Naomi Stanford

This past week I've heard the words 'business model innovation' several times. So now I'm curious to know whether this is a passing fad or a more sustained interest in the topic. Four different things all took me to the business model innovation place:

First, an HBR Idea Cast, Finding Profits in a World of Free, interviews Saul Berman of IBM who is just about to publish (February 17 according to Amazon), a new book Not for Free: Revenue Strategies for a New World. The puff on the book says:

It used to be only dotcom start-ups lacked workable business models. But now the ubiquity of cheap communications and computing is deeply wounding business models across the board. …

What can you do to ensure that you have a business model that will work today and in the future? Create new revenue models, advises Saul J. Berman in Not for Free. The most important strategy now is wringing new income streams from existing assets, physical and digital, by exploiting new segments, new uses and new value additions.

And in the podcast Berman discusses this. It's worth the 15 minutes or so of listening and whets the appetite for reading the book.

Second I discussed the learning session that I've been asked to facilitate at the Association of Professional Design Firms' Annual Meeting and Exchange in San Francisco in May this year. The topic I'm working with the group on is on business models, but it takes a step back from how to innovate them tackling more earthy questions like:

• How safe is it to assume that you know what your business model is?

• What is a business model is and why is it important?

• What makes a business model more or less effective (and how do you define effectiveness)?

• How can you make your business model more effective?

One of the pre-reads for this is the HBR article How to Design a Winning Business Model, Harvard Business Review, January-February 2011. The article opens boldly, stating that

Strategy has been the primary building block of competitiveness over the past three decades, but in the future, the quest for sustainable advantage may well begin with the business model. While the convergence of information and communication technologies in the 1990s resulted in a short-lived fascination with business models, forces such as deregulation, technological change, globalization, and sustainability have rekindled interest in the concept today.

Third – on the Innovation Management website I read a book review of another new book on business models: "Seizing the White Space- Business Model Innovation for Growth and Renewal", by Mark. W Johnson, published by Harvard Business Press.

Reviewer Paul Hobcrafts says "It is emphazised throughout the … that before you venture into any new business model you do need to ensure you have a deep understanding of … your current business model."

(Now I've written so far, I notice a small theme. All three items are Harvard Business publications. So, I'm wondering if Harvard Business is ahead of the trend, setting the trend, and/or has a vested interest in the trend – but that is a side thought.)

Fourth, having read so much about business models and innovation I went back to look at what I had written on the topic in my book Corporate Culture: Getting it Right. My section on it starts:

As one manager asked: How is it that companies with radically different cultures can be massively successful, and yet companies in the same industry with similar cultures – for example HSBC and Barclays – may have different levels of success? And how come some companies can expand successfully internationally and others can only be successful in their home markets?

The answer to such questions lies in the business model – the "what and how" of a business. A company's business model is a simplified representation of its business logic.

And I continue by explaining that:

The business model is the terrain of the organisation. It is analogous to the topography (mountains, plains, and so on), which is one of the factors that affect the climate in a particular zone. As the topography informs the climate (and vice versa) so the business model informs the culture. Although two companies, for example two banks, may be in the same industry, compete in similar markets and appear to have similar cultures, they are almost certain to have different business models.

Even if you know that you need to Innovate or change your business model this is not done easily as the example of someone I talked with recently illustrates. Their company developed a specialized technology and was the innovation leader in the field. Over time other companies entered the space with more successful innovations. At this point the company is considering changing its business model – veering away from innovation towards commoditization. The spokesperson noted the inherent tensions in this:

What comes with this business model change is mainly a structural change but with some process changes. Alongside these we are pushing for significant cost cutting. At the moment customers expect a bespoke response. But we can't afford to do this across the board some areas of the markets we want to serve will be more commoditization which will enable cost efficiencies. As we change course though we have to be aware of the impact on the culture – people come to us and stay because we are known for innovation. We can't sacrifice our talent in going for commoditization – and we have to stay innovative for our many of our customers if we are to keep our market position by challenging and exciting people.

Twice last week the work 'Placemaking' came up. So is this a new buzzword and why hadn't I heard it before? OK – some small research confirms that it is definitely not a new buzzword. It's been used by architects and designers since the 1970's. My search for it on Grist "rassled up 265 results." (I think 'rassled' is a new word -yes if the fact that Google couldn't throw up a definition means it is a new word).

But 'placemaking' is new to me because I am not an architect or a designer of physical spaces. It just happens that I am now at a point in my work life when physical design and organizational design are intersecting. Office space is not just within the scope of the facilities manager but within the scope of the employees and organizational designers/developers such as myself.

