The Power of Positive Deviance

Erika is a coach with the Canadian Positive Deviance Project as well a long time facilitator who helps people bring about positive change in groups which have complex systems. On a personal note I would also like to say that she is naturally disarming and cheery which just may be one of the biggest advantages that she has in the field of PD.

Origin of Positive Deviance

The husband and wife team of Jerry and Monique Sternin formalized what we consider PD is today. Jerry is described as the world’s leading expert in the application of PD and his wife Monique chairs the Positive Deviance Institute at Tufts University in Massachusetts. PD has only been in existence in an official capacity since the 1990′s.

Defining Positive Deviance

The Positive Deviance Initiative website states that, “PD is based on the observation that in every community there are certain individuals or groups whose uncommon behaviors and strategies enable them to find better solutions to problems than their peers, while having access to the same resources and facing similar or worse challenges.” But if anything, this is only a brief overview about what PD’s main belief is.

PD allows people in large groups to have a bottom up approach to solving agreed upon issues. PD believes that the people that ‘touch’ the problem have the wisdom to solve it. This type of problem solving is used to discover positive actions (mostly considered the minutia) that had previously gone unnoticed. But these actions can be quantifiably measured for progress. PD allows new relationships to form that allow the participants to ‘act their way to a new way of thinking’. In fact, Erika said that if the facilitator/coach is too aggressive with their help that the process of PD can actually fall apart. The idea is to allow the people affected to change their destinies by discovering for themselves what is wrong with their present system and by replacing some of their problematic actions with new habits.

The Approach

The PD model is fundamentally different than traditional “needs-based” problem solving. Not only is the strength of this model derived from the understanding of what the problem is and a willingness to change it, the structure of the change comes from the bottom up:

Positive Deviance Model

Whereas most traditional models have a team with a hierarchy of decision makers on top, PD allows for the flow of information to be decided on by the actual workers first and then the management or overseers are obliged to remove any barriers. At this point Erika stated that one of the most difficult parts of this process is to get the managers to say “yes”.

Throughout this process PD coaches must stay out of the way of the workers and just build or support structures to facilitate ongoing conversations. Since PD is about engaging people, it is usually slow at the beginning and patience is required. The coaches look for the following three things:

1. Positively deviant people and behaviours
2. Innovations that enable and encourage new behaviours or overcome barriers
3. The problem (which inspires people to action)

What the coaches have found is that about 5% of people in any group do things differently to create positive outcomes and it is these people that are fighting the status quo to create a benefit. The PD process strengthens over time as the workers generate mass awareness and actively change their behaviours. Erika quoted several times that “Knowledge doesn’t change behaviour” and that therefore PD encourages changes in relationships.

Typical Stages of the Process

Although every project may be vastly different there are 5 distilled stages to the PD process:

• Defining the problem and understanding what the desired outcome will be.
• Determining if there are PD’s
• Discovering where they are and what they are doing
• Developing new practices
• Disseminating the information (and then leaving quickly)

Bonus Tool/Methodology

A Tool for Positive Deviance: TRIZ

TRIZ is actually a Russian acronym meaning ‘a problem-solving, analysis and forecasting tool derived from the study of patterns of invention in the global patent literature’. (for more information follow the link above)

Simply put this tool is similar to applying a devil’s advocate like approach for problems. Most people understand very clearly how things work in their job and so usually they cannot offer a solution to a problem that exists because they can’t understand what they are doing wrong. But instead, if one tries to help define how a problem can grow (no matter how obvious or silly), a comprehensive list of actions can be made to detail the issues. When the list is complete, the facilitator then asks the group what they haven’t seen or experienced and crosses those items of the list. The one’s that remain are the issues that must be dealt with.

Our mini-case study:
We decided to think about the best ways for our group to pass on a cold virus amongst ourselves that evening. Within a minute we came up with the following ideas:

• hugs/kisses, high-5′s, coughing on others, a buffet, sharing of food, passing a bottle, pepper to aid in sneezing, addition of little children to the room, not washing hands

We then started to cross out the ones that were not done. What was left (circled) for us was our personal recipe for passing on a cold virus for that evening.

