L&D: Book Review: Transforming Performance Measurement

And The Link To My TDSV Model

As I see it.

BTW – I know Dean from his years of involvement at NSPI/ISPI – and his books reflects what I would expect from someone from back in the day from that group.

As I started reading this great book, I immediately saw links to my TDSV model, in my 2001 book T&D Systems View.


Measurement of “measurement targets” identifies the benefits for costs of the current state, status quo, and the potential improvement and the actual results (returns) for any improvement undertaken.

What I liked about Dean’s book is his focus on Performance of course, and his view that Measurement and Measurement Refinement is a Social Process requiring dialogue and not debate.

That Measurement requires an organizational culture – of a Learning Organization – and not of a Retribution Organization (my words). That too requires a transformation.

These next slides are from Dean’s presentation on this topic – see the link at the end of this post.

Dialogue is required at each step…

Traditional Measures will not transform or improve…

This is the responsibility of the Enterprise Leadership – the CEO – and to insure a cross organization optimization – versus a potential functional sub-optimization – it may require that it be everyone’s duty but should be led by a CMO – Chief Measurement Officer.

I highly recommend this book if you are interested in establishing performance measures in your Enterprise and need more than the typical, vanity measures so prevalent in organizations today!

Transforming Performance Measurement Table of Contents


Chapter 1: Why Measurement Is So Powerful

Chapter 2: When Measurement Goes Bad

Chapter 3: Why Measurement Goes Bad

Chapter 4: Beginning the Transformation

Chapter 5: Creating A Positive Context of Measurement

Chapter 6: The Focus of Measurement

Chapter 7: The Integration of Measurement

Chapter 8: The Interactivity of Measurement


Chapter 9: Measurement Leadership

Chapter 10: Learning About and from Measurement

Chapter 11: The Uses and Abuses of Measurement Technology

Chapter 12: Performance Measurement Maturity

Chapter 13: Transformational Measurement: Now Is the Time to Take Action

Chapter 14: Transformational Measurement Action Plans (TMAPs)

Epilogue: How to Begin Transformational Measurement in Your Organization

The Need for Measurement Leadership

TDSV – T&D Systems View

This is my model for trying to diagnose problems/opportunities within a T&D – or – L&D Function. There are 47 processes within 12 sub-systems in the model.

T&D or L&D … it’s more than just your version (or aversion) to A-D-D-I-E.

3 O’clock: T&D Cost/Benefits Measurement System

3.1    Cost/Benefits Measurement System Design and Deployment Process

3.2    Ongoing Cost/Benefits Measurement and Feedback Receiving Process

3.3    T&D Project Lessons Learned Process

3.4    Results Reporting and Archiving Process

Dean’s book fits in with both 3.1 and 3.2 in my view. But a case can easily be made that it covers all 4 areas – as my book frames them. Your view, of course, may differ.

2001 TDSV Book Cover 1

Here is a link to a Past Post on this part of my model – here.

Back to Dean…

Dean Spitzer

From LinkedIn

Dr. Dean Spitzer is widely acknowledged as one of the world’s leading authorities on performance measurement and management. His latest book “Transforming Performance Measurement” has been hailed as a ‘breakthrough,’ ‘a masterpiece,’ and ‘the most important book ever written about performance measurement.’ Dr. Spitzer’s advice and counsel is sought by companies and government agencies throughout the world. During his distinguished career, he has helped more than 100 organizations on five continents improve their performance.

Dr. Spitzer’s client list reads like a Who’s Who of outstanding companies and government agencies. He has been a leader and internal change agent in the private and public sectors, a professor at 5 universities, the author of 8 books and over 200 articles and book chapters, and a keynote and featured presenter at more than 100 conferences. Dr. Spitzer has received many honors for his significant professional contributions, including being selected as a Fellow of the Advanced Performance Institute and receiving two President’s Awards from the International Society for Performance Improvement. He earned his Ph.D. degree from the University of Southern California and his M.A. from Northwestern University and pursued both undergraduate and graduate studies at the London School of Economics.

Again, I’ve known Dean for around 30 years through my involvement with NSPI/ISPI – the International Society for Performance Improvement – www.ispi.org


This is a great book – and if you are concerned with measurement you should check it out further!

To Order the Book

Available as a Kindle and hardcover.

For ordering from Amazon, please go – here.


And to see his slideshow on this, please go – here.

