Prior to graduate school, I worked as a change management consultant
focused primarily on technology adoption projects. This means that when a
company was adopting a large corporate technology package, I would work
alongside technology experts to implement the new technology. I provided
communications and training and made sure that the company’s employees were
prepared for the changes that would come with this new technology.
For each of these technology implementations, we began with an
effort called “visioning sessions.” The goal behind these sessions was to
figure out what the needs of the business are so that the technology can be appropriately
configured to the business priorities. In order to do this, the team leads representative
employees through a review of different capability areas, and participants
decide how sophisticated the capability area needs to be based upon the needs
of the business.
These visioning sessions are intense. They last for multiple
weeks. There are over 10 capability areas that need to be discussed, and
sometimes the discussion for each area can last multiple days. Participants are
representatives from the business, usually the strongest or most influential
employees of their specific function.
From an environmental psychology perspective, there are many
advantages to this participatory process, but also many downsides.
1.
The process is based in the rational actor model.
Each capability area is meticulously reviewed. Hundreds of decisions are made
one-by-one, until the systems is fully designed. However, we know that this is
rarely how people make decisions; we often lean instead towards “satisficing.”
2.
While participation is sought from some
representatives of the business, there is no way to include everybody. Thus,
many others feel as if they are not involved, and when the system is finally
rolled out, these are the ones that experience the most pain.
3.
The time-intensive nature of this process is
most definitely a tax on the participants’ directed attention. Moreover, they
are often asked to participate as an addition to their normal work, so the
expectations are even higher. The meetings are not spread out, and participants
are not given time off to seek attention restoration. Therefore, it is likely
that participants are not contributing in the most effective way towards the
end of these sessions.
Looking back on this process, I can’t help but think that
there are lot of potential improvements. For instance, perhaps the process
should start by just asking “what really matters to you about how this technology
works?” This would be much closer to satisficing. Similarly, is there a way to
shorten the sessions or at least encourage opportunities for restoration during
the sessions? Last, how can we involve more people in the process?
After reading your post, I was thinking about multiple questions surrounding the environmental setting of the "vision sessions". There should be a space that is set up for everyone to feel like they have equal say, which could be achieved in a restorative circle. This is also an example of information sharing combined with existing information for business needs and new technology. I honestly believe that workers should be prepared prior to the session with needs that need to be met by the new technology. To relieve the overwhelming stress and direct attention fatigue spaces should provide a break in the sessions where those who are overwhelmed by outside work could go out to change scenery.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that the selection of the ultimate decision makers are "usually the strongest or most influential employees of their specific function", rather than an overall representative group of both new and well-seasoned employees. The senior personnel would have the strongest cognitive maps of the business with repeat experience and time at the company, however, there is potential for an "expert" bias, where they struggle in understanding how this material should be presented to an employee without that map. This would explain the pain they would experience when the system was finally rolled out.
ReplyDeleteNick, your post reminds me of two organizational systems that invoke participation in interesting ways: "Six Sigma" and the "Lean" system (Toyota). Lean, in particular, has been adapted to healthcare systems and focuses on making use of extensive surveys of employees. For example, from what I understand, nurses triage stations will be stocked and located according to "where" nursing staff typically access patients and treatment. The Lean study will pay attention to walking patterns, number of steps, but also "where do you like this X item to be when you're performing X?" I think these systems (plus your interest in business) are apt for understanding participation in the workplace to a more precise degree. Might be worth checking out. -CS
ReplyDeleteVery Interesting post Nick. It is a difficult task and you are not alone. Apart from the problems you mentioned, I also concern about what could facilitate the visioning of the problems. Since it is the new technologies that you are introducing to employees, it will take time to build the new IRs and cognitive maps before people can actually predict what they will face in the future. So apart from reviewing the capacity, how about create a simulation that expose employees to new techs first. For example, learn new tech from its miniature models/displays; use simulations of role play games like. They may all help to build the mental maps.
ReplyDelete