Antioch
university Seattle
Stratigic
thinking and PLANNING: mgt625 Winter 2004
process comparative analysis project
. Team
One .
Richard
Beckerman
John
Bell
Jill
Hawk
Demetra
Kossligk
Gail
Cheney
Michael
Beaton
September 1, 2005
Table
of Contents............................................................................................ 1
Project Introduction.......................................................................................... 2
Search Conference........................................................................................ 4
Organization: The Museum of Flight.................................................................... 6
Task 1: Environmental Scan of Challenges.......................................................... 6
Task 2: Probable future................................................................................. 6
Task 3: Desirable future................................................................................ 7
Task 4: Organizational History......................................................................... 7
Task 5: Gap Analysis.................................................................................... 8
Task 6: Vision and Value Statement................................................................. 9
Task 7: Constraints – Force Field
Analysis.......................................................... 9
Task 8: Action Plan..................................................................................... 11
Reflection on the
Search Conference Process......................................................... 12
Scenario Planning
Process............................................................................ 15
Scenario Planning
Process Introduction.............................................................. 15
Description of the
Scenario Planning Process....................................................... 15
Constructing a Future
Narrative through Metaphors and Paradoxes.............................. 17
Team 1 Scenario
Planning Exercise................................................................... 17
Plausible Scenarios to
Validate Metaphor........................................................... 18
Plausible Narratives to
Reconcile Paradox........................................................... 18
Scenarios –
Adaptive strategies....................................................................... 20
Scenarios with
advantage.............................................................................. 21
Influencing strategies
for the desirable future..................................................... 21
Reflections on the
Scenario Planning Process...................................................... 21
Group Dynamics............................................................................................ 25
Appendix: Mapping the Emerging Future Notes.............................................. 27
Bibliography.................................................................................................. 31
This paper will describe the process that Team One followed to complete the Search Conference and Scenario Planning strategic thinking interventions. We will discuss the process, outcome, and reflections from our group on the specific interventions and then provide a summary comparison of the two tools and Porter’s Five Force Analysis. Even though the ‘Mapping the Emerging Future’ process was removed as a requirement of this project, the team had already made considerable headway in the analysis of this process. The work that was completed and some analysis are included as an appendix to this paper. In conclusion, we will provide an analysis of our group dynamics encountered during the quarter as we completed the required assignments.
The two strategic planning tools, three including the brief introduction to MEF, were stimulating and thought provoking processes. In some ways it was as if we were planning a road trip and at the beginning received a map with directions. At the end of the trip, we had learned where the potholes would be found along the way, which roads were under construction, and how the travelers own perspectives and prior experiences shaped the trip for everyone.
The search conference can be likened to determining the best and fastest way to get where we are going using existing vehicles, roads, and fuel. Scenario planning can be compared to using a new off-road vehicle that runs on bio-diesel and is part adventure/vacation and part work. It was interesting to see the infrastructure of processes geared toward finding the strategic fit of a business and those geared toward developing capacity for strategic thinking. A question that was held throughout was, “What assumptions are being made at the foundation of each strategic planning tool?”
The table in the Change Handbook (Holman, P., & T. Devane,1999) extensively addressed what conditions would facilitate a successful use of each process and structure. However it is very different to read about the road than it is to hit the pothole yourself.
The Search Conference is a group intervention that was created by Fred Emery and Eric Trist. It was developed as a participative process to assist groups of people in organizations to develop strategic plans and then action tasks to accomplish that strategic plan.
From a practitioner perspective, the Search Conference would be used in an organization tasked with strategic planning, creating new systems to deal with issues, and to properly address conflicts within planning efforts. (Holman, P. & T. Devane, 1999, p27). The first task within the Search Conference is to develop the Environmental Scan; to identify challenges and trends in the external environment that impact the organization. After that is completed, the practitioner would lead the group in identifying the probable future over the next five years that the organization has the ability to adapt to and then if those trends continue, what can the organization influence. In task 4, the group will identify the impacts to the organization from the past five years and then move into developing a gap analysis for task 5. The gap analysis involves identifying the adaptive strategies that could possibly give the organization a competitive advantage. Then the group would develop influencing strategies and create five extrinsic values. This process requires the group to think beyond the immediate problems and issues that they want to solve and begins looking at probabilities.
Task 6 involves developing a vision and value statement based on the principal themes that were created from the strategies and goals. The statement should be a compilation of the themes. The Force Field Analysis as Task 7 requires that the group identify the driving forces and the restraining forces for each goal and to identify the strength and weakness of the goals on the analysis. This action allows the organization to visualize what can aid in the success and/or hinder the success of the goals that it identified in task 6.
