Southbeach examples

Wikileaks is a Contradiction

2011-01-05T17:28:00.001Z

As result of Wikileaks currently releasing more than 250,000 classified US diplomatic cables, The White House is reportedly telling agencies to create 'insider threat' programmes to ferret out disgruntled workers who may leak state secrets.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12117113

US Agency officials are being urged to find ways to "detect behavioural changes" among those employees who might have access to secret documents. The memo suggests the use of psychiatrists and sociologists to measure the "relative happiness" of workers or their "despondence and grumpiness" as a way to assess their trustworthiness. It also asks whether agencies are using lie-detector tests or are trying to identify "unusually high occurrences of foreign travel, contacts or foreign preference" by members of staff. Clearly, Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, and the US Government, have very different 'perspectives' on Wikileaks.

In this Southbeach model, these differences of opinion are illustrated. What is useful to the US Government - additional secrecy and monitoring, would be regarded as harmful by Assange. Clearly this counteracts the goals of his company as illustrated in the second model.

Wikileaks cannot be good and bad at the same time. Everything is useful and harmful. It is useful because it helps create an open and just society. It is harmful because, inevitably, secrecy will increase as a result of its existence. Taken to extremes, the effects of Wikileaks in the world may have unforeseen, and highly undesirable consequences. An analogy: suppose that all members of a family, or a business, had the ability to read each other's thoughts? Would the family or business survive for long? This contradiction at the heart of Wikileaks raises the issue of what Assange's goals may be?

This powerful use of Southbeach could be further developed, based on analysis of his and US Government statements and news coverage. Is there a hidden truth behind this?

Snow, Parked Cars and a Creative Solution

2010-12-22T14:07:00.001Z

Is this a viable solution? When there is heavy snow, in a country that is not prepared for it, roads become unpassable and traffic flow is impeded. As a result, people stay at home, or abandon cars, restricting the width of the road. This further impedes traffic flow. As a result, snow ploughs either cannot gain access to the road (Prevented), or can only clear the center of the road of snow (Counteracted). There is a physical contradiction at the heart of this situation. Cars will be parked in the road. The road clears to be clear of cars to clear it of snow. Both cannot be true at the same time. What is the solution? How about this? Separate in Time. Park on one side of the road on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and the other side of the road on Tuesday and Thursday. The snow plough could then clear both sides of the roads by the end of the week.

My Problem - Elaborated

2010-12-14T17:07:00.000Z

Models such as the one below are useful in thinking through problems. In this case, the model was generated automatically from a central block "My problem", using a series of 'transforms' that intelligently add blocks to the diagram, such as:

Missing enablers
Harmful side effects
Additional benefits
Compromised solutions
Improving factors
Necessary evils
Etc.

Such a model is useful to exploring abstract problems, or by changing the text, actual situations.

What is a contradiction?

2010-12-14T11:52:00.002Z

There are many ways of creating a contradiction. In Southbeach, there are four simple types, well known to practitioners of TRIZ. They are:

1. Something useful produces something harmful
2. Something useful counteracts something useful
3. Something harmful produces something useful
4. Something harmful counteracts something harmful

In cases 1 and 2, when you try to increase the useful element, there is a harmful side effect. In cases 3 and 4, when you try to reduce the harmful element, there is another harmful side effect. In case 3, less of something useful and in case 4, less ability to counteract something also harmful in the situation. It is sometimes hard to spot contradictions. Take a look at case 3. Something useful is being created, so the color of the effect line is green. However, we want to reduce the harmful element or remove it altogether. We therefore are minimising the useful production.

These four simple contradictions are the basic situations that must be solved, if a situation is to improve. Revealing the contradictions in a situation is central to problem solving.

Adding Agents - Elaboration Patterns

2010-12-07T08:10:00.000Z

There are many ways to add a new agent to a Southbeach diagram, so as to gain additional insight into the situation represented. A common one is to insert an agent between two others, thereby clarifying the effect between them. Here, we illustrate how to expand a model from an existing useful function, and from an existing harmful function. The eight possibilities are:

* Adding a harmful side effect (a complication)
* Adding a silver lining (useful output of a harmful function)
* Adding a 'necessary evil' - a harmful function which nevertheless counteracts the existing harmful function
* Adding a solution, an improving factor
* Adding a worsening factor - another problem
* Adding a contradiction - a useful function that also increases the harmful function
* Adding in a solution, which is unfortunately compromised by the harmful function
* Adding in a problem which is counteracted by the existing harmful function

A similar model could be drawn around a useful function. It would share some of the patterns as before, but the language would change because of the change of perspective. For example, what was called an improving factor and a worsening factor in the context of a harmful function, could now be called barriers and enablers. Note also how the effects, and their color, are different between the two diagrams. For example, the contradiction above is an additional useful function which increases the central harmful function. Whereas in the diagram below, the additional useful function counteracts the central useful function. We want more of both, but one is decreasing the other.

Voice of the Customer - Part 2

2010-12-01T16:26:00.002Z

In part 1 of Voice of the Customer we looked at how responding to a need far up the change of requirement, can lead to the wrong solution being proposed. In this model, we expand that picture with the problems that led to the client stated needs, and the solutions that emerge from the unstated requirements. You can see that, reading across from left (problems) to right (solutions), is consistent with the way the voice of the customer conversation could develop. We wonder which consultants, working with their client, could make the conceptual leap from "I need a drill" to "Here are recruitment services"? Everyone has something to sell. Knowing how to position the idea or solution in the chain of stated and unstated needs and wants, is the clue to uncovering the voice of the customer.

Take care with the Voice of the Customer - Part 1

2010-12-01T15:41:00.005Z

This model illustrates how easy it can be to make a mistake about a customer's underlying needs or intentions. They say they want a drill, but they really mean they want a hole. Etc. Reading down the left column illustrates how requirements can expand. Reading down the right hand column illustrates the forward implications of need.

When working with customers, make sure you understand the difference between stated and unstated requirements. The cross links in the model below illustrate how easy it is to make a mistake. The customer asks for X, do they really need Y? Good 'listening' consultants will look several blocks ahead. When a customer says they need X, question them carefully. Find out why.

@stated "What problem led you to say {this}?"
@stated "What are you hoping to achieve when you say {this}?"
@stated "What could we give you that would make the need for {this} irrelevant?"
@stated "If we had an alternative to {this} which achieved the end result by other means, would that be of interest?"
@stated "What was the original motivation that led to {this}?"
* "Etc."

(The questions are expressed in the MyCreativity language)

In Part 2 of this article we add more details

Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics

2010-11-12T14:39:00.000Z

The American Geophysical Union plans to announce that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. Other scientists plan a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. The model below is based on the following news media:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-climate-scientists-20101108,0,3784003.story
(click on image once, and again, for full resolution in your browser)

Why it's hard to solve problems

2010-11-10T20:19:00.000Z

Southbeach, being a notation for problem solving, can also be used to document problem-solving processes. Here is one such example. Templates like this can be developed to clarify the approach to a project for a team. The template can also be used as a starting point for the development of a specific model for a specific situational improvement effort. In other words: copy taken, words replaced with specifics, and other details added.

The best Southbeach consultants will develop many such templates to support the work they are doing with clients. In the Modeller tool, the Explorer view (left panel) lets you browse into your growing library of best practices, with no need to open each model file. Elements or models can be dragged onto the canvas to create new models for specific projects.

Use of 'Historical' for Lifecycle Mgt of Southbeach diagrams

2010-11-01T16:11:00.001Z

Southbeach Notation supports the idea of an element being 'historical', for example, a risk we no longer face, a goal we no longer need to achieve, a useful function that is no longer needed, etc. Historical is shown in a Southbeach diagram using a cross. This can be applied to any object type. Consulting firms and individual consultants use this to manage the lifecycle of a model, for example, things done, things yet to do, etc. See image below.

Synonyms for 'historical' include: in the past, no longer exists, former, prior, retired, obsolete, strike-out, old news, noncurrent, not in play, completed, concluded, ended, terminated, defunct, dead, extinct, heritage, missing, lost ...

Colombian plane crash - Southbeach Notation hexagons (knowledge)

2010-09-27T08:12:00.002+01:00

This model illustrates the use of Southbeach Notation 'knowledge' agents (hexagon shape). Here, they are used to represent what is known or believed about the crash (based on a BBC news article in this example), so that evidence and beliefs are kept separate to the root cause analysis (RCA).

In Southbeach, hexagon refers to Knowledge (what we know or believe), i.e. information, facts, data, news, intelligence, context, circumstance, belief, assertion, evidence, rumor, opinion, sacred cows, elephants in room, realities, principles, truth, laws, science ..... Southbeach gives you nine colors for setting out your knowledge context in a Model, and the shape is transparent so that it does not intrude on other important areas of the diagram.

Of course, all other agents are a form of knowledge, but hexagon is used to distinguish those elements of knowledge where you explicitly don't want to take a perspective (useful or harmful etc).

Knowledge can be given other attributes, such as insufficient or potential knowledge, and it could be typed, e.g. evidential knowledge, hearsay, etc. using agent type, allowing for the generation of different MyCreativity questions (screen shot) using, for example, the 5x5Whys rule set of RCA (root cause analysis).

In some Southbeach Models, users include such knowledge in the notes field of any agent. Now there is a shape to make the important statements explicit in the visualization and generation of suggestions.

9Boxes for Problem Solving

2010-05-18T12:02:00.000+01:00

Here is a Southbeach template which uses the typical TRIZ 9boxes tool. To this has been added agents showing the steps involved in looking at a deep seated problem. Such a method may also be used in conjunction with TRIZ trend analysis and the business methods called scenario planning, e.g. Backcasting.

Stephen Petranek counts down to Armageddon

2010-04-06T17:58:00.000+01:00

In his TED talk, Stephen Petranek urges us to consider, and fund, solutions to problems other than terrorism. (transcript here: http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_petranek_counts_down_to_armageddon.html) Visualising possibilities like these, and the potential solutions, is perfect territory for Southbeach. This is why consultants, including risk analysts and futures analysts, are finding Southbeach an effective way not only to communicate ideas, but to propose solutions.

Here, we show two models developed from Petranek's text. The first illustrates his central assertion. The second illustrates the solution he proposes to problem #10 - rising depression. In the first model, a notable feature is the use of box size to signify disproportionate attention to terror and associated funding. In the second, a grid is used to show the different aspects of this assertion on lack of mental health services. This 'separation' clarifies the model instantly, something which is unique to Southbeach notation. Commonly used by consultants, separation techniques coupled with cause-effect modelling is highly effective at illustrating competing views or aspects of a situation.

Exploring alternate theories - Global warming sceptics

2010-03-14T18:35:00.009Z

(Click on the diagram for hi res)

Southbeach MyCreativity can be used to explore alternate theories of cause and effect. Here, four theories of the relationship between rising CO2 and rising mean temperatures are represented in Southbeach Notation. Simple rules are used to 'question' each model, with the following results, see below. Each set of output was generated by clicking once in the model, using these rules:

questionable(,) "Does {from} really produce {to}?"
potential "Does {this} exist?"
produces+not(,) "If {from} does not produce {to}, what else could be causing it?"
produces(,) "What is the process behind {from} producing {to}?"
harmful "What does {this} cause?"
harmful "What causes {this}?"

Here is the output from the model:
Theory1:
1. What does 'rising CO2' cause?
2. What causes 'rising CO2'?
3. Does 'rising CO2' really produce 'global warming'?
4. What is the process behind 'rising CO2' producing 'global warming'?
5. Does 'global warming' exist?
6. What does 'global warming' cause?
7. What causes 'global warming'?

Theory2:
1. What does 'rising CO2' cause?
2. What causes 'rising CO2'?
3. If 'rising CO2' does not produce 'global warning', what else could be causing it?
4. What does 'global warning' cause?
5. What causes 'global warning'?
6. What is the process behind 'hidden factor' producing 'global warning'?
7. Does 'hidden factor' exist?
8. What does 'hidden factor' cause?
9. What causes 'hidden factor'?

Theory3:
1. What does 'rising CO2' cause?
2. What causes 'rising CO2'?
3. What is the process behind 'hidden factor' producing 'rising CO2'?
4. Does 'hidden factor' exist?
5. What does 'hidden factor' cause?
6. What causes 'hidden factor'?
7. What is the process behind 'hidden factor' producing 'global warning'?
8. What does 'global warning' cause?
9. What causes 'global warning'?

Theory4:
1. What does 'rising CO2' cause?
2. What causes 'rising CO2'?
3. Does 'rising CO2' really produce 'global warming'?
4. What is the process behind 'rising CO2' producing 'global warming'?
5. What does 'global warming' cause?
6. What causes 'global warming'?
7. Does 'global warming' really produce 'rising CO2'?
8. What is the process behind 'global warming' producing 'rising CO2'?

Theory5:

1. What does 'global warming' cause?
2. What causes 'global warming'?
3. What is the process behind 'hidden factor' producing 'global warming'?
4. Does 'hidden factor' exist?
5. What does 'hidden factor' cause?
6. What causes 'hidden factor'?
7. What is the process behind 'global warming' producing 'rising CO2'?
8. What does 'rising CO2' cause?
9. What causes 'rising CO2'?

Stakeholder Map

2010-02-28T14:58:00.004Z

Stakeholder maps (somestimes called political maps) can be a very powerful way of assessing the people change risks of a programme. This map provides two axes on which to place people according to how much power they have (y-axis) and to what extent they are for or against the programme (x-axis). Note that this model is drawn from the perspective of someone trying to execute the programme and make it a success; so the people for the program are considered useful (green) and those against it are considered harmful (red). The idea is to identify your main advocates and detractors and how they are influenced by others in order to determine how to manage change.One way of using such a map is as follows:

Place people on the chart according to their power and behaviour (the degree to which they are for or against the programme)
People against are harmful, so should be red. Right click each to set this
People for are useful so should be green. Right click each to set this
Draw 'produces' arrows from supporters or influencers to those they support/influence
Draw 'counteracts' arrows from between people who influence each other but have opposite opinions
Use this to inform your stakeholder alignment strategy

These steps are shown in the blue actions boxes on the diagram itself. You may also wish to draw 'is-a' arrows from people to the stereotype you believe the exhibit. If you were to later write any creativity rules to help you come up with strategies for dealing with the different kinds of people, this information could be useful as you would take quite different approaches with someone who is merely a cynic from someone who is a saboteur.

Your stakeholder map will not necessarily have people at all of these levels of power or advocacy. The stereotypes are provided to help characterise the behaviour of people in a more specific way than for and against. This lends itself to providing a better assessment of the likely outcomes of the change and the interventions that may be necessary to assure success.

