The priority of impetus

I have been thinking about how to do good things, and why lots of great ideas and ideal solutions don't work. I've come to think that it's more important to focus on sensing and working with impetus (e.g. motivation, which I've posted on already) than being right, or having the best idea.


Discussions on the success of entrepreneurs and changemakers often come down to it being 'the right time', or to an idea or context being 'ripe'. (Not only is a given business idea likely not original, it's quite possibly already been tried.) It's also important to have the drive to see it through and to engage people to come with you.  There are a lot of factors that can make or break a good idea (or even a bad one).


For entrepreneurs, we all know you need to understanding the market, your own motivations, and how to 'sell' your idea to others.  Defining a 'problem' is a bit more nebulous and ill understood, but it's useful for refining the business concept.  I don't think it's appreciated that this is a way to identify the most important factor in success - impetus, not necessarily for the entrepreneur, but in the system that is being remodeled for business purposes.


For changemakers otherwise, I'm yet to come across similar systematic ways to understand the task at hand, rather than just determining the ideal solution. There is an understanding of the need to be 'systemic', and foster transformation, but not of actually how to make being systemic core to the task at hand. As a result, most efforts are driven by a vision or a good idea, with 'how to get there' something worked out along the way - not central to the idea itself.  In this case, the impetus of the individual (or group) is provided by the strength of the vision - but that's not enough to motivate broader change.  I think it may help to make working with impetus for change (in the system, other parties etc) the central priority, and working out how to shift or catalyse this.  So for changemakers working within other systems (rather than setting up their own business), impetus is even more critical than for entrepreneurs.


These thoughts are highly personal, in the sense that my background has always been to work out the best solution.  My history is weighted towards one end of a spectrum of impetus/action thinking, and idea/ideal thinking.  I am reacting to this, and for me I need to flee these inclinations - ideally, I presume there is some happy halfway point (but it would be rather ironic of me to try to find that in a post about sidelining idealism).  They also tie into friends' thoughts on the need to making research real, because we've done so much reductionist, specialised and abstracted work already.


By way of example, these thoughts arose reading Jocelyn Bourgon's New Synthesis of Public Administration, and thinking about the role the book may play in fostering change. I think the book crystalises current ideas, but doesn't necessarily offer new insights.  What it does do, however, is provide real authority and credibility for ideas that are otherwise at the fringe of thinking about government. So it potentially (with the help of other contextual circumstances) help provide the impetus for a discussion about change, and revision of how best to govern.  Nobody is going to run out and go 'okay, we have a new template for how government works, we're going to introduce a change plan to get us up to date' (Bourgon emphasises the 'New Synthesis' as a framework rather than a model, clearly conscious of the danger of this). But it might provide a touch point - or an excuse - to take a step back, or to give credibility to ideas that otherwise may have been seen as unnecessary (or worse).


-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au
@JohnSBaxter

Collaboration - combining shared values, and valuable diversity

Increasingly, I am seeing the virtues of collaborative intent, and appreciating better understanding how this happens.  I have also been very lucky to have been involved in some of the strategic thinking underpinning collaborative activity (like @CollabMelbourne), so I'm also getting a sense of how this works in practice.  (One of the many upsides to going out and getting involved in what you believe in!)


At the last @CollabMelbourne strategy session, Andrew (@drfroth) talked about his conceptualisation of the Collab network.  He saw that people are drawn together around a shared set of values, with mixed overlapping interests, but diverse areas where they actually apply themselves.  So I should note - this post is just my articulation of his idea.


It seemed insightful at the time, and over the last few weeks it has come up a few times, and is proving itself useful as a frame for thinking about shepherding collaborative endeavors.


A few days later, finally watching Simon Sinek's TED talk on leadership (and the importance of the 'why'), I had an inescapable - very graphical - sense that his concentric circles were describing the same thing.  Perhaps - where he talks about motivation and what speaks to us - it is this psychology that underpins why it is so effective for the Collaboratory to bring people together around their values.


This is how I see the mesh of Andrew's conceptualisation (the top line) and Sinek's three concentric circles. The idea is to describe how a network can organise around ideas, despite a valuable diversity:

As it turns out, Andrew has been even busier putting these thoughts into action, applying the principles to @VivMcW's upcoming conference (re the uses of improv in organisations - note she's looking for organisations to get involved).  Centralising the 'why' in understanding the conference is valuable.  I was also really excited to hear his thoughts on the 'what' - using time at the conference for participants to envision and design how they are going to be able to apply what they take away in their own organisations.


