What are some of the assumptions in this area?
1) Is it an area that most LO specialists take for granted ? ie..." We
should all know how to think."
or
2) "We do it as part of our problem-solving process, in TQM or in T&D.
There is however a flaw in this argment as well.
There seems to be an over emphasis on problem-solving, correcting faults,
gaps or mistakes as part of the traditional appraoches to TQM / CI.
IMHO, not nearly enough energy and time in LO is focused on being
constructive. Opportunities result from looking forward and generating new
concepts. The focus of most TQM / CI models is on the present or the past.
ie. How do I optimize my corporate intrinsic or operating assets. Some
CEOs are now beginning to realize that maximizing Quality has its limits.
You can only get ahead of the competition if your rival is less competent at
quality then you are. Relying on someone elses incompetence doesn't seen
to be a strong "pro-active strategic position"
When we traditionally solve problems (pick any model you wish), we say:
"Let's identify and remove the cause or causes". What do you do when you
can't remove it, or can't find all the causes or it's due to human nature.
In the real world this is happening more often so the problem-solving
paradigm alone in LO may not be sufficient. More analysis, judgement or
critical thinking in the same direction will not solve our problem.
We need to "create" new concepts to "design" our way out of the issues.
And that requires an overt emphasis on creative thinking skills.
========================================================================
To give a systems example, last year I asked a group of students to
address the issue of violence in hockey. They initially tried a traditional
mix of ps approaches. Nothing worked. They came to the conclusion that
the system promotes and rewards violence. Many teams have goon squads
whose role is to intimidate the stars of the opposing teams and draw a
penalty. Obviously the team that only has to sacrifice a mediocre player
vs. the star benefits, so it's in your advantage to play rough and
violent hockey.
We then tried some concept challenges.
Why does the penalty have to be tied to the infraction? What if we
decouple it. Why does the player who commits the infraction have to sit
it out?
After a very short time we came up with some alternative concepts.
What if the coach of the opposing team gets to decide who draws the penalty?
He could decide that it should be the instigating player. So nothing has
changed from before.
He could decide that their star player should sit it out ....so you now have
two stars and there is no real advantage to drawing double penalties.
If he is smart he could pick the goal keeper and now the team that drew
the penalty is at a temporary disadvantage.
The group came up with other thought provoking ideas that change the
"dynamics of the system"
=========================================================================
On the business side, I had an interesting experience where a company was
having difficulty comming up with breakthrough ideas in their TQM program.
After introducing some basic cognitive Thinking skills and going over the
same ground, their idea output doubled and tripled along with the depth
and breadth of ideas.
I would be interested to hear what experiences people have had in
introducing thinking skills into their LO programs.
-- Walter Derzko wderzko@epas.utoronto.ca