If you’re involved in organisational change you’ll be aware that - like reincarnation - four box models are making a big comeback at the moment. I thought I’d use my guest blog opportunity to run through a few that seem pertinent from a change perspective. And where better to begin than with Cynefin? After all, once you strip away the squiggly bits, ditch that awkward disorder space and straighten a few lines you have a proper looking four box model:

First of all – apologies for this not appearing by the tomorrow mentioned in the first entry; main excuse is I’ve been thinking, which almost always means delays. Anyway, in the previous entry I was making the case for those of us that work as consultants to act more like learners and participants on the assumption that organisations can be considered complex and essentially unpredictable. Today I’ll expand on the learner issue a little with the help of another four box model: David Kolb’s (or Kurt Lewin’s if you prefer) process of experiential learning. Given that Kolb defines learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” it’s intriguing to note the apparent lack of enthusiasm for applying his principles in the change/KM industries.

System Failure by Jake Chapman was initially published in 2001 and updated in 2004 - the focus is on the failure of public policy making and makes a thoroughly argued case for more learning and less control.

Force field analysis, derived from what Lewin termed 'field theory', is often bandied around as a tool to support a change initiative. If you browse the various resources available you'll discover that analysing the forces for and against the change creates a couple of options: reduce the strength of forces opposing or increase the forces pushing.

Johnnie Moore passes on a cracking story that does a great job of capturing the (sometimes tiny) gap between control freaks/celebrity chefs and learners. Unfortunately I'm also reminded of a little challenge I talked myself out of a couple of years back when he put out an invite for a series of improv workshops. Ideal practice for consultant as learner and participant I said to myself - and then bottled it, although, thinking back, there was an urgent need to clean out the goldfish tank every Tuesday evening for three months so perhaps I shouldn't be too hard on myself. So on the assumption that public commitment is harder to back out from - do you have any plans for a repeat Johnnie?

Ben Ramalingam of ALNAP was kind enough to get in touch with a link to a working paper he co-authored: "Exploring the science of complexity - ideas and implications for development and humanitarian efforts". I confess that so far I have only skimmed it but it seems really worth a read if you have any interest in developing your ability to take part in creating change. The context is international aid, but as with Jake Chapman's paper on UK governmental policy making the diligent application of control freakery and recipe driven programmes shines through like a stream of bat's piss, as Monty Python would say.

To bring my guest blogging time to a close here are a couple of ideas from John Kay to mull on: the first is Business lessons from chess grand masters where "People who hold to a single idea, or a fixed design, generally lose in chess, as they lose in battle, in business and in economics."

A few weeks ago Nature published an interesting article on a the memory of slime mould, a common bacterial film. Bacteria form aggregates with emergent properties, one of which is memory. This triggers some interesting considerations, some of which should not surprise complexity sympathisers. Bacteria are close to zero intelligent agents, like certain financial traders in modern agent based modelling simulations. However, by interacting with each other they form a kind of super-organism and develop memory.

Nearly all biological traits and many products for particular markets and functions, began life as something different. Feathers were selected for thermal insulation, microwave ovens started life as radar magnetrons and gin&tonic was a concoction to mask the unacceptable quinine taste to British troups in India. The analysis of history of technology and biological evolutions shows that at the root of any adaptive trajectory it is usual for a structure to have been subverted – perverted –from a different function (Gould and Vrba called it “exaptation”). I did a quick review of 19th century innovations and found that about 30% (the real number is likely to be higher) of innovations have an exaptational origin.

Generally exaptation has been regarded as contingent, serendipitous. But, if, as we think, there are regularities, if not rules, then the question becomes: can we exploit these regularities to improve innovation?

On the New York Times (March 30) there is an interesting article on micro-projectors

“The (micro)projectors may be particularly useful for business presentations — for example, when road warriors need to show a product video to small groups. No coordination would be needed to arrange for a screen. Instead, a patch of wall within a cubicle or restaurant could serve for an impromptu presentation. Carolina Milanesi, a research director in London for Gartner, the research firm, says she thinks the microprojectors are most likely to appeal to business travellers who, for example, could use them to beam PowerPoint shows from their smartphones”
And: “Insight Media forecasts a substantial and fast-growing market. “We anticipate total sales of more than $2.5 billion by 2012 for the companion models,” Mr. Brennesholtz said, and $1 billion in revenue for projector modules that are integrated into cellphones and other devices”.

What is the problem with this prediction? Simple, it ignores exaptation and more generally how new applications emerge.