Thinking Outside the Box

"I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." John F. Kennedy, “Remarks at a Dinner Honoring Nobel Prize Winners of the Western Hemisphere,” 29 Apr. 1962. 

High performance requires us to break with conformity, conventional wisdom and the safe, predictable boundaries of pre-existing knowledge, "best practices" and experience. As the speaker in the TED talk explains, about 3 percent of people thinks that way.

Routine, habit, best practices and methodologies, tried and proven models provide "boxes" and rails to facilitate what Nobel Prize Daniel Kahneman calls "system one-thinking" or "thinking fast"

High-level, "system two" -type of "slow" thinking requires also to "think outside the box", in other words, to step outside the boundaries of habit, experience and received, accepted wisdom. 

Models such as Kahneman's and "decoupling" can serve as examples of "thinking out of the box", in other words, escaping existing models.

Think of:

1. Reversing cause and effect ("what if...")
2. Step back (and back again) until you see the whole, the larger framework
3. Ask, listen, set your eyes on the street without a previous purpose
4. Identify steps in the value chain that add value and try to separate them from those who don't. Is there a better way?
5. Think as an end user, try it on, walk it, drive it.
6. Look at analogies, metaphors

Look at this image and tell yourself how many squares you can see here:

There is a fast answer. Write that one down. Try to find more. All those possible. The difference between the fast answer and the last answer is the difference between fast thinking and deep thinking, between thinking inside and outside the box, between standard performance (16?) and high performance (34?).  Majorities tend to fall into "group thinking" and conformity, unless you invite them to think "out of the box". Maybe asking them questions, looking at other people's ideas or points of view, arguing, asking them to show or explain what they see or thinks differently. These are some proven techniques.

In 1895, dramatist Henryck Ibsen wrote a play about this problem "An Enemy of the People" where the main character explains why "the majority is always wrong":

Ibsen's dilemma shows that "thinking outside the box" poses social conflicts: (a) between those who stay with the majority and the standard and those who look beyond and (b) between social conformity and acceptance / encouragement of dissent.

Well before Ibsen, Plato explained this problem with the allegory of the cave, which exposes the process of knowledge as the conflict between thinking inside and outside the "box":

 "Plato has Socrates describe a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from objects passing in front of a fire behind them, and give names to these shadows. The shadows are the prisoners' reality. Socrates explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall are not reality at all, for he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the manufactured reality that is the shadows seen by the prisoners. The inmates of this place do not even desire to leave their prison, for they know no better life. The prisoners manage to break their bonds one day, and discover that their reality was not what they thought it was. They discovered the sun, which Plato uses as an analogy for the fire that man cannot see behind. Like the fire that cast light on the walls of the cave, the human condition is forever bound to the impressions that are received through the senses. "

Kahneman's formulation helps focus on forms of thinking that we can (and often have to) use alternatively in order to address different kind of situations.

PI Models: From "Performance Improvement" to New Business and Value Creation

We can classify the multiple PI/HPT models –more than 46 according to current research[1]- into three main categories according with their focus and scope[2]:

• 1.       Individual performance models –such as Gilbert´s BEM (popularly known as the “Six Boxes”), Mager´s performance analysis algorithm, Langdon´s Language of Work (LOW) or Spitzer´s context of work considers individual workers as the unit of analysis.
• 2.      Organizational performance models – such as Rummler´s Anatomy of Performance (AOP), Brethower´s Total Performance System (TPS), Tosti, Carleton and Lineberry´s SCAN, or Addison, Haig and Kearny´s Performance Architecture (PA) makes process and functional performance their unit of analysis.
• 3.      Strategic, societal performance models – such as Kaufman´s Organizational Elements Model (OEM) analyze single or multiple organizations´ performance in the market, as part of business and social ecosystems from the perspective of the value added (or subtracted) to customers, employees, investors and other stakeholders.

In the real world, most performance problems have multi-level causes and consequences, and require the collaboration of multiple specialists as multi-disciplinary teams.

A review of the models and disciplines involved in more than 60 projects and organizations – summarized in Figure 1 (Bernardez, 2006) -, shows that improving performance to create value for customers and internal stakeholders involves connecting external and internal factors and multiple HPT and non-HPT models.

Developing worthy[3], value-adding performance starts by analyzing external, strategic factors  defining results –what is to be accomplished-. Multiple HPT and non-HPT models are required to identify markets, clients and stakeholders’ needs –defined as gaps between current and desired results- and define strategic, business and marketing plans.

Once the strategy is defined, multiple HPT and non-HPT models and tools must be combined working inside the organization to deliver tactical and operational performance, dealing with internal factors addressing how to get the desired results.

Individual performance models

Individual performance models –such as Gilbert’s classic Behavior Engineering Model –BEM- (shown in Table 2) - are quite helpful in understanding and optimizing performance at the job level –the level of the individual worker-.

