Quoth

This is an overdue post. 3 things that needs to say first.

First: Almost a year now, I was busy with my work and Quoth blog programs. This includes understanding practice generalization more, developing Connecting Practice and Practitioner Group communication campaigns, and overcoming the difficulties of the undertaking in the process.

Second: I feel a need to give thanks to Bob and the AR List for the great thoughts that help me to reflect and think more about practice generalization.

Third: As plan, this piece describes more about practice generalization to explain further its fundamental ideas.

Moreover, in making an effort to describe practice generalization, the terms below might help you to understand the topic:

1. Generalized practice - I agree with the writing of candee basford dated 20th of July 2007 when she said, “The knowledge that is generalized, in my experience, is a way, the approach, an experiment for ordinary citizens to move about and learn in uncertain situations.”

2. Generalizable - I also agree with the writing of candee basford dated 20th of July 2007 when she said, ‘The “findings”, as they have been referred to in this discussion, seem better suited as stories that can be shared at the local level. I think one could anticipate that these stories (findings, actions, outcomes, insights, experiences) could inspire something but not exactly like the original. In this way they generate something (generationable?). … If by generalisable, we mean transferable, adopted in other settings and moments - then I would say it depends.’

Moreover, a generalizable practice in my understanding is more of knowledge (tacit) that we carry in our minds. Usually it is a solution (ways, means, or approaches) to a problem that we transferred to others by making contact; coding and storing it in certain media; sharing and articulating it with others; and allowing it to flow in increasing of connection and/or implementing of something new.

I believe that the transfer of knowledge is a crucial approach for creating common education.

3. Instances - I like the writing of David Tripp (by way of Bob Dick) dated 6th of August 2007 when he said, “However, as the purpose of action research is improved practice, when- and where-ever improved practice is achieved and others get to know about it, they tend to try it too, and so the practice is generalised as it moves from “it happened once here” to “it happens, here, there and everywhere!” and that’s so much more relevant and important in terms of the method than categorical generalisation of other kinds of research.”

However, I thought of the movements from “it happened once here” to “it happens, here, there and everywhere!” as the instances of practice. Instances are cases, examples, or occurrence of generalizability.

4. Pattern - It presents consistent detail and describes sets of relation among practices.

5. Property - It is an attribute of practices, which reflects the processes; programs, reviews, or workflows; procedures; method, techniques, or know-how-steps; planning, administration, functionalities, or technicalities.

6. Generalizability - I disagree with the writing of Ian Hughes dated 24th of July 2007 when he said, “If I may be allowed another comment on generalizability, the Cynefin framework for knowledge management in complex systems claims that there are four knowledge domains which can be called simple, complicated, complex and chaotic. Broadly speaking, positivist, reductionist science (including generalizable research) can make valuable contributions to knowledge in the simple and complicated domain. These methods are not useful in the complex knowledge domain, where a search for scientific generalizability is largely fruitless (except for the complicated and simple bits that are part of a complex situation). Much participatory and collaborative action research seeks to increase knowledge/understanding and improve practice in complex systems or situations. If Dave Snowden and others who use the Cynefin framework are correct, the role for generalizability in the scientific sense is quite limited in this domain.”

By reason of, generalizability in my understanding is a practice set (common properties) of practices (A, B, C, and/or etc.). See also 8. Decomposition (Practice Generalization Modeling Principles) below as supporting details.

Moreover, generalizability offers the following two (2) forms:

a. Proven practice - Generalizability from experience is a proven practice. Usually a proven practice is supported by evidence as proof of the general claims.
b. Assumed practice - Generalizability from another practices is an assumed practice. Usually an assumed practice is suggestive. That is, it gives a person something to think about, organizes his/her thoughts, and influences him/her to try it. Here our understanding informs our action, or the assumed practice is tested in our action.

Further, generalizability can be generated using a method or tool to identify and understand it.

7. Base Generalizability - It is a type of practice set that can be inherited. Typically, it contains the general attributes of generalized practice.

8. Derived Generalizability - It is a type of practice set that inherits some of its characteristics from the base practice set of generalized practice. It contains the specific properties of base practice set.