Thus the explanation of 'placemaking' given by the Project for Public Spaces made perfect sense:

Placemaking is a multi-faceted approach to the planning, design and management of public spaces. Put simply, it involves looking at, listening to, and asking questions of the people who live, work and play in a particular space, to discover their needs and aspirations. This information is then used to create a common vision for that place. The vision can evolve quickly into an implementation strategy, beginning with small-scale, do-able improvements that can immediately bring benefits to public spaces and the people who use them.

Placemaking capitalizes on a local community's assets, inspiration, and potential, ultimately creating good public spaces that promote people's health, happiness, and well being …. this [participative] process is essential-even sacred-to people who truly care about the places in their lives.

The project that I'm involved in at work is designing office space for a largely mobile population. They'll use the building much more as they would use a hotel: booking space, coming in when face to face is required (see my blogs 'Aha Moments', and 'Face to Face or Not), and working in a space that is not 'theirs'. But this doesn't mean that they won't want to have either a say in what 'their' hotel looks and feels like, or a say in how 'their' hotel is operated by and for them. This means involving the workforce in helping design the space they will use.

Bill Heisler, Steelcase, makes the point that 'workplace is a social science question'. In his view it involves aligning elements of social life, spatial design, and informational access and this can only be done by involving employees in shaping what the space will be like. In an excellent case study on Radio Shack Heisler explains how the 'Ideas Lab' was set up:

Many businesses test products before buying them. Furniture mock-ups and small, short-term test spaces are not uncommon. Few companies take this strategy to the level of the Ideas Lab. A dedicated space of 8,000 sq. ft. (and another 2,000 sq. ft. for storage) the Ideas Lab included workstations, team spaces, common areas, quiet rooms, and more.

The Lab's purpose was to test the design and development of workplace concepts. In addition, a wide variety of possible architectural and furniture solutions were carefully tested: ceiling and lighting scenarios, full-height movable walls, raised flooring, under-floor air and voice and data distribution systems, whiteboards, worktools and more. Most important was how these products and applications supported RadioShack's work processes.

Collaboration and participation are not new methods in organization design/development work, but applying them to space design and use is something that I haven't come across much and it's good to know that there is a whole new area of expertise that can be shared between the organization behavior people and the space design people.

One of the thoughts that intrigued me was the notion of measuring the organizational productivity improvements against what PPS describes as the four key qualities of place:

they are accessible; people are engaged in activities there; the space is comfortable and has a good image; and finally, it is a sociable place:

And they provide a Place Diagram that suggests both qualitative and quantitative measures of place that could be adapted for organizational uses.

On measurement of place one of the Grist articles discusses a measure called the Jane Score:

[T]he Preservation Green Lab's Liz Dunn and Walkscore's Matt Lerner have recently been tossing around a cool idea: the JaneScore. It would be a metric that counts all the subtle features that make for a healthy urban neighborhood, as famously articulated by the late Jane Jacobs.

The key attribute is diversity. In my interpretation, the JaneScore would focus on measuring diversity in a wide range of elements, such as building width, height, condition, style, and age; commercial space use, size, and rent; housing unit type, cost, and tenant demographics. Metrics to rate the vitality of street life would help round out the score.

Again this approach could be useful in measuring workplace performance in relation to space and space use.

So lots of things to think about as I delve into the concept of 'placemaking' with the architects and designers I'm working with.

This week Wikipedia celebrates 10 years and I've read several pieces about this. One ends "Wikipedia is already starting to look rather stiff and middle-aged. To ensure its long term health, it needs to rediscover the flexibility of its early years". I liked this vision of an organization as a person with a personality. How does one keep an organization from creeping into arthritic old age?

One way that organizations try is by changing their logos as part of an effort to rebrand themselves in the public eye. Starbucks, turning 40 this year is one of them. There are lots of others. I was working for Prudential Insurance in the UK when it changed its logo from something I don't remember (I think an orange oblong) to the woman with the red headband that it still has. There was a huge internal launching party and much heigh ho about this but I our work did not change, nor did the way we did it.

Logo changes with no accompanying organization design changes seem to be rather like cosmetic surgery with no accompanying lifestyle changes. A facelift might make you look superficially younger, but if you retain dated attitudes "my secretary prints off my emails for me", there's not really much in the way of change. An external change is not going to create internal flexibility.

How Wikipedia could rediscover flexibility is an interesting question. Changing its logo is not one of the suggestions I've read for reinventing itself but still there are no shortage of other ideas on what to change: taking adverts, changing editorial roles, making the editing process less frightening for people who want to edit, changing the editorial language, interacting differently with people who contribute, and so on.