# # #



L&D/PI: Contentious Debate or Curious Dialogue?

Debate or Dialogue?

When engaged in a Communications Exchange with someone else, or a group, are you intending to Debate or to Dialogue?


Note: I’ve been reading Dean Spitzer’s excellent book: Transforming Performance Management – and I was struck by his many comments about Dialogue versus Discussion. Which I have adapted to Dialogue versus Debate.

Dean defines Dialogue as  Sharing Collective Meaning.

Other definitions include:

Debate is contention in argument; strife, dissension, quarrelling, controversy; especially a formal discussion of subjects before a public assembly or legislature, in Parliament or in any deliberative assembly. (Adapted from Wikipedia)
Dialogue is a written composition in which two or more characters are represented as conversing, a conversation between two or more persons; a similar exchange between a person and something else (such as a computer) b : an exchange of ideas and opinions. (Adapted from Merriam-Webster)

So – Is Your Goal “To Win” or “To Create a Win-Win?”

Adapted from my 2007 Post – here.

The singular most powerful insight I have ever gained in my evolution as a facilitator – and communicator – was due to my exposure to a “communications behavioral model” from both a “Win-Win Negotiating” and a “SPIN®” sales training course from Huthwaite, Inc. that I was most fortunate to be involved with in 1981 while at Motorola Training & Education Center (MTEC—the forerunner of Motorola University).


Neil Rackham and others (John Carlisle and I spent some quality time in a 14th century Priory in England while he delivered a Negotiations workshop as part of my “coming up to speed” for MY PROJECT) had built earlier versions of their training that focused on a dozen plus “behavioral traits” as demonstrated verbally.

I was “certified” by Neil in time for the Pilot Test of the 3-day Win-Win Negotiations session for sales people, purchasing agents and some governmental negotiators (where they were selling one or two “sophisticated black boxes” for big bucks).

Without going into their entire model, I gleaned four key verbal communication behavior types. I almost always self-categorize my own verbal expressions into these four, even as I say them. And I typically “see” others’ verbal expressions falling into these categories, even as they speak!

The Four Types of Communications Behaviors

1. Giving Information
2. Seeking Information
3. Testing Understanding/Summarizing
4. Defend/Attack

Again, these 4 (actually 6 given the combos) were derived from the 11 Behaviors of SPIN and the 13 of Win-Win Negotiations.

Giving Information

The “Giving Information” (GI) communication behavior is very straightforward, but important. You are giving information, which is not good if you are supposed to be finding things out!


You may need to first give some information before you “find things out,” but you should soon be shifting gears into the next type.

Seeking Information

The “Seeking Information” (SI) communication behavior also is simple. It’s typically in question form, either open or closed, depending on what you’re looking to accomplish.


Knowing or feeling your balance in your use of these first two types is important in assessing your successes and failures as a communicator, but nothing beats the next communication behaviors.

Testing Understanding/Summarizing

The “Testing Understanding/Summarizing” (TU/S) behavior is actually a combination of two, but I often combine them to simplify their use. However, they are different.


TU is when you make statements or ask questions for the purpose of testing out what you think you’ve just heard or what you think you know. Most of us know this as “active listening.”

One of the better ways to do a TU is to paraphrase what was said. Putting it into another set of words, rather than simply parroting it back just as you heard it, allows the sender to better check your receipt of their message. If you parrot it back, all we know is that you remember the words. The further your paraphrasing takes the original words away from the words you use, the easier it is to test for understanding.

It is also best to be somewhat declarative of what you’re doing when you TU. I often announce/declare, “I am testing here,” and then make a statement or ask a question. Then listen for the response, and always read the clues and cues of nonverbal facial and body language. You can also say, “Let me see if I’ve got this. You’re saying that x, y, and then z. Is that right?” Work on your own set of TU phrases. Play with it!

S is where you are simply summarizing. Again, it’s best to provide your own clues and cues to your group. Say, “Let me try to summarize this,” and then do it. Again, if your words stray from the original (but not too far), then it’s easier for the group to react.

This S stuff is very much like a TU, just done in a different mode. You are looking for feedback from the group that you are either right on, just off, or way off. Again, don’t let your ego get in the way! I tell groups that as a facilitator, I can’t be afraid to be wrong because it’ll slow us down. In fact, I’m often wrong. So get used to it! Your job here today is also to correct me and keep me on the straight and narrow path!

