Program Tips

Person Centered Thinking Tips

Research Index

The aim of sharing these research papers is to inform website users and readers about complex ideas or issues and present our thinking on the topic. We intend to help readers understand an issue, solve a problem, or make a decision by learning from our tested theories and our research. Some of them build upon other research papers, and are interrelated, others are partial selections of larger documents.

These may be considered position papers or academic papers; however, their purpose is to offer useful, practical evidence of our thinking and our theories of improvement from practice. As Dr. W. Edwards Deming has taught, these theories have the possibilities of being wrong. We will gladly accept your evidence of that possibility, we make no apology for learning from your evidence!

2003

Increasing Organization Capacity for Learning and Improvement

2004

Facilitating Learning and Improvement

2005

Value Stream Mapping and Facilitation

2014

Argyris, Deming and Transformation

The 20th Annual Deming Research Seminar

2015

A New System of Quality in Process Interactions

Annual Deming Conference

Annual International Deming Research Seminar

2016

Annual Deming Conference - BOLD PANEL

2018

Process, Outcome and System Measures for Long Term Supports and Services

Increasing Organization Capacity For Learning and Improvement

May 17, 2003

In 1991, an article by Chris Argyris "Teaching Smart People How to Learn" started me on a path of inquiry and learning over a decade by testing the philosophy, principles and practices from his book “Overcoming Organizational Defenses”. Practicing these ideas has positive impacts on organizations when we start to remove fear from our social systems and organizations to discuss what concerns us in productive reasoning practiced together with others. 

What follows is primarily drawn from his 1990 work “Overcoming Organizational Defenses - Facilitating Organizational Learning”, supplemented in part by professional observations of the results of these methods when practiced in small groups, larger teams and in facilitated classroom settings. This book is a way out. 

There are also numerous documented synergies between Argyris’ work and that of Peter Drucker, Warren Bennis and W. Edwards Deming, especially with respect to the presence of fear in organizational cultures. Their work is tightly integrated in Argyris’ work with a view of the systems and values that underlie organizations of all types. I will note here my first hand observations of systems where I have facilitated the use of Argyris’ work, especially in helping these organizations increase their capacity to learn and improve whatever it is they do together. Where appropriate, I will note these similarities with references to these other works. 

Beginning a Discussion and Changing the Status Quo 

Patterns of organizational defenses work against learning and improvement. There must be a high level of trust to mitigate the fear and the lack of trust in most organizations that gets in the way of learning how to improve. To deal with that issue, we must openly discuss the issues that create fear and mistrust. 

We must not cover up these issues by making them undiscussable. Doing so only activates the downward spiral toward more fear and dysfunction. Trust, learning, and improvement requires that we discuss issues openly and productively, setting aside old habits that create fear and destroy trust. 

We must begin a dialogue around the systems we’re in, so we can move from a system of control to commitment. We complete this through discussing shared goals, values and traditions by participation of team members, and this helps us move individual and team perspectives from me to we. 

The shift from a control model to a commitment model takes time and work, more work for people who cling to the old control model and structures that they are accustomed to hiding behind. The commitment model exposes our human flaws and that can be uncomfortable at first. While liberating new capacities of individuals.

Facilitating Learning and Improvement

May 22, 2004

A paper by this author titled “Increasing Organizational Capacity for Learning & Improvement” focused on organizational defenses and was shared with a number of colleagues and customers. The work of Chris Argyris in his Harvard Business Review article from 1991, “Teaching Smart People How To Learn” and his 1990 work “Overcoming Organizational Defenses - Facilitating Organizational Learning” was a foundation for interventions and consulting through dialogue.

This paper is a supplement and follow up to the earlier work and focuses on how to facilitate dialogue and learning in meetings and workshops. This is useful in routine staff meeting, complex problem-solving meetings or workshops to develop new processes, products, services or technology as solutions to organizational needs. We start with dialogue to clarify our purpose with three basic questions:

1. What are we trying to accomplish?

2. How will we know that a change is an improvement?

3. What changes can we make that will result in improvement?

These questions come primarily from the work of the Associates of Process Improvement (API), a collection of quality experts, thinkers and practitioners of profound knowledge, as defined by W Edwards Deming. They call these three questions “the model of improvement”, when used in conjunction with the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle of learning and improvement, so described by W. Edwards Deming. In practice, there are numerous synergies between the work and philosophies of Deming, Argyris, Russell Ackoff, API and others. The work of the Achieve Global organization and the fundamentals they teach through the Zenger-Miller facilitation methods are a way to extend these ideas of learning and improvement methods by skilled philosophy, practices and methods of facilitating meetings and workshops.

