches us that this communication role is essential.<br />
<br />
The second problem with project (teams) is that communications – when they do occur – are not very effective. The communications need to contain useful information that is presented factually and non-emotionally. Let’s imagine that Team A has to produce design drawings for teams B and C. A designer goes off sick leaving the design team potentially unable to fulfil the design requirements on time. This information needs to be sent to teams B and C so they know about it. It may be that they can replan some of their work on other aspects to minimise the impact of the design delay. But if not, the information needs to be passed to higher level systems so that a decision can be made. In such a case the team leaders discuss the issue with the project manager: this takes place at the corporate regulatory level (the triangle).<br />
<br />
The variety controlling role is also essential. How many times does one see a direct request going to a team to "just add this extra little bit"? System 2 needs to filter out this sort of "out of scope" demand and also inform System 3 that it's happening so that a higher level decision can be made - if necessary - about scope change. Again it is unusual to see this function being adequately fulfilled.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">No surprises</span></h3>
This is not new. Having good information about what’s going on in a project is a central factor in project management. But all too often it doesn’t work. The VSM shows that what is usually lacking is clarity in System 2 functions. Team leaders need to collect and communicate information about their System 1 operations (their teams) in an open, factual way, withholding nothing. They also need to plan their teams’ work based on the information they receive. This role needs to be made clear and the right tools need to be in place to support it.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">VSM lessons</span></h3>
So we have some further lessons for project management to add to those already identified, in the setting up and management of the project team:<br />
<ol>
<li>Ensure that team leaders know their role in communicating information to the rest of the system (other teams, the project manager).</li>
<li>Provide fit for purpose tools for the collection and communication of the information.</li>
<li>Acting on information received, plan one’s own team work, passing back information about any re-planning that is necessary.</li>
<li>Carry out effective filtering to ensure that teams are not distracted by out of scope requests, but ensure the project manager knows about them.</li>
</ol>
As before, what VSM does is to underline how critical these aspects are, and clearly identify what needs to happen to remains stable.<br />
<br />
I’ve alluded above to the passing of information to higher order systems, and in the<a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.com/2013/10/viable-systems-modelling-for-project_29.html"> next instalment</a> I’ll be looking at how this happens with System 3.Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-37643833304460764282013-10-14T14:57:00.003+01:002015-04-15T14:51:27.544+01:00Viable Systems Modelling for Project Management part 2In my <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/viable-systems-modelling-for-project.html">previous post</a> I introduced Stafford Beer’s Viable Systems Model (VSM) and how project management can fit in with it. In this part we’ll be looking at the first of his five systems: System 1 – Operational Units.
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">The role of the Operational Unit </span></h3>
In one sense, this is the most important part of the system, because here is where the “work” gets done. In human body terms, it’s what the different parts of our body just get on with, without our having to think about it: heart beating, breathing, digestion, and so on.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Many parts… one body</span></h3>
St Paul understood that the early church comprises different parts and that these all had to work together in harmony (1 Corinthians 12). He was an early systems thinker! Beer’s VSM shows very clearly that operations are divided up into different operational units – each with its own role.<br />
<br />
In project management terms, this has two key implications. The “operational units” of the project need to be clearly identified and carefully designed. It’s common sense, really, because all I’m saying is that you have to make sure you have the right resources available and enough of them. But how often is it that one’s host organisation pays lip service to this? Project teams – if they exist at all – have to fit in the project work around their day jobs. The first lesson from VSM, then, is do not skimp on this aspect of setting up a project. Cut corners here and problems with viability are bound to happen later on.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Autonomy</span></h3>
Not only do we not have to think about the body’s different activities; for the most part we ignore them and leave them to get on with things on their own. They are autonomous. They don’t need instructions from higher up because they know what to do.<br />
<br />
For projects, then, this means that the operational units should not be tinkered with. Project boards should not be too operational, too details focussed. (Of course the complete opposite may occur, but that’s the subject for a later part, when we look at System 5). Again, this seems like common sense, but how many projects get this right?<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Independence</span></h3>