9. Practice Generalization - It is a process (spiral in nature) that we carry in our minds with a certain purpose (value premise of certain setting and situation) and generalizability necessary to operate subjectively and objectively to accomplish the end cited in the value premise. Usually the process starts to take shapes when we reflected and thought about a need of producing a sense of results

Furthermore, Practice generalization is not a sense of something applying the generalizability to all because it only serves to tell us that the generalizability is framed in a way that allows it to be used to produce same outcome in similar setting and situation. Using the generalizability in other setting and situation would only lost its value to accomplish its purpose.

To understand more what practice generalization is, consider the fundamental ideas described below.

One of the most common sets of activities in Quoth, Connecting Practice, or Practitioner Group (an application in this context) is practice generalization, wherein a person in a managing environment, whether it be office, school, home, or one’s workplace, wants to generate his practice based on certain setting and situation, let say, as father in a family; define his practice; and specifies all his “father-related” roles and responsibilities on purpose, such as ” head”, “provider”, “husband”, and “etc.” as dictated by or directed to support other practices. That is, he obtains and preserves the wholeness of an existing direction in striving to accomplish specific purpose.

Observe, other fathers in the application hold a different set of descriptive attributes or facets. Yet, they focus on the same purpose and achieve this same father practice on similar setting and situation.

In the event that a father learns about the other father practices interconnected in the application; and wants to remodel and enhance the quality of his father practice from these father practices, he can simply remodel his father practice by originating and capturing the practice set of these father practices using one or more modeling principles below:

1. Examination - A modeling principle that challenges a practice to generate generalizability. Usually an issue is raised when a practice is challenged by questioning:

the value of the practice, that is, the purpose to be accomplished or served;
the means to achieve the purpose;
the different definitions used in the practice; and
so on.

The intent of examination is not to knock the practice down, but to test or see how far the practice would apply.

Moreover, examination helps us to bring the unexpressed practice to light; make practice distinctions; see the structure of a controversy and organize our thoughts better for knowing and decision making; and create emerging data, information, knowledge, and possibilities to understand, support, or reject the practice.

2. Purpose (the value premise of certain setting and situation) - A modeling principle that must realize first by a generator of practice to take steps in working with possible competence to achieve results. Usually it is perceived while the generator of practice is contemplating to a “why” question. The answer to the “why” question is to accomplish the end cited in a value premise.

Moreover, purpose provides direction and helps a generator of practice to put a generalized practice into order when the generalized practice is confronted by pattern of base (unstable); disruptive program and functionality; and rough period (increase complaining) condition that could initiate a weak, divided, distracted, shaky, and/or inadequacy problems. This includes removing the generator of practice to focus on needed direction, development momentum and wholeness, and/or correlation with others.

Purpose is required to serve as a bridge in achieving aspirations.

3. Network - A modeling principle that models generalizability with legitimate responsibility relationships and interdependence.

Moreover, network is an environment that helps a generator of practice to organize line and staff relationships to think in innovative terms and complementing others in achieving results.

4. Alliance - A modeling principle that models generalizability with political stability and reliable security needed against unpleasant conditions.

Moreover, alliance is an environment that helps a generator of practice to build relationship and interdependence with others to achieve results.

5. Inheritance - A modeling principle that inherits the characteristics of practice set of practices to generate generalizability.

6. Polymorphism - A modeling principle that allows generalizability to be used by different people.

Moreover, polymorphism is the ability of different people to respond, each in its own way, to an identical practice.

7. Alignment - A modeling principle that directs generalizability to support a form.

Moreover, alignment helps us to get better understanding of our practices by connecting it with other forms of similar understanding.

8. Decomposition - A modeling principle that allows a generator of practice to break a practice into parts, or forms - each of which represents generalizability.

For example: A practice has started after obtaining the approval to go ahead. The relationships between forms are as follows:

a. Form 1, Form 2, Form 5 can start at once.
b. Form 1 and Form 2 must be completed before Form 3 and Form 4 can start in that order.
c. After Form 5 is completed, Form 6 can start.
d. Form 3, Form 4, and Form 6 must be completed before Form 7 can start.
e. After completing Form 7, Form 8 and Form 13 can start in that order.
f. After Form 8 is completed, Form 9 can start.
g. Before starting Form 10, Form 9 must be completed.
h. After Form 10 is completed, Form 12 and Form 11 can start.
i. After Form 11, Form 12, and Form 13 are completed, Form 14 can start.
j. Must complete Form 14 before starting Form 15.

