In response to John Warfield:
>>A question I pose is the following: In considering attempts to
systematize organizational change, is fractionation of activity by type
(create teams, build teams, change culture, solve problems) really
necessary? Is it possible that an overarching plan can do almost
everything at once, in which some things are targeted outcomes and others
are byproducts of applying well-designed processes?
I'm intrigued with the possibility you propose, but can not see how
"everything at once" can be accomplished, without at least the steps of
creating and building teams---as the unit in which change can be
operationalized---that's where we build understanding and commitment to
action. Perhaps we can forego the "change culture" and move right in to
"solve problems" as we create/build teams. Can you suggest an example
where we might compare approaches and then explore how a non-fractionated
process might work?
>>A second question is this: Do you really believe that there are no
prototypical instances of widespread achievement in this area, and that it
is more important to keep reinventing than it is to discover what has
broadly succeeded and become a practitioner rather than an
Hmm. Thanks for the challenge. I don't have any personal experience, but
then, I guess I've got a myopic viewpoint. What is your experience? And
please talk more about the "inventor-practioner."
I'm in the technology products business unit of a larger consulting
company---Co-Development International. The model they use in CDI is one
of developing capability within the client organization. I heard one
client say about our strategic sourcing approach; "you leave behind
expertise, not bodies."
-- Alexia Martin AlexiaM@aol.com