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
Showing posts with label plans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label plans. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
Curiosity never killed any cat
I realised today how valuable it has been for me to be curious.
I caught up with Mark and Matt at Collabforge for a discussion on government, collaboration, consulting and complexity. By all rights - at least according to my CV - I shouldn't be able to engage on any but the first of these topics, and I certainly shouldn't have anything to contribute. My CV shows a few areas I've been able to lay some foundations of expertise, through experience. I'm the first to admit there isn't much there (I've written before about how shallow my skillset is). But my curiosity has served me well.
I've always been a proactive learner. So in a workday I would chase references and leads to understand the policy context, rationales, mechanisms, alternatives... irrespective of whether I could identify its value. Often I would stay back for the sake of chasing things up - and though I enjoyed it, at times I definitely questioned whether I was wasting my time.
But the investment is paying dividends, as my understanding proves useful in exploring new options, making connections, and in general finding my way.
In particular, understanding is a critical base for forging my own path. If I hadn't taken that time to look out at the world, I wouldn't know how to leave the public service, even if I had a sense of the need to move. I'd have been, in short, where I was when I left uni - a wealth of opportunities, but clueless as to how to find them.
So - be curious! It can be good for you, even if it seems like a waste at the time.
-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au
@JohnSBaxter
I caught up with Mark and Matt at Collabforge for a discussion on government, collaboration, consulting and complexity. By all rights - at least according to my CV - I shouldn't be able to engage on any but the first of these topics, and I certainly shouldn't have anything to contribute. My CV shows a few areas I've been able to lay some foundations of expertise, through experience. I'm the first to admit there isn't much there (I've written before about how shallow my skillset is). But my curiosity has served me well.
I've always been a proactive learner. So in a workday I would chase references and leads to understand the policy context, rationales, mechanisms, alternatives... irrespective of whether I could identify its value. Often I would stay back for the sake of chasing things up - and though I enjoyed it, at times I definitely questioned whether I was wasting my time.
 |
| Curious cat! It never hurt (... or at least, it was worth it anyway) |
But the investment is paying dividends, as my understanding proves useful in exploring new options, making connections, and in general finding my way.
In particular, understanding is a critical base for forging my own path. If I hadn't taken that time to look out at the world, I wouldn't know how to leave the public service, even if I had a sense of the need to move. I'd have been, in short, where I was when I left uni - a wealth of opportunities, but clueless as to how to find them.
So - be curious! It can be good for you, even if it seems like a waste at the time.
-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au
@JohnSBaxter
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
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:
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).
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
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)
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
Friday, January 13, 2012
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).
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.
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
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
Monday, January 9, 2012
Initiating a personal employment policy
Employment is a tricky beast. It is weighted against us and our autonomy in many subtle ways. The world is moving on from oppositional industrial relations. But the institutions of employment are stronger and more oppressive than any boss’ own authority, and it is the individual that loses out. This post is about the personal employment policy I am developing - a tool I hope to be a modest first step towards retaking some ground.
 |
| The panopticon, a traditional ideal example of institutional oppression |
The context - a sick irrigation system
Employers still set the agenda. It might not be a manager, the CEO, or anyone in between, but nevertheless the institution drives employment arrangements. Everything from your position description to your dress code is likely set before you get the chance to comment. Within the things you have influence over, there are subtle ways your own decisions are taken away from you, like the relatively sparse information you have about any potential new workplace.
 |
| http://informedfarmers.com/irrigation/ |
Outside any given employer, the broader ecosystem of institutions weights so many of our choices that it takes monumental courage to really stand up for ourselves. Think about how financial systems, education, and the social status of employment are structured to guide you down certain pathways and into a nice little digestible box we might call a ‘job’. Think of a river dammed and channelled for productive irrigation - but at the expense of the health of the river itself.
The response - a tool to develop a thriving river
The idea behind an employment policy is that it gives you a bit of solid ground to approach employment relations in a more equal (co-creative) fashion and to help you make better decisions for yourself, rather than simply being presented with an institutions’ preferred option.
 |
| Environmental Works Services |
It is not about setting yourself up in opposition to an employer, but about being able to come to mutually beneficial arrangements - a healthy ecosystem combining the thriving of the river with the benefits of production.
My current draft policy includes a long-term vision and objectives for my next employment arrangement, including areas I am looking to develop, and the characteristics of employment that I value. A few different headings, but in essence it is quite simple - feel free to check out my first rough version (Dropbox hosted pdf).