This is a fantastic idea if it can be done well (following some trial and error), and may really bridge the gap between the excitement of an inspirational event, and how to make that mean something more significant for us.  So many events are great while they're on, but processing and applying the experience only happens - if at all - in the following days and weeks, with variable results.


The 3-element model has clearly been paying its dues, and I'm very interested to further explore how it can guide the formation of collaborative groups and events.  Do you have thoughts or experiences?




www.jsbaxter.com.au
@JohnSBaxter

'Agile' - much to learn about working in complexity

I have been able to get a sense of what 'agile' is over the last month and I've had to conclude that, yes, there is vast experience in programming that will be of value for those helping government manage complexity better.

The method parallelogram

We can create a neat parallelogram, combining

• Waterfall > Agile
• Government (as it is typically today) > Redesign (and like design-thinking methods)

Waterfall programming gets its name from an approach to work where each step is completed in-full before progressing to the next stage. The issues with Waterfall programing and typical government methods are the same: the methods are built on an industrial-era philosophy of the world and work that is much simpler, and can be reduced to predictable bundles to be addressed efficiently in compartmentalised steps (along with other traits that are no longer applicable).

Agile is much more fluid, and includes (re)design-like elements, including rapid prototyping.  The heart of agile isn't a rule-book, but rather a manifesto and a set of principles.  Those familiar with design-thinking will see an obvious similarity - strip out the programming-specific elements and the heart of the approaches is much the same.

Programming methods and language generally

Programming methods and ways of understanding tasks tend to pop up in unexpected places.  I asked someone (Matt @Collabforge) their opinion on how well government manages complexity, and in response he talked of how government seems to not deal with complexity, but rather be counter-productively reductionist  - which in programming would apparently be understood as 'inappropriate compartmentalisation'.  In government, you won't have much luck explaining it, let alone have a word for it.

There's something about the very conscious logic and structure of software project management that appeals, and I'm curious about how much one can learn.

Experience

The thing that is getting me excited - particularly about 'agile' at the moment - is the experience of making this very different approach work.  The experience fighting up the other arm of the parallel. Practitioners that have had a clear vision for years, of a working method appropriate for complex systems, but still seem to need to fight to make those principles work.

So how do they fight? And where they do, how do they win?

www.jsbaxter.com.au

@JohnSBaxter

A vision of progressive policy implementation

It should not be possible to commit to broad impact, systemic policy without understanding how it will work at the micro level.

This seems an obvious suggestion when written down, but it's usually not followed - which is why basic and fundamental things like 'human centered design' are so radical to the public service.

Government approaches delivering social value quite differently to how a startup does. A social enterprise startup may have a high-level social objective, but it will fail if it tries to achieve everything at once (known as 'boiling the ocean').  No matter how central that objective may be, it needs to start by being successful delivering value at the smallest scale, to a small set of individuals.  For a startup, this is an important way to validate hypotheses about the business model - and in particular the experiences and interactions - minimise risk, and progressively seek funding for expansion. It also fosters a completely different perspective on social change to that of the bureaucrat.

There is no one approach to developing policy that will foster a better understanding of impact at all different scales.  Enterprises scale up because they need to, they operate and grow very differently to government, and the different actions of government can't be shoved into a single model for implementation. Nevertheless, there should be a better way to make policy than to design a magnificent national system, then fill in the unpredictable and inconvenient gaps known as 'people'.  It may be hyperbolic, but this is closer to reality than it should be.


Some elements of human centered design can definitely help, particularly to understand how individuals interact with numerous different government systems (think MindLab). But in other contexts, it might be more useful to rethink how programs are implemented, inspired by enterprise approaches and led by the need to understand impact at different scales. A program will first test the most central hypotheses that are the easiest and lowest risk to trial - not necessarily the smallest scale - focus on getting this right, and progressively build on the growing foundation.


Thinking like this requires a conscious approach to risk, iteration and learning-through-doing that is confronting, unsettling - far from straightforward.

Nevertheless, thinking about 'progressive' policy as an option, to deliver a broad-impact policy - particularly on a difficult issue - without testing hypotheses about how it works for actual people would be crazy.  It's a large investment and has high risk.

Government can be pretty crazy sometimes.  In fact, some days I wonder how it escaped the straight jacket.

Network-centric approaches to transforming systems

I've recently been nutting the value out of a great approach for working towards a long term vision within a complex system.  The approach was described as a 'network-centric approach to transforming systems' by John Blackburn.