The following pages help us with an overview of the work and provide us with standards for success, along with basic principles and methods. This structure will help facilitate meetings, change, improvement, and in the process, transform our organizations and us. These methods are part of a system designed for flexible implementation to build the skills of the participants and transfer these skills to their workplace. The model that follows enables implementation of high impact learning and improvement.

In the following pages are an integrated view of these concepts from Argyris, Deming, API and Zenger-Miller: facilitating learning and improvement through dialogue. Included within are first hand observations of facilitations that help teams organize meetings and workshops to improve the processes and work they do together. Where appropriate, I will note other references to the published works and will list them in an index of references at the end.

Value Stream Mapping and Facilitation

June 18, 2005

This paper is a supplement to a 2004 paper by this author, “Facilitating Learning and Improvement” with a narrower focus on the process of value stream mapping and how to facilitate it with subject matter experts (SMEs). As usual, we start a PDSA (plan-do-study-act) cycle of learning and improvement with team dialogue to clarify our purpose of a value stream mapping session with three basic questions: 

1. What are we trying to accomplish? 2. How will we know that a change is an improvement? 3. What changes can we make that will result in improvement? 

These three questions are “the model of improvement”, when used in conjunction with the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle of learning and improvement. They come from the work of the API (Associates of Process Improvement). 

• What are we trying to accomplish? Our aim is to create a graphic, a picture to understand a process better, to see where value flows to satisfy the customer need. 

• How will we know that a change is an improvement? When we document it visually, we see where value flows and see the parent and child relationships between steps in the process, we will have a baseline to measure all changes from. 

• What changes can we make that will result in improvement? Documenting a value stream in a disciplined method allows us to use a common language for all further discussions about improvement by converting team member opinions into thoughts through team consensus and team decision-making. This can later be converted to knowledge through the PDSA cycle of learning and improvement. 

In this paper, we document a model of value stream mapping that works for facilitator, customer and subject matter expert alike. We know that mapping processes helps subject matter experts know and understand their work and their system better. Thus, we believe it will aid their improvement efforts. What we think must change to create that improvement will be to increase the knowledge of facilitators of value stream mapping with a disciplined philosophy and method. 

Quality deployment flowcharts (QDFs), process maps and value stream maps (VSMs) are a fundamental way to enhance our understanding of our organization and the value our team’s work brings to our customers. It can be the start of new learning and an infusion of new energy into any on-going continual improvement efforts. They help us document a picture of a process that all can refer to with the data to understand our system and team, suppliers, internal resources and customers. We have a fold out supplement depicting the VSM process that can be shared on request.

Argyris, Deming and Transformation

January 25, 2014

My study of transformation in organizations has brought me to understand much of W. Edwards Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK) and the synergies between the work of Dr. Deming and many other authors. 

Chris Argyris’s work resonates strongly with Dr. Deming's philosophy and themes on transformation. Like many philosophers and social scientists, Argyris has perspectives about organizational transformation through understanding systems, the people in them and the power of shared purpose. 

Any leader of a learning organization can encourage a team to begin with knowledge and start the practice of productive dialogue. This requires "discussing the un-discussable" as Chris Argyris described ways to counter the common defensive routines in organizations. The key in this process is leadership's demonstrated commitment to productive reasoning and dialogue, to remove fear and embarrassment by new learning and improved productivity for their whole enterprise, starting with themselves. 

In the context of his studies and writing, it seems the common purpose in each of the Argyris case studies was to transform the organization under study by transforming the leaders. In his practice and writings, Argyris provided us hard evidence of many of Deming's points and provides actionable solutions. I propose to share a number of these solutions from Argyris and evidence from others as well.

The 20th Annual International Deming Research Seminar

March 3, 2014

Pages 250 - 264:

My study of transformation in organizations has brought me to understand much of W. Edwards Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK) and the synergies between the work of Dr. Deming and many other authors.

Chris Argyris’s work resonates strongly with Dr. Deming's philosophy and themes on transformation. Like many philosophers and social scientists, Argyris has perspectives about organizational transformation through understanding systems, the people in them and the power of shared purpose.

Any leader of a learning organization can encourage a team to begin with knowledge and start the practice of productive dialogue. This requires "discussing the un-discussable" as Chris Argyris described ways to counter the common defensive routines in organizations. The key in this process is leadership's demonstrated commitment to productive reasoning and dialogue, to remove fear and embarrassment by new learning and improved productivity for their whole enterprise, starting with themselves.

In the context of his studies and writing, it seems the common purpose in each of the Argyris case studies was to transform the organization under study by transforming the leaders. In his practice and writings, Argyris provided us hard evidence of many of Deming's points and provides actionable solutions. I propose to share a number of these solutions from Argyris and evidence from others as well.

