The Improvement Science Blog

Improvements need to be sustained - but not forever. They should be worthwhile on their own and provide a foundation for future improvement. Improvement flows and it does so down the path of least resistance. Improvement will not flow easily up the path of most resistance. Resistance to flow is the result of a constraint.

 Many things flow - water, energy, money, data, ideas, knowledge, influence - the list is endless - so the list of possible constraints is similarly endless.  But not all constraints are the same: a constraint that limits the flow of water – a dam for instance – does not limit the flow of ideas.

The flows and their constraints can be arranged on a contiuum with one end labelled ”Physics” and the other end labelled “Paradigms”.  Physical flows are constrained by the Laws of the Universe which are absolute and stable. Philosophical flows are constrained by beliefs which are arbitrary and mutable.

This spectrum is often viewed as a hierarchy – with Paradigms at the top and Physics at the bottom – and between these limits there is a contiuum of constraints.  The Paradigm is completely abstract and intangible and is made actual through Policy, guided by Politics, and enforced by Police.  The root of all these words is ”poli” which means “many” and implies the collective of people. So, a Policy is an arbitrary constraint that limits what is and what is not allowed. It is the social white line that indicates what behaviours the collective expect from the individual.  A Policy is implemented as a Process.

What actually happens is constrained by the Physics. Irrespective of the Paradigm, Policy and Process – if the Laws of Physics say something is impossible then it does not happen. It is impossible to squeeze, store or reverse time. It is impossible to do something that requires 30 mins of time in 5 minutes; it is impossible to store time to use later; it is impossible to rewind time go back to a previous point in time.

From the perspective of reality our hierarchy of constraints is upside down – Physics dictates what is possible irrespective of what the Paradigm indicates is believable.  What is believable may not be possible; and what is possible may not be believed.

Improvement Science is the art of the possible – of what the Laws of Physics do not forbid – a wide vista of opportunity.  It is now that our Paradigm acts as the constraint – and Improvement Science is the ability to challenge our Paradigm.  Only then can we create the Policy and the Process that will deliver actual, valuable and sustainable improvement.

Some parts of our Paradigm are necessary to provide explanation and meaning. Other parts are not needed – they are our “belief baggage” – the assumptions that we have picked up along the way; the mumbo-jumbo that obscures the true message. When we focus on the mumbo-jumbo we miss the message and we open the door to cynicism and distrust.

Our challenge is to separate the two – the wheat from the chaff; the diamond from the dross and the pearl-of-wisdom hidden in the ocean-of-data.  What do we actively include? What do we actively exclude? What do we actively remove? What do we actively improve?  We need to monitor all four parts of our Paradigm and that task is what The 4N Chart® was designed to help us do.

Click here get The 4N Chart template and here to get The 4N Chart instructions.

Long, long ago in a land far, far away there were two kings who ruled neighbouring kingdoms.

King Bore liked things to be completely predictable and risk free. His subjects were happy with his Laws, there was no fear, and nothing ever changed. Everyday was as it had always been for as long as anyone could remember.

King Ran was the opposite – he liked things to be unpredictable and risky. His subjects were happy with his Laws, there was always excitement, and nothing ever stayed the same. Everyday was never the same as anyone could remember.

The kingdoms were named after the two rulers - Boredom and Random.

A fence marked the boundary between their domains – and despite their different cultures, most of the citizens lived near the Fence and spent much of their time sitting on it and debating what lay on either side. Their debates lasted for generations.

The Boredoms argued for doing everything the same as before; while the Randoms argued for doing everything different.

The fence was not fixed – it was continually being removed and rebuilt. Sometimes the Randoms brought news of exciting new discoveries and shared it during their Fence debates. Those who were convinced by the evidence would vote to incorporate the new knowledge and move the fence towards the Random reward. At other times the Randoms shared news of catastrophes and the Fence Sitters would voted to move the fence away from the Random Risk. Everyone could choose to live where the balance of stability and instability felt most comfortable for them. Everyone was happy.

One day a Great and Unexpected Storm arrived and devastated both kingdoms.

When the storm has passed the surviors emerged from their shelters and surveyed the damage.  Most of Boredom had been blown or washed away because its inhabitants were unable to react to the unexpected threat. Random was always changing anyway so the storm appeared to have little effect but there were many who had also been blown or washed away.