The action plan finally is developed in Task 8 by the group listing action items that were created by determining what actions are reinforced by the driving forces and what actions will eliminate the restraining forces. The practitioner would then facilitate the group in a process that would consolidate and prioritize the action items to complete the intervention.
Following is an example working out of the Search Conference using the example of the Museum of Flight in Seattle. Focusing on its future in terms of its position in the community, not only in Seattle, but the larger community of museums and as a storehouse of aviation history and artifacts.
Team One selected the Museum of Flight as its organization for the Search Conference intervention. One member of the team, Richard, is in upper management at the museum and so was able to provide relevant insight and direction into a ‘live’ issue for our example.
The steps and information listed below are Team One’s
responses to each of the Task steps in the Search Conference.
By focusing on what makes the Museum of Flight valuable to the communities we serve, and creatively interpreting the stories our collections tell, we seek to continuously increase our popularity with visitors and earn the continued support of our donors. We believe this cycle, coupled with taking risks and trying new ways of sharing our collection and engaging our visitors, will allow the Museum to be a sustainable enterprise forever and thereby meet the expectations of those that have entrusted their gifts to us of valuable artifacts, objects, images, and archive materials.
The following tables graphically illustrate the goals of the museum and the forces and factors involved in achieving them and the hindrances, or restraining forces, that would hinder or prevent the achievement of these goals.
· Creating new exhibits and programs that awe visitors
· Budget for the long-haul, caring for people, the environment and a enduring business
· Develop strong relationships with donors
· Promote our intellectual property resources and depth of collection
· Create an environment for experimentation by having a small fund of risk capital, or looking for donors interested in something new
· Budget expenses as though they are investments when applicable
· Focus on doing fewer things and doing them better
· Develop guidelines to reinforce strong donor relationships that give priority to the long-term needs of the Museum in terms donors can appreciate
·
Take steps every year to improve collections
management, even if just a few steps are all we can afford
1. Focus on doing fewer things and doing them better
2. Budget expenses as though they are investments when applicable
3. Create an environment for experimentation by having a small fund of risk capital, or looking for donors interested in something new
4. Develop guidelines to reinforce strong donor relationships that give priority to the long-term needs of the Museum in terms donors can appreciate
5. Develop strong relationships with donors
6. Promote our intellectual property resources and depth of collection
7. Take steps every year to improve collections management, even if just a few steps are all we can afford
8. Creating new exhibits and programs that awe visitors
9. Budget for the long-haul, caring for people, the environment and a enduring business
We struggled with the Search Process initially because it seemed difficult to spontaneously create an organization where we could all supply input that we had a stake in. So we ended up using Richard’s organization as a case study.
This left to the rest of the team interviewing Richard by asking questions and then asking for clarifications when the meaning of specific answers was unclear. For Richard, he missed having others from his organization there to help elaborate what he was saying and to provide a wider perspective. Moving into problem solving, he again was wishing the team from work was involved. A group that is intimate with the details of the organization and has formed common values is more suited to the development of refined solutions or plans.
There is a very heavy reliance on specific expertise and knowledge in the Search Conference Process as we experienced it. The lack of expertise in our group may have revealed a structural flaw in the Search Conference process: that it relies on specific expertise and does not engage group members that do not have a rich store of knowledge. The process could therefore led itself to domination by specific personalities within organizations, perhaps primarily left brain dominant participants. This is in striking contrast to this group’s experience of the ‘Mapping the Emerging Future’ process that is detailed in the Appendix.
From a practitioner perspective, the Search Conference is very specific (as the Emery’s preference) and is beneficial to organizations looking to identify tasks and action plans for the next 5 – 20 years. The intervention walks an organization incrementally through a process that allows for flexibility, systemic thinking, and creativity
Given the structure of the class and the constraints of the members of the team the opportunity to engage in this process in the intended was impaired. Though the class time allocated was used to work through the steps of the process, it would have been helpful for Richard, and possibly easier for the team if the intervention had been facilitated.
In an organization, groups would likely never be left
alone in tables of six or seven to follow the tasks on their own
timeframe. It would have kept our
group on task and not put all the pressure on Richard to create specifics for
his organization if we had been facilitated in the class which would have
provided the opportunity to ask clarifying questions. This may have benefited
the other class groups as well. This has been a major success in large group
intervention efforts. That is to
have the opportunity for everyone in the room to benefit from questions,
dialogue, and insights.