Final Thoughts

I was amazed at some of the real world case studies that Erika brought in to share. The PD process has been very successful in extremely large and complex systems in which people know the problem and they want it to change. I would encourage people to read up about some of the amazing global case studies that are shared on the Positive Deviance Initiative website. The stories are inspiring and well worth the read. Along those lines here are a couple of more links to take advantage of:

• The Official PD Workbook
• The Plexus Institute

Appreciative Inquiry Cycle

The Basics

Appreciative Inquiry aims to search for the best in people, their organizations, and applicable situations which affect each of their immediate worlds. It is a systematic discovery that allows a ‘best of scenario’ approach through the practice of asking questions that support an ecosystem’s positive outlook and the ability to increase its potential and harness positive forward momentum. AI assumes that every problem has a rich ecology of purely inspirational but untapped components. Instead of negativisms which spawn criticisms that often nullify opportunities, AI leads groups to iteratively discover, dream and design their own destinies. Appreciative Inquiry should also be applicable, provocative and collaborative.

In practice, Appreciative Inquiry is the art of crafting and asking questions that will strengthen the ability of an ecosystem to better anticipate, capture and amplify positive potential. ‘Positive change’ is the core of this practice which focuses on the following four processes:

1. Discover | The identification of organizational processes that work well.
2. Dream | The envisioning of processes that would work well in the future.
3. Design | Planning and prioritizing processes that would work well.
4. Destiny | The implementation (execution) of the proposed design.

A Case Study – OCADU

On June 09, 2010 I participated in a DwD session led by Dr. Douglas Reid, a strategy professor at Queen’s University School of Business. Our goal that night was to help OCAD with their rebranding.

In its past OCAD had difficulties in transitioning from the ‘Ontario College of Art’ to the ‘Ontario College of Art and Design’ and now they were faced with the new name of the ‘Ontario College of Art and Design University’. This problem was detailed by an OCADU Director and is best summed up by mentioning that there is great passion for the University at all levels.

So for the next couple of hours we spent the time determining the conditions, forces and factors that made OCADU a great experience. We thought about the process first and then decided that 3 characteristics would best help the challenge of creating a new identity for the school. These characteristics were:

• Receptivity to all ideas
• An iterative-based solution
• The idea of ‘fun’

In short we decided to take in everything that was said, we didn’t rush to conclusions because we knew the solution was going to be iterative and we fully embraced the process. We talked a lot about what OCADU was doing well and what it could do even better; we never dwelled on its mistakes, or invited any ‘blamestorming’. We worked hard at asking useful questions that helped to reveal more about the positive nature of the University and did so without having to justify (in a defensive position) anyone’s ideas. Very quickly we got to a common ground and even if it wasn’t always entirely on point, many of the tangents we went on were productive. What we came up with was the following:

Positive thoughts about OCADU

Our conclusion after this exercise was not about what needed to be done differently this time or what needed fixing. Instead the Appreciative Inquiry process lead us to name the positive attributes of the University and further distill which of these could best be harnessed for marketing the change from a College to a University label. The OCADU Director left with a plethora of thoughts and positive insights into the merit of the institution and now has a generous platform on which to begin the new marketing transition process.

On a personal note this is only the third or fourth time I have used this process but it certainly gave some of the best results I have ever witnessed. I believe the difference in this session was that the participating group signed on to the AI methodology and understood its potential from the start. Thanks to everyone who participated and thank you to OCADU for the real life challenge.

But very few companies see beyond these statements of the bottom line. They ask the ROI question from their perspective and often only pay lip service to their clientele. I am not suggesting the companies don’t want the best for their consumers; it’s just that the consumers are relegated to the second part of the equation. For all the common jargon used, companies want to sell you a product or service first and then help you second. And this may be a great strategy for the quick buck or impulse buy, (i.e. the Slap Chopper – can you still hear him yelling at you?) but it can be vastly improved upon by integrated services delivered via the internet.