Autonomy is not the same as independence. In the VSM operational units are not independent. They can’t declare “home rule”! (St. Paul recognised this too). The operational units are highly dependent on each other. This means they need to understand what the other units are doing, and they need to tell other units what they are up to. Two-way communication. As they receive information about other units, they should make adjustments in their own work neither to demand too much input nor provide too much output (overload).<br />
<br />
Project frameworks like PRINCE2 do indeed recognise this, but I don’t think they pay enough attention to it. It really is critical that we get this right, or again we have a recipe for disaster.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Variety</span></h3>
I had been in two minds whether to write about variety earlier on, but have decided to leave it to here as it seems a good place to introduce this key aspect. Beer borrowed from Ross Ashby's seminal work on variety, and it's underlying rule that only variety can absorb variety. Let's take a simple example of a coffee shop. Imagine that the shop regularly has around 1000 customers a day and between them they create demand for 25 varieties of coffee. The only way that the shop can "absorb" this variety in demand is to stock 25 different types of coffee. We would say, in formal terms, that the shop has "requisite variety". However let's say that two of the varieties are only rarely requested, and if the shop keeps these in stock there's a risk they'll go out of date. So it offers 23 varieties and is apologetic to customers when they (rarely) ask for the other ones. It no longer displays requisite variety, but the compromise is acceptable to the customers, who continue to come and allows the shop to operate on a viable level.<br />
<br />
In reality, the amount of variety is usually far higher than we can sustain economically - for example in a school it would be wonderful to have a one-to-one teacher to pupil ratio, but this is not economically viable!<br />
<br />
For System 1 this is key because it has to deal with both incoming variety - which is usually greater than it's own internal variety - and also make sure its outputs are properly dealt with even though the environment into which it puts them is far richer (so it needs to be noticed). So on the input side of System 1 there needs to be a filter that cuts down incoming variety (Beer calls this an attenuator) and a mechanism for making itself heard to the environment (an amplifier).<br />
<br />
In project terms we can think of this as having a clear scope - this creates the incoming variety filter. And on the output side we need to ensure that the deliverables are used effectively, so there needs to be an effective means of embedding this in the external environment (communications, training, etc.).<br />
<br />
The lessons for projects are that changes to scope have to be very carefully controlled, and also that the delivery teams are both clear about their scope and stick to it. There also need to be good mechanisms for ensuring the deliverable items are properly handled.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">VSM lessons</span></h3>
So we have three clear lessons for project management, in the setting up and management of the project team:<br />
<ol>
<li><span style="color: #990000;"><b>Identify the right resources and put them in place:
</b></span><br />This means that people need to be freed to do the work needed within the project, and we need the right people to do the job. </li>
<li><b><span style="color: #990000;">Don’t micro-manage what they do:</span></b>
<br />Project boards should not interfere with the day-to-day work of the project team. Once the overall instructions have been issued, leave them to get on with their job. </li>
<li><b><span style="color: #990000;">Ensure that good two-way communications exist between the teams:
</span></b><br />This is another resourcing issue. Communications don’t happen without time and effort. We need to set aside resource to make sure this happens.</li>
<li><b><span style="color: #990000;">Ensure there are good attenuation (scope control) and amplification (output embedding) mechanisms.</span></b><br />Controlling variety effectively is essential to the viability of a project. One of the greatest causes of project failure is when scope is not properly managed: it's a requisite variety issue!</li>
</ol>
None of this is new in project management terms, but what VSM does here is to remind us how critical these aspects are, and it emphasises the fact that if we get any of this wrong, the system (i.e. the project) will become unstable; non-viable.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/viable-systems-modelling-for-project_22.html">Next we’ll be looking at System 2</a> – and returning to the communications and management issues to see how the management of operational units should take place in practice, within the VSM.Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2752741634434234693.post-8460017263756308042013-10-03T15:10:00.002+01:002015-04-15T14:18:44.691+01:00Viable Systems Modelling for Project Management part 1In my <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.com/2013/09/why-i-hate-project-management.html">previous post</a> I launched this series of posts by explaining why I thought project management is derived from command and control management thinking, and that there is a “better way” based on systems thinking. In this post in the series on that alternative approach I’ll be giving a brief overview of Stafford Beer’s Viable Systems Model (VSM) and how project management can fit in with it.