The above is the form relationship of the practice.

Note that the occurrence (returning the result) of one form may trigger (initiating a request to carry out) the succeeding actions of another form - here it is called event. The event between forms, that is, the events before the accomplishment of the end cited in the purpose of the practice are called extended and/or intermediate events.

The above construct is an ideal solution in solving complicated, complex, and chaotic problems.

9. Modulation - A modeling principle that devides a form into a careful set of generalizabilities interconnected with synthesis in a mainly top-down fashion.

Moreover, modulation provides a systematic and transparent inventory, and a framework for evaluation and refinement of generalizability information.

10. Stepwise development - A modeling principle that constructs more patterns in focusing and strengthening operational direction.

Moreover, the stepwise development helps a generator of practice to initiate cooperation and collaboration with others.

11. Integration - A modeling principle that proceeds in an order governed by pattern interdependencies and wholeness of purpose.

Moreover, integration has a focus departmental and individual purposes that unites, utilizes, and aligns generalizability in the fundamental structure and natural processes of operation; makes clear priorities; and eliminates guessing about next move to achieve results.

12. Abstraction - A modeling principle that draws an analogy between and/or removing certain properties of practices allowing concentration on the properties they do share, so that a generator of practice can see the commonality.

Note that an analogy is stronger when the practices compared have a greater number of significant points in common and weaker when the practices compared have a greater number of significant points of difference. That is, the result separates what’s important from what’s not from the practices and leads a generator of practice to discover the fundamental relations at work and adopt the interested characteristics to affect the purpose.

13. Encapsulation - A modeling principle that compartmentalizes the elements of an abstraction that constitute its properties.

Moreover, encapsulation is the result or act of packaging practices and resources together. It allows certain creation of generalizabilities.

Here a generalizability of father practices will be generated from any of these modeling principles to yield similar outcome in similar setting and situation once carried out properly and with passion.

Also observe, much of a father’s work deals not only with his family, but with group, management, or organization as a whole in reality. Thus, a father can generate more than one practice and define them “Supervisor”, “Manager”, or “etc.”

‘m most interested in what others’ thoughts might be.

“The knowledge management tool for strategic planning is going to be the reality of our time.” That is how I would like to start this study pieces. I offer you this statement because I wish to persuade you to my creativity. The intention is to raise and suggest solution to a problem and invite you to reflect and think about the preliminary outcome of the study.

By any large, our thought or action in understanding and engaging of matters cannot be taken for granted. We must be systematic and specific on doing things to achieve our desired attitude, program, and functionality. However, our shortcomings in strategic planning have brought us into unstable disposition to achieve our purpose. The premise is that, there is something fundamentally wrong with our method in feeling, reflecting, thinking, and taking on matters efficiently with respect to the law, professional ethics, and human nature. That is, we fail to generate results that satisfy the true requirements and conditions placed upon us by ourselves and others. To resolve these problems, we must uncover and examine some of their theoretical and practical sources to identify corresponding solution.

There are many evidences of existence of our shortcomings in strategic planning. One of the evidence could arise in our lack of understanding on the process and planning language - the lack of understanding on the process and planning language of strategic planning brings about group strategy formulation difficulties. It is a situation wherein the possible numbers of participants to work on the same strategy could get in the way of group’s ability to work effectively. By reason of, that possible number of participants may not be ready to engage on group strategy formulation because of their lack of understanding on the process and planning language of strategic planning. That is, group strategy formulation requires collaborative and cooperative effort among participants who must be individually strategic. A further, many of our educational institutions do not offer strategic planning training. Or company and/or individuals in informal education, and training and/or professional institutions do offer strategic planning training only to people who can afford the course like those people in executive and managerial positions.

Another evidence of existence of our shortcomings in strategic planning is that the participants who collaborate and cooperate on the same strategy may not be working on it at the same time, so they may not be in the position to talk things over and keep each other informed about details of the plan. This difficulty may happen because collaboration and cooperation is impeded often by barriers of time.

