Showing posts with label imagineering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label imagineering. Show all posts

Monday, September 20, 2010

Dropping the Baton in the Synagogue

This is from the July issue of FastCompany. FastCompany is a business magazine, and ever since the first issue came my way fifteen years ago I have read it cover to cover. Each month I find articles that make me think about my work as a Jewish educator and as a human being. There are more ideas than I have had a chance to implement and the list grows longer each month. It has introduced me to Seth Godin, the importance of Design and more recently Chip and Dan Heath.


This article made me think about the process of recruiting, and more importantly growing and maintaining the relationships with a member family in our congregation. They come in through so many different doors: nursery school, family education, social justice, a desire to enroll children in religious school, a worship experience, spiritual searching - you name it. And then we get them to join. 


Some time later - hopefully years - they resign. And we are shocked, I tell you. Simply shocked. (cue Sam on the piano - you must remember this...)


Why would they leave? Perhaps they have accomplished what they thought of as their purpose for joining. Maybe the kids have left the house so they see no reason to belong for themselves. Maybe the dues are too high. Maybe, maybe maybe.


This article made me wonder how many ways we drop the baton in our synagogues. With our students. With their parents. With the family as a whole. We should have been working to help them find multiple reasons for being connected to the temple, to develop relationships with other members and with the institution itself that go beyond the reason they joined. I began this line of thought on this blog in April. I am sure there is more to come. I invite your thoughts on this.

Team Coordination Is Key in Businesses

By: Dan Heath and Chip Heath July 1, 2010
At the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the American men's 4x100 relay team was a strong medal contender. During the four previous Games, the American men had medaled every time. The qualifying heats in 2008 -- the first step on the road to gold -- should have been a cakewalk.

On the third leg of the race, the U.S.A.'s Darvis Patton was running neck and neck with a runner from Trinidad and Tobago. Patton rounded the final turn, approaching anchorman Tyson Gay, who was picking up speed to match Patton. Patton extended the baton, Gay reached back, and the baton hit his palm.

Then, somehow, it fell. The team was disqualified. It was a humiliating early defeat. Stranger still, about a half-hour later, the U.S.A. women's team was disqualified too -- for a baton drop at the same point in the race. (Freaked out by the trend, the U.S.A.'s rhythmic gymnasts kept an extra-tight grip on their ribbons.)
Team U.S.A.'s track coach, Bubba Thornton, told the media his runners had practiced baton passes "a million times." But not with their Olympic teammates. Some reporters noted that Patton and Gay's practice together had been minimal.

Thornton's apparent overconfidence was understandable. If you have four world-class experienced runners on your team, shouldn't that be enough? Unfortunately, no, it isn't. The baton pass cannot be taken for granted -- not on the track and not in your organization.

We tend to underestimate the amount of effort needed to coordinate with other people. In one academic experiment, a team of students was asked to build a giant Lego man as quickly as possible. To save time, the team members split up their work. One person would craft an arm, another would build the torso, and so forth. (At least one person, of course, was charged with tweeting compulsively about what the others were doing.)

Often, the parts were carefully designed, yet they didn't quite fit together properly, like a Lego Heidi Montag. The problem was that nobody was paying attention to the integration. The researchers found that the teams were consistently better at specializing than they were at coordinating.

Organizations make this mistake constantly: We prize individual brilliance over the ability to work together as a team. And unfortunately, that can lead to dropped batons, as JetBlue infamously discovered back in February 2007.

You remember the fiasco. Snowstorms had paralyzed New York airports, and rather than cancel flights en masse, JetBlue loaded up its planes, hoping for a break in the weather. The break never came, and some passengers were trapped on planes for hours. If you've ever felt the temperature rise on a plane after an hour's delay on the tarmac, imagine what it was like after 10 hours. These planes were cauldrons of rage -- one stray act of flatulence away from bloodshed.

JetBlue did its best to survive the wave of hatred -- its CEO apologized repeatedly and the company issued a Customer Bill of Rights, offering cash payments for delays and cancellations. But the executives realized that these efforts wouldn't eliminate the underlying problems, which were rather unyielding: The weather is unpredictable; New York airports are overcrowded; passengers expect on-time performance anyway. If JetBlue didn't fix its operations -- learning to respond to emergencies with more speed and agility -- another fiasco was likely.

JetBlue's executives knew that a top-down solution by a team of executives would fail. "The challenges are on the front line," says Bonny Simi, JetBlue's director of customer experience and analysis. In October 2008, Simi and her colleagues gathered a cross-section of players -- crew schedulers, system operators, dispatchers, reservation agents, and others -- to determine how the company handled "irregular operations," such as severe weather.

Individual members of the group knew the issues in their departments, and "if we brought enough of them together," Simi says, "we would have the whole puzzle there, and they could help us solve it."
Where do you start? If you ask individuals what's wrong with their jobs, you'll get pet peeves, but those gripes may not address the big integration issues. But if you ask people directly how to fix a big problem like irregular operations, it's like asking people how to fix federal bureaucracy. The topic is too complex and maddeningly interrelated; it fuzzes the brain.