The sterotypes are briefly characterised here:

Opponent - someone who is openly and directly opposed to the initiative
Saboteur - someone who will use their every waking breath to kill the initiative (not necessarily openly; they could be as powerful as a direct opponent but this is less likely)
Cynic - verbal sabotage (but not physical - How powerful they are can be increased depending upon who listens to them)
Skeptic - someone who doubts that the initiative will succeed, but is generally willing to give it a hearing
Silent Doubter - someone who has doubts, but keeps quiet so they are not apparent to others
Not Involved - either someone who doesn’t know about the initiative or someone who should not be involved in it at all (they could still potentially be converted to be for or against)
Observer - watches what is going on in the initiative, but takes no action (perhaps until they make their mind up, or until someone involves them)
Follower - takes part in the initiative but only because they follow the crowd (they could be at risk of swaying against the initiative if there were more doubters than supporters)
Active Participant - takes a full and proactive part in the initiative
Advocate / Change Agent - has no direct accountability for or involvement in the initiative, but senior or influential, so can promote it. There are many influential people who are not senior. Its important to take account of the unofficial (but very real) power/influence hierarchy as well as the official control hierarchy.
Champion - has an official role in driving the initiative and is directly involved in demonstrating the value of the initiative. They may be responsible for a workstream or for providing leadership of some kind.
Sponsor - the person who owns the initiative or whose personal success depends on it

PDCA - Plan Do Check Act

2010-02-21T07:35:00.003Z

This Southbeach Notation Model shows the key steps in the PDCA cycle developed by W. E. Deming during the 80s. This compliments the previous article on the Capability Maturity Model (CMM). Whereas the CMM describes what characterises the levels of maturity of an organisation, the Deming cycle provides a way of evaluating the issues with the current situation and doing something about it.

The CMM focusses on defining what characterises the performance and quality of processes at different levels of maturity and improving the organisation by institutionalising the processes to make them more objective, measurable, and repeatable. The Deming cycle provides a simple four step process... Plan, Do, Check, Act to do just that:

Plan

Agree what we are trying to achieve (what are our goals?)
Analyse the current situation (whats useful and harmful and why?)
Identify Options for achieving our goals with Critical Success Factors for each
Assess potential impact of change for each option (useful and harmful)
Agree which options and approach to implement
Define Key Performance Indicators
Create implementation plan with resources, roles & responsibilities

Take small steps
Control the circumstances
Attribute improvements and failures to your actions
Track improvements and failures against KPIs and planned benefits

Check

Assess whether your actions are yielding the desired result

Act

If your actions are having the desired result, great - get started on standardising that activity so it becomes institutionalised and the improvement becomes repeatable, business as usual
If your actions are not having the desired result, understand why and go round the loop again

This Southbeach Notation model shows the steps in the process along with the key activities involved in each step. Such models can be used as guides when embarking on an improvement programme. The structure of the model can even be adapted to provide an associative map of the challenges faced by an organisation and what they plan to do about it.

Taking a high level conceptual model such as this and evolving it into a specific model for what you are going to do in a particular situation can be a powerful way of driving a process.

This approach to driving a process is precisely the kind of activity described in CMM process maturity level 5; where standard processes are available along with guidelines on how these can be tailored to suit your particular sitution, and the results of your work are systematically re-incorporated into the formal body of knowledge of the organisation and used to improve those processes further.

Capability Maturity Model

2010-02-20T22:57:00.004Z

This example Southbeach Notation model shows what qualities characterise an organisation at each of the different maturity levels defined by the Carnegie Mellon Capability Maturity Model.

The maturity levels are shown here as Southbeach goals (filled in boxes). Note that levels 0 and 1 are considered harmful (red), whilst levels 2 through 5 are considered increasingly useful. The useful (green) and harmful (red) qualities of the organisation are shown for each level.

Note how increasing levels of maturity characterise increased understanding, documentation, and management of the processes. The activities involved in executing those processes, and in moving towards higher quality, more efficient and autonomous processes are managed through repeatable, objective, statistical means rather than through dependency on heroic behaviour, individual knowledge and personal judgement.

Models like this can be used to assess the maturity of an organisation. More specific versions of this model can be created as issues impacting quality and performance are identified. The ability in Southbeach to indicate the cause and effect of situations can then be used to perform root cause analysis to identify ways of improving the processes and maturity of the organisation in manageing those processes. Having clearly articulated improvement milestones enables remediation planning to be directed in a more coherent and effective way.

Models and appraisal methods for services, acquisition and development processes are available from the SEI website: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/tools/index.cfm.

Abstract models are useful starting points for concrete models

2010-02-03T18:12:00.001Z

Often, developing a model in the abstract, helps create a useful starting point for a concrete model. Here, the abstract model shows a problem, its root cause, and upstream harmful impacts. Around these red (harmful) blocks are green boxes indicating potential (dotted line) intervention points. The two blocked in green (useful) boxes are considered goals. Why? Because intervening to remove the root cause, or converting the problem into a solution, are considered 'preferred' (goals) solutions.

Use the 'quick edit' mode of Southbeach Modeller to rephrase the boxes with your problem. Add creativity rules to generate suggestions for verifying the solutions. For example:

1.   We have plenty of pros for [intervention] - are there harmful side effects? What are the downsides/cons?
2.   Is there a strong case for [intervention]?
3.   Is it the right thing to do?
4.   Do we have support for [intervention]?
5.   How could the case for [intervention] be questioned?
6.   What types of criticism could arise?
7.   Who will object to [intervention] and why?
8.   What's the defence against critisim of [intervention]?
9.   Is there anything we have forgotten? Is there anything to add?

Using MyCreativity to help elaborate models

2009-12-29T09:58:00.009Z

Consider this simple model. A Kettle, useful, is used to produce Hot Water, also useful. One of the first things you do when you create a Southbeach Notation model is to try and describe the important elements of your situation, and then gradually elaborate the model to include additional details.

There could be many reasons you might use Southbeach in this way. It could be you are trying to improve a situation, or work out what could fail in a newly designed process, or perhaps you simply want to understand a situation better, and modelling how the various aspects of a situation are related to each other helps put things in perspective.

In this example, we explore how some simple MyCreativity rules can be developed to provide thought provoking questions about a situation to help provoke people into fleshing out the details that could help understanding.

Starting simple, adding the following rules to the modeller:

produces(*, useful) "What (additional) resources does the {source} need in order to produce the {destination}?"
produces(*,useful) "What qualities should the {source} exhibit in producing the {destination}?"

give the following output for this model:

1. What (additional) resources does the Kettle need in order to produce the Hot Water?
2. What qualities should the Kettle exhibit in producing the Hot Water?

Two important questions. No doubt you can think of more. Lets elaborate the model further and see how else we can extend these creativity rules.

In this elaborated model, we have added Electricity and Water as Agents of Type Resource that are being consumed by the Kettle. We have also noted that The kettle needs to be quite, efficient, and fast. These are represented as Agents of Type Quality that are specifying the Kettle. The use of this additional richness in semantic supported by Southbeach Notation allows for more specific Creativity rules to generate more specific, more helpful output:

These elaboration rules:

consumes(&a=*,&r=resource) produces(&a,&o=useful) "Where is the resource of {&r} used by the {&a} to produce the {&o} obtained from?"
specifies(quality,*) "What is the {source} quality related to?"
produces(,useful) "What is the {destination} used for?"
produces(&a=useful,&o=useful) produces(&o,&r=useful) "What other than the {&a} and {&o} is necessary to produce the {&r}?"

Produce this output:

1. Where is the resource of Electricity used by the Kettle to produce the Hot Water obtained from?
2. Where is the resource of Water used by the Kettle to produce the Hot Water obtained from?
3. What is the Hot Water used for?
4. What is the Fast quality related to?
5. What is the Efficient quality related to?
6. What is the Quiet quality related to?

Note that I have already drawn on that Efficiency is related to Electricity, and Fast is related to the production of Hot Water. This allows for further specific rules related to improving quality:

These two improvement rules:

#Improvement
specifies(quality,useful) "How can the {destination} be made more {source}?"
related(quality,useful) "How can the {destination} be more {source}?"

produce this output:

How can the Hot Water be more Fast?
How can the Electricity be more Efficient?

As described in a previous example, there is a relationship between the rules and the way the model is drawn (the 'meta model') - the way the notation of Southbeach is used to represent the real world situation the model is being used to represent. This can be weak or strong. What does this mean? If there are certain specific suggestions you want rules to be able to fire that you don't want to fire for any old agent in the model, then you need to decide how you want to model reality and how you want to pick this up in rules. For example, this model uses agents of Type Resource to generate some very specific questions like: Where is the resource of Electricity used by the Kettle to produce the Hot Water obtained from? Note that the rule knows the Kettle is using Electricity because Electricity is modelled as Type Resource, and there is a Consumes effect between Kettle and Electricity indicating that the Kettle is Consuming the Resource of Electricity.

Note how the rules have a heading of #Improvement. If you were to save these rules in a file along with your other MyCreativity rule sets, this heading allows you to select these rules from this file along with other rules on Improvement from other rule files you may have to all be run against the model at the same time.

(remember these are rules generated against a model you create - so the language is not going to be perfect!... you need to interpret the output, and think about how you phrase the text in the rules and the text in the agents in the model so that when they are combined, they read well)

Lets elaborate the model further according to the questions above - e.g. What's the Hot Water used for?

Finally, the rule set looks like this:

#Elaboration
produces(*, useful) "What (additional) resources does the {source} need in order to produce the {destination}?"
produces(*,useful) "What qualities should the {source} exhibit in producing the {destination}?"
consumes(&a=*,&r=resource) produces(&a,&o=useful) "Where is the resource of {&r} used by the {&a} to produce the {&o} obtained from?"
specifies(quality,*) "What is the {source} quality related to?"
produces(,useful) "What is the {destination} used for?"
produces(&a=useful,&o=useful) produces(&o,&r=useful) "What other than the {&a} and {&o} is necessary to produce the {&r}?"
#Improvement
specifies(quality,useful) "How can the {destination} be made more {source}?"
related(quality,useful) "How can the {destination} be more {source}?"

and the output looks like this:

1. Where is the resource of Electricity used by the Kettle to produce the Hot Water obtained from?
2. Where is the resource of Water used by the Kettle to produce the Hot Water obtained from?
3. What (additional) resources does the Kettle need in order to produce the Hot Water?
4. What qualities should the Kettle exhibit in producing the Hot Water?
5. What is the Hot Water used for?
6. What other than the Kettle and Hot Water is necessary to produce the Cup of Tea?
7. How can the Hot Water be more Fast?
8. What is the Fast quality related to?
9. How can the Kettle be made more Fast?
10. What (additional) resources does the Hot Water need in order to produce the Cup of Tea?
11. What qualities should the Hot Water exhibit in producing the Cup of Tea?
12. What is the Cup of Tea used for?
13. What (additional) resources does the Tea bag need in order to produce the Cup of Tea?
14. What qualities should the Tea bag exhibit in producing the Cup of Tea?
15. What (additional) resources does the Milk need in order to produce the Cup of Tea?
16. What qualities should the Milk exhibit in producing the Cup of Tea?
17. How can the Electricity be more Efficient?
18. What is the Efficient quality related to?
19. How can the Kettle be made more Efficient?
20. What is the Quiet quality related to?
21. How can the Kettle be made more Quiet?

Note how the rules we wrote earlier for the initial model also make sense for the parts of the model added later. MyCreativity can be configured to give you the full list of output like this, or just limit the output to what is relevant to the part of the model you click on.

For instance, setting the extent to extended and clicking on the Cup of Tea, gives just this output:

1. What (additional) resources does the Hot Water need in order to produce the Cup of Tea?
2. What qualities should the Hot Water exhibit in producing the Cup of Tea?
3. What is the Cup of Tea used for?
4. What other than the Kettle and Hot Water is necessary to produce the Cup of Tea?
5. What (additional) resources does the Tea bag need in order to produce the Cup of Tea?
6. What qualities should the Tea bag exhibit in producing the Cup of Tea?
7. What (additional) resources does the Milk need in order to produce the Cup of Tea?
8. What qualities should the Milk exhibit in producing the Cup of Tea?

Rule sets for MyCreativity can be developed like this as you are building a specific model, and then reused with any other model. This rule set is quite generic. Its not complete - there are lots more ways you could elaborate, or add detail to a model... but its a start... that can be built on.

House Move Creativity

2009-12-24T01:38:00.004Z

This example is based on the template provided in the previous example. This is more or less the same model, but with the agents changed to reflect the factors prevalent in the situation of buying a house.

The situation is one many will relate to. Attention is drawn to the box highlighted in blue, the compelling event for this change; a new job in a different city. The current house/location is now harmful as it's too far to commute. The plan is therefore to sell the house, buy a new house, and move. However, the market is not moving - this could prevent sale of the current house. The situation is made more challenging by the need to have a big deposit to buy the new house. This is offset by the relocation package provided by the new job. The pay increase also enables purchase of a house in this area - perhaps a bigger one, that will lead to a short commute, and a better work/life balance. There is a risk, however, that in order to make the move a compromise of buying a smaller house with the idea of extending it later leads to ongoing disruption and cost which counteracts the sought-after improved work/life balance.

The same creativity rules are used as in the previous example.

Lets see what happens when we click around this model:

Clicking on Market not Moving yields the following creativity suggestions (numbered). The idea is these are used to drive brainstorming of specific solutions that you can use to overcome the challenges faced in this situation. Some example solutions have been filled in against each of the suggestions generated by the rules.

1. What's the root cause of Market not moving? How can we avoid that?
There is a lack of liquidity, but also some fear prices will come down and those with cash are waiting for good deals. So its a question of balancing how urgently we need to move house and setting a low price accordingly. We can offset this by making a low offer on the house we are buying.

2. Prevent the Market not moving from impacting the Move House.
Negotiate a deal with the new job to cover the cost of the second mortgage until the house can sell. Or buy a house with one of the agents that is accepting other houses as part of the collateral in the sale.

3. Isolate the part of the Market not moving that is impacting the Move House and remove it.
If the issue is sale price, then face reality and reduce the price early. Sustaining two mortgages or delaying the move for months on the dream of a high sale price could cost more in the long run than cutting the price now.

4. Convert the Market not moving into something useful before it has a chance to impact the Move House
Negotiate hard on the price for the new house. Whatever you can knock off the purchase of that you can afford to knock off the sale of your current house. Also, if the market is not moving, and estate agents are not selling the houses, then there is more competition between estate agents to be involved in the deals that are going down. Use this to negotiate a lower fee for brokering the sale.

5. Protect the Move House from the Market not moving.
Consider taking out a bridging loan to make sure once you find the house you want, you will not be stopped by failure to sell your house in time. Consider the difference in work/life balance this will make together with how much you can afford now you have that new pay rise.

11. How can you get the Move House to intensify the Living in New House without causing the Risk of negative equity if house prices fall further?
Drive a hard bargain on securing the new house to minimise the risk of negative equity. Remember the new salary and the reduced work commute may mean that some negative equity is acceptable.

