So, so far this module we talked about disablers, what gets in the way of organizational learning. And then bucket two is really about enablers. What can we do to improve our organizational learning and our team's functioning in that context? But here is the big issue, bucket three is all about once your team does actually come up with some interesting ideas, some innovations, some breakthroughs. Your work is not over. Your work begins in the next phase. Which is about how to get that idea, that innovation, that breakthrough out of the box, out of the pilot test, out of the team you're a part of to the larger organization. That is not automatic. We often like to think that Eureka, everyone is going to see this and it's going to be a big success. But there's all types of reasons why innovation, a new idea, doesn't diffuse, doesn't spread through the organization. We talk about encapsulation as a serious problem with research and development. How do you get it to spread? Well, there's a number of things that stand in the way. Well, that's fine for you, but that's not how we do things now. So there's a resistance to change. That wasn't invented here. I don't think it'll work. We're kind of happy with the way we're doing things. We'll just continue with that, so thanks, but no thanks. There's lots of things that happen in terms of organizations that prevent the spread and the diffusion of new ideas. Sometimes the idea is picked up and the executive suite says, this is a great idea. Now, everybody, top down, do this. Well, we know that that's not a very effective way of diffusion. I can think of a couple of examples here of a wonderful breakthrough refusing to spread. The first that comes to mind had to do with Xerox Corporation. Who in Palo Alto, California, quite sometime ago, invented all of that UPC code, scanning. That we all use at supermarkets and checkout counters and inventory control now. But that existed for years. And it was not, well it was one of those things that Xerox said, yeah, that's nice. But we're making lots of money now in our photocopying business. And our lines of business are cash cow businesses. So it sort of sat on the shelf. And eventually it was licensed then eventually, obviously, it became a whole new industry and business. So that idea was there, but it didn't spread automatically. So there are things and there's ways that teams have to begin to think about how to enable these things to spread. Now, one of the things has to do, it's sort of the seeds in the story. That if we just take it up the hierarchy and to the top management. And yes, of course they need to bless the idea. They need to make sure that it's something they're willing to invest in and risk. And then a command structure that tells everybody to do it, that's the ineffective part. What the core or what the central offices, or the the corporate headquarters needs to do is they need to create spaces for that work team that came up with an innovation. To tell their story to other work teams. To other parts of their organization. That group has the street cred, the credibility. The trust and respect of their peers to explain what they've done and why they've done it and how they came up with this. That has more chances for success than concentrating the message into a central group. And a now hear this broadcast that you shall as of January 1st, we shall all do follow these new methods, adopt these new procedures. So this is just one way that I'm beginning to think of how we need to get over this hurdle of diffusion. And not getting the ideas to be encapsulated in the test or project team or the team that came up with the ideas. It strikes me, that the teams that come up with ideas oftentimes they're not receiving an assignment that is, okay, we want you to plan this and then we're all going to implement it. A very linear plan-do strategy. That in fact learning, organizational learning, individual learning Is an iterative recursive process. That's why design methodologies, I think, are so important. We have an idea, we talk about it with others, we need to test it. And that oftentimes refines our idea, we get a new idea or a re-image. And this idea of learning our way forward, when things are unknown. We don't have our experience to count on, I've been there before, here's what we need to do. Just do what I say, you'll see. No, if this is new and uncharted waters, we need to learn our way forward. There's uncertainty, there's ambiguity. And we need different methods, design methods and learning methods as opposed to just making choices between, well, let's try this. Well, let's try this again, only we're going to push harder this time. >> Yes. >> We need to re-frame and the ambiguity and uncertainty that we face in our organizational markets and opportunities. It calls for new ways of doing things. >> Yes and design thinking supports reframing to a very large extent. Because when we talk about design thinking, it's not problem focused, it's solution focused. So design thinking starts with the question of what this ought to be? Instead of what are the current realities? What are the problems we're facing and how to overcome that? So when you reframe it to what it ought to be or when you go towards an idealized design. I think that really helps re-frame the entire situation. Bring more perspectives and help you looking at the bigger picture than just getting caught in the seas and weeds and integrities of why it can't be done. Rather looking at what can be done to achieve that final state. >> Absolutely. The realism of looking at the idealistic design, looking at the factors that it's not invented here. It's not homegrown. We've tried this before, it'll not work. We've been around for too long and we know this won't work. And the point of ambiguity and uncertainty that I'm sure you have as much from your own experience. How do you adapt to situations that you don't know yet? Future doesn't have a roadmap. You are at a certain point of time and you are to build the path to a land that you don't know yet. And those are some of the serious challenges that lies in front of us. Whether it's technology, it's economy, it's sociopolitical reality. And we think we know the solution, but sometimes the solution becomes the problem. Doesn't it, Dana? >> Very much. For those of you who are interested in philosophy, this will be familiar to you in terms of dialectical thinking. And that's the idea that in every solution is contained its own dissolution. And organizations, teams are especially prone to thinking that there is once they come up with a solution, that's it, they're not seeing it. Ellen, as you mentioned, in an iterative way. And we just want to stress that when you come up with a solution that's very exciting. And also be thinking about what are the implications of your solution? What are the limitations or how will it develop into the next problem or issue? >> That also brings me back. Dana, it's very interesting that dealing to what Allan said about learning being iterative. Because it almost means that I need to have a shared understanding of the problem I'm solving, of the solution I'm creating. That forces me to break the silo, the very silo I have created for my structure. And I'm sure we're going to talk about this sometime in the future. >> Yeah, there's quite a bit in terms of this. At the individual level, we can see that part of that is breaking the frame that we have in our head, to think about it differently. Quick example I can offer is that if I say, a rolling stone gathers no moss, what does that mean? If we talk about the latter, okay, the stone is rolling. But if I interpret that, then I start putting value judgements on that. Well, one possibility is a rolling stone gathers no moss. Well, rolling is good. That's action, that's activity. And moss, well, that must be, that's a problem. But wait a minute. A rolling stone gathers no moss. What if moss, rather than stagnation is stability and growing and allowing something to develop? And then rolling is chaos and things that prevent development. So we can flip our frame. And right there, in terms of enabling organizational learning or individual learning. There are frames in our head, there's the deep learning we have to do. We have to address things differently. But then we need structures and policies and places and organizations that allow us to do that work. So there is this organizational architecture side. We'll talk more about that in the next unit. But I think this importance of framing, we've talked about that throughout this course, is an exceedingly important piece. The system's thinking, framing, the diagnosis, making sure you're down on that ladder of inference. So that you're dealing with data and specifics and not making judgments too soon. I think, all these points out to me that organizations and teams need more than the activity of just exploiting what they know. >> Yes. >> They've got to explore. So they need to explore and exploit. They need to discover as well as sort of produce. So these are different frames and different activities. And they need to create the space and be intentional about their ability to do those things. At least those are the language, that's the language we often hear. Explore and exploit. Exploit not being bad, we need to utilize what we know. But there are times we need to recognize we don't know and we need to come up with new answers. >> You've had a chance to listen to us. You've had a chance to reflect. You've had a chance to practice Ladder of Inference. Now moving into the fourth module, I think it's a great idea and all of us agree on this to practice looking at your own context, whether it's an organization, whether it's the community, whatever be your reality. To look at the barriers and to look at what enables the purpose of your organization. And that will be the input before you walk into the fourth module. Where we will look at organizational structures that enable or disable breakthroughs and innovation. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
