Archive for ‘Organisations’

June 12, 2014

Experiencing LEGO Serious Play: the point of view of a participant

LEGO Serious Play P. Bertini

I recently had the pleasure of facilitating a LEGO SeriousPlay workshop at Foolproof with Hot Source members. One of the participant, Marek Pawlowski, shared his experience.

As a facilitator, used to describe the method, it was refreshing and an immense pleasure to know that he experienced exactly what I always described when I talk about the power and benefits of LSP. Thank you @Marek for such an amazing post!

Improvement requires change, whether that happens gradually through iteration or in big leaps through sudden sparks of creativity. This is true of improving anything, from companies to individual products. It’s something I think about a lot in the context of the MEX initiative, which is, at its heart, about helping people to improve digital experiences. We are always looking for new ways to equip people to make good changes to the user experience of the products they’re designing.

read more »

Advertisements
May 22, 2014

Co-creation: the power of conversation [4 of 4]

Co-creation in action

Co-creation in action

Co-creation: who should be involved?

When saying all stakeholders we do not refer to the largest majority of users available, as they can be reached with crowdsourcing initiatives. It’s not about quantity, but quality. As several studies from early ’90s have demonstrated, involving lead users, who are those individuals that have needs that are advanced with respect to an important marketplace trend and expect to benefit significantly by obtaining a solution to those needs (Herstatt & Von Hippel 1992) can have a significant impact on the results, proving that quantity is not synonymous of quality.

read more »

May 3, 2014

Co-creation: the power of conversations [2 of 4]

The Co-creation process © C. Bughi

The Co-creation process © C. Bughi

Co-creation Vs crowd creation

So, when looking back at what media often portrays as co-creation, the confusion becomes evident.

Co-creation is no co-production: many initiatives labelled as co-creation are actually co-production experiences, which are experiences where customers participate to the production and delivery of the product or service: the self-service checkouts at supermarkets are a typical example of co-production. One of the consequences of co-production is also known as the Ikea effect, that cognitive attitude that leads to an increased perception in value of objects customers have build by themselves, because of their involvement in the production phase.

read more »

May 3, 2014

Co-creation: the power of conversations [1 of 4]

The Cluetrain Manifesto - cover

The Cluetrain Manifesto

The beginning of the revolution: the Cluetrain Manifesto

Co-creation has become a very sexy world in the business news. Newspapers and magazines are full with inspiring titles, like 5 Co-creation Examples: E.ON, Coca-Cola, MTV, Tata Group & Heineken, 5 examples of how brands are using co-creationHow Coca-Cola uses co-creation to crowdsource new marketing ideas.

However, the understanding of this term is often blurred and organisations use the word co-creation to refer to many different things, which share one key concept: the involvement of users and the conversations between users and organisations.

read more »

April 13, 2014

How can co-creation, LEGO Serious Play, Privacy, UX & Data quality be connected?

Exploring how Privacy, UX and co-creation are related to LEGO Serious Play
Exploring how Privacy, UX and co-creation are related to LEGO Serious Play

LEGO Serious Play, privacy, data quality, co-creation, and UX. It seems a random list of topics, yet there’s a fil rouge that links them.
The impact of technologies has had a deep effect on how people and organisations interact: old-fashioned words, which were popular only few years ago, such as ubiquitous computing, or always on, are now everyday’s reality, making interaction and communication easier, quicker, multimodal.

Technologies and the web have produced new ways to communicate and have put people closer, offering new ways to interact. In a word, we are living in a world of conversations, where everything is conversation, as predicted in 1999 by the Cluetrain Manifesto. People interact more, users interact directly with companies, the web empowers consumers to engage in conversations with people and organisations we had no idea how to reach only 15 years ago.

read more »

April 26, 2013

Organisations as organisms: consciousness and wellness

Organisations as organisms: consciousness and wellness

Organisations as organisms

A large extend of organisational theory considered organisations from a mechanistic and traditional view. However, organisations can be seen much more like living biological organism. The etymology of the two words, organisations and organisms suggests that the two terms share something much more significant that needs to be considered and looked at: they both share their greek origin, ὄργανον – organon, “instrument, implement, tool, organ of sense or apprehension” but the word has been traced to descend by the Proto-Indo-European *werǵ- (“work, to make”).
The history of the term well reflects the shift from the original biological meaning to the much more social nature of contemporary meaning: organisation, according to the English Oxford Dictionary, appeared in 14th century in French from Latin and originally it referred to anything  related to a living being. Organisation referred to the development or coordination of parts in order to carry out vital functions. From its first appearance in 1425 when the Grand Chirurgie was published and recorded the term until late 18th century, the term organisation had a specific biologic connotation. But at the end of the 18th century a new meaning come to use, and organisation started referring to “the condition of being organised; systematic ordering or arrangement; specifically the way in which particular activities or institutions are organised.” In 1790 E. Burke wrote the Reflections on the Revolution in France where he explicitly stated that society was supposed to be managed as a living organism. This passage is considered as the first evidence of the shift from the biological into the sociological realm of the term organisation.

read more »

April 6, 2013

Put knowledge into action and build organisational wisdom: LSP and DIKW

Ackoff's DIKW Pyramid [Source: http://raws.adc.rmit.edu.au/~s3308292/blog2/?tag=integrated-media-2

DIKW Pyramid (Ackoff)

The importance of organisations’ relationship capital lies in the quality of the relations established by the members of an organisation, and in organisations’ capacity to turn a group of individuals into a functional team.
Such a social and relational capital can be the driver for the creation of organisational wisdom . Organisations have long focused on the skill base and on the accumulation of internal know-hows, improving and encouraging people to increase their knowledge base, as if by increasing the individuals knowledge could spontaneously have a massive impact on the whole organisation. An increase in the know-how is essential for an organisation, however, for such a know-how to become an organisational asset, rather than to remain an individual (human resource related) skill, more efforts are needed.
If the relational capital is not adequate and constructive, knowledge of an individual remains an individual personal asset rather than becoming part of a collective and organisational environment.
To capitalise on the learning practices that have pervaded organisations in the past decade, knowledge needs to be put into action. Know-hows need to turn into know-whys.

read more »

February 23, 2013

Play to build organisations’ social capital

Social Capital is more than the individual / human capital- Build it with LEGO

The simplest questions are the toughest to be faced. Methodologies like LEGO SERIOUS PLAY (LSP) are said and proved to have a huge effect on organisations. Right, organisations. But what are organisations? And how LSP can be beneficial?
It might sound a stupid question, though I think that there are no stupid questions just wrong assumptions. In order to  better understand the context, I had a look to some classical authors in organisational theory. I’ve looked back at what literature says about organisations: literature is still a huge resource when it is part of a search for answers. I’ve started with classics, those authors that most managers today should be familiar with to better understand the context as it is.
Weick (1979) says that organisations are ‘identifiable social entity pursuing multiple objectives through the coordinated activities and relations among members and objects’ (:3) and later, in 1984, Daft & Weick write that organisations are ‘open systems that process information from the environment’ (:285) so that are seen as meaning systems (:293).
Scott (1987) focus on people when stating that “organisations are social structures created by individuals to support the collaborative pursuit of special goals” (:10).
Chia (2000 :514) says that organisations are social objects constituted by discourse.
The social nature of organisations seems clear: organisations are made by people.

read more »

%d bloggers like this: