If only we had a new meeting structure.....
In my past life at a major manufacturing company, I was frustrated in a job I had supporting the leadership team in one part of the business.
The team met regularly and always struggled to have effective meetings. They were getting bogged down in detail, meetings ran over and out of time, and generally were ineffective.
The boss's response was always about the structural elements we needed......and the wait for that certain something that would "fix" things":
- if only we can get a new meeting structure.....
- if only we could follow the agenda......
- if only people would come better prepared....
- if only we were all really clear on our roles in the team....
The pattern seemed to be a desire to get the structure sorted, then everything would be OK and we would be functional!
Unfortunately nothing we tried made any real difference!
In looking back, I've realised that I was seeing a common pitfall when tackling complexity- seeking a simple solution when faced with uncertainty, which instead delivers delay, frustration and avoidance.
I call it lining the ducks up.
Unfortunately, in complex situations there is not likely to be a simple answer or answers, and it’s a fallacy that you can get all the ducks lined up- or that you even know what all the ducks are!
In this case it seemed that there were a few other ducks that we were avoiding- the less pleasant ones around poor relationships, lack of trust and competition.
In such circumstances, a more useful approach is to accept we may not understand the problem, resist the temptation to 'nail' the answer, and live with a little uncertainty while trying something.
An emergent approach is more appropriate as it recognises that one cannot order or design the pathway forward in such situations.
With hindsight we may have been better to step back from the boss's single-minded focus on the "right" approach (in this case the meeting structure and logistics), and given space to learn a bit more about what else might be happening (poor relationships, etc).
We might then have tried some different actions like listening a bit more, checking assumptions etc, and perhaps been more functional as a team!
Perhaps if we had set the ducks free....
Finding the grit in the dilemma
We were just creating a new Dilemma Tool for the June newsletter, and had a big "ah ha" moment.
We were going to use a simple picture of what a dilemma statement might look like to provide readers with a guide to exploring the issue they face. I was a bit dissatisfied with it as it seemed too glossy and aspirational - too 'nice'. Then we realised that it perpetuated 'business as usual' thinking around outcomes. It was focusing more on the aspirations and desired outcomes of the project and less about the existing realities that increase its complexity.
So we decided to flip the statement - rather than the aspiration first, we will put the reality of the situation first - the context of the situation in which the dilemma sits.
In our experience, such contexts include relationships and trust, politics, power and governance, competition, timeframes, levels of messiness and controversy, and behaviours.
We now believe that if we first get a sense of the context, then the dilemmas we describe are more likely to be realistic and grounded. Any statement we create is more likely to provide a solid foundation for further exploration to guide and support the collaborative problem-solving process.
A more gritty, and much more useful starting point.
The Heat(er) is on!
I was at our ski lodge over the long weekend enjoying the best start to the ski season in 20 years, and found myself in an engrossing and funny conversation over dinner.
The topic was the lodge heating system, and we had great fun contemplating a social credit system like in China to ensure compliance to the lodge conventions or "rules" around energy conservation.
What did strike me was the way the passionate committee members were approaching the pretty complex issue of lodge energy consumption and management. The approach reminded me of the "expert" and "technical" model that we see constantly in organisations we work with- while complex, the problem is pretty obvious, and so is the answer- we just need to design the new system, and tell people to get with the program.
The answer in this case could be to commit to a fairly expensive automated system of thermostatically controlled radiators in each room.
I was chewing on this later over a schnapps with some of the guests, and we explored the situation. Some interesting things emerged- one guest admitted that they always turned the radiator in their bedroom to full on each night and opened the window- he liked the fresh air to ward off the inevitable germs from his coughing fellow guests.
Another recounted that he liked overriding the boot room electric dryers in the morning because he just loved the feeling of his feet sinking into hot ski boots before braving the elements.
And I'm quite partial to the ambience of the gas fire in the lounge, and had turned it up while we chatted. I then noticed another guest had opened the balcony door to cool the overheated room.
I had this sinking feeling that all the planned good work around technical solutions was being unknowingly undermined by the guests.
I was seeing a complex system at work- not just the technical heating system, but also all the inclinations of those interacting with it- compounding a dilemma around managing lodge heating and the implications for our electricity bill.
While on my 2nd schnapps, I had a fuzzy realisation about what that might mean- that it is crucial when facing a complex issue that all the perspectives are on the table and understood before attempting to find a solution. It doesn't just mean the technical operation, but also our assumptions and habits, and how people think and act that change the way the system reacts.
If we tapped into the guests as a first step, we would build a much better picture of the problem we faced, and how the system really works. This could well lead to some more creative and lower cost solutions, rather than relying on the "obvious" answer.
Then I turned the fire up- brrr it's cold in here......
The Light on the Hill - a direction not a destination
The concept of the ‘Light on the Hill’ is useful for teams applying a collaborative approach (and Twyfords Power of Co framework) to a complex dilemma.
I’ve written a number of blogs about the difference between a project management approach and a collaborative approach.
Project management is both efficient and effective in situations where both the present and the future are known; when a team has a job to do such as developing a strategy, achieving a specific goal or implementing a plan. The project manager’s job is to:
- ensure that each member of the team knows their part in the work to be done
- support them as they do their part,
- monitor them until the desired and clearly defined endpoint is reached,
- evaluate and celebrate success.
However, when the problem is “wicked” or complex, often members of the team have different perspectives on it and “butt heads” as they argue over potential solutions to a very unclear problem or situation. The only thing that the team is likely to agree on is that none of them can successfully tackle the problem alone, they need to tackle it together.
Here’s an example of how seeking a “Light on the Hill” helped a group of stakeholders tackle a complex problem more effectively.
A client had been tasked with creating a Plan of Management for a city waterway. She was aware that over the past few decades while many such plans had been created the waterway continued to decline in water quality and amenity. Many people who cared about the waterway were unhappy and wanted change. She believed that another Plan of Management wouldn’t help. She wanted to engage with people who had energy for change; people within government, non-government and communities. She wanted them to create the change. She brought together 60 stakeholder organisations and asked for their help. Stakeholders who were willing and committed spent time (several meetings) defining the dilemma they faced because of many uncertainties, ambiguities and doubts about what was possible or what would help. They explored the problem from all perspectives and what, collectively, they wanted to achieve. They settled on their desire to create “an iconic waterway for their city” ... their ‘Light on the Hill’. This was a shared aspiration but it was not the solution.
It became the simple idea against which the group could measure the success of any activity they tried. It was not a solution to the problems of the waterway. It was a direction for the group to head for. The group developed a range of activities they could try. Each activity aimed to move them in the desired direction towards the ‘light on the hill’. If it did, they could keep doing it. If it didn’t, they could stop doing it and try something else.
When facing complexity nothing is certain. So much is ambiguous, even unknown. The knowledge doesn’t exist so the team has to act to learn. The success of any action can be measured in relation to whether it takes them closer to their ‘light on the hill’. Every action provides new knowledge and this encourages them to keep working together.
This group continues to work on their project, learning from every activity and using their ‘Light on the Hill” to guide them as they go.
When being clear may instead dull the light on the hill
I was thinking about the value of a "light on the hill" to guide a complex project, and it reminded me of a great story a colleague told me about her project and the value of keeping it a bit "fuzzy".
She had a complex issue around evaluating a major environmental plan, and the group found some challenges when trying to set the direction. Given their interest in evaluation, they found themselves naturally gravitating towards seeing success as something like 'a set of measures or KPI's'.
However they were following a collaborative guideline at the time that asked them how they would know they had succeeded, and so they took some time to re-consider what they were aiming for.
After some discussion and consideration, they agreed on a set of success factors that were quite broad eg good environmental outcomes, confidence that the actions were delivering, etc, but still provided sufficient guidance to know they were on the right track (which is all you can really do when faced with complexity where even the problem is unclear, let alone the solution.)
However what the exercise did reveal was the risk that they were running by unconsciously narrowing their vision to an objective like a 'set of measures or KPI's'. They recognised that staying with such narrow objectives may have trapped them in a business as usual approach that would constrain the potential solutions, and restrict the innovative ideas that might be possible.
As it turned out, the real value of the broader and less distinct "light on the hill" only became apparent later, with a realisation that the really innovative outcome emerging from the work was the ongoing development of an "evaluative mindset" with those involved in the project, and those who were also drawn in to the work. While measures and KPI's did also feature as elements of the emerging solutions, the real value was the change in thinking as more people saw their role in evaluating success of their interventions.
So in this case, living with a fuzzy goal contributed to smarter solutions.
A Parent's Guide to Complexity
So there we were last night, finally in bed with reading in hand when my wife put her book down, paused thoughtfully for a moment before saying “the boys seem happy at the moment”.
And it’s true. They do. They seem happy, increasingly resilient, even a little more confident in themselves. Beat the drums and sound the trumpets! Which parent of teenage boys doesn’t want to be able to utter those words from time to time. Of course we want these things for our boys, but there seems to be a problem. We don’t really know how to deliver them.
We feed them: check
Clothe them: check
House them: check
Slip them some spending money from time to time against our better judgement: check
Drive them to parties and pick them up in the wee small hours: check
Provide access 24/7 to endless Netflix and computer games: check
Educate them and give them a range of experiences to draw on: check
Yet despite this, there have been times when each of them has been deeply unhappy, even intractably so. How can that be when we are so obviously ticking the teenage boy happiness checklist?
Raising boys is complex. (Raising girls they say is even more so God forbid). So this of course means that we poor parents are sentenced to long years of uncertainty, worry, intermittent feelings of failure and an abiding sense that ‘we must be doing this wrong’.
Those feelings are understandable and probably unavoidable. After all, they come with the territory of complexity. Yet I take comfort from this idea of creating confident, happy boys, comfortable in their own skin and ‘well-rounded’. We may not know what it’s going to take to get them there but we know that this is what we are working towards. Sometimes, as last night, it seems to be quite close. Other times it seems unattainably distant.
The point is of course that we are aiming for something. Our loosely-defined destination guides us every day as we learn this parenting thing. While we can never be sure how to get there, the idea is like a light on a distant hill inspiring us to act and learn together, even when we are most unsure.
So if you are facing something complex, whether raising a family or delivering something at work, identifying your light on the hill and keeping it in sight can help you navigate the uncertainty.
Now can I go back to reading my book?
Wine, Castles and Complexity
I’ve just returned from a few weeks’ leave in Europe, including the beautiful Alsace region of France. And while I thought I was driving the route de vin for fun, it turns out I was learning something about complexity too.
The Alsace has long been a strategic cross-roads and has been claimed by both Germany and France at different times. It is a famous wine growing area, with the foothills of the Vosges Mountains draped in vines around beautiful, ancient towns.
High above the vines sit many famous castles and forts, built to safeguard the townships and trade routes below. And this is the thing that has been on my mind. While the townships continue to thrive, the castles high above are for the most part in ruins. And I can’t help but see this fact through the lens of complexity.
Here is my naïve and un-testable hypothesis. Towns arise more-or-less organically as people find ways to make life work together in a complex world. As times change lifestyles change too in an endless process of reinvention and emergence. Nobody is in charge and everyone is a decision-maker in their own small ways.
Consequently, the towns are still here and look likely to be here for another 1000 years.
But what of the castles? Unlike townships, castles don’t arise organically. They are planned, designed and built as a specific solution to a specific problem. They work while they work, but because castles exist in a complex World, that clever, fixed solution inevitably becomes a problem in its own right. Eventually, the castle is abandoned and the world moves on.