TU/S is critical to ensure that we understand the meanings behind the words that others are using. As a colleague of mine once remarked,

“It not just semantics, it’s always semantics!”

TU/S helps us receivers get into the intent of the message sender to check it out. It can be a very powerful tool for a facilitator. However, Socrates used this way back when, so be careful! Watch out for hemlock.


The “Defend/Attack” (D/A) behavior is also a combo. The D is typically in response to a real or perceived A. No matter how it starts, it usually degenerates into a D/A spiral that won’t end until someone interrupts the spiral. The best interruption is a TU/S behavior—something on the order of, “So you’re saying that this proactive facilitator stuff is just a bunch of hooey, and that the author must be a real jerk to perpetuate this garbage by committing it to paper and then disseminating it to the public?” (This is what, a TU or an S?)


Usually a short string of TU’s and S’s are sufficient to diffuse the situation and end a D/A spiral. All that the irate usually want is to be heard (really understood). Get the conversation back to more civilized ground and reduce the heat.

In my mind, the power of TU/S cannot be underestimated. Try it yourself. Try it on the kids. Try it with your significant other. But stay away from gang fights!

Using GI and SI and TU/S and D/A

Once I learned these, I began to “see” all of my own verbal utterings as falling into one of these categories.


I learned to first GI, maybe a little or a bunch, and then to soon TU. Do they get it? For example, “I want us to list all of the outputs for this Area of Performance and then identify all of the key measures of performance for each. Are we all clear on what I mean by performance outputs?”

Or, “We need to identify the typical performance gaps, if any, for this output.”

Or, in response to the group’s input/response, I use a TU for my benefit. “So the typical gap is that they are almost always late in turning in the monthly report?”

I also TU in response to their utterings. “Let me test this out. You’re saying that there are indeed typical gaps, but they don’t sync up with any of the key measures we have currently listed.”

I learned to SI and then S. “What gap do you think there is, and what key output measure would reflect that gap?” I would respond to their response with, “So we seem to be saying that it would be both a time to complete as well as a timeliness measure.”

I learned that the best way to break a D/A spiral was to first TU/S and then either GI or SI. “So you think that Global T&D dropped the ball and didn’t get the vendor into the effort soon enough, driving up your costs due to all of the overtime that was incurred trying to catch up?”

I learned that the more I TU/S the more it benefited the group, because they are sometimes hesitant to appear stupid (really ignorant or slow, but that’s another story). Again, I can’t afford to let my own ego get in the way of potentially appearing stupid, slow, etc. I’ve learned that the really smart people in the room will quickly figure me out and that I won’t appear stupid at all, no matter how hard I might appear to be trying with all of this TU behavior.

This is great stuff. It made me more comfortable to have these communication behavioral tools at my disposal when I first started, and I believe it has made a big difference in my approach and style. It has made me a much better facilitator.

Curious Dialogue

If you are curious about creating shared understanding – shared collective meaning – then I believe that these Communications Behaviors could be key to how you operate.

Rather than appear to be engaged in a Contentious Debate in an attempt to win, to convince – try a Curious Dialogue approach.

Of course, it’s a Socratic approach – so beware any Hemlock.

Another Past Post on This

From 2011…

You Can Never Really Communicate – You Can Only Mis-Communicate More or Less

# # #

L&D/PI: Performance Competence – That’s What It’s All About

My Definition of Performance Competence

Your definition may vary.


Stakeholders Set the Requirements

No one else. And Stakeholder Requirements in conflict – which does happen – can be balanced. And resolved.

Here is a 1995 article of mine about that:

The Customer Is King – Not! – 15 page PDF – the original version of the article published in the Journal for Quality and Participation in March 1995 – address Balancing Conflicting Stakeholder Requirements, and suggests that the Customer is Not the King of Stakeholders (despite the unfortunate slogans from the Quality movement despite Deming’s admonitions about slogans).


Enterprise Provisioning Systems Deliver Outputs and Outcomes to be Used and/or Consumed By the Processes

Assuming that the Process has been designed to meet the Stakeholder Requirements – then that Process needs to be enabled.


Determine the Outputs and Tasks and Then the Enablers


What the Human Assets Bring to the Process Party

If the phrase “Human Assets” make you uncomfortable – don’t have a cow – change it.

The phrase was in use in the 1980s and I’m trying to be consistent with my prior writings since way back then. So as to not confuse those who read those writings.


