PHILOSOPHY and HISTORY

HISTORY of how to THINK

4th century BC

Gang of Three (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) advocated adversarial thinking

The Dark Ages favoured faith and superstition

17th century

During the Renaissance, scientific experiments replaced faith /

superstition

1967

De Bono advocated parallel thinking

HISTORY of how to GOVERN

Tribalism: ritual, kinship, shamanic wisdom

Autocracy: ‘King George commands and we obey’Feudal hierarchy: king > nobles > commoners > serfsBeliefs: Divine right of kings

Democracy: majority vote is fairest Meritocracy: pass exams to enter civil service

Adhocracy: take account of minority opinions

HISTORY of MEETINGS

Tribalism: Meetings: Tribal parliament Autocracy: Meetings are only advisory

Democracy: Committee of representatives Meritocracy: Committee of experts

Adhocracy: Meetings: Self-organised group

LABOUR RELATIONS

1. Adversarial / positional bargaining (UK)

a. Each side separately prepares issues, objectives & strategies

b. Opening meeting states initial positions, evaluate each other

c. Bargain by conceding less critical items

d. Close when a fairly acceptable compromise is reached

e. If can’t find a compromise, go to mediation, then arbitration

2. Interest-based collaborative bargaining (Ireland, Germany)

3. Power sharing (very rare, First attempted by cooperative movement)

Employees heavily engaged in strategic & operational decisions

ORIGINS

Facilitation:cooperative movement aimed to eliminate oppression and dependencyreplaced hierarchical management with facilitated decision-making

Dialogue:developed by a physicistsimilar to ancient tribal parliaments

VALUES

LIBERTARIAN CORPORATION (Dewey)

= an integrated environment that provides work and learning in a democratically controlled setting

IDEAL SPEECH SITUATION (Jürgen Habermas)

= effective equality of chances to take part

Need reciprocity and symmetry

Don’t necessarily need egalitarian relationships

Whatever you say, it won’t be used against you

ASSUMPTIONS

CLAIM TO REASON:We are required to demonstrate sanityActions and ideas must be justifiedPeople have to talk and be convinced

CONSTRUCTIVIST:Each person learns from experience.Each person’s language has different meaning

DIALOGUEReality is an unbroken wholeness in flowing movementThought is a collective enterprise arising from discourse

LEADING FROM THE FRONT

Facilitators try to avoid leading from the front.

INTELLECTUAL COMMAND: State an opinion, provoke and answer questions Set challenges

INCENTIVES APPROACH Focus the group Drive learning, Give reasons to learn Draw out positive and negative emotions Handle conflict

TALKING ABOUT REQUIREMENTS

ORIGINALLY One analyst met one stakeholder at a timeThis one analyst was expected to: hear and understand everything the stakeholder says, identify important points and write them down, plan what questions to ask next, think through the feasibility of stakeholder’s suggestions, estimate costs and explain what IT can / can’t do, help the stakeholder to think through what is needed, reassure worried stakeholders, cope with difficult stakeholders, satisfy conflicting requirements.

ATTITUDES

Types of analyst: different levels of confidence analyst worries about lack of skills > IT managers happy, users OK analyst is using systems approach > users happy, managers worry analyst says there isn’t a problem> users & managers dissatisfied,

Types of user: different reactions to change: innovator – always agrees, enthusiastic, unpopular with colleagues opinion leader - critical, negotiating on behalf of weaker colleagues early majority - change when it seems safe, followers of fashion late majority - won’t change till they have to traditionalist – always opposes, disenchanted, entertains colleagues

ONE-TO-ONE CONVERSATIONS

Early conversations: stakeholder spills lots of detailed information (protocol description) analyst suffers cognitive overload (assimilate + record mass of detail) misunderstandings may lead to:

either: Aha! learning events (with signs of aggressive behaviour)or: Misunderstanding persists > stakeholder disengages

lots of patience and goodwill on both sides - may get used up lots of opportunity for gaming - often not taken upLater conversations: reflective technique, attempts to re-frame (time, resources, control,... reporting on progress, responding to complaints analyst suggests solutions > stakeholders spot obvious mistakes structured walk through > stakeholders don’t understand spec

METHODS for one-to-one conversationsUse a spider map: to identify preconceived ideas and check them out to recognise unexpected news and write that up in detail to manage the subject-matter of the conversation (what to ask next, have we covered everything, this relates to this …

Manage learning events: identify disconfirming evidence (unexpected news, odd statements … decide whether to check it out now or later (avoid being aggressive) constructive aggression is a good sign (they’re busy learning)

Cope with transactional games: Why don’t you..., Yes but... > What solutions have you tried? Now I’ve got you... > How can we fix it? / I’ll fix it right now. Harried > Who else could represent this group?

I.T. MANAGERS CONCERNS

Direct IT resources to maximise business advantage. Spread use of IT throughout all groups. Give stakeholders what they want. Help stakeholders to think through what they really need. Suggest how to take advantage of new technology. Limit demand, as demand always outstrips supply. Standardise to improve service delivery. Mediate among conflicting user demands. Avoid getting embroiled in organisation politics.

A DIFFERENT ‘FEEL’

BEFORE RAD I decide what happens next. I’m in control. I should see users more.

FIRST TIME USING RAD This is all going too fast. No time to get things done right. Spending all my time on admin.

WITH EXPERIENCE OF RADI can be in control if I say: ‘That’ll have to do.’ ‘It’s good enough.’ ‘Just slam it out.’