<Bob> Hi Leslie, how has your week been?
<Leslie> Hi Bob, sorry I am a bit late. It has been a very interesting week.
<Bob> My curiosity is pricked … are you willing to share?
<Leslie> Yes indeed! First an update on the improvement project was talked about a few weeks ago.
<Bob> The call centre one?
<Leslie> Yes. The good news is that the improvement has been sustained. It was not a flash in the pan. The chaos is gone and the calm has continued.
<Bob> That is very good to hear. And how did the team react?
<Leslie> That is one of the interesting things. They went really quiet. There was no celebration, no cheering, no sounds of champagne corks popping. It was almost as if they did not believe what they were seeing and they feared that if they celebrated too early they would somehow trigger a failure … or wake up from a dream.
<Bob> That is a very common reaction. It takes a while for reality to sink in – the reality that they have changed something, that the world did not end, and that their chronic chaos has evaporated. It is like a grief reaction … they have to mourn the loss of their disbelief. That takes time. About six weeks usually.
<Leslie> Yes, that is exactly what has happened – and I know they have now got over the surprise because the message I got this week was simply “OK, that appears to have worked exactly as you predicted it would. Will you help us solve the next impossible problem?“
<Bob> Well done Leslie! You have helped them break through the “Impossibility Barrier”. So what was your answer?
<Leslie> Well I was really tempted to say “Of course, let me at it!” but I did not. Instead I asked a question “What specifically do you need my help to do?“
<Bob> OK. And how was that reply received?
<Leslie> They were surprised, and they said “But we could not have done this on our own. You know what to do right at the start and even with your help it took us months to get to the point where we were ready to make the change. So you can do this stuff much more quickly than we can.“
<Bob> Well they are factually correct.
<Leslie> Yes I know, so I pointed out that although the technical part of the design does not take very long … that was not the problem … what slowed us down was the cultural part of the change. And that is done now so does not need to be repeated. The next study-plan-do cycle will be much quicker and they only need me for the technical bits they have not seen before.
<Bob> Excellent. So how would you now describe your role?
<Leslie> More of a facilitator and coach with a bit of only-when-needed training thrown in.
<Bob> Exactly … and I have a label for this role … I call it a Catalyst.
<Leslie> That is interesting, why so?
<Bob> Because the definition of a catalyst fits rather well. Using the usual scientific definition, a catalyst increases the yield and rate of a chemical reaction. With a catalyst, reactions occur faster and with less energy and catalysts are not consumed, they are recycled, so only tiny amounts are required.
<Leslie> Ah yes, that feels about right. But I am not just catalysing the reaction that produced the desired result am I?
<Bob> No. What else are you doing?
<Leslie> I am also converting some of the substrate into potential future catalysts too.
<Bob> Yes, you are. And that is what is needed for the current paradigm to shift.
<Leslie> Wow! I see that. This is powerful stuff!
<Bob> It is indeed. And the reaction you are catalysing is the combination of wisdom with ineptitude.
<Leslie> Eh? Can you repeat that again. Wisdom and ineptitude? Those are not words that I hear very often. I hear words like dumb, stupid, ignorant, incompetent and incapable. What is the reason you use those words?
<Bob> Simply because the dictionary definitions fit. Ineptitude means not knowing what to do to get the result we want, which is not the same as just not knowing stuff or not having the necessary skills. What we need are decisions which lead to effective actions and to intended outcomes. Wise decisions. If we demonstrate ineptitude we reveal that we lack the wisdom to make those effective decisions. So we need to combine ineptitude with wisdom to get the capability to achieve our purpose.
<Leslie> But why use the word “wisdom”? Why not just “knowledge”?
<Bob> Because knowledge is not enough. Knowledge just implies that I recognise what I am seeing. “I know this. I have seen it before“. Appreciating the implication of what I recognise is something more … it is called “understanding”.
<Leslie> Ah! I know this. I have seen this before. I know what a time-series chart is and I know how to create one but it takes guidance, time and practice to understand the implications of what the chart is saying about the system. But where does wisdom fit?
<Bob>Understanding is past-focussed. We understand how we got to where we are in the present. We cannot change the past so understanding has nothing to do with wise decisions or effective actions or intended outcomes. It is retrospection.
<Leslie> So wisdom is future-focussed. It is prospective. It is the ability to predict the outcome of an action and that ability is necessary to make wise decisions. That is why wisdom is the antidote to ineptitude!
<Bob> Well put! And that is what you did long before you made the change in the call centre … you learned how to make reliable predictions … and the results have confirmed yours was a wise decision. They got their intended outcome. You are not inept.
<Leslie> Ah! Now I understand the difference. I am a catalyst for improvement because I am able to diagnose and treat ineptitude. That is what you did for me. You are a catalyst.
<Bob> Welcome to the world of the Improvement Science Practitioner. You have earned your place.
Click HERE to listen to his first lecture (30 minutes).
In his second lecture he describes how it is the design of the system that delivers apparently miraculous outcomes. It is the way that the parts work together and the attention to context and to detail that counts.
Click HERE to hear his second lecture “The Century of the System” (30 minutes).
And he has a proven track record in system improvement … Atul is the doctor-surgeon-instigator of the WHO Safer Surgery Check List – a simple idea borrowed from aviation that is now used worldwide and is preventing 1000’s of easily avoidable deaths after surgery.