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Further posts will explore VSM’s sub-systems in more detail, with relation to project management.<br />
<br />
For those who wish to follow up on VSM in more detail, there are some references at the end of this post.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Systems (the S of VSM)</span></h3>
The word system is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) as “a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network; a complex whole”. In a sense a system is an oxymoron because there is no such thing as “a system” since everything in existence is in some way interconnected. However for convenience, we break down this mega-system into smaller systems with artificially defined boundaries. Thus the United Kingdom is a system within which Local Government exists as smaller governing systems. A local government body will be further sub-divided into functional systems such as education, highways, and so on.<br />
<br />
The great systems thinker Donella Meadows wrote that "that a system must consist of three kinds of things: elements, interconnections, and a function or purpose" in her book Thinking in Systems. The elements are the easiest part of a system to define as they are the bits that are visible. Interconnections are less visible so harder to define - they are essentially how the elements communicate so that they are part of the same system - in the human body, for example, nerves are one of the elements, and nerve impulses travel along the nerves to do things like register heat or pressure. Finally there is purpose, which can be the most difficult to define. For example, an alien visiting earth and seeing an old people's home might decide that it's purpose is to kill people since everyone who goes there dies.<br />
<br />
A system’s boundaries are also permeable: for example the allocation of responsibility between central government and local government changes over time.<br />
<br />
In project management terms, a project is a system that has been consciously created to fulfill a specific purpose. But like all systems, it exists within a Russian doll model of higher and lower level systems. The “permeable boundary” of a project is seen in terms of changes in project scope and also where project outputs become embedded in business as usual.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Viable Systems Model (VSM) </span></h3>
The VSM is a model (a representation) of a system that is viable (i.e. that is capable of survival). It is based on the real-life VSM of the human autonomic system “the part of the nervous system responsible for control of the bodily functions not consciously directed, such as breathing, the heartbeat, and digestive processes” (OED) and also of the higher level brain functions. In other words, it’s a model for how the human body controls what it does in a meaningful way that enables the brain to concentrate on higher level functions without having to bother about all the necessary, life sustaining things that also have to be done.<br />
It is also a fractal or recursive model. In other words it’s like the Russian dolls referred to above. It describes the current system, but also higher and lower level systems.<br />
<br />
The model has five main parts:<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">System 1: Operations</span></h4>
This is the part that does a specific function such as making the heart beat. Each system will have many operational units, each with their own separate purposes, but all interacting in some way to drive the system as a whole.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">System 2: Local regulatory</span></h4>
In human body terms, this is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic_nervous_system#Sympathetic_division">sympathetic autonomic nervous system</a> that ensures that the system 1 components interact in a stable manner. An example of instability is where one operation is out of kilter with another: for example running up a hill and getting out of breath because the need for oxygen supply outstrips the lungs’ ability to provide it.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">System 3: Local feedback</span></h4>
In the human body this is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic_nervous_system#Sympathetic_division">parasympathetic nervous system</a>. System 2 is responsible for maintaining stability of the operational units, but on its own this won’t work because it needs a higher level function that tells it what to do based on the feedback it’s getting across all the operations. This is the job of system 3 (shown as 3* on the diagram). System 3 is also the interface to the higher level functions – it filters out all the masses of information that is generated, and only passes on what matters, so that the higher level systems can take executive action if needed. (For example, telling the body to stop running up that hill!)<br />
<br />
Another function of Systems 3 is to issue instructions about changes in operations. The system has a plan, e.g. “run to the top of the hill”. So the body sets off and, as in the example above, starts to get out of breath. System 2 passes this information up to system 3, and system 3’s job is to analyse this feedback and alter the plan if necessary. For example, if we’re getting too out of breath we must stop or risk damage. That’s what system 3 decides. Stafford Beer called it the “big switch” because it’s the arbiter between letting the operations get on with what they are doing without interference… or stepping in to change things.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">System 4: Adaptation to a changing environment</span></h4>