12. How can you prevent the Market not moving from producing the Current house not selling.
Do the house up. Reduce the price. Place it with multiple agents.

13. Put measures in place to deal with the Current house not selling.
Rather than sell the house, look for options to rent it out to gain additional income and sell it later once the market has stabilised. The estate agent may do this, as may the local council.

14. Isolate the part of the Market not moving that is producing the Current house not selling and remove it.
This one is probably out of your control...

15. What's the root cause of Current house not selling? How can we avoid that?
Consider whether its really the market making the house not sell, or whether there is an issue with the house. Get another opinion. Fix the issues with the house - make sure price is the only issue left.

Lets look at another example - here are just a few questions generated from clicking on Improved work/life balance:

1. How can we realise the Improved work/life balance more quickly?
Move into a rented house. Get the new firm to pay for this until you find a new house. If you get an unfurnished house and move your stuff down, this could also make it clear to buyers of your old house its ready for them to move into with no forward chain.

3. How can you get more of Improved work/life balance from Living in New House?
Think about what you will do with the extra time now you have a short commute. Would this affect where you would want to locate the house?

4. How can you increase the ability of Living in New House to create Improved work/life balance?
If this is the real goal, then think about what qualities the house itself should have over and above being nearer the new office.

5. How can you intensify the Improved work/life balance without relying on the Living in New House?
Make sure you're not kidding yourself about the house being the magic bullet that will restore your work/life balance... what else do you need to do? Plans are all very well, but achieving them is useless if they are the wrong plans.

6. How can you ensure that the Improved work/life balance will be an outcome of the Living in New House?
Well? How can you?

8. What else is needed to achieve Living in New House? What are the pre-requisites or necessary pre-steps?
Finding appropriate schools in the area with easy commuting distance to the house. Reducing your commute is not going to help if you lose an hour a day dropping the kids off because you failed to think of school location or bus routes.

As with the previous model, its possible to generate creativity ideas by clicking on any or all of the agents or effects in this model. The total number of suggestions available from this rule set with this model is 156. You can extend the rule set, and you can extend the model. That's more creativity each time you do either of those things. The key is to use this as a way of opening up possibilities - to be as rigorous or as quick-fire inspirational as you want to be. The rules just encode general creativity ideas and how they apply to agents in a model. The model describes your situation. Together, they produce many new ways of looking at the situation - ways you may not have come up with yourself, even though you maybe created the model and the rules!

Situation Improvement

2009-12-20T22:57:00.004Z

This example Southbeach Notation model shows how circumstances may help or hinder improvement activities designed to take you from a harmful current state to a useful target state.

This model already shows 8 factors to consider when planning the improvement activity as well as a further 5 factors that should be considered when creating and managing the newly achieved target state.

Whilst this model is general, it can be used as a template or a structured brainstorming aid to create a model that is more specific to your particular situation. Just replace agents like Risk with your actual risks, or add them as productions from the Risk agent.

The effects give some clues about how to improve the situation - whilst failures due to the current situation are obviously harmful, they are useful in creating the case for action. Whilst successes of the current situation are obviously useful, they have the harmful side effect that they counteract the desire to take action and start the improvement activity. Barriers and constraints obviously need to be removed, and risks avoided... we must try and ensure the benefits of the target state can actually be realised...

However, there are many many more creativity paths that can be generated from such a model. Southbeach MyCreativity provides the means to write rules that the modeller can then use to generate creativity output.

Here is some example creativity output generated against this model:

Setting the modeller extent to laser (to just run the rules on what you click on), and clicking on Target State could generate something like this:

1. What else is needed to achieve Target State? What are the pre-requisites or necessary pre-steps?
2. How can we realise the Target State more quickly?
3. How can you create the Benefits of change without the Improvement Activity?
4. How can you create the Sustainable improvement without the Improvement Activity?
5. How can you get the Target State to intensify the Benefits of change without causing the Unforeseen side effects?
6. How can you get the Target State to intensify the Sustainable improvement without causing the Unforeseen side effects?

Whereas an extent of narrow (runs rules on the agents and surrounding effects) when clicking on Constraints might produce something like this:

1. What's the root cause of Constraints? How can we avoid that?
2. Prevent the Constraints from impacting the Improvement Activity.
3. Isolate the part of the Constraints that is impacting the Improvement Activity and remove it.
4. Convert the Constraints into something useful before it has a chance to impact the Improvement Activity
5. Protect the Improvement Activity from the Constraints.
6. How can you prevent the Constraints from producing the Compromises.
7. Put measures in place to deal with the Compromises.
8. Isolate the part of the Constraints that is producing the Compromises and remove it.

Setting the extent to widest (run on everything)... could generate an enormous number of suggestions:
Note that each of these suggestions is different. Some are very different. Some are subtly different, for example protecting something useful from harm is different to reducing the amount of harm; Increasing the amount of something useful is different to improving the ability of something else to create that useful thing (because there could be alternative ways)...

1. How can you get the Improvement Activity to intensify the Target State without causing the Risks?
2. How can you get more of Improvement Activity from Current State?
3. How can you increase the ability of Current State to create Improvement Activity?
4. How can you intensify the Improvement Activity without relying on the Current State?
5. Try and work out what part of the Current State is producing the Improvement Activity and minimise the unnecessary parts that are producing the harm
6. How can you get the Current State to intensify the Successes without causing the Failures due to current situation?
7. How can you get more of Successes from Current State?
8. How can you increase the ability of Current State to create Successes?
9. How can you intensify the Successes without relying on the Current State?
10. Try and work out what part of the Current State is producing the Successes and minimise the unnecessary parts that are producing the harm
11. Prevent the Successes from impacting the Improvement Activity.
12. Find ways for Improvement Activity to make more use of Current State
13. What's the root cause of Current State? How can we avoid that?
14. Ensure the Target State also leads to Improvement Activity before the Current State is replaced
15. Ensure the Target State also leads to Successes before the Current State is replaced
16. How can you get the Current State to intensify the Improvement Activity without causing the Failures due to current situation?
17. Isolate the part of the Successes that is impacting the Improvement Activity and remove it.
18. Protect the Improvement Activity from the Successes.
19. How can you prevent the Current State from producing the Failures due to current situation.
20. Put measures in place to deal with the Failures due to current situation.
21. Isolate the part of the Current State that is producing the Failures due to current situation and remove it.
22. What's the root cause of Failures due to current situation? How can we avoid that?
23. How can you intensify the Improvement Activity without the Current State?
24. How can you get more of Improvement Activity from Failures due to current situation?
25. How can you increase the ability of Failures due to current situation to create Improvement Activity?
26. How can you intensify the Improvement Activity without relying on the Failures due to current situation?
27. Try and work out what part of the Failures due to current situation is producing the Improvement Activity and minimise the unnecessary parts that are producing the harm
28. What else is needed to achieve Target State? What are the pre-requisites or necessary pre-steps?
29. How can we realise the Target State more quickly?
30. How can you create the Benefits of change without the Improvement Activity?
31. How can you create the Sustainable improvement without the Improvement Activity?
32. How can you get the Target State to intensify the Benefits of change without causing the Unforeseen side effects?
33. How can you get the Target State to intensify the Sustainable improvement without causing the Unforeseen side effects?
34. Intensify or get more of the Improvement Activity so you can have more of the Target State.
35. How can you get more of Target State from Improvement Activity?
36. How can you increase the ability of Improvement Activity to create Target State?
37. How can you intensify the Target State without relying on the Improvement Activity?
38. How can you ensure that the Target State will be an outcome of the Improvement Activity?
39. Intensify or get more of the Target State so you can have more of the Benefits of change.
40. How can you get more of Benefits of change from Target State?
41. How can you increase the ability of Target State to create Benefits of change?
42. How can you intensify the Benefits of change without relying on the Target State?
43. How can you ensure that the Benefits of change will be an outcome of the Target State?
44. How can we realise the Benefits of change more quickly?
45. Prevent the Issues from impacting the Benefits of change.
46. Isolate the part of the Issues that is impacting the Benefits of change and remove it.
47. Convert the Issues into something useful before it has a chance to impact the Benefits of change
48. Protect the Benefits of change from the Issues.
49. How can the proportion of the Issues impacting the Benefits of change be reduced?
50. What's the root cause of Issues? How can we avoid that?
51. How can we avoid, prevent, or delay the Issues?
52. How can you prevent the Risks from producing the Issues.
53. Put measures in place to deal with the Issues.
54. Isolate the part of the Risks that is producing the Issues and remove it.
55. What's the root cause of Risks? How can we avoid that?
56. How can we avoid, prevent, or delay the Risks?
57. How can you prevent the Improvement Activity from producing the Risks.
58. Put measures in place to deal with the Risks.
59. Isolate the part of the Improvement Activity that is producing the Risks and remove it.
60. How else could the Improvement Activity be accomplished that would not result in the Risks?
61. What else could give the benefits of the Improvement Activity that would not result in the Risks?
62. Prevent the Issues from impacting the Sustainable improvement.
63. Isolate the part of the Issues that is impacting the Sustainable improvement and remove it.
64. Convert the Issues into something useful before it has a chance to impact the Sustainable improvement
65. Protect the Sustainable improvement from the Issues.
66. How can we realise the Sustainable improvement more quickly?
67. Intensify or get more of the Target State so you can have more of the Sustainable improvement.
68. How can you get more of Sustainable improvement from Target State?
69. How can you increase the ability of Target State to create Sustainable improvement?
70. How can you intensify the Sustainable improvement without relying on the Target State?
71. How can you ensure that the Sustainable improvement will be an outcome of the Target State?
72. Prevent the Compromises from impacting the Sustainable improvement.
73. Isolate the part of the Compromises that is impacting the Sustainable improvement and remove it.
74. Convert the Compromises into something useful before it has a chance to impact the Sustainable improvement
75. Protect the Sustainable improvement from the Compromises.
76. What's the root cause of Compromises? How can we avoid that?
77. How can we avoid, prevent, or delay the Compromises?
78. How can you prevent the Constraints from producing the Compromises.
79. Put measures in place to deal with the Compromises.
80. Isolate the part of the Constraints that is producing the Compromises and remove it.
81. What's the root cause of Constraints? How can we avoid that?
82. Prevent the Constraints from impacting the Improvement Activity.
83. Isolate the part of the Constraints that is impacting the Improvement Activity and remove it.
84. Convert the Constraints into something useful before it has a chance to impact the Improvement Activity
85. Protect the Improvement Activity from the Constraints.
86. How can you prevent the Compromises from producing the Unforeseen side effects.
87. Put measures in place to deal with the Unforeseen side effects.
88. Isolate the part of the Compromises that is producing the Unforeseen side effects and remove it.
89. What's the root cause of Unforeseen side effects? How can we avoid that?
90. How can we avoid, prevent, or delay the Unforeseen side effects?
91. How can you prevent the Target State from producing the Unforeseen side effects.
92. Isolate the part of the Target State that is producing the Unforeseen side effects and remove it.
93. How else could the Target State be accomplished that would not result in the Unforeseen side effects?
94. What else could give the benefits of the Target State that would not result in the Unforeseen side effects?
95. Prevent the Barriers from impacting the Improvement Activity.
96. Isolate the part of the Barriers that is impacting the Improvement Activity and remove it.
97. Convert the Barriers into something useful before it has a chance to impact the Improvement Activity
98. Protect the Improvement Activity from the Barriers.
99. What's the root cause of Barriers? How can we avoid that?
100. Intensify or get more of the Enablers so you can have more of the Improvement Activity.
101. How can you get more of Improvement Activity from Enablers?
102. How can you increase the ability of Enablers to create Improvement Activity?
103. How can you intensify the Improvement Activity without relying on the Enablers?
104. Intensify or get more of the Resources so you can have more of the Improvement Activity.
105. How can you get more of Improvement Activity from Resources?
106. How can you increase the ability of Resources to create Improvement Activity?
107. How can you intensify the Improvement Activity without relying on the Resources?
108. Intensify or get more of the Compelling Events so you can have more of the Improvement Activity.
109. How can you get more of Improvement Activity from Compelling Events?
110. How can you increase the ability of Compelling Events to create Improvement Activity?
111. How can you intensify the Improvement Activity without relying on the Compelling Events?
112. How can you create the Target State without the Current State?
113. How can you create the Target State without the Enablers?
114. How can you create the Target State without the Resources?
115. How can you create the Target State without the Compelling Events?
116. How can you create the Target State without the Failures due to current situation?
117. Find ways for Improvement Activity to make more use of Resources
118. Find ways for Successes to make more use of Current State
119. Find ways for Improvement Activity to make more use of Enablers
120. Find ways for Improvement Activity to make more use of Compelling Events
121. Find ways for Improvement Activity to make more use of Improvement Activity
122. Find ways for Target State to make more use of Improvement Activity
123. How can the proportion of the Compromises impacting the Sustainable improvement be reduced?
124. Find ways for Benefits of change to make more use of Target State
125. Find ways for Target State to make more use of Target State
126. Find ways for Improvement Activity to make more use of Constraints
127. Find ways for Sustainable improvement to make more use of Target State

Here are the MyCreativity rules that generated this output:

#Improve.IncreaseUseful
increases(useful,useful) "Intensify or get more of the {source} so you can have more of the {destination}."
increases(*,useful) "How can you get more of {destination} from {source}?"
increases(*,useful) "How can you increase the ability of {source} to create {destination}?"
increases(*,useful) "How can you intensify the {destination} without relying on the {source}?"
increases(harmful,useful) "Try and work out what part of the {source} is producing the {destination} and minimise the unnecessary parts that are producing the harm"
decreases(*,useful) "Prevent the {source} from impacting the {destination}."
decreases(*,useful) "Isolate the part of the {source} that is impacting the {destination} and remove it."
decreases(harmful,useful) "Convert the {source} into something useful before it has a chance to impact the {destination}"
decreases(*,useful) "Protect the {destination} from the {source}."
increases(useful,useful+potential) "How can you ensure that the {destination} will be an outcome of the {source}?"
increases(&a=*,&c=useful+potential) increases(&b=*,&a) "How can you create the {&c} without the {&b}?"
increases(&a=*,&c=useful+!potential) increases(&b=*,&a) "How can you intensify the {&c} without the {&b}?"
useful+goal "What else is needed to achieve {this}? What are the pre-requisites or necessary pre-steps?"
harmful "What's the root cause of {this}? How can we avoid that?"
useful+potential "How can we realise the {this} more quickly?"
harmful+potential "How can we avoid, prevent, or delay the {this}?"
replaces(&a=*,&b=*) increases(&b,&c=useful) "Ensure the {&a} also leads to {&c} before the {&b} is replaced"
increases(&a=*,&b=useful) "Find ways for {&b} to make more use of {&a}"
#Improve.ReduceHarmful
increases(*,harmful) "How can you prevent the {source} from producing the {destination}."
increases(*,harmful) "Put measures in place to deal with the {destination}."
increases(*,harmful) "Isolate the part of the {source} that is producing the {destination} and remove it."
increases(useful,harmful) "How else could the {source} be accomplished that would not result in the {destination}?"
increases(useful,harmful) "What else could give the benefits of the {source} that would not result in the {destination}?"
decreases+potential(&a=*,&b=useful) "How can the proportion of the {&a} impacting the {&b} be reduced?"
#Improve.Simplify
increases(&a=*,&b=useful) increases(&a,&c=harmful) "How can you get the {&a} to intensify the {&b} without causing the {&c}?"