Then within our belief, the problem arises because of our ignorance that affects or influences our decision-making[1] - the condition is influenced by the lack of view one feels, reflects, thinks, or takes on matters. One may believe that confusion (a belief crisis) may arise from the condition. The manifestation of our belief crisis could explain why our behavior behaves disorderly or negatively in achieving favorable results. A good example is that, one may fail to determine how s/he can act out in society and how s/he can live his/her lives because the belief crisis may hinder him/her to fulfill the essence of his/her endeavor.

Next we lack tools that assess our readiness and help us develop our skill sets and/or expertise to engage matters. The lack of tools explains why we from time to time stop and remedy our situation, if not hinder us to achieve our goals and/or objectives. It is a condition wherein we always take to address and confront our avoidable concerns and/or issues of matters. This usually involves various driving forces, or major influences that affect our behavior negatively in achieving favorable results.

Lastly within our expectation and hope-for-results, the problem arises because of strategic planning deficiency. It is a situation wherein the plan is not producing the intended results. The following questions of Harris, Hank M., Eight Problems With Your Firm’s Strategic Plan, might be helpful in confirming, explaining, and understanding more some risks with this problem[2].

1. Does our process produce a plan that’s “real?” I have seen many planning efforts involving a facilitator who knows nothing about the industry (for example, a generic management consultant) or one who knows too much (a former practitioner). For lack of a better approach, these facilitators run everyone through an academic model. The result is a hyperbole-laden mission statement and a dozen loftily written goals. Nowhere in the process did the participants adequately ask themselves how to gain a competitive advantage or produce results in the market. They have a strategic plan, but they have no strategy.

2. Is our plan “strategic?” Two issues are involved. First, did you use a model that lends itself to a strategic plan–not to be confused with a business plan, a marketing plan, or a five-year financial projection? Second, did you deal with strategic issues? Many planning teams wind up discussing operational issues if the facilitator does not remain vigilant.

3. Do we have adequate external focus? Firms that have never been through the process often produce plans that are internally focused. Good strategy is externally focused. If your plan drives towards markets, clients, alliances, acquisitions, etc., you’re probably in good shape. If it focuses more on “reengineering your core processes” or housekeeping issues, get ready for your staff to start sending you Dilbert cartoons.

4. Do we make sufficient use of outsiders? You definitely want to use some outside participants or facilitators. Many firms boast of doing strategic planning all by themselves, but that approach is flawed. Surgeons do not operate on themselves or their family, and lawyers maintain that “he who represents himself has a fool for a client.” The dynamics are the same in a good planning process.

5. Does our plan really work for the organization? For it to work, the plan must be effectively communicated and sold inside the organization. In working with senior management planning teams, I have occasionally asked them to write down their firm mission from memory. Often this request produces a chuckle and then a realization. After all, if senior managers don’t know their firm mission, how can it possibly mean anything downstream? Similarly, the plan must become part of the firm’s collective conscience. It must really drive behavior. Involve people, refer to the plan at meetings, and promote it. If you go through all the work to develop a plan and then let everyone forget it, you have wasted company time and resources.

6. Is our plan actionable? Occasionally, the top people dream up a lot of ideas, commit them to paper, and call the exercise strategic planning–even though no actions or measures of progress are put in place. Without specific assignments to individuals, due dates, and measurable objectives, the plan may be little more than a wish list. Obviously, no strategy is worth much until it’s implemented. The plan needs to be translated into measurable components and discrete individual activities.

7. Is anybody doing anything? Someone has to follow up to ensure that people execute the plan. People say they will work on strategic initiatives, but then go back to their everyday roles and spend all of their time on “real work.” After all, it’s more immediate, tangible, and within their comfort zone. I’m not advocating management by embarrassment, but there must be enough follow-up, rewards, and consequences to put teeth into the actions. If nothing else, the process should enable you to get more done than you would have otherwise.

8. Are we getting lost in executing tactics, but missing the big picture? At the other end of the spectrum, some firms (especially engineering firms) get things done, but the group becomes so absorbed in tactics that they lose sight of the overall goal or strategy. Strategic planning is just the framework for strategic thinking. To be effective, your planning team must regularly reengage the process and reassess the quality and viability of the overall strategy. The best strategy usually evolves. It doesn’t just happen over a partners’ weekend.