The Search Conference is a well documented and
theoretically sound intervention.
Again, with facilitation, it is an excellent strategic planning process. However, when approached as a goal in
itself it has the potential to appear as if useful information and insights are
being solicited but may actually inhibit creativity and strategic
thinking. This is a problem with a
formulaic approach to strategic thinking that should be kept in mind. That is, use the form as a guide as it
is intended. But take care to
realize that going through the process does not defacto mean serious strategic
thinking has been done.
This section of the comparative analysis will describe the scenario planning process, identify the strategic planning paradigm with which it can most be readily identified, construct the future narrative through metaphors and paradoxes while outlining those scenarios that are of advantage and outlining the influencing strategies for the desirable future. The section will conclude with reflections from the team on the process.
From a practitioner perspective, the scenario planning process would begin with introducing the participants to the concept of systems thinking, holistic ecological paradigms, and strategic thinking and planning through the process of scenario planning. This begins by describing and charting the Epistemological Continuum – described as past (known-known – history to present; predetermines); present (known-unknown; projected future, uncertainties), and future (dreamt future; critical uncertainties, wild cards).
A key concept of the scenario planning process is that by engaging the participants in a creative exercise it “jolts” the participants in thinking in ways that they have not done before. The epistemological continuum, which describes the critical uncertainties and the wild cards of the future, is a chart that the practitioner would use to help move the participants to forming imaginative scenarios that incorporate myths or metaphors. The importance of the myth and/or metaphor is that these offer “a conduit between cognition and insight and between insight and foresight” (Boga, 2005) which is not based on memory. The wild cards of the epistemological continuum are big surprises that are unexpected but can be triggered by a weak signal – sometimes known as the butterfly effect. (Boga, 2005)
The next step of describing the scenario planning process is to contradict the myths or metaphors by creating and identifying paradoxes. These paradoxes are intended to create insights that would not be created outside the process. As stated by Boga, “in scenario planning, we imagine future scenarios that depict a plausible future – between a probable and improbable future” which in itself seems counter-intuitive. (2005) The step of creating paradox is shaped based on participants intuition and focuses on creating their “strategic intent” for the vision of the organization. Creating the strategic intent based on intuition forces the participants to create foresight that identifies current trends, driving forces, probable scenarios, improbable futures, and then creating metaphors, narrative scenarios, and reconciling the paradox.
The first action step in scenario planning is constructing a future narrative through metaphors and paradoxes. The practitioner would first facilitate the group to determine what system the group wants to explore and then identify current trends in that system. It is helpful at this point to assist the group in determining whether the current trends are identified as having a strong or weak signal. Multiple domains of driving forces are then identified for the system.
The next step in the process is that the participants would create a probable scenario (critical uncertainty) and improbable future (wild card) based on the current trends and driving forces. The group would then create a metaphor based on the two scenarios and then, based on that metaphor, brainstorm and construct stories that bring the metaphor to life.
At the conclusion of constructing stories the participants move to identifying plausible narratives to reconcile paradox. The first step is to identify polarities – probable (strong signal) and improbable (weak signal) and then state the paradox of those polarities. The group then creates plausible narratives based on the polarity and paradox previously identified.
The process that Team 1 completed is listed below. The team chose to explore the system of post-graduate futures and during class identified the current trends, driving forces, probable scenarios, improbable scenarios, and a metaphor and paradox. The work on metaphor and paradox narratives occurred during on line discussions. The work is described below.
System to explore: Post-graduate Futures
Current Trends: Increase in pay; increase in marketability; increased whole systems influence on culture
Driving Force: Economy (globalization, off-shoring, etc.); social systems; politics
Probable Scenario: In 25 years, collectively we have achieved better economic situations and have more respective influences on social cultures.
Improbable future: In 25 years, world-systems collapses/stagnates; rendering the graduate degrees collectively and individually meaningless.
Metaphor: Improved economic situations become meaningless due to the collapsed/stagnated world-systems.
Paradox: The more we achieve, the less it means.
1. As post-graduate systems thinkers we collectively develop a system of exchange, goods and services, which decreases the global deficit.
2. Post-graduate WSD alum finds a way to control the global economy through collective consciousness manipulation.
3. Antioch alum develops a globally marketable, economically sound and environmentally supportive system of trade that freezes the world market trading system.
4. The more we achieve and learn in a higher educational setting, the less it means as globalization occurs and there is over-saturation of highly educated persons around the world.