One of the most frequently used statements I make to clients is that they must deliver a memorable user experience to their clientele. And along those lines I also state that they must increase the user’s ROI through greater relevance to receive more business. And here is the catch, companies must first increase the user’s ROI and in turn the user will increase the company’s.

Traditionally companies handed out promotional literature that contained their product or service information, the value proposition, the technical information and testimonials. This brochure was great propaganda for general usage and could be given out at any event. But times are changing and people are experiencing their first glimpse of products and services online.

However many companies are not changing their attitudes towards their clientele and are still delivering a sales approach to an online audience. For example how many online ads have you seen in the last weeks which interfere with your browsing? With so much more potential these companies are still yelling at you to get your attention in an increasingly crowded online atmosphere. And guess what? This tactic has become the digital version of static background noise.

“Buy me” instead of “Let me help you” is too often the message. But the internet allows one to ignore the shouts in ways the consumer could never do before. There is so much more potential to be had on corporate sales sites in which the products and services are pushed on the users with only basic information, i.e. description and price. Companies need to take advantage of simple tools to help their potential clientele:

1. Teach them how the product or service can help them solve an existing problem
2. Allow them easy access to any helpful internal training material
3. Explain everything in plain, every day English, not hyperbole marketing speak which only creates more confusion and sometimes distrust if the product or service doesn’t work as they imagined
4. Showcase ways in which others (professional or amateur) have solved their problems
5. Allow individuals to showcase their unique view on problem solving or allow them to ask questions of the community
6. Explain potential issues that may be confusing to the consumer (I cannot overemphasize this one; time and time again people have questions about the product or service because it is written from an advanced perspective)
7. Connect the dots to other products or services which may have to be used with the one they are about to purchase (again it may be obvious to your company but not to the individual; besides this is a wonderful opportunity to cross-sell)

As a side note, I purposely left off the content point which explains why this particular company’s product or service offering is better than an other company’s for the very simple reason that I know companies will always include this information in the basic description.

Depending on your company’s situation this list can be improvised and expanded. But what is important, is that the creation of content that pertains to your products or services should be tuned towards creating a more helpful and memorable experience for your potential clientele rather than the spec sheet and list price approach. Give your clientele something useful, create a community of knowledge around your offerings and invite them back to comment on their experience.

Your clientele should become your focus. Although it may sound old-fashioned, if you keep them happy they will keep coming back.

KAOSPilot’s Intelligent Ecology

Uffe gave us only a quick synopsis about KAOSPilot and referenced it as a school whose purpose is to ‘create positive societal change through personal growth and enterprise’. He also gave us a small diagram on where he believes KAOSPilot is situated. This he calls ‘The Intelligent Ecology’.

But for the majority of his talk Uffe Elbaek led a frank discussion for three hours on his experience of birthing an extremely large and socially sensitive project from point zero to fruition in a condensed time line of only two and a half years. During this time Uffe had to not only deal with the many third parties involved, such as the political organizations, vendors, sponsors, and citizens of the city of Copenhagen but also the very basics of putting together a team from scratch. I mention this because when he started the team it was only one person deep – himself. As the key organizer he had to start by resolving some of the key issues such as time, money and people. Was there enough time to get this event off the ground, was there enough money to support the event and who were the people that would support and participate in the Games to make them a success.

He viewed all these questions as if he was forging long-term relationships with every stakeholder that he encountered. He wanted his team to become the nucleus of a communications hub for lively two way discussions and not just a central hub where directives were given. He encouraged the organizational structure to help strengthen conversations between the stakeholders themselves. This he believed helped augment the stakeholders’ relationships within the greater Games community.

Because of his belief in openness Uffe didn’t start this undertaking with his own concept of what the Games should be but instead he developed a plan of action that he calls the ‘Dehok Project Model’.

