This is my favorite creative process model. It was introduced to me by Gail Taylor of MG Taylor and Tomorrow Makers. It is a one of many models from the MG Taylor modeling language. This is one of the oldest of the MG Taylor Models, developed in 1979 by Matt Taylor and Richard Goring as part of an unpublished book entitled Designing Creative Futures.
Explore, discover and understand how the system produces the conditions. Even if you think you know how it's done, think again. Use techniques of collaborative, creative design to see the system from different vantage points. Break out of common assumptions and past practices (you can always go back to them if you need to). Build a working model of the current system that replicates the conditions you see. It probably won't be right but it will lend some needed insight. Creativity is the elimination of options. So generate some optional ways of seeing the system and its components. Work until you can see the truth in everyone's viewpoint. This means building models of these viewpoints. Then, maybe you can assemble components of the viewpoints together to get a more robust map of the system and conditions than you could by clinging only to your own opinions.
How do you see the system working in the future? Be careful not to merely derive a list of anti-conditions. Instead, build working simulations of how the new system will operate. Add new system components and delete others. Ask yourself to describe the difference between the existing system and the new system in terms of operational properties, components, cybernetics and self-organization. What is it about the new system that will allow it to produce different conditions? Describe parameters of autocatalytic closure for the new system to emerge. Whatever you do, don't write some nonsense vision statement. Get in the mud and do the work of building the vision, don't just talk about it in flowery terms.
Visions need to address the new system at all of the vantage points, from philosophy to task.
Frequently we have to shatter cherished beliefs during the visioning stage. Otherwise we're wasting time that would be better spent (although in vain) tweaking the system according to our current beliefs. We forget that our belief structures are mapped into the system as well as our perception of the system. They are integral to creating the conditions we're trying to change. Fortunately, we emerge stronger from these encounters with our personal philosophy, weeding out dogma and adding vibrance and wisdom to our intercourse with the world.
Are you excited yet? Do you have the juice to live in the vision and do the work to bring as much of it it back to the present each day as you can? How long can you live with the ambiguity and paradox of working in two different worlds? Can you assume the mantle and the risks of the prophet and advocate? Intent is the well of energy that you'll return to over and over while you're working to bring your vision to the present. The greater the distance on the fitness landscape between the old and new system, the greater the challenge and the more energy you'll need to succeed.
At this stage, there's only one stumbling block: your vision is full of holes. You will have figured this out by now. Sometimes when working on simple problems, the vision really will contain a clear definition of the problem, and the answer, but usually there are lots of unknowns and gaps in understanding. The problem--the PROBLEM--is how to conceive of, invent, allow for the emergence of, or create the subsystems and ecosystems that will fill the gaps in the vision--that will rework the vision to make it more powerful. The problem is not how to fix the conditions. The problem is how to imagine, design and allow for the evolution of new components of the system (or new systems) that will help the system create different (and hopefully more healthy) conditions. There's no other problem you can solve. You can't fix the conditions.
Imagine a group of people in a room. There's a thermostat on the wall connected to a heating system which is operating, but the heating vents in the room have been closed. It's getting cold in the room and the thermometer indicates that the temperature has fallen to 45°F (apologies to our European friends). The temperature in the room is the condition. One member of the group comes up with a response. He breaks the thermometer, pours in more mercury, and then reseals it. Now the gauge shows 72°F. Has he addressed the problem? No, he's messed with the gauge, and it's still cold in the room. Another member of the group begins hunting through the heating system, checking its various components and how they work together--troubleshooting the system--and discovers the blocked vents, which she opens, allowing the warm air to circulate through the room. The condition now has truly changed but only through an applied understanding of how the system works, and in this instance, changing the state of one component of the system. Of course now the faulty thermometer reads 99°F!
Problems with human enterprises are much trickier, being organic and not mechanical.
copyright © 1996, MG Taylor Corporation.
All rights reserved
Think of Engineering as a laboratory where various components of the vision, and perhaps different visions themselves are fully designed and tested. It's a breeding ground for new variations as they vie to see which is more fit (not necessarily "better" but more resilient in the current environment). The term Engineering can be misleading if you imagine one or several individuals running carefully controlled experiments. Instead it's more like a confusing market place filled with vendors, hawkers and customers buying and selling their stuff to each other. At least that's the metaphor to use when the problem to be solved is organizational in nature.
Simpler problems may actually be solved in controlled environments, particularly those that involve the design of physical materials, goods or services.
Engineering challenges involve cycles of rapid design, testing, and failure in order to ferret out the more resilient designs. Due to this type of cycling, a pendulum effect is set up between the Intent and Building stages. At each engineering failure, the designers must retreat to the Intent well to gather more resolve, push through for the next Insight, and test it in Engineering until an idea survives well enough to proliferate on its own. If this pendulum effect is full of friction, it can generate enough heat to damage the process, or cause enough energy to bleed away to grind the process to a standstill.
Nothing can be engineered without being built. This stage works hand in glove with the previous one. This applies in particular to organizations and enterprise-wide environments. While companies can run pilot tests to limit risk, remember that the people participating in the pilot--investors, producers and customers--are all real and committed and at risk. [For more about investors, producers and customers, see the Business of Enterprise model.]
If the problem is an organizational one, this stage really refers to assembling complexity. Very few human endeavors are actually built like a machine. Instead, ecosystems of ideas manifest themselves and self-organize into an autocatalytic whole, meaning that each idea creates niches to be filled by other ideas, and occupies niches created by them in turn. We can play a part in this assembly as designers and builders, but a major portion of the process is beyond the individual or collective control of anyone.
At this stage, the idea has been manifested, and the system is now producing new conditions. All of the people in the enterprise, whether they are investors, producers or customers, are users and participate in the system. They can now truly evaluate whether the new conditions are better than the old conditions. Of course, in the process of using, they all develop attachments and dependencies on the system as it is. The cycle begins over again with Identity.
A sense of control that we were looking for in the Building stage can be found instead in this stage, as the new system will work to maintain its own homeostasis--its unique identity and viability--across a broad range of environmental conditions. So, for example, our current government and educational systems are extremely resilient in their ability to resist fundamental change that may threaten what they are. This is good (and bad)! It's good because without this ability, systems would never be stable for long enough to be of value. It's bad, clearly because it's what makes them so hard to change.