5. The more we achieve and learn as post-graduates, the less it means in a global economy.
6. Post-graduate status is influential: Economic situations improve.
7. Post-graduate status is NOT influential: Economic situations collapse.
8. Post-graduate status is influential: Economic situations collapse.
9. Post-graduate status is NOT influential: Economic situations improve.
o
In 25 years, our collective post-graduate status will
be highly influential.
o
In 25 years, our collective post-graduate status will
be meaningless.
o
The more we achieve post-graduation, the less it will
all mean.
o
Post-graduate status is influential –
Post-graduate status is NOT influential
o
Economic situations improve – Economic situations
collapse.
o
Higher education has become the trend, leaving trade
schools empty and industries without skilled labor; leading to the increased need
to outsource skilled labor to other countries.
o
Increased competition in entrepreneurial endeavors by
post-graduates decreases the grooming of skilled business leaders and
destabilizes the US business futures; strengthening the global business
futures.
o
Stabilized global futures evens the playing field
worldwide, taking away the need for competition; changing the social construct
and changing the societal needs hierarchy.
o
After a significant world-system failure, the specific
information we have retained from higher education is no longer applicable, but
the need for creative thinking during a systemic crisis is increased. What we
know is useless, but our abilities to think and organize become indispensable
survival and reconstruction skills.
o
After a world-system failure, we are able to take a
significant role in rebuilding the entire global society that would have been
impossible if the collapse of the old world-system had not taken place.
The six scenarios based on our system of post-graduate futures are: 1) post graduate status is influential and the economic situations improve; 2) economic situations improve but then collapse; 3) post graduate status is not influential and economic systems collapse; 4) post graduate status is influential and then becomes non-influential; 5) post graduate status is influential but economic systems collapse; 6) post graduate status is not influential but yet economic situations improve.
In developing adaptive strategies for each of these scenarios, we will need to address what actions need to be taken to mitigate the strong and weak signals. For scenario #1 an adaptive strategy could be to continue to support higher education and limit the number of graduates to avoid saturation of the global market by post-graduates. An adaptive strategy for #2 could be to improve sustainability and the balance of trade within the global economy and for #3 create opportunities for post graduates and reduce the number of post graduates to ensure that the job market is not saturated with educated workers. For #4, an adaptive strategy could be reduce the number of post graduates by restricting entrance into higher education to ensure high marketability of those graduating and by supporting and investing in business that requires a highly skilled and educated work force. An adaptive strategy for #5 could be to provide additional opportunity for education in those areas that could provide stability to the global economic systems. For #6, an adaptive strategy would be to restrict entrance into post-graduate programs to reduce the number of highly educated persons in the global work force to create a demand for high knowledge employees.
The scenarios with advantage to the group are those that increase the influence of post-graduates and improve the economic situations.
Influencing strategies for the future would be to develop a system of exchange goods and services that decreases the global deficit, find a way to control the global economy through collective consciousness manipulation, and developing a globally marketable, economically sound and environmentally supportive system of trade which demands sustainability world wide. In addition limiting the number of post graduates so that the market does not become saturated with highly educated workers would balance the global workforce by continuing to support trade schools and higher education.
In reflecting on the scenario planning process, once adequate time was spent exploring metaphors and paradoxes the process flowed and did indeed “jolt” the group into thinking outside the box. Without the metaphor and paradox scenario narratives it would have been difficult to brainstorm the 4x2 scenarios. Metaphor and paradox provide a framework in which to construct the stories that many organizational groups may not be able to develop without the process of scenario planning.
A critical question for the team was how metaphors, paradoxes, and polarities move the group process forward. The answer that they are just triggers to get the group to increase their creativity and their stories helped visualize actually using this process as a practitioner or leader within an organization. The concept of strong and weak signals also helped develop the current trends and increase the awareness of what is happening from a systemic perspective.
The Scenario Planning process is able to take a group further up the ladder of strategic planning
than the Porter Exercise or the Search Conference. Thinking of “strategic planning” as a ladder, each process
takes an organization further toward creating a desired future. A creative
future would not otherwise have been envisioned using only institutional
knowledge, past assumptions and bias. Having used the scenario planning process
an organization will have utilized creativity and story-telling to project into
the future desirable plausible scenarios.
Porter's method - considering rivals, suppliers,
customers, potential entrants, and potential substitutes - provides a way to
scan the environment and assess an organization's position. We were in different groupings for this
exercise, but generally the sense was that it was limited in helping the group
look into the future. It was more
like poking one's head up and looking around with blinders on, and only those
specific directions being viewed could be pursued. Significant strategic errors
seem possible because of this constraint.
