Reasons for failure

One of the key reasons for failure or poor or ineffective governance relates to lack of effective governance framework and methodology which leads to either total failure (Nokia, Motorola) persistent economic decline (Greece and Italy), fragile system (Italy) impacting resilience and poor performance.

According to Doerner (cf Doerner 1992) six classes mistake people are prone to make  in coping with and intervening in complex systems:

  • Class I: The perception and description of system objective is too narrow. It is imperative to clearly define the system  in order to understand the system and its emerging behaviour
  • Class II: The situation analysis of a system focuses on quantitative data and static aspects  without considering dynamics and causal relationship. Systemic transformation requires thorough system architecture  and dynamic analysis
  • Class III: Intervention in a complex system irreversibly focuses on single favorite aspect. This can be overcome by means of relevant transparent teams to address problems and adaptation adopting Team Syntegrity to filter-out bias
  • Class IV: Blindness of side effects. This can be overcome by adopting Causal Loop diagrams to identify cause and effect relationship and more important identify emerging patterns of behavior.
  • Class V: The intervention is a complex system are first to weak and then too strong. System dynamics modelling can be used to evaluate efficacy of intervention. Systemic cockpit is also fundamental to evaluate systemic systemic state, achievements of its goals and via feedback its efficacy.
  • Class VI : The intervention in complex system is dominated by authoritative behavior that overestimates level of understanding of the system. This can be overcome by means of adopting Viable System Model as a governance approach for design and diagnosis furthermore Team Syntegrity tend to diminish authoritative behavior.

Organization have spent billions trying to improve things. They invested billions (trillions in It) believing in the magic bullet of ERP. From a methodology perspective there is no single winning formula to manage change, adaptation. Organizations tend to apply latest fashion rather than what really works. Some examples:

  • Business process re-engineering
  • Business process modeling
  • Enterprise architecture framework
  • Six sigma
  • Business model canvas
  • System thinking

Most of the above in reality lead to minor improvements or just get filed away. Most don not even have a realistic system control tower to assist with understanding system state and its projection. Many experience the following:

  • Lack of practice and effective systemic learning. Mistakes are good they assist learning process and allows
  • Lack of clear view related systemic view of goals, essential variables, historical values, events
  • Poor association of essential variables to system elements
  • Lack of balance with respect to innovation with transformation.
  • Lack of true effective systemic data – System cockpit
  • Lack of team working, and lack of skills. Failure to associate right skills to adaptation process, failure to invest in right skill
  • Weak CEO sponsorship, CEO not trusting his own people
  • Transformation initiative focused on wrong things
  • Poor System governance framework; traditional management structure do not enable effective governance
  • Inability to coordinate the right people to undertake innovation and transformation
  • Key failure related to lack of the right knowledge
  • Lack of investments to build the right knowledge
  • Lack of efficient use of knowledge
  • Misguided direction of knowledge
  • Enforcing mental constraints

Reality in order to succeed, a systemic integrated approach is needed using a various tool-set and exploiting combined intelligence, know-how of many rather than single person or outside consulting firm.

This implies exploiting the collective intelligence within the organization with external input where needed. It is a known factor that the characteristics of the individual participants as causal factors that make up a group more intelligent, and also regular practices of a team effort that made it consistently more creative, especially when it had to come up with novel solutions. The importance of cognitive diversity; a characteristic that is perceived to be a must-have for groups dealing with complex issues. It is important keep in mind that for diversity to play for (not against), certain conditions need to be fulfilled.

Leveraging the system compared to leverage function is extremely complex and difficult to realize. Organizations require a specific protocol that must make every effort to integrate and to network the knowledge which is available within the organization; exploit collective intelligence and cognitive diversity via a protocol that becomes an effective catalyst for knowledge generation and dissemination. This protocol raises the organizational system to a new level of communicative competence and operative efficacy and thus leads to system achieving competitive advantage relatively quickly , effective (accuracy of the what) by targeting strength and consensus.

In order to exploit collective intelligence and cognitive diversity a team protocol is needed to achieve major leverage. This protocol in order to exploit team synergy is based on the Team Synergy (based on Team Syntegrity) as a framework. This is a structured, non-hierarchical process for highly effective and efficient dialogue that leads to much faster, more informed outcomes and aligns people behind resulting decisions, messages and action plans that have a high chance of implementation.