Solution Logic - Change as Progress

Solution LogicModeling the change called Progress

Solutions always address a “need” for Change

• When current circumstances are deemed inadequate, change is deemed necessary.

• The scope, ability and goal of a change are key variable elements in a formula that presents a “problem” to be solved. There are operations within the formula that, in relating the elements, compose a model of “solution”.

• The essential challenge, which makes a formula a “problem”, is to specify the givengeneric elements and operations that are necessary for an acceptable outcome to arrive from the formula.

• Specification means to identify the particular corresponding values of the types of elements, and particular corresponding functions of the types of operations.

• “Inadequacy” is not a magic word. It refers simply to the inappropriateness of the known actual state to the desired actual state.

• The possible terms of propriety are wide-ranging, as they can be many different kinds of qualities and effects, occurring in any mix.

• A formula may “prove” to be helpful by providing effective guidance in developing or composing an outcome. But it may not prove to be so. Revising a formula is always a potential requirement of making progress towards the desired outcome.

• A strategic approach to progress will encourage using formulas that overtly develop opportunities to raise the probability of achieving desired outcomes.

Solution Strategy as a Process• Understand the

knowable current conditions

• Develop ideas, whether related to or independent of the present, about how things might be in the future.

• Identify and compare reasons for pursuing any of the possible futures

• Model, demonstrate and adopt forms and methods of practical pursuit

WHAT IS WHAT IF WHY TO HOW TO

• Knowledge about current conditions comes from many different points of view and experiences

• This may also feed back different information about, or new perspective for interpreting, the current state

• Stakeholders must be decided, and represented with co-operation and fairness of emphasis

• Sustainable ways of making progress may come from old or new sources and will require their investment

©2

01

6 M

alcolm

Ryd

er / Arch

estra Re

search

Intelligence Perspective Motive Capability

Who Knows Who Cares Who Would Who Can

• How something IS (i.e., comes to be)

• Why something is unsatisfactory (i.e. its value is undesired or unknown)

• What would be an important difference (if achieved)

• What opportunities there are to differ (to actively achieve it)

• Implications and interactions of the differences

• Options and valuations of arrangements

• Preferencing

• Instantiating/ piloting

• Positioning• Implementation


Research / KM Social Networking Collaboration Open Source

A variety of techniques can apply to prosecuting the process.Any selected technique, wherever it is used, has the primary goal of

facilitating forward progress from its immediate environment of users.

©2

01

6 M

alcolm

Ryd

er / Arch

estra R

esearch


Intelligence Perspective Motive Capability


delivery

We have the presumption of progress based on a sequence of agreements that represent how our level of confidence is supported at any time by what came earlier.

This presumption, in this form, allows multiple theories of progress to exist concurrently. Different theories usually express “progress” differently according to sensitivities or outcomes, for example regarding probability, sustainability, flexibility, or net benefit.

circumstances engagement enablement

©2016 Malcolm Ryder / Archestra Research

INTELLIGENCE PERSPECTIVE MOTIVE CAPABILITY

What Is What If Why To How To



learning objectives practice

policy opportunity

delivery

Process is structural. Progress is dynamic.

This view of required focal points exposes issues that might be either undetermined or highly constrained. Progress occurs when the necessary level of resolution occurs

between forward intent (e.g. prerequisites) and feedback (e.g. requirements).


Ability to Change

• Producing a desired actual state from a known actual state also appears to require a significant expenditure of time between the present and the future.

• However, that presumption is not necessarily true. A current state is already in a condition of more equilibrium or less equilibrium as a result of its current resolution of the issues seen in the change ability model of progress.

• Increasing equilibrium can be instantaneous if the “right” issue in the model is modified. Time is not the major factor; complexity is.

• “Change” per se is any of five kinds: recovery, execution, improvement, transformation, or innovation. Some or all of them may already be “in progress” – i.e., ordinary operationalproduction efforts at the given time, with targeted production outcomes.

Types of Change

General Distinctions

InnovationOperate on a different production model for a new value proposition

TransformationOrganize differently for operating

to a designated purpose

ImprovementCause future baseline to exceed

current baseline

ExecutionAlter degree of completeness from

low to high

RecoveryReturn to prior-defined state of

readiness



learning objectives practice

policy options

Issues that make up the dynamics of progress come under many forms of management, including authority, regulation, skills, resourcing, and property to name a few.

Even so, the same model applies to efforts across a vast range of scale, across many disciplinary domains (art, engineering, politics, sports, etc.), and across many cultures.

delivery

SOLUTION MANAGEMENT


Solution Factors

• When considering “how to solve” a problem, it is worth recognizing the distinctions noted at right.

• Recognizing the extent of what may “go into” supporting progress allows better anticipation of where affected or affecting parties may see themselves imagining, requesting, or assuming involvement.

• In the lifespan of a given effort, any of the types of factors may become overtly influential on progress.

• Conversely, making an effort puts each type of factor in the position of being a variable influencer that can be further specified.

• The chart shown here is essentially hierarchical, tracing support of progress (i.e., solution) that is increasing in confidence from bottom-up.

• Where progression offers multiple choices, confidence strongly affects the selection of one path over another

WHAT WHY

Factor Types Efforts Outcomes

Goals Commit Positions

Policy Prioritize Assurance

Principles Value Tolerances

Frameworks Range Comprehensiveness

Practices Organize Optimization

Standards Comply Risk

Methods Coordinate Approval

Rules Control Cooperation

Processes Streamline Accountability

Procedures Direct Completeness

Techniques Shape Construction

primary reference

secondary reference


Variations on a Theme

• A discipline gains attention or acceptance based on its “value proposition” (the benefit delivered by its difference).

• Progress is usually “about” emerging proof of its value proposition during execution.

• Any given discipline may have a history, responsibility, or ambition that fosters emphasis on some factors of progress more than others.

• The emphasis can reflect the determination to assure sufficient attention to what the discipline has found either most often critically lacking or most consistently effective – in defending its responsibility or in creating opportunity for its ambition.

• Logic models of the discipline can reflect an idealized alignment of validations performed by attention to “bundles” of the key factors of proof. (Example at right.) The bundling is intended to resolve ambiguity, and the alignment is intended to increase confidence in the progress. Typically, a bundle acquires a name that is used to recruit and track attention.

Preclude Deficiency

Promote Effectiveness

vs. theResponsi-bility

Factors that prevent

distinction

Factors that demonstrate

relevance

vs. theAmbition

Factors that justify and

sponsor importance

Factors that amplify benefit


Wrap up

• Superficially, but importantly, the preceding observations explain why pervasively embraced “models” such as ITIL, Design Thinking, or Agile remain persistently in debate among practitioners.

• Such “best practice” models can be simultaneously distinctive at a generic (abstract) level and famously indeterminate at a particular level.

• Years and years of “field practice” winds up fostering continuing uncertainty, or diversity of opinion, about the exclusivity, the boundary, the necessity, and the regularity of the model’s implementation that warrants being called its “definition” and giving it the model’s brand name.

• The preceding notes help provide awareness of how logic models may select and organize factors of progress in a problem-solving effort.

• They also allow visibility of how those factors relate to generic concerns that involve intentions and feedback occurring throughout a solution effort.

• Finally, they explain the high probability of influential variances appearing regardless of whether apparent progress is linear or non-linear.

©2016 Malcolm Ryder / Archestra [email protected]