Creating TOGAF Checklists with Southbeach MyCreativity

2009-12-13T12:43:00.015Z

This Southbeach Notation model shows the phases of the The Open Group Architecture Foundation (TOGAF) Architecture Development Method (ADM). Reference: www.togaf.org

The method defines the inputs, steps, and outputs of each phase of the cycle:

A. Architecture Vision
B. Business Architecture
C. Information Systems Architectures
D. Technology Architecture
E. Opportunities and Solutions
F. Migration Planning
G. Implementation Governance
H. Architecture Change Management
Requirements Management

Some of these have been shown on the extended model below, with inputs shown as blue boxes, or activities that contribute to the phase, steps of the phase itself are shown as productions (arrows) out of the phase and outputs, or artifacts created by the phase, are shown using the created effect (star). Here we show the steps of phase A above that phase, with the inputs to the left, broken down hierarchically as defined in TOGAF, and the outputs to the right. We also show the inputs to phase B, business architecture similarly broken down.

Using the MyCreativity add on to the Southbeach Modeller, it is now possible to write rules that refer to the model and generate output. You will see how the rules below for the different effect types correspond to the appropriate output; anything that contributesto the phase you click on is listed as an input, anything that phase produces is listed as a step, and anything that is created by that phase, is listed as an output. Note also how in the case of contributesto, we have an additional rule called a 'triple' that matches secondary level contributions. (See the MyCreativity manual for more details.)

This is just one way you could model the parts of TOGAF and write rules in Southbeach to create checklists. This mapping of effects to meaning used to interpret the model in a specific way, this creativity meta-model, is important. Think about this - about how you want your rules and your model to interact - so you have a consistent way to generate creativity output from the model.

For example, the following script:

#Process
//Use extent extended
* "{selected}"
#Process.Inputs
contributesto(action, goal) " Inputs:"
contributesto(action, goal) " {source}"
contributesto(&a=action, &b=action) contributesto(&b,&c=goal) " |--{&a}"
#Process.Steps
produces(goal, action) " Steps:"
produces(goal, action) " {destination}"
#Process.Outputs
creates(goal,action) " Outputs:"
creates(goal, action) " {destination}"

Generates the following output when clicking on Phase A. Architecture Vision:
(This output appears in the MyCreativity window beneath the model when you have the plug-in - just right click in there and set extent to extended to make sure it generates all the secondary inputs).


A. Architecture Vision
  Inputs:
     Organizational Model for Enterprise Architecture
        |--* Governance and support strategy
        |--* Requests for change
        |--* Budget requirements
        |--* Re-use requirements
        |--* Constraints on architecture work
        |--* Roles and responsibilities for architecture team(s)
        |--* Maturity assessment, gaps, and resolution approach
        |--* Scope of organizations impacted
     Tailored Architecture Framework
        |--* Tailored architecture method
        |--* Tailored architecture content (deliverables and artifacts)
        |--* Architecture Principles, including business principles, when pre-existing
        |--* Configured and deployed tools
     Populated Architecture Repository
  Steps:
     * Define Scope
     * Develop Enterprise Architecture Plans and Statement of Architecture Work; Secure Approval
     * Identify the Business Transformation Risks and Mitigation Activities
     * Define the Target Architecture Value Propositions and KPIs
     * Develop Architecture Vision
     * Confirm and Elaborate Architecture Principles, including Business Principles
     * Assess Readiness for Business Transformation
     * Evaluate Business Capabilities
     * Confirm and Elaborate Business Goals, Business Drivers, and Constraints
     * Identify Stakeholders, Concerns, and Business Requirements
     * Establish the Architecture Project
  Outputs:
     # Additional content populating the Architecture Repository
     # Communications Plan
     Architecture Vision
     # Tailored Architecture Framework (for the engagement)
     # Capability Assessment
     # Architecture Principles
     # Refined statements of Business Principles, Business Goals, and Business Drivers
     Approved Statement of Architecture Work

and the following output when clicking on B. Business Architecture:


B. Business Architecture
   Inputs:
       # Approved Statement of Architecture Work
       # Architecture Principles, including business principles, when pre-existing
       # Enterprise Continuum
       # Architecture Repository
           |--* Re-usable building blocks
           |--* Publicly available reference models
           |--* Organization-specific reference models
           |--* Organization standards
           |--* Refined key high-level stakeholder requirements
           |--* Baseline Business Architecture, Version 0.1
           |--* Baseline Technology Architecture, Version 0.1
           |--* Baseline Data Architecture, Version 0.1
           |--* Baseline Application Architecture, Version 0.1
           |--* Target Business Architecture, Version 0.1
           |--* Target Technology Architecture, Version 0.1
           |--* Target Data Architecture, Version 0.1
           |--* Target Application Architecture, Version 0.1

You can create as many different rule sets as you like, use them interactively like this to help you think through your approach, or facilitate a project kick-off or review session, or audit an already running project. Southbeach modeller now has the ability to hide certain kinds of elements like actions (the blue boxes here), so you could build a very extensive model of a process that includes inputs, activities and outputs as here, whilst only showing the simple process steps on the screen and still having the creativity rules accessing the full richness of the model - but only showing it when you want to, when you click on the agents you are interested in.

Here is a screenshot of the application. The top left panel shows the models available in the explorer, below that is a list of creativity rule sets available for use with this model. The model is in the centre - with the action agents (blue boxes) hidden to keep the interface simple. On the right is the agent tab showing the description of the selected TOGAF phase, describing its objectives and approach. Beneath the model is the output of the creativity rules showing the inputs to that phase.

See southbeach-creativity.blogspot.com for more examples of how to use MyCreativity and some explanations of the different kinds of rules you can use to add creativity to Modeller. You can get the MyCreativity plug-in to Southbeach Modeller here.

Southbeach templates for your methodology

2009-12-04T19:19:00.001Z

This model illustrates the questions to be asked, and the model templates to be developed, if one was starting out to develop a Southbeach 'kit' (set of abstract and 'starter' models) to support an existing methodology. The output of the exercise would be a set of Southbeach template models of two types:

1. Models to illustrate the approach, phases, steps and activities of the methodology itself. This would help communicate the methodology to the client and delivery team. They could be adapted for different engagements. Improvements gathered from each engagement would be integrated back into the master set.

2. Abstract models, to support the development of 'work products'.

An abstract models is effectively a 'visual check list' - which can be brought into a workshop, and, through model elaboration and changing the text of agents, converted to a specific model.

Policy Engineering and Process Improvement

2009-11-29T02:48:00.004Z

This model shows how Southbeach can be used to model processes, in this case, describing the steps that might be taken in policy engineering. Once the basic steps in a process are captured, the blockers to and harmful side effects of those process steps can be added to the model. This then provides the basis for brainstorming how to overcome the blockers, or how to improve the process.

Action Oriented Southbeach Modelling

2009-11-29T01:17:00.003Z

Using Southbeach to understand a situation is just the first step. Actions are necessary for change. This model provides one example of the steps you could take to be more action oriented with Southbeach.

Offshoring considerations - balancing cost and quality in transition

2009-11-28T23:46:00.005Z

This model highlights what is considered by some to be a key focus of the transition to an offshore delivery model. It says:

Whilst offshoring reduces cost over time, there is inevitably an initial ramp up period that has the risk of creating quality issues and delays that counteract sales or services and hence impact profitability or cashflow. The knowledge transfer required to ensure quality and timeliness requires onshore delivery capability, sometimes perceived as high cost. This investment in the present must be balanced against the potential losses and gains of the future. The knowledge transfer and the management of this transition to a fully offshore model must be the initial focus of attention.

NHS culture opposed to Innovation?

2009-10-30T16:15:00.001Z

This model was developed following lectures at the London School of Economics (LSE) - entitled "Innovating out of the Recession in the NHS". The speakers were Jim Easton, NHS National Director for Improvement and Efficiency, Dept of Health; Steve Barnett, Chief Executive, NHS Confederation and Prof. Patrick Dunleavy, LSE Public Policy Group. Mr. Easton is responsible for driving measureable improvements in service quality and productivity through the system. The meeting was chaired by Howard Glennerster, Prof. Emeritus of social administration at the LSE, holding various advisory positions to UK Government.

Despite significant funding and resource increases for the NHS over the last ten years, it has been insufficient to produce needed increases in productivity and quality. (dotted line). These are needed now to counter funding gap of £20B projected over the coming years. The theme of the lecture was the NHS culture and ethos which, it is claimed, is opposed to processes of innovation and change. Nothing less than a transformation is needed - gradual incremental downward pressure on prices and costs won't be enough. The cultural problem arises from a public ethos of mediocry, rather than excellence, and a passionate dislike and disinterest in service/process innovations over medical advances. Future models will focus on the interactions and root causes between culture and innovation.

Innovating out of Recession in the UK NHS

2009-10-29T12:26:00.004Z

There is a lot of interest in public sector innovation, both here in UK, but also in the USA and in other major economies. The recession is forcing a hard look at funding, productivity and quality in service delivery - while maintaining clinical excellence. Last night, I attended a series of lectures at the London School of Economics (LSE) - entitled "Innovating out of the Recession in the NHS". The speakers were Jim Easton, NHS National Director for Improvement and Efficiency, Dept of Health; Steve Barnett, Chief Executive, NHS Confederation and Prof. Patrick Dunleavy, LSE Public Policy Group. Mr. Easton is responsible for driving measureable improvements in service quality and productivity through the system. The meeting was chaired by Howard Glennerster, Prof. Emeritus of social administration at the LSE, holding various advisory positions to UK Government.

I developed this Southbeach model (below) based on remarks which recurred throughout the sessions. I will be developing more models of the positions taken at the meeting. This model says:

The economic downturn has led to a £20B gap in funding. This reality, and the politics around it, will challenge NHS social principles unless there is a step change in productivity and quality. According to Jim Easton, incremental improvements will not achieve this, a transformation of the healthcare 'industry' is required (action). Only this can counteract the funding crisis and avoid much cherished principles being compromized. According to the speakers, a root cause is the NHS culture/ethos, which is harmful to the dissemination of innovations in service delivery, even if it does deliver clinical excellence and patient care. A major theory/reason stated for this is the harmful tension between national programs and local programs. This tension counteracts each of their contributions to the the dissemination of innovations, which are required, but insuffient (dotted line), for the productivity needed (scale up). At the same time, productivty can (questionably) lead to improved clinical practice, yet there is a sense in which silo clinical practice is counteracting productivity. There are unanswered questions here. Of course, if NHS principles are challenged the 'system' cannot counter the funding crisis with an appropriate step change in innovation, there will be a counteracting impact on the culture/ethos. In the model, this has been determined to be useful (green line) because the impact is directed to a harmful element (red box), the culture ... despite this having many useful qualities such as clinical excellence (green box). This illustrates the power of Southbeach to allow for the modeling and resolution of differing 'perspectives'.

An example method for developing Southbeach Notation Models

2009-09-29T13:11:00.016+01:00

Whilst Southbeach Notation itself does not impose any methodology, it is sometimes useful to see how other people have been using it. This example is one way of assessing a situation, brainstorming improvement options, and establishing action plans involving the need to consult large numbers of people. It includes a very simple Southbeach model of a manufacturing firm by way of illustration. Several iterations of the model are shown to demonstrate how a model may be built up through structured questioning. At each stage, the new agents that are added to the model are highlighted in yellow.

Four phases of activity are described below:

More details on example activities and pointers for each phase are provided below:

Model the situation:

Identify & interview stake holders

What are the priority areas?
What are the goals?
What’s helps achieve the goals?
What are these dependent on?
What’s counteracting the goals?
What are the real issues?
What causes those issues?
What’s the root cause?
What other resources do we have?

Assess the differences in perspective
Break differences of opinion down into their parts to get to the issues
Agree what’s important and why, remove the rest

Cost, harmful, and considered a risk, counteracts Profit, which is useful and the goal of the firm. We keep this model deliberately trivial for the purposes of illustration and gradually expand on it below.

Tips

Don’t ask leading questions
Your opinion is irrelevant; Mine their knowledge
Watch body language; Ask pointed questions
Differentiate opinion or hearsay from fact
Seek corroborating evidence

What is most important? What are the goals and risks?
What is most useful? What is most harmful?
What led/is still leading to this situation?
What resources are available? What are the enablers?
What are the risks, blockers & constraints? How can we mitigate against them?
What is the ideal outcome?

Elaborate and refine the model
Who else should be consulted?
- Specialists?
- Customers?
- Suppliers?
- External experts?

What’s missing from the model? (stand on each block and ask...)
- What else does this produce?
- What else produces this?
- What else does this counteract?
- What else counteracts this?
- What are the enablers and positive forces for change?
- What are the blockers and inhibitors?

Here we look at what produces the Cost and Profit and what is counteracting them. Sales leads to Manufacturing, which generates both Revenue and Cost. The revenue contributes to the profit and the Cost counteracts it. The Profit is also counteracted by Corporation Tax.

Tips
Keep asking what causes this until you get to the root cause
See all sides of the argument
Decompose contradictions into their parts
- “Cut costs” + “Increase marketing budget” = ???
- - Choose between one or the other?
- - Move budget from elsewhere?
- - Improve marketing efficiency?
Remove unnecessary information
Differentiate hobby horses from the real issues
E.g. absence of something is not necessarily an issue – it could be the interviewee leaping to conclusions about what the solution is…. “The problem is we have no leadership”… or is it just that this person does not agree with the leadership?

Brainstorm Improvement Options

Each of the questions below targets a different creativity centre in the brain, and focusses on a different part of the problem in the system. Consider each question carefully and make sure to answer them specifically (e.g. consider the harmful effects of pollution: protect from harm (e.g. using a mask to avoid inhaling pollution) is quite different from reduce harm (e.g. using unleaded fuel), is quite different from reduce ability to produce harm (e.g. reduce engine size or speed limit), is quite different from prevent harm (e.g. pedestrianize the town centre), is quite different to avoid harm (e.g. don't go into the town, stay in the country).

Ask what could improve the situation?
- What are the enablers for this?
- What are the blockers and how can we overcome them?
Ask what could worsen the situation?
- How could we prevent this?
- What are the risk mitigations for this?

