The Usefulness of Large Group Methods When Organizations Need a New Design and Dont Want One

1
The Usefulness of Large Group Methods When
Organizations Need a New Design and Dont Want
One!

• Barbara Benedict Bunker
• ODF April 2007

2
OBJECTIVES

• To share recent development in the use of Large
  Group Methods (LGMs) to facilitate organization
  design efforts
• To highlight how these methods are currently
  being used
• To apply these ideas to your thinking and
  consulting

3
What Are LGMs?

• System change methods
• An area of OD practice
• Able to engage large groups up to 5,000
• Participative, giving people voice

4
Methods for Planning the Future

• The Search Conference
• Future Search
• Whole Scale Change
• ICA Strategic Planning
• Appreciative Inquiry Summit Meeting

5
Methods for Discussion and Decision Making

• Open Space Technology
• The World Café
• Work Out
• Whole Scale/Real Time Strategic Change
• SimuReal

6
Methods for Work Design

• Work Design (The Conference Model and others)
• Participative Design

7
One View of History

• STS Re-design 1980s the trailer outside the
  factory
• Weisbord 1987 Getting the whole system in the
  room
• LGMs-1990s The Conference Model, Fast Cycle-Full
  Participation, Real Time Work Design,
  Participative Design

8
20 Years of LGMs

• Discovery 1985-1992
• Method Zealots 1992-1999
• The Custom Tailor 2000 -

9
Group Discussion Task

• What experience with LGMs is in your group?
• What questions do people have that can be
  answered by the experience within the group?
• Report out unanswered questions

10
Organization Design CasesCommon Themes

• Real organizational crisis requiring change
• Mandate from both the environment and the
  executive level to perform more effectively
• New leadership
• Internal inertia

11
The Crisis at Emerson Cuming (EC) (Lent, Van
Patten Phair, 2006)

• The company had just been acquired
• Two epoxy manufacturing plants merged in one
  facility where there was disorganization, safety
  and morale concerns poor performance
• Many complex factors contributed

12
The Situation

• One plant 2 product lines, 2 work cultures and
  little trust or cooperation across them

13
The Question

• How to create a world-class manufacturer in
  record time

14
The Approach

• 1. Engage the whole system
• 2. Let the workplace inform action
• 3. Focus on what all agree on as the desired
  future of the plant and the workplace
• Aim for incremental improvement Get better, not
  perfect

15
Diagnostic Focus Groups

• Two product lines No coordination
• Plant dirty and disorganized
• Materials hard to find
• Few standard procedures
• We/They feeling between lines
• Inefficiency

16
The Change Plan

• Begin with an Agree Meeting (Future Search) to
  identify opportunities
• Use Gemba Kaizen action learning teams to work on
  identified targets
• Regular Follow-up Meetings to reinforce progress
  and sustain momentum

17
What Happened?Step 1 Agree Meeting

• Purpose to agree on the safest, highest quality,
  most productive workplace
• 40 managers, supervisors, operators- (largest
  group), sales, corporate, RD

18
Some Agreements

• Satisfy customer needs especially critical
  customers
• Clean, neat, orderly workplace
• Reproducible, reliable, consistent processes and
  instructions
• Cross-training between departments

19
12 Projects to Achieve the Vision - Examples

• Product line management team eliminate low
  revenue products
• Reorganize the work flow team model line to demo
  new way of working in 12 months
• Inventory reduction team in six month 50 less
  inventory

20
What Happened?

• Three cycles of action teams and follow-up
  meetings over the course of one year
• Steering Committee cross functional cross
  level to coordinate projects

21
One Year Later

• The plant culture had changed to embrace
  continuous improvement
• Productivity improved (12-50)
• Lead time to delivery was reduced by 30-60 for
  major customers
• On-Time delivery from 86 to 95
• Warehouse space utilization improved 23
• Productive floor space gained 35
• Crosstraining completed

22
One Year Later More to Do

• At the one year Follow-up Meeting successes were
  celebrated and..
• Some weak areas were recognized and plans made
  for addressing them
• Corporate recognition of progress

23
Four Years Later

• EC is the flagship manufacturing facility of
  this international company
• International recognition for safety record and
  manufacturing effectiveness

24
Small Group Discussion Questions

• What experiences and insights can you share ?
• What questions should the whole group address?