What the Environmental Assets Bring to the Process Party

These are the non-human/people assets necessary to bring a paper Process to life.


Interventions of All Types May Be Found Appropriate in Improvement Efforts

It is not simple. It is complex.


Some of My Related Books

Plus check other Resources in the Resources Tab and my Blog Posts.


For more information about these 6 books and some of my other books – please go – here.

# # #



L&D: Hungry Dogs Are Motivated

Note: The late Claude (Butch) Lineberry (1940-2003) was a fixture at NSPI/ISPI and I valued the lessons I learned … a lot from sitting in his conference presentations – and even more from his participation in the deep debates with other ISPI thought leaders at the hotel bar in the evenings. Ah, the old days. 

Something on Social Media yesterday about the media used in Learning triggered my memory of a quote from Butch – about a Hungry Dog. It seems we – in my SM circles anyway – are and/or have clients – who are not as hungry for learning in any mode/media nowadays. But I’m pretty damn sure that’s not a universal truth. 

This morning I dug through my files for this contribution from him in 2000 which I happily share with you today…


The Medium is the Massage…Not the Message

Claude S. Lineberry


My problem, dear reader, is that having lived to within hailing distance of three score years on this planet, I seem to have lived too long. I can’t remember PIN numbers — any of them — so I have them written down on a card in my wallet, labeled “PIN numbers.” Making a call from a pay phone (they are still called pay phones, aren’t they?) has become impossibly complex, requiring the punching in of hundreds of digits that I have been no more successful at memorizing than my PIN numbers. Don’t even let me get started on e-mail, which everyone assumes I check every 83 seconds when in reality I only check it on Memorial Day and Labor Day, and then only with expert assistance from my 8-year-old son.

I am appalled at what people wear to the theater, and at their arriving late, and talking on cellular phones, and eating fat-free corn chips during the performance. I am nauseated at the salaries paid to 19-year-old professional athletes and 55-year-old CEOs, especially when compared to what we pay the 27 remaining truly excellent public school teachers in this country.

Someone ruined The New Yorker magazine while I was attempting to make a telephone call, and “customer service representatives” and “waitpersons” who are younger than my tweed jacket and whom I have never met call me by my first name. (“Well, you could do that Claude, but I don’t think coming down here and ripping the manager’s head off will help us with our problem, do you?”).

But enough about me! I catalog these tribulations only as context to what I’m about to say about us. ISPI. You. Me. Them, standing over there looking mildly interested. Having observed the evolution of human performance technology over the last 32 years while simultaneously continuing to observe the broader culture of which our technology is a small but promising component, I find myself, alas, no wiser. Only older and more confused.

I have reached one solid conclusion out of it all, however. Marshall McLuhan was wrong. The medium is not the message. Never was. Never will be. The message is the message. The medium is the massage. We seem, within our little community and within the world at large, to fail to understand this most basic concept and to confuse one for the other.

A global example. The recent death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in a traffic accident in Paris and the attendant public reaction to it which seemed, to me, unreasonable to the point of mass hysteria. Millions of people who had never met Diana, never laid eyes on her except in the print and broadcast media, never contributed to her charities, and in fact knew less about her than they do about the migratory route of the wildebeest were suddenly beside themselves with grief! A lynch mob was sanctioned in Paris, beatification seriously discussed, visions appeared, and within hours of her unfortunate demise, a half dozen “condolence” web sites were up and running!

To what was this emotional reaction; the death of Diana the person, or the death of Diana the cultural icon, created by the media and Diana over the last 15 years? To the message or the massage. I would suggest that it was to the latter, not to the real loss of Diana the person we didn’t know, but to the imagined loss of Diana the media creation, something that was never really there.

What, you rightfully ask, does this predictably pragmatic view have to do with ISPI? At last year’s Annual Conference in Anaheim, I attended a session on the future of performance technology featuring Dale Brethower, Don Tosti, and Danny Langdon — arguably two and a half or three of the best minds in the field, representing a wonderful mix of logic, thoughtfulness, tough-mindedness, vision, and humor. It was a marvelous session — delightfully disorganized, energetic, insightful, provocative, and challenging. The discussion and questions from the audience that followed brought even more richness, and I left it with some new ideas and things to think about.