Increase usefulness
- Introduce more kinds or quantities of useful agents into the system
- Find a way for useful agents to last longer or be more efficient or effective
- Change agents somehow so they are more useful or have more uses
- Make more use of...
- Increase the ability to produce the useful, Find other ways to produce the useful
- Go to where the useful agents already exist or are available
- Find another way to get the useful that is not affected by the harm
- Find another way to get the useful that has not harmful side effects
Decrease harm
- Prevent harmful agents from coming into existence
- Remove harmful agents altogether
- Change agents somehow to decrease their harmfulness
- Reduce the ability to produce harm
- Protect useful agents from harm
- Avoid the harm

Improve
- Find a way to increase the usefulness without increasing the harm
- Find another way to get the usefulness that does not produce the harm
- Separate the conflicting behaviours or tensions
- - in time / space / by perception / condition
- - Transition to super-system / sub-system / alternate system / inverse system
Step back and consider alternatives
Move to the next generation of the system
Remove the need for the system

Here the ideas for improving the system are shown as blue boxes. Blue boxes are not yet part of the system being diagnosed, but rather, represent the recommendations arising from the analysis of the Southbeach Model of the system. Here Offshoring is designed to counteract Cost, as is Reduced Stock, which is achieved by implementing a Build to Order process. Sales are increased through additional Marketing activity.

What are the risks?
What are the external influences that could adversely affect us?
In what way might we be harming or harmed by the environment?

Here we examine what additional external factors may affect the system. Competitors, considered harmful, counteract Revenue. Warranty Activity contributes to Cost which erodes Profit. This causal chain is saying that both Competitors and Warranty Activity indirectly erode Profit, so we had better do something about it.

What can we do about those risks?
Can any of those harmful factors be turned to use?
How can we work in better harmony with the environment?

Research & Development is recommended here to identify Potential (dotted box) new Products that could counteract Competitors who do not have comparable products, giving us some of the market share that was previously with competitors, as well as directly increase Revenue by winning new customers attracted by this new Product. Continually asking 'what other benefits does this have?' yields R&D tax rebates which increases Profit further. Warranty Activity is reduced by an Improved Quality Assurance process. Note that the new process and products will have their own costs, which will erode profit. These are not shown here as they are a necessary part of the idea evaluation - the business case for each blue activity block - they are not a part of the system we are improving until those blue blocks are implemented.

Tips
Brainstorm improvement options, in the above categories, or directed in some other way
Collect improvement ideas
Group ideas together to create better ideas

Run professionally facilitated workshops
Use independent third parties who are not blinkered by history and have no bias
Consult experts as needed, from within the firm and outside
Use the wisdom of crowds – run virtual idea management campaigns using services from firms such as imaginatik.com
Consider what others in the market are doing

Consider the implications, what could the unforeseen consequences of your actions be? How can you protect against them? How can you make your solution last?

Planning Tips
What are the consequences of taking these actions, Useful and Harmful? (Impact analysis)
What preparatory steps should be taken?
What resources are available?
What other activities could our plan integrate with or leverage?
Consider what change management activity will be needed
How can we ensure adoption of the new solution?
Communicate and Educate far and wide
How can we ensure realisation of the benefits?
Consider planning in a benefits realisation phase
Establish metrics
Identify roles and responsibilities
Establish governance and necessary support or operational processes

Can the UK manage investment in its energy infrastructure to avoid future brownouts?

2009-09-19T19:39:00.005+01:00

(Our thanks to technology and policy futurologist, Chris Yapp, for the inspiration to publish this example). Here is an example of the use of a Southbeach grid, to clarify the factors that could lead to powere brownouts in the UK. The model clarifies actions and plans in the present, and possible futures.

If we decommission coal and nuclear power stations on current dates and energy consumption rises this will increase the possibility of brownouts on a scale similar to New England a few years ago. This can be alleviated by extending the lives of these power stations till new capacity comes on board. That reduces the brownout risk at one level. However extending the life of power stations beyond their design limits risks unplanned outages which are harder to deal with. What lowers the risk on one timescale raises risk of a different nature on a different timescale.

But a question remains? What can cause new capacity to come onboard?

To get more insight from this model, we have added an agent to represent the intention (potential) to plan and prepare for building new power production capability. This 'thought' can exist in the present, and it is what brings new capacity onboard in the future.

If it does not occur (not realised) then the brownouts will occur if the decommisioning continues. If the plans don't come about, they do not counteract the life extension projects, and the life extension will therefore continue, with the risk of unplanned outage risks.

Both extending the life of stations, and planning for new build, are useful (green), but are in some kind of opposition (tension). Both cannot fully 'live' together - and it is this tension we would explore for further analysis as indicated in the model below.

There are therefore three risks to power in the UK:

Risk1: If new capacity does not come on board in the future, brownouts will not be counteracted.

Risk2: The surplus life extension will lead to unplanned outages.

Risk3: Planning intentions in tension with extending the lives of the existing power stations.

Further analysis would proceed by interviewing experts around the three causes of uncertainty - centred on the focal point: planning. Over time, models would become more detailed, and more compelling, and the root causes of uncertainty would be revealed. These models could then suggest directions for changing the situation.

UK energy policy

2009-08-11T13:39:00.002+01:00

In this model, we show a summary of the landscape in which the UK develops energy policy. The model seems to imply that energy choices (coal, renewables, nuclear, gas) - coupled with national interests and the politics of global warming, are creating an uncertain environment for planning, investment, choices and options.

21 Drivers for the 21st Century - War, Terrorism, Insecurity (outsights.co.uk)

2009-08-11T12:04:00.002+01:00

Southbeach can be effective at visualizing and asking questions about 'scenarios'.

Scenario planning is a strategic planning method that some corporations and many public sector organizations use to make flexible long-term plans. It is considered by some as part of 'corporate innovation'. Related terms include futures studies, horizon scanning, forecasting and roadmapping.

Outsights is a leading practitioner of scenario planning and horizon scanning - helping clients (including public sector organizations and NGOs) to anticipate, interpret and act on important developments in the external world. Their latest work is entitled '21 Drivers for the 21st Century'. Here is a small Southbeach model based on the summary ideas within one scenario.

Forthcoming Southbeach|MyCreativity can add rules to such models, to bring sripts, questions and best practices to life in the context of the current model. Here is an example showing this in action:

UK to introduce vetting of adults who spend time with children

2009-07-16T22:54:00.007+01:00

Southbeach can be used to express important social issues and debates between government, policy makers, lobby groups, the media and citizens - so as to ask deep questions about the kind of society we create for the next generation as we sleep walk and widen the reach of the existing surveillance society. Models can be developed from multiple perspectives, exposing fallacies in the causal logic of those who argue to seek to restrict our remaining liberties. Here is one perspective.

Contrasting perspectives - Spirals of change

2009-06-29T19:12:00.008+01:00

This example shows how different perspectives on a situation can be compared and contrasted by using multiple Southbeach Notation diagrams to show the potential consequences of different behaviors or solutions.

The two models below show the same situation, with different choices being made at each stage of development, and different consequences resulting, which cause further choices to be made.

These models were created from the perspective of someone who believes in 'planning for the future', as shown by all the agents below being useful (green) and many of the agents above, starting with 'short term'ism' are harmful (red).

Whilst neither of these models are either complete or balanced, they serve to show a perspective on different approaches, with what are considered to be the key elements of the argument laid out to make it clear what is being said.

A further activity after creating models like this might be to create more detailed and complete models that provide both sides of the story, and weigh up the pros and cons of taking actions in the short term versus taking a longer term approach.

The trouble with Wind Farms - economic and environmental

2009-06-01T16:39:00.007+01:00

There are problems with wind farms. Opposition is growing. The following Southbeach models were developed as examples to show the dilemna and contradictions. If you disagree with these models, develop some of your own, and send them to feedback@southbeachinc.com.

Europe's largest wind farm is not producing enough power. So advocates for wind farms are advocating an expansion of scale. As if 140 turbines 110m high were not enough! Here's the problem. Large wind farms near to be close to areas of population, to drive down costs of power distribution and servicing. But they also have to be in area of open ground and subject to high wind. That means, the green areas close to conubations are precisely those at risk, and valued by the community. Here is another view:

In this model shows the insufficient power production of wind farms counteracting the economic case. That case can only be made by contributory factors of location, location and location. The expanding scale of wind farms, and their ideal location (for the economic case to be made) are in contradiction. The economic case is strongly related to the availability of the wind 'resource'. Environmentalists are split:

And it's not just industrial scale problems faced by Wind Farms. Noise, even for single turbine units 'micro generation' is already disturbing animals, and neighbours. To make matters worse, the high winds required for more power (see models above) are precisely the conditions under which turbines produce more noise. It's a lose lose situation.

Simple Business Improvement Model

2009-05-19T23:28:00.008+01:00

This Southbeach Notation diagram illustrates some of the Southbeach Semantics in a simple model of a business. Its purpose is both to describe the situation and provide a basis from which to agree on key facts (e.g. there are insufficient sales) and priorities (e.g. marketing is the focus of attention). Southbeach models exist to support the analysis process in improving the situation. Thus, each element of a Southbeach model can provide a pivot point for improvement. Some examples are provided below.

Here is how to read this diagram:

Spending produces (arrow) materials which are used (small box end) by the manufacturing process to create (star) products which produce sales which produce revenue which produce profit. The profit is the goal (solid green box), and it is counteracted by the spending, considerd harmful and hence shown in red. Spending also produces marketing which increases the sales from the products. However, competitors (harmful) counteract the production of sales. Sales are shown as insufficient (dashed box) and marketing is the focus of attention (yellow highlight). Note the filled circle at the start of some effect lines indicating that the agent is necessary for the effect to occur, e.g. Spending is necessary to increase materials, manufacturing, and marketing.

Note the short dashed lines across some of the effects. These indicate that the effect occurs after a delay. For example, there is a delay between acquisition of the materials and use of those materials by the manufacturing process to create the product.

Here are some improvement alternatives illustrated by this diagram:

All green boxes are useful, so increasing them is likely to increase the usefulness of the overall system. Red boxes are harmful, so need to be reduced, but a balance must be struct as although spending is considered harmful, it has multiple useful effects - spending is necessary - so the reduction of spending is only useful if it can be achieved without reducing the useful products of that spending (materials, manufacturing, and marketing). Similarly, delays on useful effects are opportunities for improvement as they represent a delay in realisation of potential value held in the system. Note that competitors have no useful function in this system as they are harmful, counteract the useful production of profit, and have no useful side effects (from the perspective of the business), so finding ways to avoid, prevent, remove, or diminish the impact of competitors is worthwhile investment as long as it does not cost more than the profit (i.e. as long as the business is actually viable).

There are more subtle ways in which creativity techniques can be combined with Southbeach models. For example, the sales are insufficient. So how can we resolve that? From the model, we can spend more on marketing to increase the production of sales from products, or we can spend more on manufacturing to create more products - more kinds of products to hit more of the market, or more products to places where it is needed if the market is not uniform in its consumption. We can find ways to diminish the effect of the competitors; by selling the products where our competitor has no influence, by removing the competitor through acquisition, by branching out into markets not addressed by our competitor. We can also move into other kinds of sales than products; perhaps there is revenue to be made by providing service contracts. Combining creativity techniques of various forms with Southbeach models as a mechanism for driving a structured brainstorming approach can be a very powerful way to create improvement directions that will be more complete and more directed to where they are needed most.

The model below shows how these improvement ideas can be arrived at by working around the agents and effects in the diagram:

Blue boxes are improvement actions.

Human dominion over nature?

2009-05-16T19:27:00.002+01:00

It used to be that humans had dominion over the world. The world was there to take. We invaded foreign lands, took the resources we needed, and created the built environment. Now we are not so sure. We sit at an uneasy juncture - somewhere between opposing mind sets. We are unsure of how to prevent the dilemmas we face.

(This model illustrates two new semantics in Southbeach 0.9 - 'prevents' and 'contributes to')

Analysing the water crisis in Australia's Marray-Darling Basin

2009-05-07T08:55:00.005+01:00

This model was created as part of an open ideation event run by http://circleofblue.org/.

It shows some of the problems being caused by over extractraction of water from the Murray-Darling basin in Australia. And also some of the solutions (blue boxes) being considered. This is a world issue that has manifested in many countries and will continue to manifest as our water consumption increases with population and adoption of water hungry appliances and crops in areas that require artificial irrigation.

Here is how one might go about developing a model like this:

1. Create a model, a hypothesis - describing the problem, and consequences of attempted solutions to date

2. Elaborate the model with subject matter experts - from all walks, agriculture, industry, government, science, ... - Bring in other people's perspectives on the model

3. Elaborate further, creating sub-models for drill down into complex or contentious areas

4. Perform a root cause analysis to understand how this situation arose

5. Share the model and report with others to gather feedback iteratively

6. Capture the feedback in terms of model elaborations and ideas entered into the report

7. Create a plan of action, and show the to-be model next to the as-is model

8. Do an impact and risk analysis on the plan of action and refine it by mitigating risks and protecting against adverse impacts

9. Create the final report and action plan for improving your situation

10. Execute

Viral Change (TM)

2009-05-05T06:15:00.003+01:00

This model is based on the work of Leandro Herrero, a viral change specialist. The Southbeach model is based on a figure on page 16 of his book, Viral Change - The Alternative to Slow, Painful and Unsuccessful Management of Change in Organisations.

The model illusrates two new "experimental" effects in Southbeach - 'Specifies' and 'Implements'. These effects have no standard Southbeach visualization at this time, and are simply denoted by a standard closed arrow head and text label.

The concept of 'Implementation' is broad. A implements B means, in effect, that A is part of the 'engine' behind B, for example, a CPU chip 'implements' the logic required for a computer to work. A process engine, in BPM, implements the process design. Our brain 'implements' our conciousness. We are sure you can think of many other examples.

'Specifies' is another experimentation effect in Southbeach. It is a related effect to 'Implements'. A software design document 'specifies' a software program. A blueprint 'specifies' a building. A manager who sets out policy 'specifies' the way processes should be administered.

Experimentation effects in Southbeach are released in the software once it is clear that they are 1) useful, 2) have a well defined and distinct meaning (over other effects) and 3) once a clear visual representation has been agreed and developed.

You can now Draw in Southbeach too!

2009-05-04T21:35:00.004+01:00

This image shows some of the drawing tools in Southbeach 0.9. It includes lines, boxes, circles, elipses, polygons and flexigons - solid, dashed and filled. Also provided is a text object and a block arrow.

These drawing tools are typically used sparingly to annotate key aspects of a model, for example, to draw a boundary around a set of agents. The tools provided are 'enough' for most purposes, and cover the common idioms we often see used in analytical diagrams.

Drawing tools in Southbeach have been implemented in their own 'layer', separate to the modeling agents, choices, decisions and effects. This makes selecting, moving, resizing and modifying agents and drawing objects separately very convenient. Even unfilled objects such as dashed boxes can be dragged by clicking anywhere inside the area.