25
Three Cases In Brief

• IKEA (Weisbord Janoff, 2005)
• University of Southern California (USC) Rossier
  School of Education (Barbeau Aronson, 2006)
• Boeing (R. E. Axelrod, 2006)

26
IKEA STS Re-design in 18 Hours

• Weisbord Janoff

27
We Need to Re-design the Whole Pipeline!

• CEOa quicker, leaner, simpler IKEA
• The process for product design
• Manufacturing
• Distribution to stores
• Focal example The Ektorp sofa

28
The IKEA Pipeline

• 10,000 products designed in Sweden
• 1800 suppliers in 55 countries
• 199 stores in 23 countries

29
Adapting Future Search to Work Re-design 4
Principles

• Whole system in the room 52 key stakeholders
  with authority and expertise
• Explore the whole before fixing any part
  Technical analysis of the pipeline included in
  Future Search
• Seeking common ground work in microcosm of
  the system stakeholder groups 6 re-designs
  searched for common ground
• Participant responsibility - 7 task forces
  implement

30
About Design Modifications

• Made adjustments that didnt work well ex single
  time line
• Reticent participation on day 1 caused by fears
  about losing control jobs as well as cultural
  issues
• Design skill and skills working with group
  processes critical for consultants

31
IKEA One Year Later

• Ektorp exceeded targets
• gt volume, costs cut, quality profits
• Other product lines being affected
• Customers involved in design early
• Company silos reducing and cooperation increasing

32
The Crisis at USC The Rossier School of
Education

• Position in the field is declining
• No focus -Fragmented programs (23)
• Little collective identity -(Professional
  Bureaucracy)
• In financial trouble

33
The Situation

• A new Dean selected by faculty
• The Mission Excellence in Urban Education
• A mandate from the University Committee on
  Academic Review and resource support

34
First Steps

• The Consultants and the Dean
• Working with the Planning Group
• Selecting Future Search
• Including stakeholders (faculty, staff, students,
  admin.,K-12 admin)

35
Timeline

• Future Search January 2001
• Implementation Planning Teams Feb/March 2001
• Integration Meeting March 2001
• Faculty Vote YES on The Conceptual Framework
  May 2001

36
What happened after the vote?

• Academic program review criteria
• External review of doctoral programs
• New curriculum planning for Ed.D Ph.D programs

37
What happened after the vote?

• Committee proposal on infrastructure to support
  new programs
• Staff committee redesigns support staff structure
• Changes field tested in local schools
• Communication of changes externally

38
If academia is so hard to change, how come this
worked?

• The consultants and the Dean worked hand in hand
• The Dean provided clear, strong and consistent
  and persistent leadership and direction
• The outside world came in through stakeholders
• The crisis was real

39
Boeing Dick Axelrod The Situation in
Engineering

• White collar strike in 2000 bitterness
• Morale poor underutilized and undervalued
• Attrition increasing
• Strong history of participation and using LGMs

40
Using the Engagement Principles to Create Your
Own Solutions

• Widen the circle of involvement
• Connect people to each other
• Create communities for action
• Embrace a democratic mindset
• Reference Axelrod, R. (2000) Terms of
  Engagement. Berrett-Koehler

41
Supporting Conditions

• Clear boundaries Purpose, local control, the
  engagement principles
• Strong leadership to move forward
• Measurement of employee satisfaction for all
  managers
• Training in The Conference Model

42
Results Projects Learning Fairs - Examples

• Work unit re-design
• Education about the global environment of the
  future
• Created new mandated organization with FAA using
  principles

43
Small Group Discussion Questions

• What questions or issues should the whole group
  take up?

44
SUMMARY

• LGMs involve the whole system and can increase
  commitment and speed up implementation of
  organization design
• Top management understanding and support is
  essential
• This work requires skilled practitioners who
  understand system dynamics (as well as LGMs)

45
Rules of Thumb

• Never work alone
• If you modify a standard model, expect the
  unpredictable
• If you are just starting out, work with
  experienced designers and practitioners
• Large group dynamics are not the same as small
  group dynamics

46
Useful Resources for Going Deeper

• Bunker, B.B. Alban, B.T. (1997) Large Group
  Interventions. Jossey-Bass
• Bunker, B.B. Alban, B.T. (2006) The Handbook of
  Large Group Methods. Jossey-Bass/Wiley
• Journal of Applied Behavioral Science Special
  Issues on Large Group Interventions edited by
  Bunker Alban (1992, 2005) Sage Publishers

47
Training Resources

• Workshop on Large Group Methods sponsored by NTL
  Institute May 1-3, 2007 Leaders Billie Alban
  Barbara Bunker
• (Fall 2007 workshop on West Coast)
• 2 ½ days in Washington Metro area
• Overview of all the methods
• Practice in designing large group events

48
OPPORTUNITY TRIO TASK

• What implications does this session have for my
  own work?