Enterprise Development: Creating Shared Meaning through Pyramid Building by Prasad Kaipa, Chris Newham and Russ Volckmann The article describes a methodology, pyramid building, and its uses in enterprises for systems thinking, developing shared meaning and aligning people, processes and strategy. The challenges of finding agreement and alignment in complex, polarized, high tension environments are explored, together with illustrations of how this tool was applied in a variety of organizations. We intend this methodology to increase capacity for generating clear, integrated and creative solutions in enterprises facing the challenges of complex, uncertain, ambiguous and polarized circumstances.
[Return to Top]
Consider the following two scenarios.
An executive team in a Fortune 100 company was at a crossroads. There were
many opportunities in front of them and many obstacles to overcome. Competitors
were right on their heels. The right choice could take the company over the
top, while a wrong decision could bring about a major disaster. The executive
team's conversation about the future was like those of many other teams all
over the world. Tempers were flaring and nobody was listening. At last, they
came up with a solution that they could all `live with' and justify to
shareholders. So the decision they made was not meaningful or exciting to
themselves, let alone to the rest of the organization. Nevertheless, they
allowed a sigh of relief, fully knowing that what they agreed upon is less
than optimal. At some level, this group knew that the outcome could only
be a continuation of the past, rather than a step into the future.
In contrast, the Emerging Markets Training group of a large automobile company
was going through a start-up process with a similar circumstances. There
was tension and uncertainty in the group. They could not make major decisions,
but had to live with those their executives made. They had to cut costs while
providing quality service, focus on short term gains while designing long
term strategies, and organize globally to serve clients while being close
enough to listen, learn and change based on shifts emerging from corporate
headquarters.
To accomplish these multiple and seemingly contradictory objectives, the
group used an approach that brought simultaneous focus to their competencies
and those of their clients. They generated shared meaning in the process,
and used the structure they designed to clarify and enhance their understanding
of their clients, their own work and each other. They successfully took a
highly complex, ambiguous and uncertain business challenge replete with
polarities, and made it manageable. In the end, there was a deeper understanding,
a clear process to engage with the clients and a design to do their job easier.
The group members even became much more effective in working with one another.
The process they went through involved building pyramids.
Pyramid building is about creating an issue related three dimensional structure
that helps visualize interdependencies and tensions in complex situations.
Pyramids, or in this case tetrahedrons, are geometrical objects which have
four corners and four faces interconnected through six edges. Each face is
connected with each other and each corner is connected through edges to every
other corner. In effect, the tetrahedron allows for a visual representation
of complexity in organizations. The process for building the tetrahedron
fosters a systemic perspective and understanding of the implications of any
scenario in a more complete and meaningful way.
Systems thinking is essential for working with complexity in organizations.
Rapid change is coupled with our growing awareness of complex systems that
relate leadership to business strategies, customers, technology, and employees
in a ever shifting cultural, social, economic and political environment.
Systems thinking in groups is required for alignment with vision, goals,
challenges arising from change. In fact, wherever the authors work, we hear
about the need for alignment of methodologies, people and structures and
an integrated perspective from which to act. Such actions are needed, we
predict, to produce sustainable growth, satisfied and committed customers,
and creative and productive employees designing innovative products and services.
In over four years of using this approach in a wide variety of contexts and
for a wide variety of purposes, our clients have found it to be of critical
importance in confronting complexity and integrating diverse perspectives.
Organizations and groups are using the process to think systemically, to
explore ideas and build alignment, to surface and explore differences, to
communicate and share understanding, to focus efforts, to design strategies
and to evaluate results. The pyramid approach, we are finding, allows us
to develop a shared, transformed view of the enterprise and, from that new
perspective, create its future.
In a less chaotic, predictable market place once we came up with a good,
usable product, its life time was in years and decades. We just had to make
sure that we produced high quality, low cost products that fit the needs
of our customers. On the other hand, the current context changes very quickly
and the Internet and other factors have really made the market place very
interconnected and global. The product life cycle is shrinking every day
as demonstrated by Netscape's release of a new version of their Internet
browser (Netscape Navigator) every quarter or so. If they fail to do this,
Microsoft might take away their market share very quickly! In such a fast
paced environment Netscape can predict neither what will happen in the market
place nor how well their browser will be accepted.
To apply our best thinking to such situations we use analysis. Simulations
help us anticipate outcomes. Simulations and scenario planning activities
have been of great help to many companies. Computer-based tools are helping
executives and managers alike to simulate and understand feedback loops and
causal implications of their decisions and give them an opportunity to compress
time and simulate a scenario to predict its results and make adjustments.