Alongside reading about Wikipedia I was reading an article – in AARP magazine. This is a bulletin targeted at the 50+ generation that needs to maintain both body flexibility and mind flexibility in order to maintain functional capacity (i.e. the level of ability to function within context of the demands of competitive employment, activities of daily living or leisure activities). Because, as people age their body's flexibility, strength, and bone density, depletes unless they have taken, and continue to take, consistent steps to maintain it.

The article notes that:

Yoga is an ancient healing practice that has become increasingly popular in our modern, stressful world as a powerful way to stretch and strengthen the body, relax and calm the mind, enhance energy and lift the spirit. Doctors often recommend yoga to people over 50 because it can help lower blood pressure, ease pain and improve balance. But people stick with the ancient practice because they find it improves their mood, reduces stress and, simply put, makes them happier.

Reading this I suddenly made the connection between organizational flexibility and yoga practice. Wikipedia won't get organizational flexibility by disjointed tinkering at what it does. It needs a fundamental holistic mind/body alignment. The yoga analogy seems to have some mileage – and who knows I may develop a whole new market in organizational yoga! (If dogs can do yoga so can organizations). Many organizations already tout the mantra of wanting a flexible culture – so they're on the path to enlightenment, but what they don't necessarily recognize but yoga practitioners do, is that flexibility is a whole body/mind practice that doesn't work well tackled in fits and starts, or through inconsistent, mono-dimensional approaches. You don't get back to the flexibility of your youth, or your spontaneous joy in living, by random bursts of yoga classes. Yoga practice is a discipline and, for many, a way of being that pays off in terms of health and well-being – physical, mental, and emotional – that inhibits the aging process.

Remember:

Age is not just a play of numbers but can be studied by the flexibility or rigidity of the human spine. As we grow older, the spine tends to lose its flexibility and stiffen. Regular practice of yoga and allows you to maintain spine elasticity, ensuring the flexibility of a much younger person.
Yoga is an excellent fitness program to counter the symptoms of aging. This rich fitness tradition combines gentle exercise with deep breathing techniques and meditative practices to restore full body functions and maintain a harmonious balance between the body, mind and spirit

So what would the practice of organizational yoga look like if it were to inhibit organizational aging and inflexibility?

• A consistent and disciplined regime of exercises and practice of the exercises that addressed each 'muscle' group of the organization – for 'muscle groups' read systems, processes, and structures.
• The exercises would include things like, consistent practice to continuous improve ability, making small adjustments as skill developed, undertaking regular reviews for alignment, setting stretch goals, using a variety of exercises to develop capacity (in order to avoid laziness and predictability related to repetition)
• As well as addressing the explicit organizational elements, exercises would develop the implicit organizational elements in the same way that yoga develops the mind, relieves stress, and makes people feel happier. These might include doing away with formal performance reviews in favor of informal spontaneous feedback, changing the language of the organization from phrases like: No pain, no gain. Tough love. We're not running a charity, we're running a business. Failure is not an option. Towards using words of humor and play in what we say and do at work, laughing at and leveraging the inevitable mistakes. (See the LifeTrek coaching provision Wit Matters for more on this)

So Wikipedia take note. Find the organizational equivalent of yoga to regain your youthful flexibility, you may not find your youth but you may have a happier and more productive aging process.

I am a knowledge worker. I don't make physical goods. I don't receive calls as in a service center, or process a given number of invoices a day. My work is not 'measurable' in any quantifiable or objective way.

My job title is 'Senior Advisor' which gives no clues as to what I am advising on, or how I come to be 'Senior' at it. (I think 'senior' equates to more expert than others in the same field of advising, rather than my age compared with others).

My field is the nebulous one of 'change and transformation', or sometimes 'organization development consultant'. Basically I work in the domain known – thank you Douglas McGregor (1960) – as 'the human side of the enterprise' with all the politics, messiness, relationships, idiosyncrasies, complexities, and diversity that are inherent in workforce comprising the large organization from which I draw my salary.

So what do I do as a knowledge worker, beyond attending countless meetings, which unfortunately don't, in fact, count in a numeric sense to any measurement of my effectiveness? I seem to do what other knowledge workers do – read and research a lot, accumulate thoughts and reflections, process or analyze the data and information from researching and thinking, convert it into something that could be (and sometimes is actionable) usually only with the help of others – rarely can I action something that is directly attributable to my contribution.

So here's an example: We have an appointee to a new role in the organization – Executive Leadership Director. She and I had a conversation about the scope and direction of the role. It is there for her to carve out as she feels fit. After an hour of discussion we had covered some lines of action she could take forward if she chose to, and I promised to send her some articles on network theory, developing communities, and the situations in which face to face meetings might be more appropriate than 'virtual' meetings. I sent her the articles.