Table 2: The behavior engineering model (Gilbert, 1978)

	S₫ Information	R Instrumentation	Sₓ Motivation
E – Environmental supports	Data 1.       Relevant and frequent feedback about the adequacy of performance 2.      Descriptions of what is expected of performance 3.      Clear and relevant guides to adequate performance	Instruments 1.       Tools and materials of work designed scientifically to match human factors	Incentives 1.       Adequate financial incentives made contingent upon performance 2.      Nonmonetary incentives made available 3.      Career-development opportunities
P – Person’s repertory of behavior	Knowledge 1.       Scientifically designed training that matches the requirements of exemplary performance 2.      Placement	Capacity 1.       Flexible scheduling of performance to match peak capacity 2.      Prosthesis 3.      Physical shaping 4.      Adaptation 5.      Selection	Motives 1.       Assessment of people’s motives to work 2.      Recruitment of people to match the realities of the situation

Organizational performance models

A few years later, Gilbert’s former business partners, Geary Rummler and Dale Brethower, took the entire approach to performance analysis and improvement several steps further in the systemic direction, noticing that using Gilbert’s BEM model frequently led to optimize individual workers’ performance at the expense of process and organizational performance.

If each worker were allowed to “improve” his/her own activities at the job level based on Gilbert “Six Boxes”, regardless of other co-workers working ahead, before or while collaborating in a shared work process, their collective performance would experience a noticeable setback –as it would happen if each rower in a coxed four were to row at his/her own pace and rhythm-.

Rummler’s and Brethower’s[1] Anatomy Of Performance –AOP- model started by envisioning three levels of performance –nested one into and under each other-: job level, process level and function level –as shown in Figure 1-

 Figure 1: Three levels of performance (Rummler & Brache, 1995)

From (Bernardez, 2006)

Rummler’s AOP model analyzes performance in three levels –job, process, organization- and at three levels of “performance needs”: -goals, design, and management- considered from a performance management perspective.

Table 3: Geary Rummler’s organizational “nine boxes” (Rummler & Brache, 1995)

		Performance needs
		Goals	Design	Management
Performance level	Organization level	Organization objectives & indicators n   Macro n   Micro	Organization design n   Macro n   Micro	Organization management n   Macro n   Micro
	Process level	Process objectives & indicators	Process design	Process management
	Job level	Job and task objectives & indicators Resources levels & requirements	Job and task design Resources allocation system	Job and task management Resources management

Rummler & Brethower’s matrix includes at the lowest level all key elements of Gilbert’s BEM models, although not organized in Six Boxes[2].

Strategic, societal performance models

Although Rummler/Brethower’s AOP and Tosti/Carleton’s SCAN include references to the societal context considered as the “supra-system”, their models do not pay such prior intense attention to societal performance as Roger Kaufman’s Organizational Elements’ Model – OEM- does.

Kaufman’s model –later reframed as part of his Megaplanning methodology- focuses on the planning process, particularly in differentiating the true “strategic” part –represented by Mega-level, societal results driven by a Minimal Ideal Vision (MIV)[3] of the future- from “tactical” levels such as benefits for the organization –Macro- level goals such as revenue, market share or profit- and “operational” –which for Kaufman starts at the “outputs” (products or services) level or Micro-level and includes Activities[4]- and Resources –defined as inputs for Activities-.

Figure 2: Organizational Elements Model –OEM- (Kaufman, 2006)

Kaufman’s model focuses on establishing vertical alignment between strategic, tactical and operational results. Such alignment is –according to Kaufman- the only way to guarantee delivering actual value to external stakeholders, keeping the organization useful and focused.

Kaufman’s OEM model provides a uniquely helpful guide to align all internal elements –after all, organizations are not ends unto themselves, but means to achieve results and produce value- and make sure that our sequence of definitions follows an “outside-in”, “top-down” order rather than the other way around.

Using Kaufman’s OEM as a “builder’s plumb”-to continue with the home improvement analogy-, we can keep our performance improvement efforts honest and aligned with results and actual value for external stakeholders and the survival of the organization.

Integrating Kaufman’s OEM, Rummler & Brethower’s AOP and Gilbert BTE as shown in Table 4, we can connect and align the three levels of PI models and get a complete, systemic “blueprint” of what is involved in change and its probable impact in the organization’s overall performance.