Search Conference, as a process, appeared to help the
group look deeper into the future, much further beyond an immediate
environmental scan. It brought
together the organization's aspirations and history, then providing visibility
to the strategies and values that led to a better understanding of where the
organization is in relation to it's espoused values. The force field analysis tool revealed hidden dynamics within
the organization that provide a picture of possible leverage points. Completing the effort leaves the
participant's with a prioritized action plan. This process felt more thorough than Porter's, but still felt
tied to the present. The action
plan elements were strong but also seemed like incremental improvements to the
existing paradigm.
Scenario planning shared some of the elements of Search
Conference, but caused much more healthy disruption of extant mental
models. Creating an array of
metaphors that generate a range of inquiry from curiosity to absurdity is
liberating. The process relaxes
thinking such that new potential can be considered and given form. It brought the group conversation out
of the realm of internal organizational dynamics and into what is changing in
the environment.
And finally, the short while we were engaged with the
‘Mapping the Emerging Future’ method, while it felt much more difficult,
generated yet more creative thinking.
Clearly we spent but a little time with this method, but the
conversation-tested assumptions of whether we better off now than a long time
ago and whether the likely near-term future is likely to develop toward a
desirable future. Seeking for what is needed in the future knowing that it may
only look like magic liberates one from constraints of practicality. This is
both potential for striking creativity and for a marked loss of apparent
authority to the group from those outside the process.
There appeared to be preferences for specific process
models based on personality or organizational culture. This could create a
situation where the process model selected by the group rather more reinforces
the existing mental models of the group than tests or expands them. This
group’s experience of the Search Conference was one that highlighted that
process model as one that would reinforce the position and power of knowledge
holders in an organization. This group’s experience of ‘Mapping an Emerging
Future’ showed potential for reinforcing the position and power of creative
individuals in an organization. If an organization selected a comfortable
process model, they may be failing to develop the most useful outcome no matter
which model was selected.
The power of facilitation in all three process models was
a significant concern. Especially revealing was the way in which the ‘Mapping
the Emerging Future’ process was abandoned due to the need for skilled
facilitation. While this group’s experience of MEF was not apparently
problematic, it did rely heavily on facilitation by specific members of the
group. Undue influence on the outcome of a planning process could result from
facilitation that is unable to allow each group to develop their own outcome
through the process. If facilitation merely develops the facilitator’s desired
outcome, then the process becomes one where the facilitator has merely tricked
the group into confirming the facilitator’s own agenda.
Each process model had specific advantages and
disadvantages for this group. This group’s experience seems to suggest that
care must be taken that a process model is selected that is comfortable but not
too comfortable for the group. Further, the facilitation must be skilled, but
not overbearing.
Our group, as a whole, engaged and focused on the process
while in class. As a group, we
worked out how the scenario and MEF process was meant to unfold, stayed on task
and even loosened up and had some fun.
At the beginning of the Scenario planning process, there was a somewhat
apprehensive approach to this process.
This was due, in part, to a feeling that this process may not be
applicable to strategic planning that we see ourselves doing in our individual
organizations. For example one
member wrote: “A second component of this process that felt outside the norm
of my own working environment is the “imaginative” work required. In my own
working environment is the “imaginative” work required. Most situations I deal with at work are
issues that need to be solved and it felt uncomfortable to contemplate what my
current job or workplace might be like in 25 years based on the development of
a weak signal to a strong signal.
The process did not feel like “real” work to me.”
As we continued to work together our group began to feel more comfortable in the creative space and began adding the details that make a good story. As a whole, I would say that the group worked mostly by consensus and different leaders emerged throughout the day depending on individual areas of interest and expertise and the need in the group. Michael was particularly helpful in helping the group to clarify process and products toward the end of the day. John emerged as a leader around the ideas of metaphor and paradox. Jill and John helped immensely by capturing our work for the day and posting those notes very quickly on FirstClass. Richard helped the group keep the focus on the work and also kept us moving along in addition to being the ‘holder’ of the Search Conference project.
Each person contributed to the process with narratives that reflected each individual perspective as well as asked clarifying questions to better understand the narratives that emerged. Each person in the group contributed to both the scenario planning and the MEF process. Our group did spend more time on the MEF process in class. Even though this part of the project was cancelled it was felt that enough effort had been expended that it would be worth including it in this document.