So how productive, in terms of added value to the organization, was this hour of conversation that included drawing on my knowledge of leadership development, offering non-traditional approaches to it, and supplementing the meeting with follow-up articles. I don't know. Worse, I don't know how to find out. Even worse, most of my time is spent on things like this which involve my knowledge, skills, expertise, time, and resources, and I don't have any effective way of measuring their organization value.

So, having found out that there is a lot of difficulty measuring the value and the output of knowledge workers, and this is likely to become a huge organizational issue if we don't solve it before we move into the ROWE (Results Only Work Environment) state, I've decided to try an experiment of one. I am going to work out how to measure my value and productivity in a way that is replicable and scalable within the organization.

Where to begin? With Peter Drucker – one of my favorite writers on management. Drucker defines six factors for knowledge worker productivity (1999). He says that:

1. Knowledge worker productivity demands that we ask the question: "What is the task?"
2. It demands that we impose the responsibility for their productivity on the individual knowledge workers themselves. Knowledge workers have to manage themselves.
3. Continuing innovation has to be part of the work, the task and the responsibility of knowledge workers.
4. Knowledge work requires continuous learning on the part of the knowledge worker, but equally continuous teaching on the part of the knowledge worker.
5. Productivity of the knowledge worker is not – at least not primarily – a matter of the quantity of output. Quality is at least as important.
6. Finally, knowledge worker productivity requires that the knowledge worker is both seen and treated as an "asset" rather than a "cost." It requires that knowledge workers want to work for the organization in preference to all other opportunities

So what is the task? I can scale it at an organizational, department, group, or individual level. It is to invite people to work differently from their established ways to deliver the goals of the organization: innovative products and services, enhanced customer intimacy, operational excellence, and zero environmental foot print. If they accept the invitation my role is then to help them develop and implement the new ways of working -including behaviors, competences, systems, processes, and structures realignment as necessary.

I then (according to Drucker) have to manage myself and my productivity. OK – I can do that and I like doing that. I have a whole list of things that I'm working on. But that is insufficient to know in terms of value and productivity. Suppose I think of each thing on the list as an invitation.

I extend the invitation, I get an accept, a decline, a tentative. With the person (client) I've extended the invitation to, we decide the next step. Having taken the next step I could ask for an evaluation of my services on a simple scale perhaps.

How valuable to you was the input from me on xxx topic, in relation to achievement of the organization's goals of developing innovative products and services, enhanced customer intimacy, operational excellence, and zero environmental foot print? (Rate 1 – 6)

We start the piece of work. I could then ask the same question at periodic intervals but ask for some qualitative comments/feedback in relation to my capabilities of:

• Innovation in terms of the work task
• Responsiveness to them as a customer
• Contribution to their delivering their goals/implement
• Efficiency and timeliness of delivery

So now I've enrolled on Rypple the online feedback tool that I'll conduct the experiment with. I'll alert my immediate team to this and then fan out to my clients. It'll be interesting to see if feedback like this (assuming I get it) counts as measurement of performance when it comes to performance review time. My views on performance reviews are neatly summed up in the WSJ article 'Get Rid of the Performance Review' so no need to state them here. I'll keep you posted on the experiment.

Three items crossed my screen last week. All related to the theme of teamwork and generating ideas. The first was about the public isolation project. Christin Norin lived in a glass fronted space analogous to a shop window for a month with no face to face communication with anyone. She was able only to communicate through various social media, and also (though not very well) with people staring at her through the glass 24/7. She blogged on her experience each day. So day nine, for example, reads:

There is research out there that supports the idea that tweeting and surfing facebook can makes us happy. See more here (make sure you look at experiment #3.) Maybe I am doing fine in here because I am constantly communicating online. One thing I am noticing is that I am truly addicted to it right now. I can't turn it off at all during the day. When I stop to try and read a book I am distracted by the alert messages. I could turn these off, but I don't. I feel like I might miss something.

I found the whole experiment fascinating because it started to explore what we're trying to get to grips with as we encourage virtual and mobile working among teams. It raises the questions of can you have 'real' interactions only through social media and online communications. Does this form of relationship build a sense of community and if not how much face to face interaction is needed to build it?

The Boston Globe article is about team intelligence.

A striking study led by an MIT Sloan School of Management professor shows that teams of people display a collective intelligence that has surprisingly little to do with the intelligence of the team's individual members.

