Slhi aug 27 08 imple part 2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Slhi aug 27 08 imple part 2

on

  • 195 views

this is the second part of my presentation on implementatioT

this is the second part of my presentation on implementatioT

Statistics

Views

Total Views
195
Views on SlideShare
195
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Slhi aug 27 08 imple part 2 Slhi aug 27 08 imple part 2 Presentation Transcript

  •  
  • More about implementation…
    • August 27, 2008
    • Cassandra O’Neill
    • Wholonomy Consulting llc
    • www.wholonomyconsulting.com
  • Strengths based
    • assessment,
    • design, and
    • implementation
  • Strength based assessment, design and implementation
    • Discuss in Pairs
    • 1. What is it?
    • 2. How is it important?
    • 3. How might it be different from traditional approaches?
  • Mechanical and Living Systems
    • In pairs discuss,
    • What do we know about each?
    • How are they different?
    • How does this affect our work in the social sector?
    • Review – a few slides…
  • The majority of implementation attempts are NOT successful
  • Implementation Attempts
    • In business, change initiatives that are heavily dependent on people (reengineering, TQM, culture change) fail 80-90% of the time
    • R. W. Rogers, 2002
  • Implementation Attempts – slide 2 About 10% of what is taught in training gets transferred to the job R. W. Rogers, 2002
  • Implementation Attempts – part 3 "Up to 70% of the failures in business are not due to poor strategy or a lack of good ideas, but to flawed execution." R. W. Rogers, 2002
  • What Does Not Work
    • Things that alone – are not enough for successful implementation:
    • Dissemination of information by itself does not lead to successful implementation (research literature, mailings, promulgation of practice guidelines )
  • What Does Not Work
    • Things that alone – are not enough for successful implementation:
    • Training alone, no matter how well done, does not lead to successful implementation
    • My aha, about the difference between implementing new program and implementing changes in existing programs, organizations, systems,
    • What paradigm are these traditional approaches in?
    • What paradigms do the solutions lie in?
  • Exercise 1
    • Situation – the majority of children in a village in Southeast Asia are malnourished
    • In pairs, what would a traditional response to this be?
    • Share with whole group
  • Exercise 1 part 2
    • In pairs, what would an alternative response be? What would a strengths based response be?
    • Report out to whole group
    • What was actually done
  • What Paradigm?
    • In pairs,
    • What paradigm are we thinking in with each response?
  • Awareness test
    • Play video now
  • What we find
    • Is often a result of what we look for
  •  
  • If time..
    • A few more situations..
    • Situation A. Student Achievement
    • Situation B. Teenage Pregnancy
    • Situation C. Child in preschool
    • What paradigm is the dominant paradigm?
    • What paradigm are we operating from?
  • 21 st Century Solutions lie within the intersection of and interaction between Sufficiency Paradigm Dynamical Human Systems Non linear Brain/Neuroscience findings Strengths and Resiliency Building
  • 21 st Century Solutions DO NOT Lie within the intersection of Scarcity Paradigm Linear and Mechanistic Systems Deficit Approach
  • Back to..
    • Strengths based assessment, design and implementation
    • How it might be different for us as consultants…
    • Typically who does assessment, design and implementation?
  • Traditional Funding
    • Funders – assess problems, design solutions and put out RFPs with the design of the solution
    • Grantees implement, often no way to influence design
  • Traditional Consulting
    • Clients – assess problems, identify solutions – put out RFP’s with the designed solution
    • Consultants implement, often no way to influence definition, assessment or design – which limits impact
    • And also results in having to implement a solution that is really a method – and frequently not the best method for achieving the actual desired outcome
  • Traditional Consulting
    • Is often in the deficit paradigm… examples include needs assessments, grant writing, strategic planning that asks for SWOT analysis… etc.
    • My recent aha about traditional approaches – the weasel card .. When you are in danger of being attached by an enemy.. Analyzing threats and weaknesses of both the “enemy” and your own group is important to survival
  • However..
    • When you are not in a war, if you apply that thinking to your organization.. You are treating your co-workers, clients, and staff..
    • The way you would treat an enemy
  • Strength based Consulting
    • What might strengths based consulting look like?.... Grounded in principles of strengths based collaboration…
  • Principles of strengths based collaboration
    • The solutions lie within the system, the best and most sustainable solutions come from the exploration and discovery of what is working with in a system.
    • When all levels in the system are participating and each person is bringing their strengths to the discussion of what the situation is and what people want to see happen (outcomes not methods) then strategies are co-created.
  • Traditional vs. Strengths Based Collaboration Traditional Strength Based Based on “perceived” need rather than strengths or assets Ignore sustainability until it is too late – after implementation Low-impact partnerships Based in Scarcity Paradigm Based in mechanistic paradigm, hierarchical, command and control Driven by one organization, trying to impose ideas or message on others Focused on finding more money to deliver services
  • Traditional vs. Strengths Based Collaboration Traditional Strength Based Based on “perceived” need rather than strengths or assets Based on inquiry of strengths and assets that are available Ignore sustainability until it is too late – after implementation Design activities, programs, changes to be sustainable Low-impact partnerships High-impact partnerships Based in Scarcity Paradigm Based in Sufficiency Paradigm Based in mechanistic paradigm, hierarchical, command and control Based in alternative paradigm i.e. dynamical systems, human systems, self organization Driven by one organization, trying to impose ideas or message on others Attracted to a shared vision, to create outcomes only possible collectively Focused on finding more money to deliver services Focused on increasing impact
  • Reflection What are we noticing ?
  • Strength based Consulting
    • What might strengths based consulting look like?.... Asset Mapping, Impact Assessments, Can do assessments – what can we do…
    • Strengths based strategic planning..
  • What is next?
    • October 16 meeting in Tucson – Azenet Tucson Cluster
    • November 18 – in Phoenix Strengths based evaluation and consulting
    • Group to modify and adapt Kentucky Tool?
    • Review more implementation resources, the CBAM model…
    • Remember this?
  • Community Readiness Model developed by Edwards, Jumper-Thurman, Plested, Oetting & Swanson (2000) No Awareness Denial Vague Awareness Initiation Stabilization Preparation Preplanning
  • A Resource
    • See handout – last page is titled Mapping System Change & Innovation
    • Is this an alternative which uses neutral or strengths based rather than deficit language?
    • What paradigm are we in ?
  •  
  •  
  • Quote…
    • Our traditional mind-set has focused on social, political, and ecological problems as lying outside of ourselves. As a result, we try to overcome problems by conquest or negotiation, which has the effect of reinforcing our perceptions of inherent separation..
  • Quote continued
    • From deep within that mind-set springs the violence that today dominates much of our consciousness. Look at the language we use to describe society’s problems. We declare war on poverty and addiction. Doctors use “aggressive” methods on the critical patient, drugs are described as magic “bullets,” and we are given “shots” to “fight” disease. Briggs and Peat Seven Life Lessons of Chaos: Spiritual Wisdom From the Science of Change