So to my questions from the Route de Vins: are towns a good example of how to make progress in the face of complexity? And do castles represent the risks of treating a complex problem as though we can solve it with a single ‘smart’ solution? One survives while the other is in ruins. Which brings me to my final question: In your organisation, are you building a castle because you ‘know’ the problem and ‘know’ the answer, or are you encouraging a town to emerge because you realise that emergence and constant innovation is essential?
I recommend the Alsace for further research….
Where Has All The Certainty Gone?
On Thursday 16th I attended the AWA NSW State Conference and came away with this one question: Where did all the certainty go? Every presentation I went to had something to say about change, about stepping “into the grey”, about “risk on risk” or “unknown unknowns”. I arrived at the conference knowing that managing water is complex. I departed with a new respect for just what that complexity looks like. Here are some of my highlights from the day, with a focus on the increasing uncertainty of the future of water. They represent my recollection and interpretations, so please don’t take them as a gospel version of what was said.
Jim Bentley, MD of Hunter Water, in his keynote spoke about the need to shift the culture from compliance to something new and emergent. In the face of disruption HW is seeking to play a positive role in the life and growth of the region. This means working with others across the region, understanding what they need and stepping together from the certainty of pipes and pumps “into the grey” of learning with stakeholders. Just what that looks like, time will tell. And how we do it? Watch this space.
Dan Berry of Water NSW described how the organisation grapples with the uncertainties inherent in managing bulk water and the system around that, particularly through drought. Just when things seem under control an external circumstance, such as the rapid growth of mining in the Hunter, increases regional demand and throws up new challenges. The world’s economy isn’t getting any more predictable, and neither is the climate, so Water NSW can expect the unexpected as a matter of course.
University of Newcastle academic Anthony Kiem took uncertainty to another level, presenting his analysis of paleo-climate data. Anthony suggests that the ‘normal’ climate is in fact more variable than our 100 years of measurement might indicate. The 1000-year record includes decades-long droughts and epochs of great rains. What would a 40-yr drought do for water supply today and how do our planners incorporate that scale of possibility into the system? Add the global warming overlay and the uncertainty ramps up more.
I watched Anthony’s presentation sitting beside Peter Miller of NSW Treasury. I couldn’t help but wonder what planning for this level of climate uncertainty may mean for the State and national budgets, and for all of us as taxpayers.
Emma Berry of Hunter Water presented on their Water Resilience program, building on Jim’s morning talk. Emma tells us that resilience is a function of adaptive capability and robustness: R = f(r,A). This applies not just to HW but to the whole community, so the question is, how does a water company work differently with the community to maximise collective resilience? HW are trying lots of great ideas, but clearly there is little about it that is certain and the ways forward must emerge in the face of this complex set of challenges.
After lunch it was all about potable reuse, which we all know is where certainty goes to die. Ian Law from IBL Solutions, Wayne Beatty from Orange Council and David Sheehan from Coliban Water each gave terrific presentations on their particular experiences. I was struck by the sense that the technology is pretty good at dealing with microbial contaminants but perhaps less so with chemicals. I hadn’t realised the complexity of that problem, which must make it more challenging when talking to the community about safety. Ian provided a great overview of what is possible. Wayne showed us how Orange City have made it happen while David highlighted the importance of that small intersecting space between regulation, technology and community education. Uncertainty in each of those circles multiplies the uncertainty of the whole. Yet if drought is becoming more common, companies and communities must learn to grapple successfully with these issues.
The panel in the afternoon discussed the challenges of managing risk and – you guessed it – uncertainty. Andrew Francis of Centroc, Dr Nicola Nelson of Sydney Water, Karen Campisano of WSAA, Andrew Graddon of Newcastle Uni and Darren Cleary of Hunter Water talked about “risk on risk”; that is, risks that add to or multiply other risks. Across the sector uncertainties come in all shapes and sizes. In the West a great challenge is finding the workers. Another is ongoing structural reform in local government, meaning the picture is more complex than ever. Technological disruption is rampant. Community expectations change by the minute. For example, in several jurisdictions there is a push on to allow access to water storages for recreational use.