And the actual research report on which this article is based was published in the online journal Science on 29 October 2010: Vol. 330 no. 6004 pp. 686-688. The abstract reads:

Psychologists have repeatedly shown that a single statistical factor-often called "general intelligence"-emerges from the correlations among people's performance on a wide variety of cognitive tasks. But no one has systematically examined whether a similar kind of "collective intelligence" exists for groups of people. In two studies with 699 people, working in groups of two to five, we find converging evidence of a general collective intelligence factor that explains a group's performance on a wide variety of tasks. This "c factor" is not strongly correlated with the average or maximum individual intelligence of group members but is correlated with the average social sensitivity of group members, the equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking, and the proportion of females in the group.

It's not clear from the abstract whether group members were face to face so I've emailed one of the authors to find this out. I'll provide an update when I get a response. It seems likely that they were as the MIT report on the research notes that Thomas Malone, another of the co-authors says they "definitely intend to continue research on this topic, including studies on the ways groups interact online".

I like the next sentence in the report where he added that "collective stupidity," the failure of a group to perform to the abilities of its members, exists along with collective intelligence" – I wonder if that is more prevalent in on-line or face to face group interactions and if collective stupidity is more prevalent that collective intelligence?

It was interesting on the MIT site where the report is to hear Thomas Malone talk briefly about the concept of collective intelligence.

The third related piece that caught my eye was about creativity in Strategy + business – a piece called How Aha Really Happens the byline for this explains that "The theory of intelligent memory suggests that companies relying on conventional creativity tools are getting shortchanged." The article dismisses brainstorming as an old hat method of generating ideas and instead applauds the GE matrix approach that works to generate "Flashes of insight [that] give you the idea for your strategy, and the GE matrix lets you harness the flashes of the whole team." I'm not sure that flashes of insight are radically different from brainstorming but I enjoyed reading the article although again it is not made clear – but is implied – that the team members are face to face.

So my question after reading the three pieces is: Do individuals who are not face to face but work 'together' have an equal ability as teams that are face to face to a) build an adequate sense of team-ness, belonging and community for high work performance b) develop collective intelligence – or collective stupidity c) generate creative and workable ideas through 'flashes of insight', Are there any researchers out there do this kind of comparison?

Last week I received this email from Tony A.

I just finished reading your book Organisation Culture: Getting it right.

I found the material meaningful although at times thought provoking given my lengthy journey in the corporate world.

I also found it interesting that there was no reference in the material to corporate governance either in meaning or in value. Was this an oversight or do you not see any benefit in having corporate governance in an organisation?

Tony: I've been thinking about your question over the last few days. You're right in that I have not specifically called out corporate governance as a discussion topic. I do think good governance is tremendously important. It's an immense discussion area in its own right and there are as many books on corporate governance as there are on corporate culture. From a technical perspective corporate governance is a field hedged with country specific legislation, regulation, and compliance requirements which require specialist expertise to cut through and explain adequately. I don't have that specific knowledge.

However, I do think that good governance in any country is an outcome of a 'healthy' corporate culture. If organizations have a clear purpose, values that they adhere to, and all the other attributes I mention in the book then, more than likely, their governance structure will be effective and they will be well run.

In fact, it's somewhat chicken and egg – a good corporate culture results in good governance structures, but good governance structures are the result of a healthy corporate culture. In one book Corporate Governance Best Practices: Strategies for Public, Private, and Not-for-Profit Organizations by Frederick and Keith Lipman that I looked at as part of the research for my book, the authors state that

"Resources [for good corporate governance] must be concentrated in areas that have the greatest potential benefit, such as improving the corporate culture and establishing an effective internal audit function. Creating an ethical, law-abiding culture provides the greatest benefit for the organization compared to the relatively minimal costs of establishing such a culture. "

Governance and culture are tightly linked as many books and articles attest. A white paper by PWC presents five best practices for corporate governance one of which is "Embrace a values-driven culture' . They conclude the paper saying:

Perhaps the most important initiative for ensuring strong governance and compliance processes is a company's success in establishing an ethical "tone at the top" that permeates the entire organization. When executive leadership and boards of directors manifest ethical behavior, live according to scrupulous principles, and demand nothing less from employees, they effectively establish ethics and integrity as a vital part of the corporate culture and employees at all levels are more likely to embrace those values.
And, ultimately, the values that lie at the heart of a company's decision-making processes determine how it operates in good times, but, more importantly, in times of difficulty or uncertainty.

If you take a look at the Social Venture Network you'll find a host of materials on values driven organizations and very little specific mention of governance in any of the cases of the well known and well run companies that the site mentions.

On the other hand, there's a nice toolkit from the Global Governance Forum of the International Finance Corporation (part of the World Bank Group) that takes a nuts and bolts look at establishing corporate governance frameworks (within countries). It isdescribed as follows:

Corporate governance codes have effects at both the micro and macro levels; they serve as benchmarks for monitoring and implementing policy and practice within companies and restore investor confidence in markets. Fundamentals for winning investor confidence include ensuring adequate corporate disclosure, guaranteeing investor rights, and ensuring sound board practices.