It starts with the ‘idea’ and ends up with the ‘how’ – how to implement. You will of course notice in the diagram that the ‘concept’ does not get recognized until the ‘need, purpose and value’ get realized. As a side note he quoted a common saying in Denmark for ‘purpose’ which I will have to paraphrase: “Your purpose must be so succinct you can pee it in the snow”. (this one I will always remember)

Uffe believes that the Dehok model is useful to combat what he calls the ‘Project Paradox’, whereby most projects start with an ‘end date’ but very little accumulated knowledge with which to make proper decisions. Here the goal is to compress the gap between the decision and knowledge curve as best as possible.

The Dehok model allows the core team to realize an open outcome rather than a predestined one because it indulges varied experiences to manage change. More specifically, this model does not focus on the final concept but instead encourages the team to focus on a consensus allowing them to work together in an atmosphere containing less internal conflict. He believes, as do I (and most of us I imagine), that a cohesive team structure is best united to solve a set of problems when they all believe in their common goals. This process starts with an idea but consistently appreciates the requisite variety of ideas that develops through different personalities. Of course the end goal is a mutually beneficial outcome.

This talk was one of the better more comprehensive ones that I have ever been to. My suggestion would be to go see him if you have the opportunity. Thanks Uffe.

This particular night the workshop spent three hours on the topic of ‘Shared Leadership and Framing Big Questions’. Basically what this amounts to is asking the big questions that invite user participation. Accordingly, users then feel empowered because they have some personal skin in the game and this generates an open community for shared contribution.

Leadership Choices

I am sure everyone can remember a time in their office environment where change was coming down from the top and this change seemed somewhat disconnected from the realities of the job at hand. With a good facilitator, this doesn’t have to be the case. For those who run their own businesses I am sure you remember every situation in which your clients basically got to the point of “How much?” and “How long?” far too quickly in your conversation. When this happens there is a feeling of loss of control and/or project ambivalence or unimportance. These how questions sometimes derail a project from the get-go because the task at hand hasn’t necessarily been framed in the best way to allow for innovative thought and therefore the project is stifled or even worse purposeless on arrival. The following ‘how’ questions are common enough but when used at the beginning of the conversation, inhibit a project:

• How do you do it?
• How long will it take?
• How much will it cost?
• How do we get people to change?
• How do we measure the success?
• How has this been successful elsewhere?

If the client asks these ‘how’ questions it is important to try and modify the conversation parameters. The main goal is ask open ended questions that make noticeable differences that invite participation to produce the best framework for a project. The following questions have been suggested by Peter Block:

• What is my crossroads in life/work?
• What is my contribution to this problem?
• What is my commitment to the solution?
• What refusal have I been postponing?
• What is the price I am willing to pay?
• What do we want to create together?

These are obviously somewhat obtuse to the previous set of ‘how’ questions but they do in fact invite participation and lead to better dialogue about the framework of a project. Each question is intentionally open and personal and each question leads to reflection with no immediate solution. Instead these questions initiate useful discussions about a project that open barriers and lead to group participation that increases mind share. As a result the company will get a more cohesive vision that ultimately serves them better and is much more than the result of an order being followed.

Of course there are other questions that can be asked which will tend to open the dialogue. Pictured at left is our groups contribution.

I found this exercise to be encouraging. As designed, people were opening up, the participants networked well and the ideas were taken seriously. I can honestly say that if this type of approach had been taken in previous projects that I or others had lead, the time would have been well spent and the project results would have been better.

What impressed me the most about Jane

First I must point out that Jane Suri has a varied and full portfolio of work. There is no question that her enthusiasm and thought process are integral to everything that she does. She has had the good fortune of working on many different projects and after much time, has amassed a great amount of wisdom from working on some very different problems. I truly believe that people earn their opportunities and Jane’s are impressive.

My take on IDEO

IDEO have a very similar design method to most any design lab. I really don’t think that there was anything overtly special about it, just that their confidence and track record can speak for itself and that they have built upon each of their successes with one interesting project after another.

