INTRO -- Rik Glover LO294

rglover%spf.dnet@gpo.nsc.com
Thu, 2 Mar 95 05:28:12 -0800

Howdy all. Have been listening in for about three weeks and sincerely
appreciate everybodys inputs. Guess its about time I added to the
discussion.

I've been working with L.O. concepts for about 1.5 years, primarily as
part of the OLC's Pilot Project with National Semiconductor's Product
Development Process.

Am interested in nearly all aspects, will mention a few for thought:

- Measurements :

particularly the idea of intermediate variables. LO work is a discipline,
and thus is a lifelong endeavor. At times it becomes easy to lose sight
of this (particularly in our short term biz environment), intermediate
variables/results can at times give the feeling that we are making a
difference (even though we can't completely understand where this new path
will emerge to).

- Systems Thinking:

We are currently working on modeling our process. Am interested in the
experiences of others during the data collection phase of this process,
in particular how this collection can be effectively used to further the
processes of uncovering Mental Models, clarifying current reality. It
strikes me that to some extent we are not making full use of the entire
process of model building.

- Vision (personal, shared).

See post following this intro.

Thanks all for your thoughts, look forward to more!!

Response to Sean Gawne's post, LO232.

>To wit, it is a popular notion, and seems
>to make sense, that it is best for an organization if the vision, goals,
>and values are shared by all members. So, what are we to do when values
>are not synchronized so neatly? I believe this is the essence of the "lack
>of commitment" argument. It is not so much a lack of commitment as a
>DIFFERENCE of commitment.

Right on. What I've seen is that most "vision's" only deal with an
organizations purpose OR goals OR values. I believe that we need somehow to be
able to deal with ALL of these, different people respond to each differently
(see Sangra Seagal's Human Dynamic's work). Yet we need to keep the balance of
simplicity mentioned previously.

What does commitment look like if the individual/org hasn't taken the time to
think about purpose/goals?? Can these just simply emerge without careful
consideration?

>Some ideas on what helps and what hurts, from my experience:
> - it helps to clearly communicate the values of the group
> [large snip]

Firmly agree with your thoughts. To add a few. Concerned that only
values are considered (although my personal vision is nearly all values based),
some people, IMHO, respond to long term purpose, others to shorter term goals,
while people like me respond to values. (Also not sure that these "guidelines"
are only applicable to values only). I think we need to somehow balance
these different needs.

>Now, my personal bias on this is quite consistent with my belief in all
>such matters, which is that it is primarily the responsibility of each
>individual to know their own values, and seek opportunities which allow
>them to remain true to themselves. A lack of such understanding can only
>lead to aimless wandering through life, a pointless and tedious journey
>from cradle to grave.

Right on. I have for some time believed that we cannot create a vision to
which people can commit unless it is aligned with their personal vision.
Therefor, IMHO, everybody should have a personal vision.

We have spent many resources in facilitating creation of personal visions
for most of our people, shared vision's for most ongoing groups, all biz
units, all divisions, and finally the company. We have many forums for
sharing these on an ongoing basis. Yet the "C" word, in many
cases, eludes us. I do not feel that we have done a very good job of
including the purpose/goals/values in all, yet there must be more we are
missing... Ideas??


Rik Glover
National Semiconductor
@fmis02.nsc.com