Imagine my shock and subsequent horror upon overhearing several members of the session’s audience conducting a hallway critique in terms of the presenters’ overhead transparencies (“I can’t believe they didn’t use Powerpoint!”), their style (“Not one repeated the audience question, so I couldn’t understand the answer!”), and their handouts (“Only one had handouts, and they aren’t very slick-looking!”). I paused to inquire gently as to any relevance or value of the content of the session — you know, what was said and discussed — and met with an uncomfortable pause and looks of disbelief.

Message lost, a casualty of inadequate massage. Lost to a priority on cosmetics over content. My goodness, a Stephen Hawking special on PBS must drive people like this straight to the nearest mall to seek refuge in the Covey shop! Fondle a few coffee mugs… lick a poster… sip some herbal tea… whatever.

It is clear to me now why only a handful of the thousands who own a copy of Tom Gilbert’s Human Competence have actually read it, why we have enjoyed what Joe Harless has said over the years about public education but never given his message the attention it deserves, why Bob Mager’s elegant presentation of concepts and models may actually detract from their implementation, why we needed a Mike Hammer to “discover” re-engineering in 1993 when Geary Rummler has been quietly telling us about it since 1985, and why Tosti’s powerful models for developmental and motivational feedback remain largely unapplied. We pay so much attention to the cosmetics of delivery that we fail to hear or heed the real message!

It is also now clear to me how the Tom Peters and Stephen Coveys of the world can get $50,000 a pop for saying things like “Corporate America is dead… we’re all screwed… it’s your fault,” or “Go where your heart tells you but carry a bus schedule” to enormous groups of people who actually take notes!

Admittedly, Gilbert is a tough read, Harless is overwhelming and arrogant, Mager is disarmingly smooth and humorous, Rummler is deceptively understated, and Tosti’s mind continually outdistances his mouth. All are brilliant resources to newcomer and old timer as well.

What a pity for us not to hear and understand what they and others have to say because we find acquiring their message difficult, or worse, we don’t attempt to acquire the message because we find the massage — the cosmetics — inadequate!

Conversely and perhaps sadder, an alarming number respond with glassy-eyed obeisance to the current hype about such things as EPSS and multi-media which are, in reality, a big computer job aid and a combination of rather traditional delivery systems — relatively valueless in and of themselves.

This leads me, quite naturally, to the Eleventh Commandment: Quality is Quality and Crap is Crap No Matter What the Delivery Medium, or, as translated from the original Tibetan, “A hungry dog is not prevented from eating by the color of the bowl.”


Just what are our priorities and responsibilities as learners and leaders, and how hungry are we?

Butch on Video

“Self-esteem does not build performance competence – but performance competence does a hell of a lot for self-esteem.”

We lost this curmudgeon way too soon.

RIP Butch – despite our continued fumblings. RIP.

# # #


Social and Anti-Social Practices Within Processes – By Design

Where to Tune Up Social Capabilities & Capacities at the Right Time in the Right Place for the Right End-Purposes

An existing graphic I am using here to establish a visual framework for the 8 Steps (or Phases, or Tasks, etc.) for what follows.


What follows is my attempt to list key activities where Social Capabilities and Capacity might be a key leverage point. And might be in need of examination and improvement.

EPPI Stage II - Complex Workstreams

Exploring 8 Typical Steps

This is an example project with 3 major workstreams – each having to come together at key points to insure final success.

  1. Macro Project Planning
  2. Analysis
  3. Design
  4. Design Integration & Test
  5. Development
  6. Development Integration & Test
  7. Pilot Test
  8. Revision & Release

My purpose here is to simply list the generic Activities within such as Step –  in one of two categories:

  • Social Activity
  • Non-Social Activity

What is Social?

In my view:

Social : is simply human interaction.

For a deliberate purpose – or – “no purpose at all” … or so said Chuck Berry in song as he cruised in his automobile.

Most of our concerns are with better processes and practices and tools to assist us in being more Social – in terms of our effectiveness and efficiency in achieving the deliberate purpose.

Socialis means to some end or ends. Social is a Practice – at various levels – within Processes.

How Do We Do Social? 

Sometimes actual face-to-face. And sometimes virtual face-to-face … or voice-to-voice … or email-to-email … or text-to-text – or some variation of those on some unique platform or set of platforms.

Some social means are better than other social means – to get to the ends – as situationally determined.

And sometimes we do these Social Interactions Synchronously and sometimes Asynchronously.

