Ateneo Professor on Entrepreneurship
This is a very important concept in entrepreneurship. The relationship between cause and effect is not linear. It is systemic: (From Peter Senge: Fifth Discipline) like clockwork where there are hundreds of wheels turning with counterwheels; a breakdown halts the entire clock; or like an electronic chip where are myriads of transistors on a chip the size of a stamp.
One of the ideas about a system is that there are seven components: inputs, outputs, throughputs, purpose (objective), human aid, catalysts, information aid. (From Breakthrough Thinking by Hibino)
So we are posting events around the world, so that we are made aware that e.g . how will fiscal cliff affect PHL economy; how will Romney/Obama victory affect world peace and security; or the Grexit.
All these add up. They can and do affect our lives and our enterprises.
Showing posts with label systemic thinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label systemic thinking. Show all posts
Monday, September 17, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
Conversation Mapping, a new Tool for Solving Complex Problem
An Ateneo Graduate School of Business Advantage
This topic was covered by John Stayton, founder and director of Venture Greenhouse. His background is high technology industrial marketing and business consulting
Conversation mapping which is related to systemic thinking proposed as one of the 5 disciplines in the book entitled "Fifth Discipline" by Peter Senge, is like an extended mind mapping and is used to resolve complex issues especially social and political, involving various stakeholders. It is consultative problems solving that draws more commitment from stakeholders. The process recognizes:
l. One problem casues another problem;
2. Two divergent issues can be combined to come up with a third brilliant outcome. (e.g. solid waste disposal vs toxicity in burning, (greenhouse effect and ozone depletion) led to recycling and new products from plastic waste.
How to do it?
John placed large pieces of paper on our tables with a theme written on it. For our group, it was limited energy resource (for others it was engagement from student, effectuation entrepreneurship, effective education etc). From there, we had to write bubbles connected to the central theme and we can connect to the other ideas. Then we moved on other tables doing the same. Since we were from different countries, it was a great eye opener to the mindsets of other participants.
Next step was to go back to your own theme, select emergent themes and issues. Then prioritze...So tht you can leverage on the top issues.
Then write a conclusion on the emergent themes.
My comments:
l. I think this is great for policy making; public and corporate policy;
2. This is great for complex problems;
3. I think this will be great tool for case analysis. However, premium on individual critical thinking is lost.
4. It is really very different from mindmapping. In mind mapping, the labels and themes have been predetermined, and his role will just be to add to the details. Conversation mapping is chaotic, and the big task of sorting out the themes will have to be made.
5. I asked John, how come my conclusion is different from the group conclusion. He said this is good because now you have many possibilites .(What about having the group agree with you? Especially if you can not communicate well?)
This topic was covered by John Stayton, founder and director of Venture Greenhouse. His background is high technology industrial marketing and business consulting
Conversation mapping which is related to systemic thinking proposed as one of the 5 disciplines in the book entitled "Fifth Discipline" by Peter Senge, is like an extended mind mapping and is used to resolve complex issues especially social and political, involving various stakeholders. It is consultative problems solving that draws more commitment from stakeholders. The process recognizes:
l. One problem casues another problem;
2. Two divergent issues can be combined to come up with a third brilliant outcome. (e.g. solid waste disposal vs toxicity in burning, (greenhouse effect and ozone depletion) led to recycling and new products from plastic waste.
How to do it?
John placed large pieces of paper on our tables with a theme written on it. For our group, it was limited energy resource (for others it was engagement from student, effectuation entrepreneurship, effective education etc). From there, we had to write bubbles connected to the central theme and we can connect to the other ideas. Then we moved on other tables doing the same. Since we were from different countries, it was a great eye opener to the mindsets of other participants.
Next step was to go back to your own theme, select emergent themes and issues. Then prioritze...So tht you can leverage on the top issues.
Then write a conclusion on the emergent themes.
My comments:
l. I think this is great for policy making; public and corporate policy;
2. This is great for complex problems;
3. I think this will be great tool for case analysis. However, premium on individual critical thinking is lost.
4. It is really very different from mindmapping. In mind mapping, the labels and themes have been predetermined, and his role will just be to add to the details. Conversation mapping is chaotic, and the big task of sorting out the themes will have to be made.
5. I asked John, how come my conclusion is different from the group conclusion. He said this is good because now you have many possibilites .(What about having the group agree with you? Especially if you can not communicate well?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)