How can we face the challenges we cannot see?

In my previous article, I talked about how to look at things in a way that allows us to take a multidimensional view of business and organizational management issues, rather than being confined to what we can see.

In this article, I will talk about the process of implementing improvement and innovation.

Process of implementing improvement and innovation

Improvement and innovation are advanced knowledge creation processes that utilize all the consciousnesses on the 3+1 Consciousness Model, as well as the vision and strategy story creation processes. The numbers on the 3+1 Consciousness Model in the above figure indicate the activation of the numbered consciousness in the corresponding process.

In the previous article, I talked about the multidimensional view of things. The following figure shows the six processes along the multidimensional view of things. (If you want to know more about the vertical axis of this diagram, please read the previous article.)

The visible issues are only part of the iceberg, and the six improvement and innovation processes are expressed as a metaphor for digging deeper into the iceberg, as well as showing the importance of capturing not only what is visible, but also the whole of what is not visible.

As you can see from this overview, the improvement and innovation process is focused on accurately recognizing the phenomena in (2) through (4). Of course, it is also important to plan and implement improvement measures (5) to (6), which are similar to vision setting and strategy story creation.

The background to such an overall picture is that people tend to get caught up in what they can see, and in order to implement improvements and innovations in accordance with the true purpose of the project, it is important to always be aware that there may be things that we cannot see, and to perceive phenomena from multiple dimensions.

Intentionally determine the scope of improvement and innovation

Now let’s look at the process of improvement and innovation one by one.

(1) Intuition and decision on purpose
After intuiting the purpose and how to proceed (story), make a decision on the purpose and how to proceed effectively and efficiently based on real-world constraints.

The first process is to go back to the true purpose and then decide what are the scope of improvements and innovations that we intend to make.

What are some of the issues that you are currently facing?

There can be issues on many levels, such as the progress of assigned tasks, the achievement of quarterly goals, relationships and communication within the workplace, the overall performance of the company, the structure of the industry, the state of the country, and the overall health of the planet.

We are not talking about which issues are good and which issues are bad. Every issue is important because every issue is something that one wishes to solve.

It is important to note that the premise of what we perceive to be a challenge is that we consciously or unconsciously determine the scope of the challenge we are setting.

For example, in the assumption that we feel that the lack of progress in our own work is an issue, we have set the scope of issue setting as “our own work”. At that time, we may not have set the scope of the issue as “the state of the nation”.

Again, I’m not talking about good or bad. I think it is important that it is intentionally set in relation to the true purpose and ideal state.

Therefore, when implementing improvement and innovation, it is necessary to consciously ask and choose “in what scope”.

The difference between improvement and innovation is how deep we go

And there are two kinds of choices for “in which range”: “depth” and “domain”.

First, let’s talk about the choice of “depth”. In a previous article, I told you that improvement and innovation are the same in terms of “making the intended change”, and the only difference is “what level of depth to go into and make the change”.

The following figure shows this.

The so-called problem solving that mainly focuses on the dimensions of the visible phenomena and solves problems by analyzing the causes is called “Analytical Problem Solving”. I think this is a thinking process that is often used in our daily work. Unlike systemic problem solving, analytical problem solving is based on the premise of “solving a complex problem by dividing it into separate parts,” although it also deals with invisible factors in cause analysis.

We use the term “systemic problem solving” to refer to the systemic approach to problem solving, mainly in the dimensions of structure and background. While identifying the factors that create problems, by focusing on the overall structure rather than the individual factors, the intention is to become more aware of the structure that creates problems and to change that structure. In systemic problem solving, we sometimes refer to the mental model that creates the structure, but in most cases, I think we focus on the structure itself.

I named “transformation” as changing the mental model dimension primarily. Since mental models include things like common sense and conventions that people, including myself, take for granted, I think that changes in this dimension often result in big changes at the level of “transformation.”

I named “innovation” as a way to change the dimensions of mission and subjective truth primarily. I believe that innovation can be described as “change that has novelty and impact that overturns the common sense and customs of many people. I believe that the driving force behind such changes that overturn the common sense and customs of many people is the level of mission and subjective truth. It is because of the inner energy that comes from mission and subjective truth that we are able to innovate without accepting the common sense of many people as our own, and without being defeated by the friction caused by differences in ways of thinking.

Of these four “intentional changes,” I think we can call the ones closer to the upper side of the figure “improvements” and the ones closer to the lower side “innovations.

By looking at it this way, I think we can understand that improvement and innovation are the same in terms of “making an intended change,” with the only difference being “the level of depth to which the change is made.

Which issues to address?

Next, let’s talk about the choice of “domains”. Even if we say “domain” in one word, there are different perspectives in terms of the number of people involved, in terms of time, and in terms of the types of issues.

The perspective of the number of people involved is about the range of people involved, whether it is just oneself, the relationship with one’s superiors and subordinates, or the team to which one belongs. It is possible to broaden or narrow the range of people involved, such as oneself -> specific people (bosses and subordinates) -> team -> department -> business unit -> company -> industry -> country -> world.

In terms of time, we are talking about the length of time for which we set the issues. For example, if we set a time frame of 10 years, we will not be able to address issues related to work that is due tomorrow. On the other hand, if we set a time frame of a few months, it may be very difficult to solve an issue related to the industry.

The type of issue is a matter of what range to focus on, based on the overall view of the various contradictions related to self management, business management, and people management as shown in the following figure.

We talked separately about the amount of human involvement, time, and types of issues, but these perspectives are not independent of each other, but are often deeply related. For example, when dealing with industry-level issues, the time axis will inevitably have to be longer.

Also, choosing these domains and choosing depth, which I mentioned earlier, are not independent of each other, but deeply related to each other. For example, if we want to deal with issues in the business management domain, we need to deal with issues in the self management domain’s mental model when we dig deeper into the issues.

In the initial process of improvement/innovation process, it is not necessary to try to analyze these interrelationships in detail. However, it is necessary to intuitively grasp these relationships while determining the scope of the improvement and innovation process.

In this article, I shared the overall picture of the improvement and innovation process and talked about the first process, “(1) Intuition and decision on purpose.”

Here are the quests of the day. (If you’d like, please share your thoughts in the comments.)

・What are some of the things you have recently perceived as issues? What is the scope (depth, domain) of the issues you have set as a premise? (Please refer to the following examples.)

Example of an issue: Difficulty in communicating with your boss

In the above example, the assumed scope of the issue setting is as follows
Depth: The level of visible phenomena
Domain: Relationship between you and your boss, in months, in self management and people management

・What new issues come to mind when you intentionally broaden or narrow the scope of the above assumptions? (Please refer to the following examples.)

Change the scope of the issue in the above example

Deepening the depth to the background/structure level…
→(Example) While you want to be recognized and praised by your boss for your work, your boss wants to immediately talk about the next task based on the results of that work, which leads to miscommunication.

Expanding the domain to teams…
→(Example) The team as a whole lacks an atmosphere of mutual appreciation and recognition.

Bunshiro Ochiai