Using diverse case studies and tools for everything from establishing crafting committees to evaluating the efficacy of codes, this toolkit provides practical guidance on creating and revising codes to fit diverse and dynamic corporate environments.

In a direct answer to your question: throughout the book I reinforce the concept of having and living clear organizational values. My view is that a values driven organization is likely to be well governed. (Assuming the values are 'healthy' as described in the book). More specifically, in the discussions in Chapter 4 of the book – is culture related to business success? you'll find examples of well run, and financially successful companies that illustrate this view. Certainly I think that good corporate governance is not just a benefit in an organization it is an essential and critical success factor.

Organization design and development activity is usually not tracked or evaluated in any meaningful way. Practitioners do not know whether their work has directly resulted in improved organizational performance. A report from the UK's Roffey Park Institute highlights this deficiency in OD the Roffey Park Institute's report Best Practice in OD evaluation.

The authors say that

We approached our research aware that there are many practitioners in the field of OD who believe that its systemic nature makes it hard to measure; some hold a world view that says it's inappropriate even to try.

…. In the prevailing economic climate we would argue that it is critically important. And as we emerge into a post recession world, we believe that being able and willing to demonstrate the impact of OD on the effectiveness of organizations will be imperative if the discipline is to maintain and increase its credibility.

Analytics and evaluation are helpful. A small personal example illustrates: in May this year, around the time the Roffey Park report came out, and triggered by what I had read in it, I enrolled on Google analytics so I could track traffic to this website. Here is the summary I've gathered on this site.

Monthly traffic has almost doubled between May of this year and this December, going from 300s to 600s, and traffic has come from 58 different countries. Here are the top 6countries to visit the site.

1 United States
2 United Kingdom
3 South Africa
4 Canada
5 India
6 Germany

The most visited pages on the site for December are the following

1 Home page
2 About Page (Biography Page)
3 Tools of the Month
4 Contact Page

The individual blogs have received hits but not significant numbers. The most visited blogs this month (December 2010) received between 20-30 hits. These results are promising, in that traffic is building, but given the time and effort it takes to construct a daily blog alongside a full time job and several demanding part time affiliations and commitments, I'm not sure that there is a real value to me of blogging on a daily basis.

It seems that actual readers' hits on the blog for December accumulated to about 76 out of the 609 visits / hits received on the site. What I don't know, but am trying to find out, is if the 76 readers constituted a loyal following who visit the site regularly. I may risk disappointing them if I don't blog everyday. So please let me know on this if you are a loyal follower who enjoys reading a daily blog here.

Till I hear from you, and using this data I've decided to blog once a week for the next six months and will post each Sunday. So, the next blog post you'll see will be Sunday January 2. I'm going to experiment with the approach too. Since I am a full time OD consultant I plan to do more on the lines of examples of stuff that I'm working on, and hints and useful things I've come across that week that have helped me manage any issues, challenges, opportunities.

I'll be monitoring the traffic monthly and making adjustments in the light of what the data suggests and/or shows.

The book chapter that I mentioned the other day is coming along in spite of the interruptions from present exchange, holly and ivy things, and other 'holiday' (aka Christmas) stuff. It's wonderful how much I'm learning by writing the chapter, so I'm finding it an enjoyable process at this point.

As my chapter is on the history of organizational development (though I'm still getting stuck on is it organization development, organizational development, organisation development, or organisational development and am using all forms indiscriminately) I've been looking at information on the early years of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. Established in 1947, today it is

engaged with evaluation and action research, organisational development and change consultancy, executive coaching and professional development, all in service of supporting sustainable change and ongoing learning.

Reg Revans, who pioneered action learning, was associated with the Institute, and if there was a UK Hall of Fame for Organization Development people he would be in it. I read his obituary which, at one point, made me laugh.

Revans made no attempt to conceal his low opinion of most business education – "Moral Bankruptcy Assured" was his interpretation of the MBA initials, and he cuttingly remarked that his ideas were so simple that it took at least 10 years for management academics to misunderstand them fully.

He sounds just the sort of person I'd enjoy having dinner with and I'm sorry I didn't get to meet him before his death in 2003.

Revans himself explains action learning in a delightful paper Action Learning: Its Terms and Character.
In this he points out that

If conditions are changing more rapidly than the organism (organization) can learn (or adapt), it will fail; it may even die, or cease to exist. Those who underrate their competitors (perhaps by idolizing their own successes of the past) may … whether individuals, industries or even nations … well invite calamity; those, on the other hand, who respond vigorously to competition may not only master it, but also improve upon their own standards of performance. We may give this argument a veneer of logic in the two statements:

When change is faster than learning the organism fails
When learning is as fast as, or faster than, change the organism survives and is likely to grow.

