This post will be a little bit more “roaming through knowledge” than the usual.
Actually, it is part of a series, first published in May 2009.
But, following the dictum of somebody else, I will make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.
What is the point? Talking about way of representing and forecasting the expected decisions of groups and individuals, and some project that try to build a “model” of what we are and could be- be it our DNA or our brain.
And, while doing this, recalling some useful concepts that you can apply in whatever you do in your business and personal life- including when you are on the receiving end of the results of a model.
As usual- theory is converted into (hopefully) plain English, and the example are from real life and experience in business, politics, technology- and their impact on personal and business life.
PREVIOUSLY
GMN2009: RISK
If you identify the “risks”, what could affect the conditions that you assumed that could affect your execution of the plan, then you will end up monitoring that:
- you are using the resources identified if, when, how planned
- the risks you already decided to keep under control
- whatever new happens around you that could affect your plan
- last but not least: that the activity you planned for still makes sense
It is not just the journey that you have to keep in check; it is also the destination.
GMN2009: REALITY
When you build a model of reality, you try to reduce complexity.
Reducing complexity means making choices- and reducing the risk of something unexpected affecting the results of your model.
Actually, it means also reducing the number of parameters- and, therefore, making any evolution in your world more predictable.
But reality is not necessarily limited by your definition: and managing the reality within a model requires more that planning beforehand for what you know, in terms of activities or risks.
You have also to identify what is the “normal” way in which your model will react to unexpected changes in the “reality” surrounding your model.
But first, you have to define how much you want reality to relate to your model. Or vice-versa.
it is neither easy nor difficult: it is a matter or choice (more about choices in GMN2009: Games and GMN2009: Playing).
I have been in consulting longer that I dare to remember.
Officially, from 1986.
But, in reality, I had already before then done both pro bono (politics and theatre and art environment and while in the Army) and for profit (ghostwriting for money on different subjects, writing software, selling technology and books).
So, however you count it… over 20 year year- ouch.
And from early 1990s, any self-respecting management consultant (what you become after few years when your customers are, well, managers higher up in the company) what is supposed to do?
Come up with a methodology and a diagram 
Well, being there, done that. Repeatedly.
I posted my first methodology online in 1990s, on my website that was then posted on a free hosting website (I could not yet register domains).
But this is the first time that I post something directly online, without first delivering it to customers.
Copyright, you say?
Mmmh… in most cases, I think that if copyright had existed pre-Gutenberg, our culture would not have developed 
So, let’s say that I will eventually convert this series of articles into something structured as what it really is: a step-by-step self-training course, hopefully for some form of paid distribution.
But, frankly, what matters most is the discussion about ideas- therefore, attribution and linking to my website are enough.
Why I talk about methodology in a section that concerns reality? Because, whatever the purpose of your model-building or project-planning activities, in the end, it is linked to reality (virtual or otherwise).
And also because the first methodology that I developed and delivered in a business environment was focused on… building models.
Actually: decision support models (”what if”-type or “goal seek” type- see more in GMN2009: Models).
Why did I see the need for a methodology? Because I was tired and sick of being called as a fireman and problem solver, to sort out the mess created by some apprentice sorcerer who played around with a model-building software while waiting to receive a “slot” of my time.
At the time, as it required cross-functional skills and to work for any part of the structure (not the best choice, if you wanted to build a career in Andersen in late 1980s), I was mainly alone… supporting all the projects that used DSS/EIS across Italy, when it came to design a model or audit it.
So, I decided to build some simple rules to distribute (it was before e-mail), and eventually a partner and his managers and seniors built a nice color-charting out of the methodology
Therefore, over 20 years later, here I am- this time, unbound from the constraints of a MS-DOS software, and saddled by over 20 years of experience in crunching numbers and managing team across different industries in Europe.
Shake all the ingredients, and what you get?
Something so simple, that you will need to do it yourself to use it.
Yes, after so much work in writing, now it is the turn of my readers to use their hands and brains.
And here we go with the exercise
Pick up a coin- the larger, the better.
