INCREASING INTEREST IN THE VIABLE SYSTEM MODEL:AN EXAMPLE OF THE TECHNOLOGY OF PARTICIPATION
Stuart A. Umpleby
Department of Management Science The George Washington University Washington, DC 20052
January 9, 2005
A report on an exercise in a doctoral seminar at the University of St. Gallen St. Gallen, Switzerland, January 8, 2005
INTRODUCTION
On January 8, 2005, Stuart Umpleby led an exercise in the Participatory Strategic Planning procedure developed by the Institute of Cultural Affairs. The participants were doctoral students in a seminar on cybernetics and systems theory usually taught by Prof. Markus Schwaninger, who was on sabbatical. The students in the seminar were Stephan Dahlem, Frank Haupenthal, Stephan Herting, Florian Hotz, Markus Kreutzer, Christoph Lueders, Nicola Malcherek, Dirk Martignoni, Kai Roemmelt, Lars Stein, Christof Trauffer, Widar von Arx, and Inge Voss.
The Participatory Strategic Planning (PSP) process involves five steps:
4. Systematic Actions
Each step of the PSP process uses the Consensus Workshop method. This method entails five steps:
The exercise was conducted in English. The purpose of the exercise was to demonstrate group facilitation methods and to develop plans for promoting the Viable System Model.
Five focus questions, all related to the content of the seminar, were suggested.
The students chose the fifth option. So, the demonstration of Participatory Strategic Planning addressed the focus question, How can we convince people (managers) to apply the Viable System Model? For each step of the PSP process there was a more specific focus question. The vision focus question was: What is our vision of what we want to see happening in about five years? The contradictions focus question was: What are the contradictions/ obstacles/ barriers to achieving this vision? That is, since the VSM was first published in 1972, what is preventing its widespread use? The strategies focus question was: How can we remove the obstacles to achieving our vision?
Due to limited time only the first three steps in the Participatory Strategic Planning process were conducted in this class. When a planning exercise is conducted with a business or government agency, usually it is conducted during a weekend, often in a "retreat" setting, when there is more time. Ideally people from outside the organization are also involved, particularly during the final parts of the planning activity. These people can relate their experiences with similar problems, suggest alternative actions, and provide sources of needed materials or skills. In addition, outside observers may be impressed with the planning exercise and decide to conduct one in their organizations.
RESULTS OF THE TOP EXERCISE, UNIVERSITY OF ST. GALLEN, 1/8/2005VISION
ADAPTABILITY (VIABILITY) MEASURED AND MONITORED Intelligent acting organizations People feel motivated to make suggestions Organization is viable (survives) Appropriate profit margins for the product range Continuous process improvement Successful monitoring of the environment Periodic surveys to determine if people are using VSM language and tools
NEW PATTERNS OF ORGANIZING Flat organizational structures New communication structures Organization develops and controls ALL their processes according to VSM Quality management designed according to VSM VSM provides a logic to mediate among TQM, BPR, KM
VSM BASED TOOLS ARE AVAILABLE Email distribution groups organized by VSM Empirical research (maps) of who talks to whom (consistent with VSM?) Periodic surveys of how the various units are communicating and helping each other for purposes of improvement Performance indicators developed according to the VSM VSM software is widely accepted and used
SHARED UNDERSTANDING AND VISION OF THE ORGANIZATION Reflexive behavior is a precondition for VSM Common understanding: We are a viable system Everyone speaks one language: VSM Managers and employees are able to see and analyze problems through VSM “glasses”
THE VSM IS A STANDARD TOOL IN CONSULTING PROJECTS One of the big consulting companies uses VSM as a standard method Schwaninger and Umpleby consulting group smashes McKinsey and Boston Consulting Group in profits and sales in organization practice
USING THE VSM EVERY DAYVSM is the basis for daily business Routine use of the VSM in management practice VSM is used internally in some organizations (not via consultants)