There are limitations on what simulations can do. While there are times when
we could create boundary conditions and simulate a scenario that helps our
understanding and allow us to prepare for the future, we can get into trouble
by identifying causal relationships and repeatable patterns and trying to
apply them in future unpredictable circumstances. Mattel recently had to
recall their new `snack-time' doll that chewed up fingers and hair of some
unsuspecting children along with plastic carrots. Simulations with selected
groups did not reveal the contexts in which these disasters would occur.
They had to learn it by doing it.
In program and project planning we predict the outcomes of new actions through
a linear analysis. Project management provides good tools that help teams
and organizations to develop and release products with limited surprises.
But there has long been a tension between linear project planning and the
dynamics of development. Resistance to project planning tools in software
systems development stemmed in part from a recognition that many aspects
of systems development are iterative, that is, nonlinear. It is difficult
to translate the linearity of most project planning tools to the organic,
dynamic processes of many programs and projects.
The global market place and continued customer acceptance are neither predictable
nor can it be planned in advance. If an organization does not have a systemic
and dynamic view of its customers and their needs, its products and the market
place, it could end up in deep trouble. What can help us navigate through
a future of high complexity and low predictability?
Our discovery has been that the pyramid building process allows for participants
to include each others' mental models and transcend these to build something
quite new. There are phases in which divergent group thought embraces complexity,
uncertainty, ambiguity and polarization, and phases of convergent thought
that makes the relationships between new ideas quite explicit and brings
about new learning. Our clients report that the pyramid building process
has created a new context for working together, for communicating with openness
and authenticity. They report that building pyramids helps to link ideas
and to look at the tensions between them. The process breaks down road blocks
to group learning and gets creative juices flowing.
The pyramid building process reliably ignites conversations that illuminate
new paths for development. In the next few paragraphs, we describe some examples
in which pyramid building has been used to deal with complexity.
At a Fortune 100 aerospace company, we helped a training design team work
together in ways they could manage their complex task. To understand their
customers better, we built a pyramid simulating the current reality of their
working environment and culture and another including the highest vision
that they could hold that described a desired future. The team gained conceptual
clarity around where their clients are and where they could be. By exploring
the gap between the two, the design team experienced high energy and shared
vision. The process clarified which specific training modules were critical
to be included in their management development program, one that continues
to be successful in the company two years after its introduction.
In building its mission, the Indian software company Mastek used the pyramid
building process. They wanted their mission to be dynamic and also their
pyramid (which they called Mastek Prism) to be usable in day to day operations.
In building it, they first sought and received extensive input from their
700 employees over six months. Then they clarified the personal visions of
the management team and worked to identify a mission that `includes and
transcends' their personal visions and the employee input. From their pyramid,
they could see clearly how and why companies in the information technology
industry performed the way they do and how and what they wanted to learn
from companies like Microsoft, Xerox PARC, Hewlett Packard and Apple. They
use the pyramid to simulate and understand characteristics of effective teams,
to select members who bring different skills and competencies to the team,
as a tool to engage with customers and in strategic planning processes to
create sub-strategies and measures of success. Miniatures of the "Mastek
Prism" were given to all their 700 employees and many of their customers.
Mastek found their prism to be deeply meaningful, and informative. It helped
them gain a holistic perspective by identifying new problems and opportunities
before they happened. This pyramid model was a useful tool for them to think
through their decisions and choices.
In another Fortune 100 manufacturing company, stimulating employee motivation
was a high priority. Procedures and measures were provided for division managers
to implement and evaluate empowerment in their organizations. In a division
where this prescription was unsuccessful and productivity went down after
the training programs, a plant manager brought other plant managers and senior
executives to a workshop where we facilitated a process in which they discovered
when they personally were most empowered. They built a pyramid integrating
their experiences both in and outside of work. There were many `ahas' and
insights into why the current training program was not working and what they
could do to raise the productivity of their plants. They discovered that
heart, feeling of ownership, self-esteem, mutual trust and information sharing
are all essential.
Dr. Deming had begun to integrate his management philosophy towards the end
of his life through the development of the system of profound knowledge.
Unfortunately, his ideas were insufficiently explained to be understood even
by his close followers. Dr. Al Viswanathan, a retired quality manager from
Boeing and a former president of The Deming User Group in Seattle used pyramid
technology to understand the deeper connections between the components of
profound knowledge and disseminate his learnings to wider audiences. He creates
a foundation for his audiences to explore the relationships between the
components of profound knowledge in a systemic way. The participants create
new meanings for themselves and apply the principles of profound knowledge
in their organizations.