Nevertheless, once refined I think it can be quite powerful. I expect to trial using it to
- align my short term approach to employment with my own long-term objectives and take a more strategic approach that puts me at the centre, rather than the expectations of other institutions
- articulate these things to help identify opportunities and assess my options
- articulate, negotiate and potentially formalise employment arrangements
- communicate my position to those able to help
The challenge - how to redesign a dam with a whisper
Being something new to me, the idea is to start quite basic and to refine along with my professional adventures. Once I get comfortable with the policy as a tool it can be updated periodically as things changed, and used to review how well my employment situation meets my needs.
- I would love feedback, but there are so many things worth getting advice on.
- How do other people achieve what I’m aiming for? Or on reflection, how could you?
- How should I use a tool like this? Will I scare employers off by seeming too demanding?
- What do you think of the policy, about what should be included or left out, or how it should be presented?
Do comment or contact! I think tools like this are sorely needed to help people to forge their own paths. I would love to think that I can refine this approach and be able to share something of value with others.
-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
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.
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?
-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au
 |
| 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
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Resolutions
Happy New Year!
Do you do the whole New Year’s Resolutions thing?
I did in 2011, and I am now for 2012. They worked very well last year. While they weren’t specific (so I couldn’t tick them off) they were good guidance - they’re probably not what others would think of as resolutions. The key, personally, was not to leave them hanging. You may know I plan things pretty extensively, so for me it is just a matter of making sure my plans for the year incorporate my resolutions. You don't need all those details, but here is 2012 resolutions in brief!
 |
| Presumably Calvin Hobbes is written by someone but I found this here |
Resolutions
· Pioneer: push myself of the bank of career certainty, make myself into a doer
· Engage: speak up, connect, and make real what I have learnt
· Develop broader skills: collaboration, acting in uncertainty, design, entrepreneurial, strategic planning...
· Develop personally: become a helpful, valuable, connected person, develop niche (value-add) expertise
What to do?
The resolutions are like a vision statement, just with a specific timeframe. Now you can either state them and hope that by osmosis you’ll do them, or you’ll articulate how this will happen. I do lots of things by osmosis, but nothing I can identify that matters. I do have more specific plans around these, but in short, for 2012 I will:
· Get an online presence that fosters engagement with others, particularly in an area of expertise (e.g. blog on economic thoughts or public admin)
· Get involved in exciting extra-curricular projects (tbd what exactly), and develop a practice of pursuing my own ideas
· Find a new workplace that better supports my 2012 objectives
· Develop my ‘brand’ of expertise in public admin systems (to a point of public recognition, e.g. being invited to present or write)
· (Ir)regularly review the resolutions to determine whether these actions will get me there
Checking in
In organisations reviews tend to happen when people need to justify doing what they are accountable for. They don’t happen very often otherwise. I know I’m not overly accountable for these, but I think reviewing has value for anybody looking to develop and learn from where they’ve been.
I sit down and have an informal review every* quarter against the year’s plan, and reframe activities in the meantime. This wouldn't normally be documented, but I may post thoughts here if they are of value.
Good luck with your resolutions and intentions for 2012!
-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au
Saturday, December 31, 2011
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
Pathway ID
Eureka!
I had a bit of a moment the other day.
I have previously been stumped when talking to people about what I do, for lack of any sort of position or identifier that combined my experience (and current employment) with my interest (and my future). I had also struggled to reconcile my vision for where I was going with the experience that I have, as if I was looking to start completely anew. That didn’t quite sit comfortably - surely I’ve picked up more than a few generic transferable skills.
I’ve been impressed by how well some people - like RowanKunz - have branded their expertise in a clear, simple and compelling way, without necessarily falling into a professional category. I’ve wondered - is possible for me to have that sort of clarity?
Then I hit upon a thread that draws my experience and thoughts together
systems of public administration
Now I know that might seem dull to normal people, but jargon aside I promise it’s interesting. It encapsulates so much of what I have engaged with in the last couple of years, and it also helps describe the particular focus with which I engage the social and community sector. I'll write some posts in the coming months about what it is and means.
I think it will be a very useful way to identify my professional interest, and brand my experience.
It will also be a guiding star for me to develop career pathways around - while I’ve had a sense of building on my skills by diversification, I haven’t been able to grapple actually making progress. But now, I can work to a vision of being bloody good at public admin systems, making a contribution in an area central to addressing social challenges, yet not need to be boxed into the expectations of a profession.
The idea is yet to be road tested (feel free to comment!) so I can’t exactly proclaim it a successful strategy, but simply having some clarity of thought for me to understand where I am is immensely comforting so far, and I can see this eureka moment being very valuable. How does everybody else approach what they do? Have others found clarity amongst a mess of motivation, experience, and professional labels that just don’t fit? Are people still struggling?
And does anybody out there have work for a public administration systems specialist?
-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)