Oddly Elliot Jaques, a founder member of the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations, where he worked until 1951, died a month after Revans. He too would go in the OD Hall of Fame. Like Revans he was somewhat of an outsider to established management thinking. Much of his work in organisation design and development focused on the nature of hierarchy. As one writer says:

[Jaques' work] spans half a century and is based on extensive field data on how people behave at work and how they feel about their roles. [He] argued that organisations, no matter how complex, should have seven levels of hierarchy, each corresponding to a different managerial time horizon. Jaques's theory has come to be known as RO (requisite organisation).

His obituary points out that

Jaques maintained his controversial status to the end, refusing to abandon the primacy of hierarchical accountability in establishing socially just and productive organisations. Undistracted by human resource fads, leadership gurus or the dotcom bubble, he continued to develop his concepts in "real" organisations. Although ignored by many academics, his ideas are widely used by consultancies and organisations across the world.

I think I read somewhere that they knew each other and they were both associated with the Tavistock Institute – but I can't find the reference right now. What's curious about the two men is that they both refused to participate in mainstream thinking or media hype about their thinking. But maybe media hype didn't exist when they were cutting new ground in the way that it does now. Would Revans and Jaques have accepted speaking slots at the TED conferences? What would they have said about them?

Were they pleased to know that each has one of their books mentioned in the The Ultimate Business Library: The Greatest Books That Made Management, 3rd Edition, by Stuart Crain, published in January 2003 just before they died?

I've been asked to write a chapter for a new textbook on Organization Effectiveness. As always this seemed like a lovely opportunity when it was first suggested, and I accepted it cheerfully. Unfortunately, now that the deadline is looming (January 19) and I haven't yet done more than think about it at odd moments, the whole notion of writing 8000 words feels like a tremendous ordeal.

The book's working title is "Transforming Organizations: reconnecting and redirecting OD and HR" and

"will examine the increasing evidence for an integrated HR/OD approach to enhance organizational performance at a time of unprecedented austerity in the public and private sectors. The collection of chapters will deal with the competing challenges faced by HR functions, which are under massive pressure to demonstrate how they can contribute to organizational performance and wellbeing. It will also address the growing debate within Management and HRM Journals about the need to address the increasing distance of research from its user base. "

My chapter outline – submitted in November – was accepted, so now I'm committed to four segments, each with subsections, plus a case study, making a total of 8000 words, as follows:

1. A discussion on the purpose and scope of organization development : Why organization development? What do organization design practitioners hope to achieve? What is the scope of organization development and how does this relate to organization design, change management, resistance, etc.?

2. A perspective on the history of organization development Definitions: why so many, what are the similarities and differences among the, why do definitions matter? Core historic/underpinning theories and the 'founding fathers' of organization development including systems theory, complexity theory, chaos theory, behavioral science, social psychology, motivation theory, learning theory, etc. Current theories including models from a world view, a socially networked view, and a sustainability view Values and ethics practitioners subscribe to

3. An outline of intervention phases and methods: The classis consulting sequence and how does this work in practice? The commonly used methods: use of self, action research, change processes, resistance, and multiculturalism, appreciative inquiry, culture assessments, etc

4. A discussion of the relationship of organization development to organization design. How they are different lenses on the organization (development = informal elements, design = formal elements)
How they work together to shape the formal and informal organization elements. Shaping the formal and informal elements to meet organizational goals

The elements above then have to be illustrated by a case example. This is likely to be a traditional organization with hierarchy and bureaucracy facing dramatic external context pressures to become customer focused, adopt new technologies, do more with less, and beat off competitors. Commentary on the case study will illustrate the definition of OD adopted by the organization, the predominant theory in use, the reason for the choice of intervention methods, and the interweaving of design and development perspectives. (Good, I have a case study in mind, so maybe I'll start with this and work backwards).

The "contributor guide" (aka instructions to authors) is almost a book in itself. There are 17 very detailed instructions and then three appendices including one on how to reference materials in Harvard style (not America Psychological Society in case you were wondering). Now that I've read the guide – and it is fortunate that I did this before I began writing, experience with IKEA bookshelves have clearly reinforced in me the discipline to read instructions before beginning assembly – I know that:

Chapters should be 8,000 words, including key learning outcomes, the case study, guide to further reading, and any material in boxes. This word count does not include figures and tables or references. It is very important that this word count is not exceeded. Once all the chapters are combined, relatively small over-runs will have a large combined effect on the total page count. (I don't think there's much fear of over-run in my case)

This is a textbook for students. Please be careful about the use of language: do take time to explain important and difficult ideas (if necessary saying the same thing more than once, slightly differently, in order to make sure the point is getting across) and do not use jargon. Do use interesting examples to keep up the interest of the students. Do signal what's coming up, and what has gone before. Avoid the passive voice.