A new business segment was developing in a Fortune 100 tele-communications
company. While the overall business was laying off people, this segment was
experiencing exponential growth. The management wanted to assess the future
and create a strategic vision that built on the opportunities they were seeing.
After exploring their core competencies and strategic intent, they built
a pyramid which revealed the interdependencies between products and services,
employees, customers and profitability. The division took these as four areas
of focus for the following year. Interdependent groups were established to
understand and simulate the opportunities and threats that arose from their
vision.
The Secretary of Energy and Petroleum Industry in a major third world country
had retained a consulting group to assess innovation in the energy industry
in that nation. When consultants interviewed over 500 engineers and scientists
during the pilot phase and came together to prepare a presentation for their
clients, the mass of information was found to be complex and unwieldy.
Implications were not clear, although their intent and the model they used
was quite adequate. We used a pyramid building process to create an interpretive
framework to understand and explain the results of the pilot project. Executives
and government representatives were given 3D pyramid models and the participants
clearly understood the conditions under which innovation could thrive in
their industry. The next expanded phase is in progress and the consulting
firm is continuing to use and evolve the framework.
Athena has used the pyramid building process four times in the development
of management training CD-ROMs, including an award winning CD-ROM for management
development. They brought together people from within their organization
and from outside to develop these programs. The pyramid building process
was very successful in helping these ad hoc groups gain focus and examine
their perspectives in a highly creative way. Also, the pyramid building process
was also used for organizing a recent book, Executive EQ: Emotional Intelligence
in Business by Robert Cooper and Ayman Sawaf.
Pyramids, or more accurately, tetrahedrons have been built in twenty-six
organizations, including twelve corporations, and in five countries. We believe
that this process is all about having good, meaningful conversations that
lead to coherent and focused action in the face of complexity. When the risks
are high and choices are not clear the pyramid building process supports
the development of a whole systems perspective that is organic and fluid.
It supports not only the development of meaning among the participants, but
its evolution through dissemination and further conversations.
While the initial results have been very encouraging, we have found the process
to require coaching and continued exploration to get the best out of the
pyramid tool and the process. When coaching accompanied pyramid building,
the alignment between people, their actions, processes and organizational
structures were more aligned than ever before.
Enterprises grow and develop when a shared and holistic perspective is guiding
their actions. When that perspective emerges from the complexity and
interdependency of their tasks at hand, pyramid builders become aligned and
integrated. The three dimensional pyramid that encapsulates this perspective
becomes a living reference to all interested stakeholders and allows and
invites new kind of participation for collective action and meaningful
reflection.
We really appreciate the enthusiastic support, suggestions, and encourage-ment
we received when we interviewed our clients for this article. We especially
want to thank Al Viswanathan, Sudhakar Ram, R. Sundar, Tom Grant, Jon Peters,
Blake Emery, Ron Sandanato, Jim Broshar, Eldon McBride, and Robert Cooper,
in addition to J. M. Sampath and Kalpana Sampath, our Indian partners, who
documented the pyramid building process in Ford.
To be precise, we are creating objects geometrically known as tetrahedrons,
a pyramid with a triangular base (see FIGURE 1 below).
APPENDIX 1: The Pyramid Building Process
Effective systems thinking tools stimulate excitement and fun, because when
hearts are involved in conversations along with heads, commitment and depth
are achieved. We have found that pyramid builders delight in their discoveries,
and conversations easily develop to support collective learning and build
commitment to new action.
Figure 1: A tetrahedron has four corners, four faces and six edges. The pyramid, with its four corners, six edges, and four faces, is really a tetrahedron. The tetrahedron is the only geometrical solid in which each corner is directly connected to every other corner, and each face is directly connected to every other face. This property permits these features of the pyramid to represent sets of systematically dependent factors or variables. The generalized structure is made applicable to the group's issue by naming the cornerstones according to those four variables considered most important. The pyramid building process is one of repeatedly including and transcending the meanings of the cornerstone variables, first by naming the edges, then the faces, and finally the pyramid, all in a self-consistent fashion. In this way, the systematic dependencies between the original cornerstone variables are revealed. The meanings of the cornerstone variables become recontextualized by the new and interdependent edge and face variables, reliably shedding new light on the issue, and often fundamentally reframing it. The pyramid building process comprises a cycle. The cycle has the four steps of intention, exploration, transformation and diffusion.
|