Panelists agreed that the need to collaborate was more important than ever. Partnering with stakeholders, communities and other utilities to find new ways to respond to emerging challenges seems to be the way of the future.
That was about as far as I got in the day; a day full of insights and information. But there is no doubt that the one word ringing in my head as I drove home was ‘uncertainty’. Where has all the certainty gone, and more importantly, how does the water sector build the skill sets and mind sets that are required to function effectively in the grey of complexity? Perhaps that’s a discussion for the next conference.
Top Tips for Managing Complex Water systems
Managing water presents us with multiple complex challenges, such as integrated water management, reducing demand, managing catchments, solving water quality problems in urban or agricultural catchments, to name a few. These problems all tend to be problems of systems – the universe of people, politics, biology, chemistry, the climate etc. – that act on and interact with each other and the water cycle.
Because of all these interactions, systems are complex beasts, where any action is likely to have unpredictable outcomes. Solving them requires a special approach, so I thought I’d share three things I’m learning about how to make progress with complex systems.
1. Keep your options open
There are many possible ways forward in any complex system and long-term success may emerge from any place, or combination of places. Because we aren’t sure which actions will contribute to success it is important not to limit the options available to us. The moment we choose ‘the answer’ we necessarily turn our backs on all those other possibilities that just may hold the key to even better outcomes.
So, keep your options open. Test, explore and learn about your system as you move forward. Stay open to other possibilities as long as you can because you never know where that next step forward will come from.
2. Learn, don’t solve
Complex systems are ever-changing. Just think of the evolving pressures and possibilities impacting on an urban waterway over the past 100 years. The changing nature of a complex problem means there is no such thing as ‘the solution’. Rather, complexity requires an ongoing dialogue between emerging challenges and emerging responses.
So, reduce the focus on ‘solving the problem’ and think instead in terms of continuously learning how this system works and what new responses are now possible. Try things and learn some more.
3. Get the system in the room
Systemic dilemmas require systemic responses. No single factor or influence is capable of ‘fixing this’ alone. But how to ensure systemic responses? It is important to get ‘the system’ in the room. In other words, find ways to get the full diversity of actors, agents, influences and influencers together to learn, think and innovate. If great ideas can come from anywhere, we have to be talking together, everywhere.
So, get the system into the room and into the creative conversation. As you do so, keep your options open and seek success by learning and responding, rather than solving. Who knew complexity could be so simple?
When the Problem is the Problem
Recently I’ve been observing a government agency charged with improving the environmental outcomes of a waterway that flows through an agricultural district. The agency is filled with technical experts who have the job of writing ‘The Plan’, the aim of which is to ensure sufficient environmental flows.
In this context, the task for the Agency was defined in terms of how much water do we need to get back into the river system in order to ensure lasting environmental outcomes?
That definition of ‘the problem’ makes sense, but might other key stakeholders see the problem differently?
If I am an irrigator whose livelihood and lifestyle is based on extraction of water, how might I see this framing of the problem? If I’m the Mayor of a local agricultural community what might I fear? It is clear that the problem is at real risk of being interpreted by water users as “how much water will the government take from me, my farm and my community?”
That’s a pretty scary question to ponder and, and not one likely to inspire positive collaboration.
This experience illustrates how the framing of the problem can be the problem. What to do? Imagine if the water planning problem was defined as more of a dilemma: How do we ensure a healthy river supporting a thriving agricultural sector and vibrant regional communities? Now that’s a different problem, and one which invites people in rather than scares them away. And imagine if all stakeholders came together to create this definition of the dilemma that they all share. That is how to build commitment to work together.
Co-defining dilemmas can be a very powerful part of any attempt to tackle complex water management challenges. By doing this together you can ensure that your problem doesn’t become the problem. If you want to know more about where that task sits in the overall collaborative journey, you might take a look at our collaborative pathway here.