Table 4: Aligning models: multi-level framework

Level	Objectives Goals, standards & indicators	Design “How to”, programs	Management Implementation, control
Societal/External(Mega) n   Community n   Clients n   Market n   Suppliers n   Value chain	Mega objectives & indicators n  Community n   Market n   People n   Suppliers	Social & organizational plan strategic directions related to n   Community n   Market n   People n   Suppliers	Social and regional management n   Market n   Policies n   Regulations
Organization n   Macro (org. results) n  Micro (products)	Organization objectives & indicators n   Macro n   Micro	Organization design n   Macro n   Micro	Organization management n   Macro n   Micro
Processes n   Internal services	Process objectives & indicators	Process design	Process management
People & resources n   “Six boxes” n   Individual performer	n  Job and task objectives & indicators n  Resources levels & requirements	n  Job and task design n  Resources allocation system	n  Job and task management n  Resources management

Combining models to create new business

Developing new organizations from the “kitchen table” to the market required also to align and adapt traditional performance improvement models and tools –developed to help existing organizations at a mature stage- with the requirement of the different stages of organization development,

Another application of the multi-model “adapter” matrix developed in by the PII Faculty team working in collaborative online and on site sessions in Sonora, Tucson, Chicago and Albuquerque[1] helped combine the specific strengths of different models in developing new organizations along the stages of planning, incubation –developing the organization- and acceleration -placing the new business in the market-

Figure 2:  PII multi-model process “roadmap” for developing new organizations from the “kitchen table” to the marketplace

  

Using the multi-model adapter as a process “roadmap” the PII Faculty and students identified the specific tasks and deliverables required for each stage and aligned the HPT and non HPT models better suited to produce them.

Table 3 shows the HPT and non HPT models utilized, organized following the three stages of new business development:

Table 3: Combining different HPT and non-HPT models in the real world (the ITSON case)

Stage	Deliverables	HPT (and non-HPT) models applied
Planning	·         Strategic plan (Vision, Mission, SPI) ·         Business Case (Top line, Bottom lines) ·         Marketing plan (Value proposition, client experience, Competitive model) ·         Organizational Design (high level)	·         OEM (Kaufman, 2006) ·         Double Bottom line business case (Bernardez, 2008, Volume 1, Number 1) ·         Value proposition (Anderson, Narus, & van Rossum, March 2006) ·         Client experience model (Bernardez, 2008) ·         Competitive strategy model (Prahalad & Krichnan, 2008) ·         AOP (Rummler & Brache, 1995)
Incubation	·         Organizational Design (detail) ·         Value chain design ·         Key process design ·         Management system ·         Work level-design and individual competences ·         Training design & delivery	·         AOP (Rummler & Brache, 1995) ·          Organizational SCAN (Tosti & Jackson, 1997) ·         Value chain design (Rummler, 2004) ·         AOP (Rummler & Brache, 1995) ·         TPM (Brethower, 2007) ·         BEM (Gilbert, 1978) , Performance Improvement algorithm (Mager & Pipe, 1970, 1983) ·         ISD/ADDIE , e-performance (Bernardez, 2003), EPSS (Gery, Electronic Performance Support Systems (EPSS), 1992)
Acceleration	·         Brand development ·         Market development	·         Brand architecture and engineering model (Bernardez, 2008) ·         Ecosystems model (Prahalad C. .., 2005) (Bernardez, 2009) ·         Clusters development model (Iansiti & Levien, 2004)

Combining different models actually helped both to enrich and accelerate the collaborative process, since each one of the key HPT and non-HPT models had a long and solid track record along decades or application to a variety of organizations, was supported by detailed documentation and tools customized to a variety of industries such as those of the 34 new organizations to be developed through the PII program.

---

[1] This multi-model business creation process “roadmap” was developed in collaborative sessions in Tucson (2006) by Geary Rummler, Dale Brethower, Roger Kaufman and the author. The last time we met Geary at the ISPI Fall Conference in Albuquerque, shortly before his lamented passing away, he presented to us the first drafts of yet another combination of OEM and AOP models he have been working on.

---

[1] According to their own report, Geary Rummler and Dale Brethower started expanding and questioning the primitive BEM model during their years of research together, and after parting for decades –Rummler to consulting, Brethower to academia- developed two models AOP and TPS that were in essence variations of a common one. They re-baptized it Anatomy of Performance –AOP- and have been working later years associated at ITSON with AOP.

[2] Alhtough Gilbert’s BEM formulation separates “environmental control” factors –see Table 2-, these are considered as part of the “job context” as in a “job description”. The AOP model goes much further by differentiating “job conditions” such as these from process and organizational levels.

[3] For a complete description of Kaufman’s  MIV see Kaufman’s Change, Choices and Consequences (Kaufman, Change, choices and consequences: a guide to Mega thinking and planning, 2006) or Bernardez’s Tecnologia del Desempeno Humano (Bernardez, 2006)

[4] Kaufman’s”Activities” are a  more general equivalent  to what AOP defines as organization and process levels

---

[1] (Kaufman, Thiagarajan, & MacGillis, THe Guidebook for Performance Improvement: Working with individuals and organizations, 1997) (Dean & Ripley, 1997) (ISPI, 2006)

[2] The models mentioned in each category are the most widely known and applied in each category of performance.

[3] (Gilbert, 1978)