Use a pen (preferably a pencil) to draw the circle of the profile of the coin.
Now, draw a square around the circle, but leaving as small a space between the square and the circle as you can.
Use different colors, if you want- you will see my version soon online, at the end of the GMN2009 series.
Now, write a vertical line from the top of the square to the bottom, and an horizontal line from the middle of the square on the left to the right.
Both your square and your circle are divided in four parts.
Exercise completed.
Sound stupid, but it is not. And the reason is that now… we can talk about time, resources, commitment
But before that, something about fitting a circle in a square (or viceversa).
Squaring a circle has a long history of challenging minds- and I will save you the time to go through the theory.
Just pick up your DVD rental card, and rent Apollo 13, the movie.
No, I am not asking you to watch all the movie (unless you are a “moon landing” kid as myself- at 4, I spent all the night up, watching all the “show”, in July 1969).
Focus only on the “squaring a circle” part, when the engineers are instructed by Ed Harris to use only the material available on board of the spaceship connect a square with a circle.
I think that that scene is the best representation of what should be done more often.
The point is: often, resources are available- but instead of using what is available, you dump more resources.
Yes, sometimes time is critical- and, therefore, it is better to allocate more resources, instead of spending more time to figure out how to use the available ones.
But, often, it is just mental lazyness.
Commitment is what is really needed- and people do not commit enough to see the difference, and use what is available.
In my view, the three key elements of any reality are:
- time: the most understated resource
- commitment: the focus that as a team you can achieve on the issue at the hand
- resources: a mix of elements (human, financial, technical, environmental, stakeholders-related, and so on) that you can use or involve in producing the results required
As you can see, I always focus on results.
Because, also when you seemingly focus on idle discussion on some theoretical issue, you want a result.
Sometimes, the result is actually the process- you want to get your brain able to work on something similar in the future.
Sometimes, the result is a byproduct of the combination of the three factors that I selected, and the constraints on each one of them (time, commitment, resources).
And now, let’s get back to the methodology.
But first, try to think how you would position the three parameters within the circle-in-the-square picture.
Spend a couple of minutes, and them come back here
STOP READING NOW.
And to ensure that…
And now, back to the picture
Look at the top left quarter of your drawing, and ignore the other three quarters.
On the line at the bottom, write “time”. At the left, write zero, at the right, write the number eight horizontally.
On the line at the left, write “reality”. At the bottom, you have already zero, at the top 100%.
The curve is your commitment of resources.
What can you see? Few lessons about building a model of reality.
If you remember your high school maths, you would expect to have the curve to begin a zero- zero time and zero reality when no resources are committed.
In my model about models of reality (or “metamodel of reality):
- you do not start committing resources at time zero: you first need to understand
- no matter how many resources you commit (the area below the curve), your model will never be like reality
- there is a bargain to be done between the time and representation of reality, and the resources needed to achieve your results
Depending on your specific reality, the commitment of resources (i.e. the curve) can be different, so that sometimes it is possible to commit resources faster, and therefore to reach a “plateau”.
But, no matter what you do, you will never achieve the 100%.
Try thinking about something practical in your activity, by dividing the time, and then adapt the “commit resources” curve to what makes sense in your own activity.
I think that if a picture is worth one thousand words… the picture is a side-effect of the words, not the other way around.
Therefore, whenever I use or suggest to use a formal visual representation (I like mindmaps and radar charts- more about this later in this article), also when defining methodologies or business processes (e.g. the usual budgeting, audit, validation):
- study the theory or the information provided by the source
- identify what really matters to you
- define your own rules on how to use it
- build a clear definition on “why” you made the choices”
- write a guideline on applying the rules
- create a set of examples that is practical, by involving people in your own organization in applying to their own activity your new method
Interestingly, often I see that most of these points are either forgotten, or “delegated” to external suppliers, called only for a short time and for the task at hand- i.e. who have no clue about your company culture and “way of doing”, and often “convert” your people to their way of doing, instead of trying to match your needs with their tools.
As in everything- the timely commitment of resources is critical to the achievement of the purpose of your model
As an example, again something from my past.
