Do you find yourself asking a lot of “what if” questions?  If so you have chosen contingency over redundancy.

In practical terms this means you have chosen to live with systems, processes, structures, etc that have many single points of failure.  You understand that fact of course but you do not always know where those pressure points are in your organisation. Neither do you know under what precise circumstances you will be rendered vulnerable by them. So you are constantly posing “what if” questions to test your understanding of your organizational capabilities.

Contingency plans are provided in the event that current processes and systems do not have the capability you need at the moment you need it.  Imagine you are heading up the Apollo Programme at NASA.  Your Apollo 13 crew with their command module and “Lunar Lander” is safely on its way to the Moon.  Then you register a problem or a series of problems.

The first thing you do is check all your contingency plans.  Having done those checks you assess the situation and find you have not fully covered off this type of crisis.  So you do what your contingency plans indicate you should do.  You go into full disaster recovery mode to save three astronauts lives. You proclaim the mission has changed – there is a new mission.  This is no longer a mission to the Moon this is a mission to recover three astronauts alive and well from a journey around the Moon.

Apollo had a magic Big Red Boat organisation for just such contingencies.  It had a long tail of “institutional memory”.  This tail included the simulated tests from day one of the Gemini programs and the real data from docking procedures carried out between the command module and Lunar Lander in space.  It had simulated and tested to breaking point many of the systems, processes, and procedures you will rely on to get your crew home safely.  But you still have to improvise, to speculate, to innovate, to take risks, etc.

Do you have two spacecraft out there or one?  Can they be isolated and thus treated as two separate entities at times?  Can they be fused and thus treated as a single entity at times?  What contingency plans do you have for each spacecraft?  What contingency plans do you have for this fused spacecraft?

What assets do you have out there in space?  You have a leader in the commander.  You have a leadership team of three of the best trained people in the world to handle this crisis on board Apollo.  You have a leader in Houston – the Mission Controller.  You have a network of engineers and experts that circles the globe and even penetrates the Iron Curtin.  You have people who are rigidly sticking to your know contingency capabilities and you have people who are free wheeling.

Can you bring your astronauts home alive and well?

Do you find yourself asking a lot of question like “where is the back-up to this system?”

In practical terms this means you have chosen to live with systems, processes, structures, etc that have few if any single points of failure.  You have redundancy built-in.  You know that you are building a very complex organisation and so you need variety not simplicity as its core asset. 

The first thing to check is your redundancy plans.  Where is redundancy built-in?  Is it a good fit with the environs you are dealing with at present?  Do you need more back-up capacity or capability?  Redundancy must add variety.  Ashby’s law of requisite is a mathematical proposition but it tells me that complexity is best handled by variety.  This is why redundancy is not just built-into systems but also to people.  Redundancy of leadership is a huge asset in complex situations.  In the Vietnam War the Vietcong had no leadership problems in the field because they had built-in redundancy.  Each small group had many leaders because the workload of decision-making was shared.  Everyone was capable of taking strategic and operational decisions.  The Vietcong fought their war as groups who relied on a complex maze of tunnels to put them in the right place at the right time to inflict maximum pain on their enemies.

Unlike the Apollo the Shuttle has redundancy built-in all over it.  There are five main computers to handle avionics.  The technology is “circa 1970s” but with that technology they perform “state of the art” avionics. They have the best people in the Shuttle.  They have those people backed up by the best people on the ground.  They have a mindset that is suited to flying the most complex spacecraft ever built. They have a mindset that is right for doing cutting edge things with a “clunky re-useable space truck”.  They have a mindset that says build in redundancy everywhere you can.

I can provide one-on-one support as a fee for service facility at your site or online - see right hand column. 

All copyrights reserved by Richard Lipscombe @ 2007

One of the best episodes of “The West Wing” was simply titled “Institutional Memory”.

The point being made was that a White House hand off from one administration to another is essentially about continuity of a political system.  But is it? 

The plot suggests the incoming administration always inherits a bunch of political issues along with many controversial policy settings.  The incoming administration is thus entitled to a full and open transfer of the “institutional memory”.  But does it ever really get it?  If it does get it is it an asset or a burden?

The outgoing administration is looking to history when it closes down its systems of government.  What will historians make of the contribution of this President?  What loose ends can it afford to leave lying around?  What policy settings will have a better chance of being maintained if they are supported by your version of institutional memory?

In the real world President Kennedy was left with the institutional memory of the Eisenhower administration which led him into the Bay of Pigs fiasco.  Kennedy left Johnson the Vietnam War.  Johnson left Nixon the Vietnam War.  Nixon left very little after being disgraced by the Watergate Affair. Nixon broke the chain.

Every incoming administration is more than likely to have been elected on a programme more focussed on shucking yesterday than relying on institutional memory.  Indeed the latter can prove a burden to any new administration that wants to tackle today's issues with a new mindset.  Shucking yesterday is never easy however because there is always an institutional memory.  That memory is embedded deeply into the systems of the organisation.  It is not transparent, it not equitable, and it is not accountable.  It is hard to flush out into the light but it is there and it can definitely undermine any attempt at change, at transformation, or at establishing new beginnings.  