Sometimes – maybe even most times – we wish we could be more synchronous – as we tried to be more quick about our planning-doing-reviewing and transitioning cycles and subcycles – or whatever you call that pattern.

These are our bottlenecks – our inability to do everything with everyone needed … in real time/synchronously … and so we settle for asynchronous practices.

We want better – faster – cheaper. Like everyone else. All at once. When that is often not feasible.

How and where in our project efforts – and non-project efforts – should we deliberately work to improve our Social Capabilities and Capacity?

Use the general list and framework below to think about your own specifics.

Your might be workstream C.

EPPI Stage II - Complex Workstreams


  1. Macro Project Planning

    • Typical Social Activities
      • Getting Inputs for Plan Development activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
      • Draft Plan Development activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
      • Draft Plan reviews/commentary activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
    • Typical Non-Social Activities
      • Preparing, Coordinating and Plan Development activities and schedule (the detailed level perhaps) alone and without additional inputs
  2. Analysis

    • Typical Social Activities
      • Preparation activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
      • Coordinating Logistics activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
      • Conducting some types of analysis activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
    • Typical Non-Social Activities
      • Preparing, Coordinating and Conducting some types of Analysis activities
  3. Design

    • Typical Social Activities
      • Preparation activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
      • Coordinating Logistics activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
      • Conducting some types of Design activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
    • Typical Non-Social Activities
      • Preparing, Coordinating and Conducting some types of Design activities
  4. Design Integration & Test

    • Typical Social Activities
      • Preparation activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
      • Coordinating Logistics activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
      • Conducting some types of Design Integration & Testing activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
    • Typical Non-Social Activities
      • Preparing, Coordinating and Conducting some types of Design Integration & Testing activities
  5. Development

    • Typical Social Activities
      • Preparation activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
      • Coordinating Logistics activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
      • Conducting some types of Development activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
    • Typical Non-Social Activities
      • Preparing, Coordinating and Conducting some types of Development activities
  6. Development Integration & Test

    • Typical Social Activities
      • Preparation activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
      • Coordinating Logistics activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
      • Conducting some types of Development Integration & Testing  activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
    • Typical Non-Social Activities
      • Preparing, Coordinating and Conducting some types of Development Integration & Testing activities
  7. Pilot Test

    • Typical Social Activities
      • Preparation activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
      • Coordinating Logistics activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
      • Conducting some types of Pilot Testing activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
    • Typical Non-Social Activities
      • Preparing, Coordinating and Conducting some types of Pilot Testing activities
  8. Revision & Release

    • Typical Social Activities
      • Preparation activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
      • Coordinating Logistics activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
      • Conducting some types of Revision & Release activities individually and/or in groups; synchronously and asynchronously
    • Typical Non-Social Activities
      •  Preparing, Coordinating and Conducting some types of the Revision & Release activities – by design


What’s shared across all of this is a need for better synchronous and asynchronous tools PRACTICEs within our PROCESSEs that are enabled by shared TOOLs. for doing any upfront preparation and logistics coordination and the actual work and the reviews/updates to that work.

There Are Tools Aplenty

Lots of Tools exist that enable Social Practices.

That’s a bit of an issue at times – but only in making the down-selection choice. Once the Processes – to be enabled by better more Social Practices – are understood.

Processes Aren’t Planned/Designed for Social

But Processes may not reflect good Social Practices in getting the real work done. Or they may be planned for, but incorrectly/unrealistically/poorly planned.

Planners may need to change that. And their clients then need to buy that.


Social Practices.

These are either expected … and modeled from the top-down … and reinforced in big and small ways – or they are not. It’s all about the Culture & Consequence System after declaring the goals and means and enabling it all with the infrastructure required.

And that includes making some old non-Social Processes and Practices more Social … and some others all Social.

Reflecting Back

Reflecting back to my joining Motorola in 1981 – they were on a campaign to radically change their culture – from the typical top-down culture – to a Participative Management culture.

Which meant opening up communications channels – social communication practices – to speed processes up and getting things done right – or more right – the first time. Which required a change of Practices, Tools and then the Process Planning and Conduct.

Accomplished by getting inputs and feedback and requirements from the front lines and all the support organizations and processes – better – faster – cheaper.

Social Is Simply a Practice Means to “Better – Faster – Cheaper” Processes and Products for Improved ROI

Or why bother?

# # #