What IDEO knows is what we already know

There is a standard approach to human-centred design which acts as a ‘glue’ for interdisciplinary designers. The basic idea is that ‘people’ have a ‘desire’ for something they want, a ‘business’ will have a ‘viable’ plan to produce said something and then to be workable the ‘technical’ aspects of the project must be ‘feasible’. This process requires that the designers act as research organization and design shop. For all involved the project must have a sense of pleasure and enjoyment and the designers must empathize with their intended audience. (see Good foundations for eCRM, last paragraph)

Suri observes that there are two sides to the equation: rational v.s. intuitive, observation v.s. empathy, data v.s. insight, intellectual v.s. visceral, reality v.s. imagination, etc. But even amid this incomplete list, it is paramount that a designer lives the life of the intended client; watch people use the product, lend space to the customer experience and allow them to get a sense of control. When properly understood this simple idea allows the designer to align themselves with the customer’s goals and produce a better result.

Coming around

Unfortunately I do not believe Jane Suri’s presentation was as good as it should have been and when I arrived back home to review my notes I realized that the lecture seemed insubstantial and that my initial opinion was not going to be a favourable one. I also recognized that I did not appreciate Jane as a speaker, maybe because my expectations were set too high because I have heard so much about IDEO and her personally; after all, she is somewhat of an icon in the United States. In addition, I may have wanted to hear something new from her presentation and I was let down because there wasn’t anything. I think that her presentation really needs to be reworked and at a minimum it should include empirical data that supports the claims made by her and IDEO.

However, now that I have had some time to mull over her talk, I have a different appreciation for her and IDEO. Their work is wonderful and their employees must be good to produce it but it is their passion and their creative insights which are special. And maybe that is the point. People know how to produce great work but sometimes they just don’t spend (or cannot spend) the necessary time and resources on a project. Teamwork is also crucial and although she didn’t say it, she intimated it frequently.

In conclusion

There are many different design labs like IDEO and many superb designers (I will used this term loosely in this article) and I think it is too bad we can’t swap our experiences/companies in which we work on a seasonal basis, I think we would all benefit greatly. Certainly anyone would gain a lot from working with Jane Suri.

Remember that it is best to use the following symbols both within the text that you are editing and in the column of white space at the right hand side of the page. For the purposes of this article I will present the actual symbol, what it means and how to use it. Please note that this is not a comprehensive list but it does showcase the most commonly used.

Although there are several symbols, they are easy to remember and save everyone the hassle of guessing. This helps reduce miscommunication. Share this list with your coworkers and use it in your everyday communication.

Editorial Markup

Stages of a project

It may have taken me awhile but it should come as no surprise that large projects are not easy to entertain unless your company follows a carefully planned and detailed procedure that allows for every stage that a project will have to go through until completion. There are, of course, many different ways to accomplish the tasks within each stage of a project but an outline from concept to launch should be respected.

Clients also like structure as long as they feel that it enhances communication and doesn’t create an even larger independent project.

What follows is a (very) brief synopsis of some basic stages of a project. Within each of these stages there would naturally be a further breakdown of items such as roles, activities, entry/exit criteria, etc. It should also be noted that each stage of a project is a wonderful opportunity to collect knowledge and data within your own organization and if properly captured and organized it can be a used as a knowledge management tool – more about that in another article.

I have outlined a nine stage procedure that can be either expanded or contracted depending on the project but I believe it is a good guide to start with until you feel comfortable developing your own.

Stage 1: Initial/Continuing Contact
The identification and qualification of a new or continuing business opportunity. Evaluate the goals and objectives of the client, as well as your own objectives and abilities for the project. Note: the goal of this stage is to accept or deny a new business opportunity based on an evaluation.

Stage 2: Proposal
The goal of this Stage is to understand the client and the project enough to create and deliver a proposal for a business opportunity.

Stage 3: Evaluation
Research, analysis and synthesis of all data collected must be performed before you begin.

Stage 4: Project Specifications
Refine the estimate for the development of the project, complete any creative and editorial goals and finalize the technology needs. (these examples differ with each project)

Stage 5: Construction and Implementation
Actual creation of the site, including initial unit testing.

Stage 6: Systems and Integration Test
System and integration testing and development of training materials for client.