It is important that contributors use the same type and similar numbers of headings. This helps to ensure that chapters do not look and read very differently. Headings need to give a clear and uncomplicated map of the chapter, there needs to be a similar number in each chapter; and they should follow the same broad format.

So with all this in mind it is "once more unto the breach dear friends". Writing requires the ability to "Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood." I can't quite say that I am standing "like greyhounds in the slips, Straining upon the start." But at least I'm ambling towards them and know "The [writing] game's afoot:"

On December 22 I wrote about my megabus experience (Pop Up Communities). That evening I decided to contact megabus from a different angle to see what happened. Their website has press releases so I was able to find out the name of the President and COO (Dale Moser). They do not list on their website any email addresses of staff. To contact them you have to fill in a contact form.

Because I had been pleased with the outbound journey (good driving in the snow) I had completed the contact form sending in a note of praise to the drive: in doing so I noted that the drop down does not have a label for 'feedback' so my comments went into 'general enquiries'.

Here's what I said:

Date: 12/17/2010 11:56 AM
Subject: General Enquiries

How do I thank one of your drivers? I was on the 11:45 a.m. from Washington DC to Christiansburg yesterday – December 16. It was snowing, roads were treacherous, yet the bus left on time and despite the very poor conditions got us all their safely and cheerfully. Great driver and driving. Naomi

And here's the reply from 'Inquiries' (Sent on December 21)

From: inquiries@megabus.com
To: naomi@stanford.cc
Cc: Jessica.Francois@coachusa.com

Thank you for choosing megabus.com. I will forward your email to the appropiate personnel for proper handling. We do appreciate receiving good comments and really am pleased when one of our company employees is being thanked for their good service. Again, thank you for being a megabus customer, and we look forward to servicing you in the future.
Thank you
Annie

I tried, in various combinations, to email Dale Moser at Megabus.com. No success. Finally I took a look at the general enquiries response again – notice that the reply was cc.ed to Jessica with a coachusa address. So I tried the .coach usa address. Bingo!

Below the exchange. An impressively swift response from Dale Moser. I wonder what the next stage will be?

—–naomi@stanford.cc wrote: —–

To Dale Moser, President & COO, Coach USA
12/22/2010 06:54 p.m

Reservation number 17-4359-121910-M38-1335-BLA-WAS

Please tell me why the megabus scheduled to depart at 1:35 on Sunday December 19 did not arrive at Christiansburg? Please tell me why your customer service department did not answer, your managers in the ticketing department were not available to speak with, there was no SMS alert to my cell phone, and there has been no subsequent apology or explanation for the lack of service (in every aspect). I am sending you by mail a request for reimbursement of my one way car rental.

Many thanks

Naomi

—–Original Message—–
From: Dale.Moser@coachusa.com
12/22/2010 08:37 p.m.

To: naomi@stanford.cc
Cc: Jessica.Francois@coachusa.com
Subject: Re: Customer Service Issues

Ms Stanford,

Let us look into this issue and I will have our Director contact you with a response.

Dale Moser
President & COO
Coach USA

=====================

Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:17 PM

Dale

Many thanks. Just as an fyi – we waited 2 hours and the bus did not show.

There were about 10 people waiting for it in the parking lot. None of us could get through to customer service number 908 282 7420 that the ticketing people gave us. Some of the passengers waiting asked to speak to the ticketing supervisor/manager and were told that he/she was too busy. (One person found out that the name of the manager was Tray). I have posted a report on the experience on my blog if you would like to take a look at it http://www.naomistanford.com

Best regards

===============
Wed 12/22/2010 9:43 PM

Naomi

It appears from a quick review of the GPS from that date, the bus did stop in Christians burg, but is this 50 minutes ahead of the schedule.

This is unacceptable and we will deal with the driver and you will be contacted by our office to resolve your situation.

Please accept our apologize and know this is no the standard of service megabus as been known for. Obviously we had a difficult first couple of days during this new Hub start-up and for that we are truly sorry.

Please give us another chance to earn back your confidence, as we have to over 8 million customers to date.

Sincerely,
Dale

Dale Moser
President & COO
Coach USA
=================

(Today I am repeating the megabus journey. I hope that it will be a good experience and not the start of My Memoirs on Megabus)

UPDATE: January 30 2011. Last week I got a check reimbursing me for the full amount of my one way car rental. Thank you Megabus.