Needlessly, we spend so much time passing through this thought or action on which we repeat the same behavior over and over. We usually failed to realize that such impositions does not accomplish what we think we really want to accomplish and may even be making matters worse, if not trapped in unsuccessful behavior, wasted time - the most careful observation of this behavior and what are known as absence of order behavior, which I intend to emphasize is disorder. The following seventeen basic syndromes of organizational disorders of Albrecht, Karl, 17 Basic Syndromes of Dysfunction: The Power of Minds at Work: Organizational Intelligence in Action, 2002, might be helpful in explaining and understanding more some certain risks of this behavior[3].

1. ADD: Attention Deficit Disorder. Senior management cannot seem to focus on any one primary goal, strategy, or problem long enough to gain momentum in solving it. Typically, the CEO or the top team will hop around from one new preoccupation to another, often reacting to some recent event, such as a hot new trend, a key move by a competitor, or a change in the marketplace. A variation of this syndrome, the “too many irons in the fire” syndrome, involves a whole raft of programs, or “initiatives,” most of which squander resources and dilute the focus of attention.

2. Anarchy: When the Bosses Won’t Lead. A weak, divided, or distracted executive team fails to provide the clear sense of direction, momentum, and goal focus needed by the extended management team. A war between the CEO and the board, or a major battle among the members of the top team can leave the organization without a rudder. Lacking a clear focus and a set of meaningful priorities, people begin to scatter their efforts into activities of their own choosing. Without a sense of higher purpose, unit leaders put their own priorities and political agendas above the success of the enterprise.

3. Anemia: Only the Deadwood Survives. After a series of economic shocks, downsizings, layoffs, palace wars, and purges, the talented people have long since left for better pastures, leaving the losers and misfits lodged in the woodwork. They have more at stake in staying put, so they outlast the more talented employees. When conditions start to improve, the organization typically lacks the talent, energy, and dynamism needed to capitalize on better times.

4. Caste System: The Anointed and the Untouchables. Some organizations have an informal, “shadow” structure based on certain aspects of social or professional status, which everybody knows about and most people avoid talking about. Military headquarters organizations, for example, tend to have three distinct camps: officers, enlisted people (or, as the British call them “other ranks”), and civilian staff. Hospitals tend to have very rigid caste systems, with doctors at the top of the heap, nurses in the next lower caste, and non-medical people toward the bottom. Universities and other academic or research organizations tend to have very clearly defined categories of status, usually based on tenure or standing in one’s field. These castes never appear on the organization chart, but they dominate collective behavior every day. Caste categories usually set up de facto boundaries, promote factionalism, and tempt the in-group members to serve their own social and political needs at the expense of the organization and to the detriment of the lower castes.

5. Civil War: The Contest of Ideologies. The organization disintegrates into two or more mega-camps, each promoting a particular proposition, value system, business ideology, or local hero. The split can originate from the very top level, or it can express profound differences between subcultures, e.g. engineering and marketing, nursing and administration, or the editorial culture and the business offices. In some cases, the dynamic tension between ideologies can work to the benefit of the enterprise; in other cases it can cripple the whole operation.

6. Despotism: Fear & Trembling. A tyrannical CEO or an overall ideology of oppression coming from the top causes people to engage in avoidance behavior at the expense of goal-seeking behavior. A few episodes in which people get axed for disagreeing with the chief, or for questioning the lack of ethics and leadership, and everybody soon learns: keep your head down and don’t draw attention to yourself.

7. Fat, Dumb, and Happy: If It Ain’t Broke… Management guru Peter Drucker once observed, “Whom the gods would destroy, they first grant forty years of business success.” Even in the face of an imminent threat to the basic business model, the executives cannot muster a sense of concern, and cannot come to consensus on the need to reinvent the business.

8. General Depression: Nothing to Believe In. Sometimes things get really bad, such as during an economic downturn or a rough period for the enterprise, and senior management utterly fails to create and maintain any kind of empathic contact with the rank and file. Feeling abandoned and vulnerable, the front line people sink into a state of discouragement, low morale, and diminished commitment.

9. Geriatric Leadership: Retired on the Job. When a CEO has had his or her day, either for reasons of physical health, psychological arthritis, or personal obsolescence, he or she may hang on to the helm too long, refusing to bring in new blood, new ideas, and new talent. This syndrome can extend to the whole top team, whose members may have grown old together, committed to an obsolete ideology which once made the enterprise successful, but which now threatens to sink it.