Let's imagine that you're running up that hill and because you're fit, you're not getting out of breath. However the radio that you're listening to on your MP3 player gives a weather report to say that there's a storm coming. So you decide to look for shelter. What has happened? You have had input from your environment, and as a result have changed your plans. Now there is the immediate environment that needs to be monitored (this is done by System 1: e.g. it's getting steeper so you need to increase effort) and there is the wider environment including what might happen in the future. The weather report is of this latter form, and it's System 4's role to scan and analyse the environment in order to provide this input for the system to decide if any changes are needed. But it's not System 4 that makes the decision...<br />
<br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">System 5: Policy</span></h4>
Why are we running up a hill in the first place? Maybe it’s because we need to see what’s going on around us and need that vantage point. This is the job of the brain: to take in information from the environment, analyse the state of the body, and decide on actions (i.e. set the policy). To work effectively it needs to know enough about the state of the system so that it can make appropriate decisions, but not be overwhelmed by information. Because of system 3’s filtering activity, only the important, relevant information is passed on. And because of System 4 information about the environment is provided.<br />
<br />
Going back to our running scenario, let’s say that the brain has set this in motion not because we just want to get a good vantage point, but because it has seen that there is a life-threatening danger and we have to run away from it (up the hill).<br />
<br />
So when system 3 “decides” to slow down when we’re getting out of breath, it passes on the situation to the brain (system 5) which says “no, don’t stop”, over-riding system 3’s normal response. So system 3 passes that back and we keep on running!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/vsm.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Viable Systems Model diagram" border="0" src="http://www.levitan.co.uk/misc/vsm.png" height="200" title="" width="194" /></a></div>
Stafford Beer drew a diagram based on the human model, and the five systems are shown on it, as illustrated here (click to enlarge). A peculiarity of the diagram is that the overall shape of the whole system – a circle topped by a square – is replicated by the individual operational units (labelled O1.1, O1.2 and O1.3). This is where recursion comes in because each operational unit is itself a system so has the same 5 sub-system structure within.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #990000;">Project management and VSM</span></h3>
If you’re familiar with PRINCE2 and similar project management approaches you’ll know that there is usually a project governance set-up (a board with sponsor and other senior stakeholders), a project manager and a project delivery team. Mapping this onto the VSM diagram the delivery team is clearly System 1 and the board is System 5. The project manager role is System 3 and if we have delivery team leaders they might be acting in a systems 2 role (but as we’ll see, possibly not fulfilling it very well). Where is System 4?<br />
<br />
Even at this superficial level, the VSM model shows gaps in the way an organisational system is set up. And as we shall see in later posts, other gaps become apparent when you look at the systems in more detail.<br />
<br />
But let’s return to the missing system 4 – what is missing exactly? In a well run project team leaders (System 2) will be proactive in terms of monitoring how their operations (System 1) are going. Where there are inter-dependencies between the operations, they will communicate to make sure things are joined up. If any issues arise, they can feedback on them both to the other operations and to the project manager (System 3). The project manager is aware of all the feedback coming in from all the operations (via their System 2s) and can send back appropriate inhibitors (recall that System 3 works out whether parts of System 1 are over-stressed). If the issues in System 1 are beyond the “autonomic” control capability, in theory System 3 should pass this information to System 5 where decisions will be made that combine the top level policy requirements and the stability needs of the system to make appropriate adjustments. If the adjustments seem too large then System 5 can be altered to make a policy decision (e.g. agree a scope change, delay, overspend, etc.). This seems like the project manager’s job as well.<br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, in programme management, there is the notion of a business change manager/leader who works alongside the programme manager. It seems to me this is more like the System 4 role (with programme manager as System 3), which is manifestly missing in the project management system.<br />
<br />
In the next part I’ll look more closely at the workings of <a href="http://bruce-levitan.blogspot.com/2013/10/viable-systems-modelling-for-project_14.html">system 1: the operational units</a>.<br />
<hr />
<h4>
<span style="color: #990000;">References:</span></h4>
Beer, S. (1981) <i>Brain of the Firm</i>; Second Edition, John Wiley, London and New York.<br />
Beer, S. (1988) <i>The Heart of Enterprise</i>; (reprinted with corrections), John Wiley, London and New York<br />
Espejo, R. and Harnden, R. (eds) (1989) <i>The Viable System Model</i>; John Wiley, London and New York.<br />
Hoverstadt, P. (2008) <i>The Fractal Organization: Creating sustainable organizations with the Viable System Model</i>, John Wiley, London and New York<br />
Meadows, D.H. (2009) <i>Thinking in Systems</i>, Earthscan, London and Sterling VA<br />
Walker, J. (2006) <i>The VSM Guide. An introduction to the Viable System Model as a diagnostic & design tool for co-operatives & federations</i> [online] Available from: <a href="http://www.esrad.org.uk/resources/vsmg_3/screen.php?page=home">http://www.esrad.org.uk/resources/vsmg_3/screen.php?page=home</a> (accessed 3 Oct 2013)Bruce-the-Sheephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05443407563124531953noreply@blogger.com1