Stage 7: Deployment
Delivery and initial operation of the site. Training may also be a factor.

Stage 8: Post-Deployment
Final documentation, project closeout and transition to operations and maintenance.

Stage 9: Project Assessment
External and internal assessments of the project are completed. This step is extremely important and you should be as honest as possible because if you had any faults or errors along the way they should be corrected before your next engagement.

Besides from multiple signoff points, that is it. Believe me it becomes easier with time and more intuitive. And there is an added bonus. You can track your accomplishments easier and figure out what works for you best. Remember you will be forever honing your skills because you will always encounter new surprises.

The organization of content

Content is one of the most important resources a company has. When shared online, this content helps define a company’s message. Web sites are fundamentally about sharing information; their goal is to deliver the right message to the right person in the right way. This is of premiere importance. Without careful organization or attention to usability, content becomes irrelevant and without a solid media plan, companies lose their ability to be discovered by a potential client. It would be nice to believe that every company has a carefully thought out plan but a quick tour of internet will reveal otherwise.

Before you begin

The following are important issues that should be defined before venturing online:

1. The company’s business: e.g. current business model, core competencies, strengths, weaknesses, points of differentiation, unmet needs, etc.
2. Reason for going online: e.g. how will it better your business, improve your customer’s experience, integrate with your overall strategy, etc.
3. Your competition: e.g. who are the existing and potential competitors, does a competitor currently provide the internet experience you seek, what are they doing to provide increased awareness and loyalty, etc.
4. Business goals: e.g. short, mid and long term, barriers to reaching these goals, growth and exit strategies, etc.
5. Marketing goals: e.g. what market do you need to fulfill, existing and potential partners, previous brand awareness efforts such as advertising, direct marketing, banner advertising, internal and external marketing plan for the site, etc.
6. Your audience: e.g. who is your core audience broken into demographics, psychographics (opinions and attitudes, etc.), geographics and behaviors, key messages to be delivered to each segment, what information would you like from them, etc.
7. Site content: e.g. does it already exist, what is the tone, what are the colours, sounds and typography of the brand, is there collateral material, an internal style guide, etc.
8. People resources: e.g. who will be responsible for the production and maintenance of the site, will there be a need for outsourcing, etc.
9. Engineering and technology: e.g. is this requirement internal or external, what are the foreseeable security issues, are there statistics that need to be collected, hardware and software purchases, amount of bandwidth, etc.

Of course this is a basic list and there are a number of questions under each point. Nevertheless, this is a good start for most companies to consider and at the very least, should help a company deliver a consistent message to its employees and vendors, from planning stage to launch.

Technically, the purpose of these procedures is to ensure that any change that is requested and or implemented is fully assessed in terms of its impact, both time and money and to ensure that when implemented it has received the appropriate sign off from the client. But realistically good change management has to do more with proper communication so that neither you, your company nor your client are at odds sometime during a project’s lifetime.

Each company will have its own comprehensive internal procedure for handling change management and therefore I will not endeavor to replicate one here. It suffices to say that different projects require different teams with different expertise. But for those of you new to this idea I do have one piece of advice: you need to create a change management document. Fortunately it is a fairly standardized signoff sheet and in my following example can be produced on a single page containing three major areas.

1. The first being the request originators portion that should contain the name of the project, the date of the change request, the priority of the request, the area of the project affected and the group that is requesting the change. You will also need a description of the issue and the desired or best method to fix it. And may even want to include categories of change for easy reference such as, ‘technical’, ‘strategic’, ‘structural’, ‘graphic’, ‘functional’, or ‘database’, there are others as well.
2. The second portion of this document would contain the Project Managers information such as the risk analysis of the change, the cost, resource and delivery implications of the change and if the client is billable or not.
3. The last area of this document is used for signoffs of all party heads involved with the change, perhaps it may even contain a recommendation area as to whether the change should be made or not and the reason behind such a decision. And of course your client must sign and date the form as well, after all your client is the reason you designed this business procedure in the first place.

Change management takes time to implement but it saves frustration due to miscommunication.