Rather than talk abstractly, Simi decided to simulate an emergency. As the centerpiece of the first irregular operations retreat, Simi announced to the group: "Tomorrow, there's going to be a thunderstorm at JFK such that we're going to have to cancel 40 flights." The group then had to map out their response to the crisis.

As they rehearsed what they would do, step by step, they began to spot problems in their current process. For instance, in severe-weather situations, protocol dictates that the manager on duty, the Captain Kirk of JetBlue operations, should distribute to the staff what's known as a "precancel list," which identifies the flights that have been targeted for cancellation. There were five different people who rotated through the Kirk role, and they each sent out the precancel list in a different format. This variability created a small but real risk. It was similar to slight differences among five runners' extension of the baton.

In total, the group identified more than 1,000 process flaws, small and large. Over the next few weeks, the group successively filtered and prioritized the list down to a core set of 85 problems to address. Most of them were small individually, but together, they dramatically increased the risk of a dropped baton. JetBlue's irregular-operations strike force spent nine months in intense and sometimes emotional sessions, working together to stamp out the problems.

The effort paid off. In the summer of 2009, JetBlue had its best-ever on-time summer. Year over year, JetBlue's refunds decreased by $9 million. Best of all, the efforts dramatically improved JetBlue's "recovery time" from major events such as storms. (JetBlue considers itself recovered from an irregular-operations event when 98.5% of scheduled flights are a go.) The group shaved recovery time by 40% -- from two-and-a-half days to one-and-a-half days.

Ironically, JetBlue's can-do culture contributed to its original problem. "The can-do spirit meant we would power through irregular operations and 'get 'er done,' " says Jenny Dervin, the airline's corporate communications director, "but we didn't value processes as being heroic." The company's heroes had been individuals -- but now they share the medal stand with processes. (Here's hoping that the next American relay team, too, extends some glory from the runner to the handoff.)

The relay team with the fastest sprinters doesn't always win, and the business with the most talented employees doesn't either. Coordination is the unsung hero of successful teams, and it's time to start singing.

Dan Heath and Chip Heath are the authors of the No. 1 New York Times best seller Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard, as well as Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die.

Friday, November 6, 2009

Can "Open Source" Teach Us How to Change The Game?

This posting about PresenTense paints an interesting picture of how we might reimagine the work of synagogues, centers and agencies in the Jewish Community. They are changing the rules of engagement to fit the needs of a new age. I got it from eJewishPhilanthropy.com, but they got it from author Debra Askenase's blog, Community Organizer 2.0. She tweets as @askdebra.

Where is The Open Source Organization?
Posted by Debra Askanase November 5, 2009

Almost a year ago, I wrote a blog post entitled “The Non-Profit Quarterly Report.” In this post, I argued that nonprofit organizations should offer online quarterly reports, and mimic the transparency exemplified by Jonathan Schwartz’ online quarterly reports. (Jonathan is the CEO of Sun Microsystems.) John Maeda, President of the Rhode Island School of Design and social media advocate, argues that “in many cases complete clarity should be a leader’s goal rather than complete transparency.”

If you combine the concepts of organizational clarity with transparency and inclusionary decision making, then you create a new type of organization:


The Open Source Organization

One organization has stepped up to the plate to show us how it’s done: PresenTense Group.

The PresenTense Group calls itself an “open source organization.” Co-founder Ariel Beery defines an Open Source Organization as one that “enables all members to add to it, change it, modify it and improve it. Everyone benefits from the intellectual property of the organization’s members. The whole point is to make it as collaborative and idea-generated as possible.”
In mid-September, I received this email asking me to participate in a discussion of what PresenTense should be concerned about in the coming year:
There were three ways to participate in the discussion: I could have walked down the street to the Tagging Party, viewed the Party live via webcam, or clicked on the link and “tagged” the key ideas that I care about. This is an example one of the most inclusionary processes I can imagine, as well as superior utilization of technology for stakeholder inclusion and engagement.
This is just one example of how PresenTense adheres to its open source philosophy. Here are others:

All projects begin with an open call for a steering committee. For example, an idea for a magazine section about “philanthropy and the Jewish world” grew into a new steering committee. Steering committees solicit information and input from others.

Every aspect of programming is open sourced: each issue of PresenTense magazine, the PresenTense Institute, and the speakers.

The yearly workplan itself is open sourced via PresenTense networks. PresenTense uses the input to create a general plan, asks for comments, and incorporates comments into the final workplan.

PresenTense plans to offer further transparency by posting quarterly staff reports online, and asking for feedback and comments.

Technology is critical to being as inclusionary as possible when sharing and soliciting information. Whenever possible, PresenTense utilizes technology to include stakeholders. All educational seminars are “live tweeted,” and most are filmed and streamed live. According to Beery, “the main challenge is figuring out the the information technology issues related to open collaboration.”

And what arose from the Tagging Party and discussion? These ideas were fed into its blueprint for the year to come, which is available for viewing online here. You can also read an article about their commitment to being an Open Source Organization here.