Value chain transformation

2009-05-04T11:49:00.004+01:00

This model illustrates some of the new features for modeling situations in Southbeach 0.9(Beta imminent). The model also illustrates a situation common in business. Here, a supply chain is represented, comprising parts manufactured by supply chain partners, contributing to a final legacy product. This product, and its supply chain, is owned by the supply chain leader. Way down the chain, a contract manufacturer of parts is aware of an innovation that can lead to a new product. In effect, a part is transformed. If this innovation were released on the market, the emcumbant supply chain would be de-stabilized. A choice (diamond) has opened up in the marketplace and is being driven by the two forces operating.

Thus, the supply chain leader has foreseen this and interjected a patent fence to counteract the transformation occuring (or at least to retrade its emergence in the marketplace).

This model also shows one of the new drawing tools in Southbeach. Lines, boxes, circles, pologons can now be drawn in solid, dashed and filled.

Intervening with Actions

2009-04-28T20:26:00.006+01:00

In Southbeach 0.9, a new type of colored box has been introduced. What management consultants told us was that in client presentations it would be useful to them to distinguish their recommended actions and interventions to solve the client's problem. We call these agents 'actions', and they are shown in blue in order to distinguish them from useful boxes (green) and harmful boxes (red).

Actions can be considered to be in some ways 'outside' of the model, or superimposed on the model - intervening on it. In TRIZ, this could be called the 'supersystem' or 'external environment'. In effect, the consultants that gave us the feedback that led us to add 'actions' to Southbeach, are 'external' to the client as they make their proposals for change/transformation.

Whether you are a management consultant or another kind of problem solver, we hope you find these visually distinctive 'action' shapes useful in your work. Formally, 'actions' are considered 'useful' in a Southbeach model.

In the example model above, also note the use of 'insufficient'. There is both an action to increase the 'insfficiency in the system'. There is also an 'insufficient action' which may or may not be sufficient to address problem area three.

Potential of 'ideation' in the enterprise

2009-04-27T22:28:00.004+01:00

This model shows the top 5 benefits of 'ideation' (large scale collaborative problem-solving using tools like Imaginatik's Idea Central). As companies come to understand these benefits, it raises an issue they must focus on - how to take advantage of the capability ideation provides. They must understand the tool has no value in the absense of appropriate business challenges. If the company can be proactive and set ideation challenges, they will enjoy proactive participation from staff. If they can turn this participation into results (our goal) via the idea development, evaluation and conclusion process, this will amplify the organization's willingness to set more challenges, generating more results. This virtuous circle is what empowers every well-founded ideation program.

This model illustrates two new features in the coming release of Southbeach Modeller. A grouping box has been used to highlight the benefits of ideation. An 'issue' lozenge shape has been used to highlight the question that enterprise's must ask themselves.

Charities partnering Service

2009-03-11T19:04:00.004Z

This Southbeach model describes some of the challenges and capabilities that charities have, and how if they could find a way to partner with other charities with complimentary capabilities and needs, they could help each other more effectively utilize their own capabilities to produce solutions that meet their goals.

The idea is that a Charity Partnering Service could consume capabilities from some charities that are then paired with challenges faced by other charities to help them meet their mutual goals. For example, one charity needing funds for projects may receive donations from another charity where those projects also meet the needs of the other charities charter. Similarly, one charity may have a distribution network in place for delivering aid, whereas another charity may have access to supplies that could be delivered through that distribution network.

Social media is sited as one example of how such a service could enable charities to share information about their resources and needs to enable a 'dating-agency' for charities to match them with potential partners.

The model was inspired by a discussion with Andreas Rindler, the Finance Director of the UK arm of the Mental Disability Advocacy Centre-UK (MDAC-UK).

Obama's Prisoner Dilemma: Reject Torture, Defend Torturers

2009-02-05T17:59:00.006Z

According to Wired [Feb 04, 2009] President Barack Obama finds himself in a quandary of sorts over his public position opposing torture and secret detentions.

The new U.S. president has renounced those Bush administration practices, but government lawyers continue to defend the previous administration's top officials accused of authorizing and carrying out those policies.

Unexpected events

2009-02-04T17:05:00.003Z

As many companies ponder the financial downturn, no doubt some are wondering whether there needs to be radical changes to their strategic plans, risk management programs, and planning processes for resource allocation. This model illustrates the dilemna many will face as we go into 2009 and beyond.

2008-12-11T20:05:00.006Z

Based on the article 'African investment could be hit'
Interestingly, whilst drawing this model, the use of Southbeach clarified several points that were not explicitly stated in the article.

Window pane diagrams

2008-12-10T21:15:00.005Z

Southbeach contains a Grid tool. Grids are used to 'separate' elements of a model in various 'dimensions' of separation. In this example, a 3x3 grid is used to represent the past, present and future (time epoch) resources associated with the sponsorship of a project, the customer and the team delivering the project (system structure).

The template comes from page 530, Systematic Innovation for Business and Management, Darrell Mann, 2004.

Elements inherit attributes off the grid - from the cell in which they are placed. The modeling software allows grids of rows only (pools), columns only (swimlanes) or window pane diagrams as in this example.

Each dimension is called a 'separation'. Separations can be typed: for example in space, time, by structure, by perspective, around system aspects, by role, on probability and on conditions.

Modeling trends

2008-12-10T21:07:00.005Z

Southbeach can be used to model trends. Here, two well known examples of observed trends in commerce are illustrated. A potential hybrid trend, I refer to as 'amenity' is shown as the convergence of maturity on two existing trend lines.

Earth 3.0 - Scientific American

2008-11-25T18:02:00.005Z

This model celebrates the launch of Earth 3.0, a new high quality publication from Scientific American. (www.sciamearth3.com). The model describes what is said in the editor's letter.

Note the use of a separation by Time to describe the three epochs described in the SciAm article. Focus (yellow), Goal (block green) and Risk (block red) have also been used to good effect. Note the use of an 'insufficient counteraction' (dotted crossed line) to denote that early argiculture produced only local impacts, not global harm. Note the use of the 'overloaded' (doubled line) effect to show the industrial consumption. Note the use of 'oppose' (double headed jagged effect) between the concerns about the environment, and the necessary third world development. Note also the use of 'required' (solid circle at source end of effect lines) to signify the necessary actions to bring about the potential (dotted line box) for economic and environmental progress.

Being more productive with Southbeach

2008-11-25T06:31:00.015Z

This Southbeach model shows the potential harmful consequences of an unstructured approach combined with a lack of discipline and planning. It's a common picture. Let's break it down: Many people feel forced into this situation by the amount of work they receive and the amount of support from others they don't receive. This increasing work leads to increasing urgency which leads ultimately to dropping the ball (or less and less sleep, stress, less collaborative; more insular behaviour)... It has the further consequences that there is no time for planning, and no time for prioritising activities, leading to a reactive behaviour that becomes more random with time.

The Southbeach approach can be used to re-establish the discipline necessary to deal with complex situations and high workloads. It is a structured approach that enables you to break your problems down into manageable chunks that can be shared with others. Structuring thought, planning, design, work, and collaboration in this way can create more reuse in everything you do and can reduce the workload for others, giving them more time to help reduce the workload for you.

Another benefit of this collaborative approach is the wealth of experience and different ideas and approaches that can be brought to bear. More information, with more techniques for combining it enables better decision making to enable you and others to focus on what is important to get results and achieve your goals.

Managing Enabling Technology

2008-11-23T11:17:00.000Z

This Southbeach model shows an impact analysis for using Technology in business. Reading from bottom left (Technology) to top right (Increasing Profit), we can see a chain of useful and harmful effects as the intended results of automation and combining information in new ways to create new capabilities and business oportunities have their shadow harmful consequences of loss of control, information overload, and increasing cost and complexity resulting in risk of technology outages.

There is a significant management overhead for all enabling technologies. Additional risk management erodes away profits still further, whilst the use of technologies like Business Intelligence to find correlations in market indicators through data mining and provision of multi-level active drill-down reports for management to make sense of the increasing information overload permits evidence based decision making at the highest level in the organisation.

New business opportunities are identified and this often results in yet more technology to overcome the limitations of previous IT systems, and restore control to the business so that opportunities can be properly exploited.

This represents an interlocking of two evolutionary systems in an organisation; the business, and the Information Technology. They enable each other. The boundaries become blurred with time, and the politics of deciding which side of the fence to pitch your tent increase as the cycle of improvement on one side amplifies the other, and technology and business change fall out of sync resulting in solutions that were intended for one purpose being used for another, or investment being targetted at exploitation of existing technology beyond its capacity to support the growth in demand from the business.

Managing enabling technology requires a thorough understanding of both the business and the Technology, and a foot in both camps. In today's world, neither can exist without the other; Building value with business-led inovation requires a supporting culture in the people and a collaboration rooted in relationships built on trust.

Building Value with Business led Innovation

2008-11-23T08:34:00.000Z

In his article Would you kiss this Pig? on his blog, Innovating to Win, James Todhunter describes a situation that is all too common in Industry. This relates directly back to my example from October on Holistic Problem Solving, describing a more evidence-based approach to strategic planning rather than focussing on short-term tactics that end up wasting company resources and people's time by investing in projects that are ultimately doomed to failure, or worse, result in missing the real opportunity that is just around the corner. In holistic problem solving, I presented the risk that if those diverted by such misguided short-termism represent a stronger force than those seeking to understand the bigger picture and obtain alignment to move forward from a sound strategic basis, then a downward spiral will result.

This Southbeach model explores the same problem from another angle; how to apply the process of innovation to building value in organisations. We see from this diagram how the perspective of innovation as "building new stuff" from a technology perspective often leads to failure to deliver the desired impact whilst understanding the business opportunity leads to building new stuff with a pre-destined purpose (as opposed to a theoretical purpose).

Clearly Technology led Innovation is an enabler for Business Innovation, and certainly for tecnology companies it is often directly applicable to building value, creating differentiators, and growing their market share. For non-technology businesses, however, Technology is almost always no more than an enabler, a means to an end, some say a necessary evil. For sure there are plenty of harmful side effects of technology; the cost, the complexity, the dependency, but it is predominantly useful as it allows us to make massive leaps in our capability through automation and combining information in new ways that can lead us to identify and exploit the new business opportunities in our markets. Managing enabling technology effectively is key.

Marketing applied to ill-conceived concepts that result in poor value propositions do not get very far, and to reuse again the colourful metaphor on which James based his article, this is no better than putting lipstick on a pig... no one is going to buy it, and if they do, they may soon regret it, as may you.

Focussing on understanding the business opportunity, or business need, to determine where to invest in enabling technology results in "the right new stuff"; stuff that has an application, and if communicated effectively by marketing, will sell, and grow your market share, and create success for your organisation and its customers.

The same concept of perspectives is used in this Southbeach model as in the one on Holistic Problem solving; there are two behaviours in the world, and they often coexist in the same organisation - these behaviours are in oppostion to each other. Those that look for ways of spending their budget on innovation or new things are putting the cart before the horse, jumping the gun, doing things the wrong way around, and they will create an increasing cost base that has no corresponding ROI; they will effectively be counteracting the work done by those that are spending the time understanding the business need to determine where to invest their budget in creating new value. Laying these two behaviours side by side like this demonstrates how they are working against each other throughout their evolution.

Companies often combine techniques of pay for performance to influence the individuals towards behaviour that is better for the business (rather than the individual), however, the annual reward cycles for individuals, and reporting cycles for companies encourages short-termism. A more effective way to create behaviour that builds long term value is to build culture; see my previous post on Drucker's Spirit of an Organisation.

Assessing Conflicting Design Requirements (Car Example)

2008-11-21T06:35:00.001Z

This Southbeach Model shows one of the key principles from TRIZ, namely that everything is both useful and harmful, and its just a matter of perspective as to whether something is considered to be predomantly useful or harmful.

Consider the Car, useful, as it provides Travel; however, it consumes fuel and creates pollution, which counteracts the Environment. People still drive cars despite this, hence the car is considered predominantly useful despite its harmful side effects. Furthermore, "The need for speed", or the need to accelerate to higher speeds more quickly, results in many cars also having turbo chargers. These typically are designed to improve performance and this is often at the cost of creating even more pollution.

Southbeach can be used to understand root causes and perform impact analysis. Also, it is useful for functional decomposition of systems. Consider the following extension to the above diagram:

Here we have extrapolated that pollution contributes to Global Warming, which in turn is actually destroying the Environment, and in a much stronger way than pollution alone. The model recognises that there are also other factors contributing to Global Warming, and that these may be worth exploring. What you explore depends on who you are and what you are trying to do. An environmentalist may explore this avenue. A car manufacturer may explore the pollution avenue in more detail. There are examples of car manufacturers who have taken that extra step and recognised that the car could potentially clean the environment - having an overall positive effect. There are actually cars that clean the air now.

This model additionally shows how further design considerations result in systems becoming more complex over time. Here the need to improve cost effectiveness and reduce pollution has resulted in this car being upgraded to include an economy mode (or "green" mode). This reduces the fuel consumption. However, for comfort this car has also been upgraded to include air conditioning to improve comfort, a desirable feature of the car. This counteracts the economy, hence increasing the fuel consumption and increasing the pollution.

The system is now considerably more complex, and as a consequence contains many more tensions as parts of the system are working in opposition to each other. This results in another iteration of the design process, where further parts are added to compensate for the conflicting effects of the existing parts. The result will be an even more complex system, but by design, this will reduce waste by resolving some of these technical contradictions between the components. There are other ways to improve systems, and some designers are exploring how instead of adding more and more parts (increasing the weight, incidentally, and thereby increasing fuel consumption further), they are looking for ways of improving component design and simplifying the overall design to increase the harmony of the system. This involves taking a holistic approach to the design goals. We will talk more about this in future.

A further elaboration of this model might observe that Car's only produce polution when they are travelling - and it is actually the act of consuming fuel that is the primary cause of that pollution. This model below shows the pollution being created by the act of fuel consumption, and breaks that pollution down into different types using the 'is-a' construct. This elaborated model also includes blue boxes indicating the actions that could be considered to improve the situation.

Getting to where you want to be with Southbeach

2008-11-20T07:31:00.000Z

There are many applications of Southbeach. Here is one...

Southbeach is a way of thinking. If your current approach is insufficient to get you to where you want to be, perhaps because there are constraints that are keeping you where you are, perhaps because there are blockers in the way of moving forward, you can use Southbeach to remove or protect against the contraints, destroy or overcome the blockers, create enablers and find a path forward.

Climbing the Wall of Worry

2008-11-12T02:07:00.000Z

"Wall of Worry" is a phrase used to describe a bullish market trend occurring in the face of negative uncertainties. Risks that have been realised in the market lead to investors thinking that things can only get better - it creates a buying opportunity that through prices rising leads to profit. However, once the risks are resolved, this destroys the wall of worry, causing prices to fall back to their natural level.

This tension between rising and falling prices is explored in more detail in the following model (click to enlarge).

