Corporate Planning Legend: Solid arrow: influences; Broken arrow: should influence Source: DASH, D. P. (1994). Knowledge Engineers: Management Consultants of the Future (Guest Editorial). Journal of Management Consulting, Vol. 8, No. 2. pp.2, 64-66. * More about influence diagrams: Heijden, K. van der. (1996). Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. Wiley. (pp.190-195) * Interesting article on road traffic: Russell Ackoff on Mess Management Source: ACKOFF, R.L. (1986). Management in small doses. NY: Wiley. Because messes are systems of problems, they lose their essential properties when they are taken apart. Therefore, if a mess is disassembled, it loses its essential properties. Furthermore, as in any system, if each part taken separately is treated as well as possible, the whole is not treated as well as possible. A system is more than the sum of its parts; it is the product of their interactions. If taken apart, it simply disappears. Then how can we formulate a mess without taking it apart? It can be done by the use of reference projections. These are projections of the performance of an enterprise that are based on two false assumptions. First, it is assumed that the organisation involved will not change any of its current plans, policies, or practices. If this were true, the organisation would not be trying to formulate its mess. Second, it is assumed that the organisation’s environment will change only as expected; this is obviously false. Under these assumptions the performance of the organisation is projected into the future. These projections reveal the future implied by the organisation’s current plans, policies, and practices; the future it is in. No matter how successful an organisation is, reference projections taken collectively reveal how it would destroy itself if it were not to change. These projections reveal the Achilles heel of the organisation. They do this because the no-change assumption implies no adaptation even to a predictably changing environment; for example, projections were made in 1959 which revealed the impending crisis of the American automotive industry. By using data from the preceding 40 years projections were made of (1) the number of people of driving age in the United States in the year 2000, (2) the number of cars per person of driving age, (3) the number of miles driven per car per year, and (4) the percentage of these miles driven within cities. By combining these projections an estimate was prepared of the number of urban automobile miles that would be driven in the United States in the year 2000 if the industry continued on its the current path and its environment changed only as expected. Next by using these projections an estimate was made of the additional parking space and lane-miles of streets and highways that would be needed in the year 2000 to maintain 1960 levels of congestion. Then the cost of their construction, estimated by using projected construction costs, revealed that more than 12 times the maximum amount ever spent per year in the United States for such construction would be required for each of the next 40 years. Although these expenditures were unlikely, they were, in fact, implicitly assumed in the plans then in force in the industry. This was not the mess facing the industry, however. The mess was revealed by assuming that these large expenditures would be made. If they were, 117 percent of the surfaces of American cities would be covered by streets, highways, and parking lots by the year 2000. This, of course, could not happen. Therefore, continued growth of the automotive industry as it had been was not possible. This was the mess. What would prevent cities from being covered by streets, highways, and parking lots? The answer rested in decisions still to be made. Studies showed that one way to avoid the mess would be to reduce the size of automobiles. The American automotive industry chose not to do so at the time. It waited for more than a decade before the cost of oil, foreign competition, and government requirements forced it to move slightly in that direction. The consequences of the industry’s failure to pay attention to its mess are well known. We have to know where we are headed before we can take action to avoid getting there. Such redirection of an enterprise requires mess management, not problem solving; and mess management requires creative and comprehensive planing. |