BETTER SELF-UNDERSTANDING VSM is known by managers Responsible co-workers (due to better understanding of how the organization works) Competencies are better known by everyone
VSM IS KNOWN AND TAUGHT IN BUSINESS SCHOOLS On-going research on the VSM and its utility
CONTRADICTIONSLACK OF POPULARITY AND SUCCESS STORIES Different goals lead to different understanding of the company Practical implications (daily details) are not elaborated yet and not tested on a larger scale Missing proof of superiority No marketing to promote the VSM What is exactly the strategic aim/ purpose of VSM? Lack of clear goal Traditional business schools stick to their old style Uncommon inventor (Beer) No success stories from firms that already use the VSM Organizations think they already are “viable” without using the VSM
UNCLEAR COST-BENEFIT RATIO Does VSM provide a benefit to the customer? Benefit (for daily use) is not clear Just another tool: It is time-consuming and the benefits are unclear First only the COSTS are visible The possible outcomes and gains of using the VSM are unclear Is using the VSM worth the change effort required to implement it? Perceived to be of benefit only to consultants
MISSING TOOLS Measurement methods are needed: How do we know that we are a viable organization? Education of employees is needed Do we have the right data to achieve good results using VSM? People have no competence in using the VSM (no experience) Who designs the company specific VSM tools? What are the costs? VSM is TOO holistic: organizations need special modules for special problems, like SAP
EMOTIONAL RESISTANCE People might feel uncomfortable using a biological metaphor in business Middle managers fear losing power Differences in culture Not invented here effects Resistance to “new methods” Unclear incentives for employees
VSM PERCEIVED TO BE TOO COMPLEX VSM is not easy or simple to transfer VSM language is different from people’s daily/ usual language VSM is perceived as much too theoretical by colleagues A large effort is necessary to maintain everyone’s awareness of the VSM
TIME INTENSE IMPLEMENTATION No time for change and experimentation VSM could mean additional bureaucracy Existing capacities are totally absorbed by day-to-day business; so no time for VSM VSM might be regarded as an extra exercise, in addition to daily business
MISSING INCENTIVES FOR THE CONSULTING INDUSTRY What are the incentives for consulting firms? If companies would routinely use the VSM, consultants would lose their cash cows Do consulting companies that focus on VSM survive?
STRATEGIES
DO PROMOTION Publish articles in practitioners magazines (e.g., HBR) Create a marketing strategy for the VSM comparable to quality awards Provide success stories Create marketing ideas and materials Find a well-known and admired leader that supports VSM (e.g., Jack Welch)
SHOW FEASIBILITY AND CREATE CONFIDENCE Search for successful examples and promote them Implement prototypes Install VSM in all social levels: families, govt agencies, NGOs, big corporations, SMEs Place VSM supporters in big consulting firms
ACADEMIC RESEARCH Organize VSM conferences and symposia Do extensive research on practical implications and benefits Offer a 2 week short course to provide interested scholars with the VSM foundations Prove its success through experiments and trials
FIND MONEY FOR RESEARCHFind a rich supporter to provide $30 million to fund the research Obtain funding
INCORPORATE VSM INTO EXISTING TOOLS Use VSM as an “umbrella” concept Add VSM ideas to quality award criteria
DEVELOP TOOLS Incorporate VSM ideas into big software packages
REFERENCES
Prytula, Yaroslav, Dragana Cimesa, and Stuart Umpleby, “Improving the Performance of Universities in Transitional Economies,” Presented at the annual meeting of the Alliance of Universities for Democracy, Pecs, Hungary, November 2004.
Umpleby, S., Medvedeva, T. and Oyler, A. “The Technology of Participation as a Means of Improving Universities in Transitional Economies,” World Futures, Vol. 6, Nos. 1-2, pp. 129-136.
Umpleby, S. and Oyler, A. “A Global Strategy for Human Development: The Work of the Institute of Cultural Affairs,” Proceedings of the annual meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences, Crete, Greece, July 7-11, 2003.
|