I can't find much online, but John presented at a Collaboratory Melbourne meetup last November - these words are necessarily interpreted and regurgitated.

Applying a network-centric approach

It was described mostly in terms of organisational vision and capacity, but the principles fundamentally apply when:

• we have a broad-scale, long-term objective that requires systemic transformation (e.g. carbon neutrality)
• the system is complex (one we can't fully understand the operation of)

Transforming complex systems is a challenge because our understanding of them is never good enough to fully predict the outcomes of our actions.  This is why detailed, linear change plans will never work for this sort of change.  Nevertheless, we might know where we want (or need) to get to.  The network-centric approach starts by determining the key characteristics of the future you want to create (but not specific details).

Some change required is relatively simple, despite a complex context - for example increasing school attendance.  Traditional top-down policy implementation does not solve these because the context is too complex for a one-size-fits-all approach.  Nevertheless developing and prototyping local solutions (e.g. a design methodology) can make good progress because the extent of change required is more modest.

When transformation is needed, however, we need to use the system to catalyse changes - the extent of change required is too great for simple solutions, no matter how ingenious or well resourced they might be.  John referred to this as a 'pull' approach to working towards a vision.  In an organisational sense it was like implanting 'viruses' which disrupted the system to shift it onto a trajectory better aligned with the vision.  It isn't possible to know exactly what any given intervention will do, but persistently intervening can transform the system in ways that no amount of 'push' will achieve.

In other systems this intervention will take different forms, but the principle is the same: understand the characteristics you're aiming for, and intervene in ways that will disrupt the system and align it with those characteristics.  For example, trees planted along the bank of a river may hold the banks in place, encourage other greenery and plant life, and clean the water - much of which may be impractical to be created by force.

Apply to the individual

The Power of Pull was referred to that evening, and while it bears little resemblance to the content of the talk (unfortunately), it reinforces what I had been thinking - our 'careers' are sufficiently complex to approach them like this.  It might seem like we are in control and that a linear planning approach will work - this may be the case for some people. But in a highly networked, ever changing and unpredictable world, where job opportunities are more likely to open up by chance than design, it just doesn't work like that.

In part, that's the philosophy underpinning my employment policy and the way I'm going about sorting out my future in general - like this blog.

But what intervention?

What John didn't explain well was understanding what interventions to make.  Just because the impact can't be predicted doesn't mean all interventions are the same.  I'm still trying to nut that out, but I think that's where things get messy, and the simplicity of the approach breaks down.  I can't avoid the need to understand the structure of the system (e.g. that trees are an integral component of the river ecosystem, but that the kangaroos, while important, are secondary).  Your choice of action is only as good as your understanding of the system.  On the upside, if you can map them out then complex systems can have relatively simple interventions (Berlow TED talk - short but fantastic).

A complex system graph.  Times like these I'm grateful to be a mathematician!

On the other hand, your understanding might depend on actually getting off your backside and trying something. I guess that means I should get going!

-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au
@JohnSBaxter

Acting on motivation

I have done a bit of brainstorming lately on public administration and my interest in it.  It has lead me to think about a motivation>action combination which seems like a very useful starting point - not only in terms of public administration, but personally as well.

To understand the scope and space of different ways of working I needed to relate different methodologies to one another.  How can one talk about options between traditional and design approaches to policy development without being able to relate these methodologies?

Different methodologies all have different components and labels, seemingly irreconcileable, but have strong parrallels.  Starting points including problems, opportunities, policies, objectives and outcomes.  Finishing points include plans, policies, programs and actions.  So many different methodologies have vastly different interiors, but nevertheless start at something like this, and finish at something like that.  They're processes, they all start, and they all go somewhere (though they don't all finish).

TACSI working backwards approach

But they don't all start at different places.  It's not like design starts at a drawing board, but policy starts at a polling booth. Each one of them starts at some sort of motivator.

They all end at action - or at least at some sort of a program for action.

Motivator > (program for) action

So now we have some sort of a reference point to relate these different methodologies, and at least a conception of how to choose between them.  Identify your motivator, and work out what methodology is the best approach to realising it.

Unfortunately, methodolgies aren't determined by a judgement of the best approach.  They are determined by things like precedent, experience or profession.  Or where none of these are present there is no structured response at all!

What are your personal motivators?  What approach do you take to realise these?  Does this make sense considering the importance of your motivators and the options available?