The above Southbeach model shows the tension between rational and emotional behaviour in the investment markets along with their causes and effects. This is a complex situation involving multiple feedback loops that essentially creates a self sustaining system that oscillates between stability and instability as rationality and experience struggle to win out over greed, fear, and emotional behaviour.

Central to this model is a self-sustaining feedback loop of irrational investing resulting in volatility in the market that produces negative feedback causing further irrational, or short term, investing. In the centre of this triumvirate of effects is greed and fear, which perpetuate the situation by creating more emotional behaviour that creates even more volatility in the market, and destroying rational behaviour, which is insufficiently counteracting the negative feedback loop that is creating a "vortex of misery" in the market. This vortex of misery is characterised by the interplay between speculators that are in adulation at the profits they are making on their short sells and the rational investors with their more conventional practice of going long, who become excluded by those seeking to perpetuate the bubble. Eventually this vortex creates a tipping point (the point at which the bubble bursts). As this MarketWatch article explains, 'For those trying to take the pulse of the market, the size of the proverbial "wall of worry" can mean the difference between a correction and a change in trend'. As Charles Mackay, in his 'Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' wrote almost 200 years ago, 'men go mad in crowds but come to their senses slowly, and one by one'; The change in trend is a tipping point in the market, which in this model creates a return to sanity that removes the speculators and emotional behaviour from the game, restoring rational behaviour and adding to experience that in turn hones instinct to return the market to a positive investing cycle based on an understanding of the emotional factors that led to the original volatility and downward spiral.

At the root of this repeating cycle in the market is a causal chain shown below. In this Southbeach model, the same chain of causes and effects is shown from two perspectives. In both cases, complacency leads to emotional distortion which leads to a market bubble that increases the emotional distortion further, increasing the size of the market bubble... and so on, until the tipping point is reached and the inevitable market collapse ensues. As the market is collapsing, this leads to realisations that further feed the collapse, finally once the market has returned to 'normal', complacency sets in once again and the cycle repeats. In the model on the left, the Speculators perspective, this market bubble is seen as a good thing as it creates an opportunity to create wealth through short selling, the market collapse being harmful to them both due to the stocks they purchased at inflated prices, and due to the lost ability to short-sell and make short term profits. The rational investor, on the other hand, has exactly the opposite perspective - the reality is the same; the causes and effects play out in exactly the same way, they simply see the bubble as harmful as it destabilises the market and the collapse as useful as it marks a return to normality.

This series of Southbeach models was created by Jason McIntosh, a sales trader at Nomura and Mark Burnett, a management consultant at BearingPoint.

Drucker - Spirit of an Organisation

2008-11-08T08:09:00.000Z

This Southbeach model shows a perspective of Peter F. Drucker; "the man who invented management". The column on the left represents qualities of the people in an organisation, and on the right, we have the activities of the organisation itself. These two systems are inextricably interlocked and require each other in order to succeed.

In Drucker's book, The Practice of Management, at the beginning of Chapter 13: The Spirit of an Organisation, he says:

"Two sayings sum up the 'spirit of an organisation'. One is the inscription on Andrew Carnegie's tombstone:
Here lies a man
who knew how to enlist in his service
better men than himself
The other is the slogan of the drive to find jobs for the physically handicapped:
It's the abilities,
not the disabilities,
that count.
Management by objectives tells a manager what they ought to do. The proper organisation of their job enables them to do it. But it is the spirit of an organisation that determines whether they will do it. It is the spirit that motivates, that calls upon a person's reserves of dedication and effort, that decides whether they will give their best or do just enough to get by."

Drucker believed that the key to excellence is focussing on people's strengths, and that recognising excellence, encouraging excellence, rewarding excellence, and providing full scope for individual excellence is what creates good spirit in individuals. Furthermore, it is this good spirit that provides the motivation that leads people to excel and do the best they can do rather than just enough to get by.

The excellence of the organisation then, is the result of making this excellence productive for others so that the overall strength of the organisation is amplified by the strengths of all the individuals within it, each of their weaknesses being counteracted by the strengths of those around them.

In the 1950s, Drucker was the first to say that people should be treated as assets, and not as liabilities to be eliminated, the first to argue that substance was more important than style and that good practice would always win out in the end over charismatic or cult leaders. Drucker originated the view of the corporation as a human community built on trust and respect for the worker and not just a profit-making machine.

Sustainable success for an organisation is a result of individual success at every level, and individual success is enabled and amplified by the organisation that focuses on its people and on building on their successes.

How can we create successful individuals?
How can an organisation make the most of its people assets?

Management must invest the effort in understanding what people have to offer in order that they can focus on their strengths to enable them to build on their abilities and create success. Building on people's abilities builds their spirit, as does individual success. This creates a company spirit that leads to the success of the organisation as a whole. Focusing on people's weaknesses on the other hand, and building on their disabilities, often results in failure and destroys the spirit of the individual. An organisation's spirit is a result of the spirit of its individuals. So take Peter Drucker's advice, and spend the time and effort to understand what people have to offer and build on their strengths.

President Obama

2008-11-05T06:01:00.001Z

This Southbeach model shows some of the situation surrounding the recent historic rise of Barack Obama to the Presidency of the United States of America. Obama is a Democrat, McCain a Republican. Democrats and Republicans are in opposition. So, naturally, are Obama and McCain. Their opposition is greatly intensified, however, by their deeply opposing approaches to achieving the massive change demanded of the situation in the US, and the rising concerns of the people. This election campaign started out with the idea that "it's about the war"; the five and a half year war in Iraq being a hotly debated topic around the world. After time, the idea changed; the credit crunch has had significant global impact. The war has also had significant economic impact in the US. Soon people were saying "it's about the economy".

Obama and McCain had deeply opposing approaches in both these areas, Obama being against the war in Iraq, and promising to shift the tax burden towards the wealthy. Whereas McCain supported the war in Iraq and pledged to maintain the tax cuts in place under Bush for those earning over $250,000.

As well as these core electoral themes, Obama was a Civil Liberty and Rights activist and litigator whereas McCain had expressed concerns regarding affirmative action. The respective goals of these two men, whilst not being clearly useful or harmful from any general perspective - and hence divided the nation to create one of the biggest races in history, were clearly in opposition, representing fundamentally different approaches to how to achieve the Massive Change demanded of the American people.

All these factors, along with the fact that Obama was the first black candidate for President of the United States, resulted in a record turnout with over 135 million voters, including many who had never voted before.

Whilst the full confluence of influencing factors that created this reality cannot be fully expressed, debate and postulation as to the reasons for the success of Obama have and will continue to rage. One piece of research showed that there was actually a correlation between the DOW index and the McCain poll. As the DOW rose, so too did the McCain poll. When it fell, so did McCain's popularity. This was brought to a very public and critical head for McCain when, on the same day as he claimed "the economy is strong", Lehman Brothers went bust, dealing a severe blow to his credibility.

Ironically, the stock market experienced its biggest election day rally in 24 years on expectation of an Obama victory as the Dow Jones industrial averages surged 300 points, or 3%, to close at 9,625.28 points. The US TV networks, just after 11.00pm (ET:4.00 GMT), declared that Obama had won. Obama was now President of the United States.

The result of the election is clear. Now we just have to wait for results from the policies.

Holistic Problem Solving

2008-10-31T07:16:00.000Z

This Southbeach model illustrates the benefits of pro-active, holistic problem solving over the more reactive approach of working blind and responding to issues by just treating symptoms. Southbeach models naturally support the ideas of root cause analysis and impact analysis through their cause and effect notation, useful things being shown in green and harmful things being shown in red.

In this example, the harmful causal chains in the centre start with "working blind" which leads to missing the big picture and creating more work for others, as well as treating symptoms and creating more work for one's self. Both of these behaviours naturally result in making things worse.

These harmful behaviours are in opposition to the surrounding useful behaviours:

On the left we have understanding whos involved to understand others' views and create shared awareness to produce support for change; resulting in making things better. This aspect of problem solving involves stepping back from the problem and understanding the context and effects of a problem to enable more effective, complete, and widely acceptable solutions.

On the right, we have understanding the root cause to deal with the real issues, remove the actual problem, and create lasting change; resulting in making things better. This aspect of the problem solving involves stepping into the problem and understanding the source and reasons the problem came about to enable more effective, sustainable, solutions that avoid problems coming back again in different forms later on.

These two behaviours are in opposition to each other, as are their consequences - making things worse often results from short term thinking and superficial attempts at improvement. Making things better may take more effort and require more commitment, however, results in a more sustainable solution with longer term benefits.

Not that the above Southbeach model shows the useful behaviours around the outside counteracting the harmful behaviours in the middle. Over time, a shift in behaviour to the outside can dissolve the harmful behaviour and improve performance and achievement.

If this approach is not adopted however, and an organisation, society, culture, or other group continues to contain elements that behave in this harmful way, the good work done by those who are investing the extra effort to address the real issues will be undermined by those that are merely taking superficial action without considering the bigger picture.

This results in opposing behaviours that create a continuing spiral of issues, as shown below. The difference with this model is that the useful bahaviours on the outside are not actually counteracting the harmful behaviours in the centre. They are shown here merely as in opposition - i.e. this system is not improving because the harmful behaviours represent a force for negative change that is holding improvement at bay.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs applied to business

2008-10-28T01:23:00.000Z

According to Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, each need in the hierarchy (physiological, safety, love/belonging/social interaction, esteem, self actualisation) must be met before the needs in the layer above can truly be met. This is contested by some, sighting examples as the artist that will starve themselves through being absorbed by the need to express, create, self actualise; Parents that will sacrifice their health by giving their food to their children; A bear that will put herself in danger to protect her cubs, and so on. Nevertheless, the hierarchy has stood as a recognised basis from which to describe a theory of motivation. Exceptions permitting - good management and judgement must always override any rules or guidelines, the focus here when applying Maslow's hierarchy of needs to business is to ensure that people's needs are met in order to capitalise on Maslow's main proposition, namely, that once all other needs are met, these needs are no longer noticed, and the individual becomes self actualise - the only level in the hierarchy that creates growth and maximises potential.

This Southbeach model shows the motivational context that is often created in business to meet the needs identified by Maslow in the hierarchy.

Risk of paying families to have girls

2008-10-25T23:19:00.001+01:00

In a previous article, I described a situation in India where daughters are perceived as harmful due to the need to pay a dowry when daughters marry. This has led to abortion of female foetuses on a massive scale which, in turn, has led the governement to pay poor families to give birth to and bring up female children. Daughters are now perceived as useful as they bring income. This could have terrible consequences.

One way this attempt to right the situation could go horribly wrong has been described in this model by Anders Jangbrand:

If having a daughter leads to money from the government, plus a bonus when leaving school, this could in turn lead to an expectation of higher dowries. Furthermore, this could lead to use of girls for cheap child labour, re-enforcing still further the perception that girls are less valuable than boys.

Risk Management

2008-10-25T20:54:00.001+01:00

This Southbeach model shows some general principles of risk management. In this example, Work is the focus and is done in order to achieve the Goal. Issues and Risks may counteract achievement of the goal. Some risks may turn into issues and require significantly more effort to resolve if they are not addressed early. Risk mitigation is a useful activity and counteracts the risks and also reduces the diversion of resources that results from dealing with issues.

The following Southbeach model provides a more detailed example of risk management in action with the addition of a grid to separate the agents in the model by timespan and aspect. This simplistic yet realistic model shows how Southbeach can be used to assess the potential impact of issues and risks and how to mitigate against them.

This example shows swim lanes running across the page separating different aspects of a project into meetings, activities, Issues & risks, and mitigations. The columns represent months in the project plan. The project status meeting in October identified the issue that there are "more problems with the solution than expected". This model was then created to perform an impact analysis and create a risk mitigation plan.

The focus of this model is "delivery of phase 1 of the solution". The goal is "sign-off for phase 2". The ultimate delivery of phase 2 and realisation of benefits, the ultimate goal, are counteracted by lack of adoption of the solution, which has various root causes such as lack of understanding and lack of awareness. These are counteracted by different parts of the change management plan.

Goal Planning

2008-10-21T06:56:00.000+01:00

This Southbeach template provides a structure for goal planning. This can be used for setting personal objectives, or planning company strategies.

The focus areas are the objectives themselves. However, these are arrived at by understanding the goal and what it means to have achieved that goal in terms of Key Result Areas.

Here is an example of a partially filled in template:

Increasing revenue improves profit. Capability, new solution areas and building on success all increase revenue. However, insufficient skills counteracts capability; not knowing where to invest counteracts creation of new solution areas; no case studies makes it difficult to build on success. The root causes of new solution areas, too many options and failure to write up successes are counteracted by the useful enabling actions of recruitment, market research and enabling success.

In general:

Identify the Key Performance Indicators (what you will measure - your measures of success) for each Key Result Area. Set objectives designed to achieve these. Then assess the situation to determine your Critical Success Factors - the things that need to be in place in order for you to succeed at your objectives and achieve your Key Performance Indicators. Some of these CSFs may be missing, so identify the blockers and the root causes of those blockers so that you can create enablers to overcome them and pave the way to achieving your goals.

Selective abortion by gender

2008-10-19T10:58:00.000+01:00

Whilst there is a law against Dowries in India, the social convention and pressure on the Indian People to pay dowries for families wanting to find a good home for their daughters has led to families with sons becoming richer and families with daughters becoming poorer.

This, in turn, has led to technology such as ultrasound scanners for checking on the health of unborn children, to be abused. There is now a whole industry in India providing selective abortion by gender.

The population in India is being skewed towards males with only 37.1% of births being female in one district, Daman, as a result of an estimated 10 million female abortions overall since 1985.

http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/India_at_glance/fsex.aspx

This Southbeach model illustrates the situation described in the Washington Post in this article of 2006:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901219.html

and further in the Guardian in 2008, reporting on the situation being so critical now that the Indian Government are offering to pay poor families to give birth to and bring up female children:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/04/india.gender

Pregnancy leads to a son or daughter. Sons provide for the family and look after their parents when they grow old, compensating for the lack of a social security program in India. Sons also receive a dowry when they marry, whereas families with daughters have to pay a dowry. This often results in poor families taking out loans which then take up to a year to repay. Some families with multiple daughters are effectively bankrupt by the marriage of their daughters.

The Indian Government passed a law against dowries some time ago. However, this is widely ignored due to the social convention and pressure to pay dowries by families wanting a good home for their daughters.

This situation has led to a low risk, high profile business for doctors, who make a lot of money out of combined ultrasound and abortion packages, with advertisements such as "Spend 600 Rupees now, save 50,000 Rupees later" creating a trend of Mass female foeticide.

The Indian Government is now attempting to correct this harmful trend by offering to pay families to give birth to and bring up female children. They are expecting to save 100,000 girls in the first year.