10. The Looney CEO: Crazy Makes Crazy. When the chief’s behavior goes beyond the merely colorful and verges on the maladjusted, the people in the inner circle start behaving in their own crazy ways, in reaction to the lack of an integrated personality at the top. This begins to look like a kind of syndicated craziness to the people down through the ranks, who find themselves perpetually baffled, bemused, and frustrated by the increasing lack of coherence in executive decisions and actions.

11. Malorganization: Structural Arthritis. A defective organizational architecture works passively and unremittingly against the achievement of the mission. Departmental boundaries that don’t align with the natural processes of the operation or its work flow, conflicting responsibilities and competitive missions, and unnatural subdivisions of critical mission areas impose high communication costs, inhibit collaboration, and foster internal competition.

12. The Monopoly Mentality: Our Divine Right. When an organization has long enjoyed a dominant position in its environment, either because of a natural monopoly or a circumstantial upper hand, its leaders tend to think like monopolists. Unable or unwilling to think in competitive terms, and unable to innovate or even reinvent the business model, they become sitting ducks for invading competitors who want their piece of the pie.

13. The One-man Band: Clint Eastwood Rules. A “cowboy” type of CEO, who feels no need or responsibility to share his or her master plan with subordinates, keeps everybody in the organization guessing about the next move. This creates dependency and learned incapacity on the part of virtually all leaders down through the hierarchy, and renders them reactive rather than potentially proactive.

14. The Rat Race: They Keep Moving the Cheese. The culture of the enterprise, either by design or by the style of a particular industry or business sector, burns out its most talented people. A prevailing notion that one must sacrifice his or her personal well being in order to get ahead, possibly in pursuit of big financial rewards, definitely creates a goal focus, but at the expense of cooperation, esprit de corps, and individual humanity. A reduction in the commissions or other elements of the financial cheese creates a sense of victimization and resentment, not a sense of shared fate.

15. Silos: Cultural & Structural. The organization disintegrates into a group of isolated camps, each defined by the desire of its chieftains to achieve a favored position with the royal court, i.e. senior management and the kingmakers at the top. With little incentive to cooperate, collaborate, share information, or team up to pursue mission-critical outcomes, the various silos develop impervious boundaries. Local warlords tend to serve their individual, parochial agendas, and evolve patterns of operating that favor their units’ suboptimal interests at the expense of the interests of the enterprise. These silo patterns tend to create fracture lines down through the organization, polarizing the people who have to interact across them.

16. Testosterone Poisoning: Men Will Be Boys. In male-dominated industries or organizational cultures such as military units, law enforcement agencies, and primary industries, the rewards for aggressive, competitive, and domineering behaviors far outweigh the rewards for collaboration, creativity, and sensitivity to abstract social values. In non-”coed” organizations, i.e. those with fewer than about 40% females in key roles, executives, managers and male co-workers tend to assign females to culturally stereotyped roles with little power, influence, or access to opportunity. This gender-caste system wastes talent and often stifles innovation and creativity.

17. The Welfare State: Why Work Hard? Organizations that have no natural threats to their existence, such as government agencies, universities, and publicly funded operations, typically evolve into cultures of complacency. In a typical government agency, it’s more important not to be wrong than it is to be right. Lots of people have “no-go” power, i.e. the power to veto or passively oppose innovation, but very few people have “go” power, or the capacity to originate and champion initiatives. Welfare cultures tend to syndicate blame and accountability just as they syndicate authority: you can’t take risks, but if anything goes wrong you get to blame the system.

Moreover, the question, how can we achieve the validity and reliability of strategy with these shortcomings and difficulties in strategic planning, however, remain unanswered. Thus, the intention of combating these shortcomings and difficulties in strategic planning is the key factors why the current phase of creativity and development of the study is made into existence.

References:

[1] Quevedo, Orlando B. O.M.I., D.D., The Challenges of the Great Jubilee to Catechesis and Catholic Education, CBCP Monitor, that all may be one… Jn. 17:21, VOL. IV No. 20, October 8, 2000

[2] Harris, Hank M., Eight Problems With Your Firm’s Strategic Plan, URL address: http://www.planning.org/consultant/eightpr.html

[3] Albrecht, Karl, 17 Basic Syndromes of Dysfunction: The Power of Minds at Work: Organizational Intelligence in Action, 2002