The survivors were those who had sheltered closest to the Fence – but the Fence had been smashed – so the survivors rebuilt the Fence - and continued to live as before – debating the next move – not knowing when the next storm might arrive – but feeling more confident that at least some of them would survive.

After each Storm the populations of Boredom and Random were reduced – those who preferred to live furthest from the Fence were less likely to survive - and after each storm the Kingdom of Random gained ground. The survivors were those most able to balance conservative with creative.

Between the Storms new discoveries became incorporated and ossified as dogma and the Kingdom of Boredom gained ground as the balance shifted – until a Storm would once again smash the complacency and force a rebuilding.

It appeared that the key to survival was to learn how to both sit on the Fence and to keep a foot on both sides and to be ready to jump one way or the other to shelter from the Storm.

It is surprising how often we do nothing until we have run out of options to prevaricate and only when our backs are against the wall do we act positively, decisively and effectively.  What is the reason we did not act earlier? Did we not see the way forward? Were there to many options to choose from? Or was the most effective option the least comfortable?  We have a bad habit of putting off decisions and actions until the last minute of the eleventh hour. Perhaps we just hope that the problem will go away without us having to get out of our comfort zones.

In reality few escape the back-to-the-wall scenario: most are caught, killed and eaten.  Turkeys unwittingly voting for Christmas by doing nothing.

 It is a better survival strategy to avoid the backs-to-the-wall scenario. 

So, what are the symptoms of the earlier prevarication stage? What behaviours do we exhibit? And what can we do? 

One is blindness/deafness - otherwise known as denial. We see the message but we do not acknowledge it because to do so means we have signalled that we are aware of it. Painfully aware perhaps.

One is bending/dodging – otherwise known as distortion. We see the problem and we are forced to acknowledge it because someone up the tree makes it our problem and monitors our performance. They set a target and attach some form of motivator to it – either a carrot or a stick – it matters not.  It is surprising how creative people can be when caught between a rock and a hard place!

One is burying/deceiving – otherwise known as deletion.  We delete the bad news completely so the performance looks better than it really is and thereby try to evade the persecutor by not attracting attention.  This is our last option because we know if we are found out then we will be for the chop.

Our final option, when our backs are against the wall and the spot light is on us – is to face the problem and solve it – and surprise ourselves that we can, and in fact always could have done.

So to avoid the back-to-the-wall experience it is necessary to be alert to the early symptoms. The deafening silence that follows someone prepared to talk about the problem; the frantic activity required to bend the rules and distort the system; and the furtive looks of those who are deliberately hiding the awful reality.  If any of these symptoms are detected we need to add the magic ingredients - confidence and competence. The confidence to raise the issues and the competence to dissolve their root causes.

Confidence follows from competence; and competence follows from practice; and practice follows from know how; and know how follows from learning; and learning follows from asking.

Ask to See One - Do Some – Teach Many.

 An important difference between Leaders and Managers is their perception of SpaceTime. 

Leaders observe from a greater strategic distance so they have a wider horizon and they see more pattern and less detail. They see the forest rather than the trees.  Managers observe from a closer tactical vantage so they have a narrower horizon and see less context but they see more detail. Both maps are needed – broad brush and fine detail – but the map need to match the task and the person: sometimes the detail is critical; sometimes the detail is confusing.  

The same is the case for both Space and Time. Strategic space is global – tactical space is local. Strategic time is proactive – tactical time is reactive. Leaders Inspire and Plan the Work – Managers Perspire and Work the Plan.

It is interesting to observe what can happen when the same tool is applied in a strategic and in a tactical context. An  example is the RAG (Red Amber Green) method for reporting status.  The principle is that the colour indicates what to do: Green = Relax;  Amber = Alert; Red = React. 

Sounds easy enough so what is the problem?

The RAG method is designed to indicate our current status but status of what?  Our current position or our current course? Our course is given by a series of positions recorded over time on a chart – as a picture – and we use that to help us navigate - to plan an effective and efficient course to our intended destination.  Unexpected things can happen though – we can get swept and blown off course and we may come across an unexpected or unpredictable obstacles on our intended course. So we need to be able to navigate our way to our original destination by a new route. So imagine what could happen if we were only able to compare our current position with our target position and we only work to stay on target. We would be unable to adapt to a dynamically changing or unpredictable strategic context – we would be unwise to go off position because we would get lost.

So if we do not want to lose our way then we must ensure we know what our RAG is telling us – our position or our course.