Whilst this reaction to the problem may result in fewer female abortions, it is creating a new market based on paying for life where poor families can now receive additional benefit from the government if they bring a female child into the world which they cannot support.

This is a problem that is spiralling out of control with increasingly impactful false solutions that threaten to destabilise the whole society.

Developing a Green Program, with integrity

2008-10-14T22:22:00.000+01:00

In this model, I show how a company can develop a sustainable green agenda, with a high degree of integrity for the long term. Leadership is required for any green corporate program. It creates focal points for what matters to the company, such as energy, consumables, etc. Only by identifying these focal points can measures and targets be set for reducing the company's environmental footprint. By doing so, the real costs are revealed. Revealing these costs is necessary is the company is to identify the opportunities and challenges they can act on. It is these that will generate ideas for green action.

Each idea has both benefits and costs, and must be realized in a business case. The raw ideas must be developed into a case for action under the guidance of sponsors in the business. They must work according to sound principles such as end-to-end process design, cradle-to-cradle thinking (cycle of inputs and outputs via the environment). It is these developed ideas, based on sound business case, that can create the change projects that can demonstrate results. Only this will create learning in the organization about the value of green thinking and sustainable development.

As part of this process, the leadership team must challenge the staff themselves to take ownership and create ideas. But unless that loop is closed with the sponsors - the business owners who areable to take action to create change projects, staff ideas and desire for green action will go nowhere. The model therefore shows the complex structures required for a successful program. Now that money is tight again, due to the financial downturn, looking recession and pressures on costs, making the business case for green will be more, not less, important.

Documenting solutions - TRIZ

2008-10-14T21:36:00.001+01:00

Here, Southbeach is used to visualise a solution, well known to TRIZ practitioners. The tension in a system, between the length and weight of a moving part, can be overcome using just four solutions. Here, we show them counteracting the oppose relationship between the two system attributes. (Also see, TRIZ Contradiction Matrix and TRIZ 40 Principles)

Mind maps

2008-10-14T21:15:00.001+01:00

Soundbeach can be used for mind maps, but it is not a mind mapping tool. The default box sizes for agents can be adjusted to work for different styles of diagram. In this case, a simple map.

Why Process Now - Gartner

2008-10-14T21:05:00.000+01:00

At BPM 2008, the European annual conference on Business Process Trends, editor Paul Harmon gave an excellent keynote speech in which he explained some of the reasons why companies were increasingly focussed on process improvement projects, many including workflow and process automation. While he was talking, I penned a series of models. In this one, I captured his speech as it related to a report by Gartner.

A global solution is needed - counteracting the Minsky Moment

2008-10-10T15:35:00.000+01:00

The world's seven richest developed nations meet to discuss a global solution to a potential Minsky Moment. Model based on commentary by Robert Peston of the BBC.

Day of reckoning on Credit Default Swaps, 10th Oct 2008

2008-10-10T11:14:00.000+01:00

According to Robert Peston, BBC, The underlying illness remains in the financial system, as manifested in the record amounts banks were charging each other yesterday for lending to each other for three months.

World on the Edge, 4th Oct, 2008

2008-10-04T22:09:00.000+01:00

Whatover happens in Congress, the crisis is now global; that means governments must work together. The Economist, 4th Oct, 2008, World on the Edge, Leaders

Financial Stabalization Bill 2008

2008-10-01T22:54:00.000+01:00

This model was developed by Howard Smith. It shows media reporting of the situation surrounding the rejection of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Key aspects of the model include:

Votes by both houses are required pass the bill. However, these votes depend on changes to the bill, proposed by both sides. These proposals however are in conflict. The proposals by Democrats, which they view as necessary to allow them to vote for the bill, unfortunately are disliked by Republicans, thus reducing the Republican vote. And vice versa. Thus, there is a tension between the proposals. This arises from politics - Main street back lash on the measures generated by the combination of the required draw down on tax revenues coupled to the real or perceived excesses of Wall Street, lead to calls to punish the greedy bankers.

Note how these factors conspire to degrade the vote, and this, delay the passing of the bill ... leading to political and financial uncertainty. This causes destruction of savings, pensions and investments.

Credit Crunch root causes in 2008

2008-10-01T21:19:00.000+01:00

Model by Howard Smith. There are many theories about what caused the financial crisis of 2008. Here is one. Globalization and the connected world has led to intense competition and transparent markets, making it hard to make money via conventional means. Thus, esoteric business models and financial instruments are created. A focus on these, as well as service models and knowledge work far from the source of real value/work, lead to inflated virtual value bubbles. That's fine while confidence is high, but it hides systemic weaknesses in liquidity. But when the chips are down and a segment of the market collapses, the weakness of liquidity is clearly revealed, leading to a loss of confidence and a credit crunch.

The consequences could be a shift of economic power to those developing economies to whom real work has been "outsourced" by those companies in the developed economies that considered this step necessary in order to compete.

Subprime Crisis - grid example

2008-10-01T15:17:00.000+01:00

Southbeach includes tools to draw grids, swimlanes and pools, so that it can be used for many common diagramming types. Here is an example of a grid used to illustrate the factors at play in the subprime financial crisis.

Developing Raw Ideas

2008-09-10T10:01:00.000+01:00

In this model, Anders Jangbrand of CSC, explains the conditions required for the successful elicitation of raw ideas, and their development into developed valuable ideas.

Europe fuel protests spread wider

2008-05-30T14:36:00.000+01:00

Southbeach notation is effective at capturing the conflicts and dilemmas within global or national issues in a clear and unambiguous way.

In this case, the coupled effects of a growing demand for oil, particularly in emerging economies, at a time when future supply is uncertain, is leading to rising fuel prices. This is leading to protests by citizens who depend on burning fuel oil for their liveihoods. As a result, strikes across Europe are occuring and subsidies are being asked for.

Governments could implement subsidies, and/or reduce high tax levies on fuel, but they don't want to. It would limit their tax incomes, and, would counteract the green agenda. Rising fuel prices are good in the eyes of green activists. Less fuel burnt means less global warming. Less travel means less globalization and less damage to the environment. By contrast, putting in place subsidies or lower taxes for fuel would not only send out a bad signal, it would further increase travel and degrade the planet further. Governments like taxes to be high, so they can spend more money pleasing other interest groups and voters. So they like high fuel prices and can claim they are green at the same time. BBC news

Boys with knives

2008-05-29T19:29:00.001+01:00

This model explores the causes of the change in culture, typified by today's news in UK of more teenage stabbings. "The shooting of 17-year-old Sharmaake Hassan in Camden, north London, brings the number of teenagers killed in the capital this year to 15" Source: BBC news
Similar things are happening in other parts of the UK and in other European cities.

Note how Southbeach can be used to posit questions about effects crossing perspectives, in this case, our view of the 1950s and today.

Antartica pollution and exploitation

2008-05-16T16:49:00.001+01:00

The situation illustrated shows the effects of increased shipping in the Antarctic.

The model shows how the combined effects of fishing, the exploitation and hunt for resources, tourism and research exploration are contributing to an increase in shipping in the area. Overcrowding is leading to accidents. The ships traveling these distances have supply needs, and this brings more ships (feedback loop).

The ships store heavy fuel oils and this poses a risk. The oil and other cargo can be released during accidents – the frequency of which is increasing as the number of ships rises. Ships also consume the fuel, a process which releases both sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide. This, coupled to the potential accidents, is releasing increased pollutants in the Antarctic.

The ships have other polluting effects. Notably, they create sewage and grey water waste, and also carry alien species into the region from their points of origin.

Over fishing of the region is another major negative factor. It arises from multiple causes – whaling, the pet industry and the pharmaceutical industry etc. This is driving a new form of fishing, an aggressive vacuuming of krill from the sea. This consumption of krill and shrimp is itself a danger because other fish depend on krill in the food chain. Birds and other wildlife in turn depend on the fish.

As a result of this situation, it has therefore been proposed that the following goals are pursued. The goals are indicated in the model:

To give to the Antarctic a “world park status”. This would counteract both the number of ships visiting the area and limit fishing by humans.
To create a register of Antarctic vessels. This record would be required in order to enforce any treaty, such as the potential introduction of requirement and regulation governing the strengthening of ship’s hulls. These measures would counteract the impact of accidents when they occur, since there would be less chance of the release of oils and other pollutants carried onboard the ships.

The model shows that there is a useful side effect of accidents, which is to raise public awareness, leading to a strengthening of lobby groups which could bring the necessary regulations into being. Additionally, tourism brings more ships to the region, but also helps to educate and raise awareness.

Plantstones store carbon

2008-05-14T18:15:00.001+01:00

This odd looking model was developed based on an example in New Scientist magazine, 5th Jan 2008 "While Others Lock Carbon Away for Years". What the model says is that new strains of wheat and other crops can create a strong amplifying effect on the ability of the plant to create plantstones. They are therefore a potentially important solution to countering CO2 omissions.

Plantstones are created by the plant growing and consuming minerals. Plantstones remain in the soil even after the plant decays. Thus, carbon can be stored in the plant (when it is alive) and afterwards (when it is dead) by virtue of the plantstones it leaves behind. Get this right, and the counteracting effect on greenhouse gases is strong.

Plantstones form as microscopic grains of silican in plant leaves, particularly in grass-based pastures and crops such as sugar cane and wheat. This is refered to as phytolith occluded carbon

Global warming tipping point

2008-05-14T17:39:00.000+01:00

A model drawn from an article: NASA: Danger Point Closer Than Thought From Warming

Risk workshop

2008-05-14T17:38:00.000+01:00

(Model by Mark Burnett)
Used during a risk workshop.

Idea to value

2008-05-14T17:34:00.001+01:00

(Model by Mark Burnett)
It shows some interesting dynamics in project work. Both good projects and failing project both create adverse side effects for an organization. These counteract the value the projects can create. Change is hard. People, and the time and resources they consume to create ideas to improve projects (usually insufficiently), creates costs.

Authority and power

2008-05-14T17:32:00.001+01:00

(Model by Mark Burnett)
The model illustrates the factors at play in an organization between those in positions of authority (who may or may not have power) and those in power or who use or abuse power.

Resolving a contradiction

2008-05-14T17:28:00.001+01:00

This model illustrates a contradiction or opposition. A and B are in conflict somehow. For the purposes of this model it does not matter why, or what A or B are. The model shows the ability of Southbeach, not only to model concreate situations (as most of the examples in this blog) but also, abstract solution patterns. In this case, the dotted boxes (meaning 'potential'), show where solutions or compromises can be made. Note how the opposition itself can only be solved using a separation principle. That is part of what TRIZ teaches us. Note also that the opposition itself has a root cause - the contradiction.

Innovation

2008-05-14T17:22:00.000+01:00

(Model/perspective by Mark Burnett)
The model illustrates the tension between a company's balance sheet and the activities and costs associated with necessary innovation. It shows how cost containment counteracts the activities that lead to innovation, but which are necessary to create the strategies and processes that drive market share and profit.

Quality vs. innovation and its consequences

2008-05-10T09:23:00.000+01:00

Here, an idea is decomposed into its elements. Corporate culture is in tension with customer value. The culture is driving a focus on quality (cost, reliability, etc.), with negative impacts on innovation. The innovation is necessary to counteract further commoditization of the business.

Increasing human population and industrial activity

2008-05-10T09:19:00.000+01:00

The vicious circle between ever increasing human population and escalating human industrial activity - combined - is leading to destruction of the environment, and resource depletion (overloaded), with therefore unpredictable implications for humanity and other life forms.

Biomethanol, biodiesel, CO2

2008-05-10T09:13:00.000+01:00

Bio-methanol is a type of methonol, which can be used for transportation applications and applications where ethanol is required. It's production process consumes glycerine by-products of bio-diesel production. The process of producing bio-methanol produces less CO2 than the production of bio-diesel.

Collaboration

2008-05-10T09:11:00.001+01:00

This model says: Adding someone new to a team produces the change needed to overcome insufficient collaboration between other team members. At the same time, a new policy is introduced, its effect being to make it harder to build internal collaborations between different business units – silos are created removing valuable possible collaborations.

Here are other similar examples:

A team is working well, but a new manager with different goals has a negative impact on processes that continue to need to work well
A knowledge management system creates more and more examples of reuse occurring across the company
A team is working together well – but the effect of the collaboration (the output) is consumed by an organizational structure and value set that does not recognize the value of innovation that occurs outside of top down planned projects
A marketing program for innovation success stories stores the effects of innovation in a way that creates momentum for further investment in the innovation program

Customer service dents brand

2008-05-10T09:09:00.001+01:00

Qualities are agents which represent attributes of the system or of other agents, for example the brand ‘quality’ of a product. Agents often exhibit qualities. For example, the customer service process is regarded as too slow, inflexible or impersonal.

The model says that the company’s over focus on brand, to the exclusion of customer service, poses risks to the relationship with the customer. The slow and impersonal service clashes strongly with the necessary goal of a connection with the customer.

Business tensions - revenue, margin

2008-05-10T09:05:00.001+01:00

(Model by Mark Burnett)
Money creates the tension of either spending more or spending less. Companies need to spend more on marketing, to drive revenue, to create a successful business. Companies also need to spend less, to contain costs, to drive margin, to create a successful business. There are tensions throughout, and both revenue AND margin, is required for a successful business.

Sulphate sunshield dangers

2008-05-10T08:42:00.000+01:00

Proposed planetary engineering projects to cool the planet could backfire quite spectacularly. New research shows that a "sulphate sunshade" would punch huge holes through the ozone layer above the Arctic. To make matters worse, it would also delay the full recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole by up to 70 years.

The model is based on the work of Simone Tilmes of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, US. Tilmes used computer models to see how a sulphate sunshade (potential + harmful) would affect the ozone layer (useful), which protects us from harmful UV rays. She says it could have "a drastic impact".

Sulphate particles catalyse the breakdown of ozone molecules by chlorine atoms. Western economies have almost entirely stopped using chlorine-based coolants called CFCs, thanks to the Montreal Protocol. However, such substances are increasingly being used in Asia and the atmosphere is still full of CFCs emitted during the 20th century.

To add to our understanding of the situation illustrated in the diagram, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, found that if a sulphate sunshield were deployed and then removed - for instance because of a change in governments - the effects of global warming after the removal would be far worse than before the sunshield.

The model illustrates the salient features of the integrated situation. For example:

The impact of drought and the impact on global warming of attempts to remove the sunshield are marked with strong effects.
A special symbol is used to signify that the ozone layer ‘consumes’ UV rays.
The breakdown of ozone molecules has an ‘overloaded’ destructive effect on the ozone layer (thinning).

This process of elaboration aids understanding and provokes creative thinking. For any given model, the reader can then ask questions to improve understanding, or improve the situation directly. For example:

Is there another way to create a sunshield? (Avoiding harmful sulphates)
Exactly how does catalysis breakdown the ozone molecules?
Why is sulphate needed? Can we take sulphate out of the system? Etc.