All copyrights reserved by Richard Lipscombe @ 2007

Vision or purpose?  Which will you choose?

If you want examples of each choice then there are many to choose from but at present two that come to mind are Dell and Microsoft.  One is based on vision the other on purpose.  Which is which?  Why?

You should think about those questions for a little.  Perhaps you will need to go to each company website.  Go see what their issues are today.  Read some of the corporate histories of both.  Read about their “Black Ice Issues”.  

Microsoft has released a new version of windows.  This is a big investment in their future.  They are betting big on what computer users will want and expect from their software over the next couple of decades.  They are setting up “innovation centers” around the globe.  They are offering almost “free” software to students around the globe.  They are pushing forward with a new approach to software development, deployment, and support.   

Dell has its founder back as its CEO.  They are re-imagining every aspect of their business model.  They are offering Linux software, they have a space within Second Life, and they have established an open forum for their users to help solve company issues.  They are still selling direct but the product is being innovated.  They have setup a network of users who are addressing all the issues the company has been grappling with in house over recent years.

Think about what you are doing at work and in your life.  Think about who you hang with and what motivates them.  Think about the needs and the practices of Microsoft and Dell.  Think about your choice is it vision or purpose?

All copyrights reserved by Richard Lipscombe @ 2007

Your word is your bond in any organisation.  People judge you by what you say as much as by what you do.  Yeah I know that is not the common perception but it is nevertheless true.  Why do you think so many people in your organisation use the same key words.  Words such as "journey" when you are clearly not on a journey - you are merely bonding through the repetitive use of a common set of words.

So once you decide which Big Red Boat you want to build and sail in you need to use the words that best suit your vessel.

Those who choose “vision” as their start point will need words like systems, processes, structures, teams, goals, plans, strategies, collaboration, leadership, performance, etc.

Those who choose “purpose” as their start point will need words like people, talent, faith, values, commitment, clusters, focus, spirit, cooperation, transparency, ethos, etc.

Vision is best supported by systems.  Focus on systems and slot people into them.  Measure everything.  Form teams with strong leadership.  Set performance goals.  Ensure your collaborative efforts fit neatly into your performance plans, goals, and measures.

Purpose is best supported by people.  Focus on people and their talents.  Focus on purpose always.  Trust the talent you have assembled.  Build commitment.  Be transparent in everything you do.  Improve your performance through your cooperative efforts.  Have faith in your clear and present purpose.

Remember - your word is your bond.

All copyrights reserved by Richard Lipscombe @ 2007

Getting started is the easy part.  So let’s get you started right here and now!

First and foremost you must decide which Big Red Boat you are best suited to build and to sail.

You have two choices.  One boat is based on vision and the other on purpose.

So we will begin by attempting to find out if you are more comfortable living and working with a vision or a purpose.  Either one is fine – you simply have to choose one or the other.  Building two Big Red Boats will not work for you or your crew.

Vision is what most people start with when they build something.  Those who start with a vision tend to spend a lot of time and resources getting it right.  So are you a vision type of person?  Do you grasp other people’s visions quickly?  Do you like to sit down and lay out a big picture vision for yourself and family and then go on to create a more detailed 5-10 year plan for yourself and others? Do you like to check your vision regularly against your beliefs and values?  Do you find you are constantly realigning your vision to changes within your environs?  Do you think of yourself as a strategic thinker?  Do you prefer a structured thinking process over a “random walk” approach or mindset to problem solving?  Do you tend to hire skills or people?  Do you think, discuss, and read a lot about leadership styles?  Do you embrace contingency planning when you are involved in new ventures?  Do you feel comfortable taking calculated risks?  Do you find you need clear and demonstrable processes to perform at your best?

Purpose is what most people have as a secondary consideration when they build something.  However, those who start with a purpose tend to focus on likely outcomes.  They tend to be driven by their purpose to the exclusion of other pursuits.  So are you a purpose driven type of person?  Do you seek out people who share your values or your faith?  Do you work best with people who share a common purpose?  Do you get to know and believe in people quickly?  Do you find you work best in small groups?  Do you like to get close to people, to find out who they are, what they think, and what they want to achieve?  Do you tend to avoid meetings, structured management systems, power-point presentations, large networking gatherings, etc? Do you enjoy swapping wild ideas with people outside your discipline?  Do you prefer attending formal or informal gatherings?  Do you prefer impromptu speaking assignments or guest speaking roles?  Do you enjoy taking control in crisis situations?  Do you naturally tend to celebrate small and mundane successes as significant events?

Which Big Red Boat do you feel you want to build and sail in the vision based or the purpose driven vessel.

All copyrights reserved by Richard Lipscombe @ 2007