Transparency + Clarity + Inclusionary Decision-Making =
The Open Source Organization

When will nonprofits become open-sourced? What is the critical technology needed for open participation? What is preventing nonprofits from moving towards and open source organization? In the spirit of this post, I’m looking forward to your comments and a discussion of this concept – and incorporating your ideas back into the blog post!


Further food for thought:
Asking Questions about Transparency
Leaders Should Strive for Clarity, Not Just Transparency

Debra Askanase has 20 years of experience working in nonprofit organizations, from Community Organizer to Executive Director. She is the founder and lead consultant at Community Organizer 2.0, a social media strategy firm for non-profit organizations and businesses. She blogs about the intersection of social media, nonprofits, and technology at communityorganizer20.com. Debra is an occasional contributor to eJewish Philanthropy.


image courtesy of ExtraFunky

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Time Wars Episode IV: A New Beginning?

In the late 80's I helped research an article by Joel Grishaver called Time Wars. In it he explored ways in which educators had succeeded in overcoming the shrinking amount of time available for religious school. There were some very creative solutions that in retrospect may have only been possible in the places where they functioned. Over fifteen years later the challenges have continued to mount. I would like to explore the role of time in Jewish education and issue a challenge to my colleagues.

Eight Days A Week — I Lo-o-o-ove You...
I was recently asked to consult with a colleague at a Conservative congregation and members of her school board. They were interested in how we had managed our curriculum review several years ago and wanted to explore how to go about their own. When we sat down, one of the first things the vice-president for education said was: "There are families that would like us to go from three days a week to two days. Can you help us?"

This was a very different question from the one I thought I was coming to address, and at the same time it was the same thing. The concern of the leadership was the overall quality of the education each child receives. It had been the belief of this congregation that there were a variety of essential skills and body of knowledge each graduate should possess—and that led to the schedule they currently had. Some members felt that their children could be given a proper education in two days.

As I see it, the two groups are answering different questions. The leadership was focused on the learning outcome. Those advocating a schedule change were focusing on the number of days per week. I believe both have some validity. The leadership, through a review of both the curriculum and of actual classroom practice needs to determine whether the time they have is being well used. Then they need to decide whether they need the time they have to meet their revised learning goals. They are at the beginning of the process. I suspect they will raise the bar on their goals and their faculty and will need the time they have. Because they have always had it, and because there has not been a huge groundswell opposing it, I suspect they will keep the three days.

The twice-a-week advocates do have an important point. As a school, we have an obligation to make good use of our students' time. The demands on an eleven year-old have increased massively over the past 30 years. There are many sociological reasons, none of which I will address for the simple reason that Jewish educators can't change them. They merely are. How we each deal with the many parents seeking an exception to the norm to accommodate their child's special interests (dance, musical instruments, choirs, elite sports teams, etc.) varies from educator to educator and case by case. The one thing I continue to observe as I speak to parents and colleagues is that the demands on us to reduce time decrease as the children's reports of enjoyment and good use of time increase.

So it seems to me the questions are:

  1. How much time and frequency do we need to meet our educational goals?
    (This assumes we have developed goals that are in concert with the mission of the synagogue.)
  2. How well do our parents and students understand our educational goals, and how bought into them are they?
  3. How well are we using the time we have?
  4. How do our students and parents perceive how well we use the time we have?
The Challenge—What Would Walt Do?
Walt Disney Imagineering is the master planning, creative development, design, engineering, production, project management, and research and development arm of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliates. Representing more than 150 disciplines, its talented corps of Imagineers is responsible for the creation of Disney resorts, theme parks and attractions, hotels, water parks, real estate developments, regional entertainment venues, cruise ships and new media technology projects.

In 1957 a man named Richard Sailer wrote an article entitled "BRAINSTORMING IS IMAGINation enginEERING." In that article he coined the term imagineering, which became the cornerstone of the Walt Disney Company's design concepts and eventually the name of the part of the company that creates the rides and so much more.

When asked how someone should prepare for a career as an imaginer, Doug Wolf a Project Manager with Walt Disney Imagineering said:

"Dream and pursue your imagination and goals. Do anything that stirs your
creativity—read, write, draw, observe and travel. Learn what you enjoy and excel
at, whether it be model-building, drawing, writing or construction. See if
there's a fit. Most likely there is since Imagineering encompasses almost
everything imaginable. But above all, enjoy what paths your life travels and
learn from each experience." (http://www.imagineering.org/)

A number of years ago, I wondered how we could apply the principles of Imagineering to Jewish education. I invited some colleagues to join me in developing a CAJE module where we each presented some ideas for re-imagining the religious school experience. The participants used those ideas as a jumping off point.

So let me issue a challenge to you, my colleagues. The question is time. I am not asking how many hours or days per week are optimal. I am sure we could all answer that, and whatever our answers were, they would be right for our own setting and wrong for someone else's. Instead, I want to ask you to consider the many demands upon our students' time and upon their parents.

Think about the time our teachers have available and how we compensate them. Take as granted that less is not more when it comes to time. Imagine how we can reasonably or unreasonably bring our students to spend more time at the task and joy of Jewish learning. Don't just think outside the box. Toss the box aside. I look forward to your responses.

ShareThis