Lab Learning: Day 3

Here's a copy of an earlier thread from my Learning of Day 3: No, we SHOULD NOT start with as is. For the lab at least. The lab Looks for radical change, and an as is limits that. What I experienced today was an eye opener. We asked ourselves what's wrong with the current process, and as we sought to understand it we ended up focusing on solutions that does not have the issues we are facing. This was exactly how quantum came up with a revenue target of rm5 million. But if we ignore 'as is', we can fix on the.purpose I.e. Provide consulting, we can picture ourselves in 5 years, and come up with a really radical figure. xxxxx En Wan, Pls correct me if I am wrong. No. 1 below actually says we SHOULD NOT start with as-is, am I right? xxxx From: Wan Fadzil Adlan B W Sidik Sent: 17 April 2013 21:35 To: TNB Quantum Solutions Sdn Bhd Subject: Learnings From Labs: Day 3 Dear all, Learnings from today: It was a long day today as we began syndications and began developing the new model for VDP. We also played “broken Squares” (our building squares game). Here are some of the things I learnt today: 1. We spoke a lot before this about how we shouldn’t begin with As-Is, and instead focus on what we want at the end. Today I found us still wanting to refer to as- is. While it may not sound too bad, it led people on the defensive and discussions were somewhat stilted. The model revolved around modifications of the current situations, thus, though comfortable, wasn’t at all radical. We need to actually start from the purpose, and then imagine the picture in order to come up with something really different. The end result? We now have 4 models which we will refine, define and choose over the next few days. 2. To syndicate, we need a strategy. We talked about that the other day, but today we sat down with a stakeholder, without a strategy and ran circles around the guy. At debrief today we got something of a rap on the knuckles for not filling up our calendar with syndication appointments and for not having a strategy. The important thing I to know the stakeholder’s mind frame i.e. the thing that he always asks about and leverage that to get what we want. i.e. if he were CK, then we should expect him to ask how much it will cost and where the funding will come from, then we should need to have a ready response. 3. From the building squares game, we learnt: a. It is important to understand the mission, the big picture and the role. It’s easily misunderstood as people tend to do what they think they need to do. b. Time is of the essence, work with the best way to get things done; if you can’t build your square, then pass it to someone who can. c. Take interest in others performance, they may need and will appreciate your help d. IF the mission is not met, offer resource. We often refuse to release people when other dept ask for help e. Look around and see what others are doing; don’t be a prisoner of your own view. f. We always compete internally, and cooperate externally – always helping outsiders, never ourselves (sound familiar?) – instead we should break silos by cooperating internally and competing externally g. Always take the leadership position (i.e. take charge!) the opportunity s always there. 4. Resist the temptation to give the answer to our staff. Let them go thru it and discover for themselves. Then only they will learn. 5. Leaders sometimes have to become managers; when there is crisis, to give rewards, and when there are changes. 6. I had a first hand experience today discussing my conceptual model with a choleric/ melancholic. Phew! Temperatures were rising up to the point I recognized the inability to deal with ambiguity and pointed it out. The other person realized that when I pointed that out, too and immediately cooled down. It made doing the profiling and discussing the results this morning really worthwhile. That’s it for today. More tomorrow!