A New System of Quality in Process Interactions

July 17, 2015

There is a model and a method to create a systemic view of any organization. We can use the scientific method and engagement with the people who know it best, the subject matter experts who work in the system. This concept has a foundation in both knowledge and experience to define and manage systems and their performance. This moves management of organizations from complexity to clarity around a system with an aim and common purpose, with shared values and action in concert with the aim and purpose of the system.

The foundational references and sources to understand the elements of this system model are integrated with process and methods to uncover what we really know about our systems. Two fundamental references are the work of Russell Ackoff in systems thinking along with the work of W. Edwards Deming in his definition of the Deming System of Profound Knowledge ® or SoPK. Deming's diagram "Production Viewed as a System" forms this model and comes from both "The New Economics" and "Out of the Crisis". Also the work of Associates in Process Improvement (API) and their "Quality As A Business Strategy" has advanced the work of Ackoff and Deming in defining and managing systems through the linkage of processes within systems.

We connect with other people, through their brains and their intellect that shape their actions. We connect people with each other and a common aim and purpose in the organizations we belong to. We make it possible to see these connections and interactions between our work and that of others with purpose and value to the system that we are all part of. Collaboration and helping others in a team is a high purpose of all human endeavors and it brings dignity and joy to all who contribute to a common aim and purpose. We engage with each other as the human beings we are, and recognize the hope we can become better each day in some way, with common aim and purpose that is bound in a shared future.

Our most profound safety as human beings comes from engaging with others in designing and implementing a better future than any present difficulty we face. As both Peter Drucker and Abraham Lincoln said, "The best way to predict your future is to create it!” and our obvious choice is to work together with others in the pursuit of improvement to our present circumstances as we can best define them. When we collaborate with others, we make our social system better and stronger than the competing system - which may be as destructive from inside complacency as from outside competition.

This model and method corrects what is fundamentally wrong with managing “parts” of systems, the chaotic way that most organizations are managed. This way of thinking provides a way to break out of the management of parts and more to management of the interactions in the system. To be successful, all organizations must provide services and products whose value to customers is greater than the cost to produce and deliver the service or product.

This method also includes the use of a common software application as a tool to connect these important ideas in a comprehensive view of the complicated systems we are responsible for. This tool connects the flow and relationships between value adding activities in the system and processes or value streams that impact the aim and purpose of the system. A template of this tool and rudimentary instructions can be obtained from the author for adaptation to any system and organization.

Annual Deming Conference

March 23, 2015

Annual International Deming Research Seminar

March 23, 2015

Annual Deming Conference - BOLD Panel

September 16, 2016

Panel Presentation by Representatives of the State of Michigan Long Term Supports and Services (LTSS), Aging and Adult Services Agency of State of Michigan, Dennis Sergent - Host

Process, Outcome and System Measures for Long Term Supports and Services

September 1, 2018

The aim of this white paper is to describe and promote the use of a system of integrated metrics to measure the improvement of the Long Term Care, Support & Services (LTSS) system in federal, state and local government organizations.

The purpose of such a system is to measure the overall quality, safety, effectiveness, timeliness and value of long-term supports and services to include the delivery and improvement of the care provided to citizens in government health and human care systems (GHHS) and to align improvement work across multiple processes, agencies and providers. This includes aging and disability populations who may need services and supports as citizens in the communities they reside in, as well as in long term care or congregate care facilities.

A balanced set of LTSS process, outcome and system measures, is necessary to provide GHHS leaders and other stakeholders with data that help them evaluate the overall performance of the core dimensions of quality, effectiveness and value, as well as equity. These measures serve as inputs to continual quality improvement planning as an LTSS and GHHS strategy.

Properly constructed, these system measures should be supplemented by existing measures that parts of the GHHS organization and stakeholder organizations use to evaluate the performance of their part of the LTSS system. Because they are intended to focus on important system level measures of quality, effectiveness, and value, they are limited to a small set of measures that are not person, disease, condition or program specific. Each of them should impact the outcome of the processes that deliver important services and supports to vulnerable people.

One aim for developing the LTSS system measures is to also provide a view of performance and improved productivity that reflects services provided in different programs, processes, services, and locations, no matter who does the work across the continuum of services. Improved productivity of the LTSS system of services and the interaction of its parts will result in better quality, safety, timeliness, effectiveness and value for the beneficiaries and stakeholders in the system. Please note, effectiveness is defined to include efficiency.

Effectiveness includes all of the other important dimensions of the LTSS system. “Doing the right things” is a systems view of effectiveness that includes the “doing it right” view of efficient use of resources, safety is included as helping people be and stay safe is an ethical imperative. Timeliness is also included within the definition of effectiveness and doing the right thing, and a focus on quality helps achieve the overall aim of the system. Over time LTSS systems may develop balanced system measures to predict whether sustainable value is delivered equitably to both citizen beneficiaries and citizen taxpayers, no matter where they live, or who they are.