Once, I was looking for funding via business angels.
I met a “gatekeeper”, and he told me that they could consider five time the (small) amount that I looking for to finance the completion of some software solutions that I had designed, prototyped, and already used with some customers.
He said that I would get a two years “moratorium” on the interests, while the 20-30% shares would be the “collateral” to guarantee the funding, and then we would be negotiating a multi-year plan to return the investment with the commercial rate, and a payoff for the 20-30% shares.
I declined.
Why? First, because the model was built to mimick the “small enterprise” tax credit in UK- not really a risk investment, a loan masked as an investment to generate a tax credit to the “angel”.
Second, I would have received more money than, in my plans, was needed- and being pushed to burn the money that you received to expand faster than you can makes sense when you have a product.
But, as I kept repeating to project managers when I coached them- I can understand that ICT planning is still mainly a male affair, as if men were able to have a child, they would assume that nine month to a child means that adding eight other people would make it “feasible” in one month.
Committing resources has to be associated to the closeness to reality that you want to achieve- but also to the time needed to properly “absorb” the resources.
Otherwise, you just are “warehousing” the resources- usually at a sensible cost (if you are coming from management accounting, you know that “stockpiling” resources is not really the most sensible or economically rational approach).
A NEW EXERCISE: CREATE YOUR OWN CURVE
Visualize the options for your model
Now that you have your own example of the application- or tried to build it- you probably started scribbling the purposes.
The logic.
The reasons.
I suggest two other visual representations that, formally or informally, I use quite often, when I want to represent choices or the current status, instead of numbers.
If any of the words in italic sounds unfamiliar, go on wikipedia and search.
The first one is called “MindMap”, that was proposed by Tony Buzan in 1960s, based on his analysis of the techniques adopted by the most efficient note-takers.
It is quite simple: you have the central idea, and then add concepts as “spokes”, and then add to these any further ideas.
As an example, here is a simple MindMap- formally not how it should be done (visit wikipedia, for something more formal).
The second one has more names that I dare to remember- but I like to call it the “radar” chart, as it reminds a radar chart.
The idea is simple: you build a table whose columns are your options, and then add a row for each parameter (or viceversa).
Then, you assign a range of values.
I usually build a weighted average of the values for a parameter, and then build a spreadsheet formula to give a range 1 to 5 (to limit; or 1 to the number of options) to “spread” the options across the values; or a smaller number, if I want to show the “cluster“.
In brainstorming summaries or voting using a variation of the Delphi method to build consensus, I usually limit to a smaller number of values.
The concept is that you can visually compare the “profile” of each option vs a set of parameters.
I used with up to 12 options, with up to about 5 to 10 parameters- and it was still easy to discuss.
If you have more options, and a desired target, I suggest to add an “option” that is really your consensus or desired option- and compare each option vs. the average or consensus.
And, in compliance with my own rules… I used only OpenSource software to produce these two charts: xMind for the MindMap, OpenOffice for the radar chart.
Moving from the choice to the model
How you will describe your model of reality and any associated formula or rule, depends both on your tools and your purpose.
If your model is really a game that simulates something, or creates a process… I suggest to add a review with somebody able to understand human dynamics or expert in change and cultural change management, to avoid creating something that works on paper, assuming that everybody behaves following formal, written rules.
It is relatively easier if you can write down a formulaic description of the transformations to apply to the data provided, to produce the results.
But when you create a model of reality, beside understanding the limits, you should also consider a simple question: is your model supposed to work all by itself, or it is used to interact with other models?
In the next section, I will write about building models that can cope with a changing reality.
NEXT
GMN2009: GAMES
You want your model to work in reality, and therefore you have to assume that others have their own models.
It is a game. Like playing chess. Or the usual “prisoner dilemma”.
From models, we will move to the interaction between models- and between different decision paths within a model.
A down-to-earth introduction to the game theory.
Tags: buzan, change, chart, formula, game, gmn2009, management, map, methodology, mind, mindmap, model, organization, radar, real, reality, stakeholder, theory