Our group had a more difficult time connecting online and outside of class time. One significant reason is that this is the first course that many of us have had together. We are from different cohorts with different “online” norms. We set up a schedule of tasks and “online” due dates, however, outside influences of jobs, travel, and other courses made it hard for our group to connect. Despite this the presentation of material and the use of the class-time set aside for working on the project allowed for most of the work of the group being completed during class Essentially the only remaining task left after class was the final editing and actual drafting of the final paper. Finally, and perhaps most important: scenario planning is something that is done over time with a core group of people with the specific intent and result of building relationships, group creativity toward a goal of developing meaningful strategies and plans.. It is hard to truly invest in a process that feels a little like “make believe” and then to try to continue that effort online.
Overall, although our group work may not have met the
expectations that we each brought to the process as individuals, we have
completed the work and are presenting a product that reflects our collective
ideas and learning in the area of scenario planning.
For the implementation of the
Mapping the Emergent Future process, our group chose to focus on the health
care system in the US. We had some group expertise in healthcare, but felt that
over the entire group would be able to contribute important information from
their own experiences.
Because of the fluid nature of
the process, we developed an outline of our specific implementation.
1.1 individually visioning past &
future
1.1.1 grounding in the state of
healthcare in 1900
1.1.2 what is the near-term future of
healthcare in 2006?
1.1.3 transported from 1900 to the
present, what exists in present, undreamt of in 1900
1.1.4 transported from the present to
2050, what in the present objects and ideas are antiquated
1.2 share these visions online
1.3 reflect online, collectively on
visions
2.1 individually determine trends from
shared vision and reflection
2.2 share identified trends online
2.3 reflect online, collectively on
trends
3 combine shared visions, trends based
on group reflections as part 4.1 of the paper
4.1 individually reflect on the process
and outcome
4.2 share these reflections online
4.3 combine these reflections as part
4.2 of the paper outline
As a group, especially during
the initial discussions of the process, we had significant difficulty in
getting a clear notion of what visioning was required. For example, we found
ourselves constantly mixing what context our vision was coming from and on
which temporal object we were to focus. The following graphic attempts to
display the various visioning stages in our outline, and clearly demonstrates
that there is ample room for confusion.
We spent a large portion of our
discussion in grounding our collective understanding of the state of healthcare
in the year 1900. Some of the context we were able to develop follows:
Because so much
of our discussion centered on developing a shared context of the historical
state of healthcare it is apparent that to properly implement MEF the group
engaged must have a shared understanding of the context. This implies that
either the group must already possess significant background in the topic of
discussion, which means the need for experts in the discussion, or the context
must be developed at the time of the discussion, as we undertook to do. This
reliance on expertise is not dissimilar to the other methods of strategic
planning, but this necessity appears to be masked by the room for creativity in
the MEF process. It may be non-obvious to the participants that there is a need
for expertise because of the reliance on creativity.
As a source of
planning, MEF appears to stand in direct opposition to the Search Conference.
In spite of the necessity for expertise suggested above, the MEF process is
clearly geared toward the use of creativity by participants. This suggests that
the MEF process is far more likely to be greeted with enthusiasm by creative
organizations, or by groups of creative individuals within organizations. If
the group does not recognize the need for expertise on the topic of discussion,
there could develop resistance to the outcome of the process for lacking
authority by non-creative elements in an organization.
Because the MEF
process was dropped as a requirement, there is an opportunity to reflect on
another potential weakness of the process. A group in an organization is
unlikely to be able to implement the process without experienced or capable
facilitation. This reliance on the facilitator bodes ill for the replicability
of the process within an organization after the initial exposure to MEF. This
reliance on a facilitator also suggests that the facilitator may have undue
opportunity to influence the work of the group and could force the group to
conform to a mental model peculiar to the facilitator. Under extreme
circumstances the facilitator could sabotage the process in either gross or
subtle ways that would undermine the outcome.
If the group
had been able to continue with the MEF process, much more could have developed.
The initial context building discussion was broad and deep in scope, and
suggested that the remainder of the process would have been equally informative
and creative.
Boga, S. (2005). Strategic Thinking and
Planning. Class lectures.
Cannon, S., Boga, S. (2003). “Mapping the
Emerging Future” presented at the 40th International Conferece of
the International Society of System Scientists.
Gibson, R. (1998). Rethinking the Future:
Rethinking business principles, competition, control & complexity, markets
and the world. London, UK: Nicholas
Brealey.
Holman, P., Devane, T. (1999). The Change
Handbook: Group Methods for Shaping the Future.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Weisbord, M. (1987). Productive Workplaces:
Organizing and Managing for Dignity, Meaning, and Community. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.