-------
John Baxter
http://www.jsbaxter.com.au/
@JohnSBaxter

The conundrum of shallow skills and silo professions

One of the tricky spots of my current situation is feeling a conflict between needing to deepen my skills, but not seeing the value in committing to digging myself into a silo.

here

I am not unskilled.  In fact, I have an impressive array of randomly aquired skills, experience and knowledge.  But my skill set is shallow, and not necessarily complimentary.  This is not a vice, at my young age.  But it is not an asset, and I am feeling that - I don't know how I can really be of value to others with the shallow skill set I have.  Who on earth really needs an analyst!?

But I think about the options to deepen my skill set and I struggle to see how that will help me solve the sorts of wicked problems that aren't already being churned through the production line of specialised professionals.  If I wanted to deepen my skills I would probably stay on at the audit office another year or so to gain a bit more experience, seniority and methodology.  But that would only exacerbate the smell of wasted, rotting innovative solutions that are flushed out of the woods by preliminary audit investigation, to be then methodically swept under the rug of the infamous audit methodology.

My aim - or at least what I propose - is not to focus on deepening my skills, but on the contrary to broaden them.  To be valuable I will deepen my expertise and my understanding of systems of government, without pinning myself to a profession.  I will pivot the experience I have gained so far, find other angles, and develop ways in to government's problems that others are yet to exploit.

I know my stated interest in 'public administration systems' is too broad for all this.  I'm working on how to narrow that down.  But regardless, it's a worthy beast to fall in love with - who needs a solution, when you have a problem like that?

From screenrant interview

-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au

Some things you might want to start with

Things you may or may not know if we haven’t been in regular contact recently.

Source: from soneone's blog

I have informally given notice of leaving the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office where I work.  I call myself an analyst of public administration systems (public transport) - my title is ‘analyst’.

Am looking to pivot my experience towards something more focused on innovation and understanding how to manage systems, particularly systems of public administration (e.g. regulation, social services), to deal with what the future will be throwing at us.  Particularly interested in design-focused innovation types like TACSI.  So yes, I’m looking for work!

Have been inspired by some of my recent experiences like the global sustainability jam, and a few others that I’ll look to post about over the next couple of months...

Am trained in literature and mathematics, and have a particularly analytical approach to understanding systems.  I’d be suited to economics, if only economic theory wasn’t so void of accuracy or moral value - soapbox posts to come on this no doubt (though I’m thinking of a separate blog along the lines of Economic Philosopher - how’s the ring?)

Currently live in Melbourne, but I'm not wedded to any location.

-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au

Newer beginnings

I often end up back to the Global Sustainability Jam weekend when talking to people about what I’m up to.

The Jam is a weekend developing a concept for a service, and a pitch for it, following an abridged service design methodology.  It was a great fun weekend, meeting a lot of interesting new people.

More than that, personally, it was an eye opener.  We may not have reinvented the wheel, but we did do things so far beyond what I’m used to that we may well have reinvented me.  It may not have happened overnight - but it has certainly catalysed a process akin to some pretty magnificent shampoo.

This process may speak more to my experience and employment than anything else.  My current employer, the state audit office, has offered great experience, but I don’t think it’s a very conducive environment to further growth or - at this stage at least - effectively creating value.  It is a deathly quiet environment, extremely product-focussed and in my experience largely anti-collaborative - not conducive to the sorts of skills I need to work on.  It is hierarchical and bureaucratic despite its size, and while at the local level there is lots of freedom with the work, it is difficult to generate value more freely.    It is also driven according to processes made to maximise vertical accountability and minimise risk, which don't necessarily deliver on value.

As someone relatively intellectual, analytical and mathematically trained, who prefers to work independently, it could almost be a perfect fit.  Indeed, if I hadn’t had a few Jam-like experiences over the last couple of years it would seem natural to me, and I might never have seen the light of day.

There were a few components of the Jam that made me sit up and ask whether the world really needs to be like that - almost in shock...

We worked together - collaborative working.  You know, a group of people working together towards a somewhat common idea, making decisions based on discussion and agreement, sharing and testing ideas, contributing where we could.  No signoffs or boundaries around our roles!

We just did it - we worked with things for long enough to be able to give them a crack, prototyped, and refined.  It didn’t matter if they weren’t perfect the first time round, or we didn’t elaborate plans to mitigate the risks of uncertainty.  We did it, and learnt more by trialling than we would have by analysing it all to death

I could do it - the biggest surprise was not so much that it was possible to work differently, but that I was able to!

And I liked it!

----
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au