Liz Strauss

Synthesis and Evaluation in practice should lead to deep, sound strategy. That is, of course, if the folks involved understand the nature and process of strategic thinking as a process skill. I bring forward again the powerful words of Paul Lutus.

In the largest sense, American society is breaking into two classes:

The first class are people who know how to think. These people realize that most problems are open to examination and creative solution. If a problem appears in the lives of these people, their intellectual training will quickly lead them to a solution or an alternative statement of the problem. These people are the source of the most important product in today’s economy – ideas.

The second class, the vast majority of Americans, are people who cannot think for themselves. I call these people “idea consumers” – metaphorically speaking, they wander around in a gigantic open-air mall of facts and ideas. The content of their experience is provided by television, the Internet and other shallow data pools. These people believe collecting images and facts makes them educated and competent, and all their experiences reinforce this belief. The central, organizing principle of this class is that ideas come from somewhere else, from magical persons, geniuses, “them.”

. . . My purpose in this article is to undermine that belief.

–Paul Lutus, Creative Problem Solving

Being at synthesis means having internalized ideas, having made them one’s own, being able to take them apart and put them together with ease and fluency and to evaluate the result. This ability is key to strategic thinking, without this ability what is happening isn’t stategy it is long-term planning based on information.

Strategy requires ideation, intellection, input, and vision. It can occur only at the highest level of Bloom’s taxonomy. It is not SWOT.

Strategy begins by fully evaluating where things are in the present. Moves forward by identifying goals for the future and seeking out ideas from which those goals might be realized. The ideas are seeds to a gardener. Seeds that might grow. Any gardener knows that the same seeds in the same yard five feet from each other can face different challenges, require different support strategies. That is why strategy has to be done by the highest level thinker with the deepest knowledge base.

Strategy is best performed by one or two people who are deep process thinkers who know the intricacies of the business they are working in. Then key stakeholders should be invited to question and critique the strategy. If too many people are part of the development, they already know the thought behind it and cannot serve as a thoughtful sounding board to find holes in the plan.

The reason most strategy fails is because

• too many people were involved in developing the strategy.
• the person or persons developing the strategy didn’t have the knowledge base, process skills, or vision to manage the task.
• the enterprise thwarted the strategy by continuously changing goals, making it impossible to set a strategy that would last.

A well-thought strategy is much like a garden, it is revisited with every new rainfall, sunrise, and heatwave. It changes and adapts with new information. Some seeds grow. Others do not.

In a knowledge enterprise, the strategy is under constant evaluation. The key shareholders can use the depth of their competencies to turn on a dime.

Moving with the life of the enterprise becomes worth going to work for. The new ideas take us back to the team blog to resketch new ideas. Bloom’s taxonomy begins again. The loop is closed and re-opened.

Liz Strauss

Want an hour of Liz’s personal consulting time? See the About Liz page.

Synthesis and evaluation are already going on in most organizations. They must. Otherwise, no products would be made, tested, analyzed, recommended for change, or recalled. The problem around synthesis and evaluation as it is currently done is that it tends to be reserved to a chosen few, a body of shareholders too small to stay unbiased.

In the new knowledge enterprises I’ve been describing since Strategic Thinking 1, this core group is larger, more heterogenous, and enjoys a deeper, common knowledge and base of understanding. So, when this group reaches synthesis and evaluation, their ability to strategize will have more,if not all, of the skills I describe in 10 Critical Skills for the Future.

What this means is that the group will be able to

• create a new product from an old one, adjusting to remove flaws.
• fluently describe and share a plan with specialists and non-specialists in their field.
• devise ways to use what they have to benefit others in unique and trying situations.
• evaluation of the plan or product success and that of competitng products or plans in great detail.
• synthesize their understanding of all of the above and report back in simple terms the main options for serving the production or plan in the context of serving the customer and the enterprise.

In other words, the initial team that was part of the development blog becomes a defacto in-house board of directors. They have by nature of their ability to think through issues regarding the plan or the product.

The knowledge enterprise loses the fear of territoriality and hidden agendas that come from the isolation of departments and the silo-ing of knowledge. Now all knowledge is in the same universe and all shareholders are working from the same experience.

How could this not bring a more productive, positive, and innovative outcome–for both the enterprise and the customers who rely on it?

Liz Strauss

It’s hard to separate Application, the putting to use of knowledge and understanding acquired, from Analysis, the slightly higher level skill in which we manipulate the knowlegde we’ve gained by evaluating it, classifying and declassifying it, comparing and contrasting it, dissecting and reassembling it–constructing, changing, and repreparing it. Application and Analysis in a knowledge enterprise occur arm in arm.

In the imagined scenario, that I’ve been sketching out across the articles: Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Teach Deep Thinking, Strategic 1, Strategic 2, and Strategic 3, the team has applied their shared base of knowledge and comprehension–of a product that has been developed, and discussed via team blogging–to the task of presenting what’s been made to the larger group of the enterprise, in a way that has provided deeper understanding for all members of both groups.

In order for the presentation to be made, the development group not only had to apply their shared knowledge and comprehension, but also had to analyze, consider, manage, construct, prepare, implement, rehearse, react, critique, teach, and role-play to varying degrees–all of which are analysis skills.

During the presentation, which is application, the development group will undoubtedly offer a question and answer session. That will provide the larger group an opportunity to gain deeper comprehension. It will give the development group a chance to analyze further how well they did and whether the larger group responds as the development group might have predicted they would.

With the development group, the difference here is not in what they are doing–making a presentation to launch a product or a plan. That occurs in every enterprise. The difference is that knowledge becomes the focus, and the larger group is allowed the chance to learn from people who actually can answer their questions with confidence and depth.

The questions will become higher level and call for longer and more detailed answers. Beyond that difference, no new task is asked of them–no noticeable difference shows from the traditional product introduction methods. It’s the same old way–only a slightly different flavor.

It’s a different flavor because the world view has changed.

The focus is on gaining a deeper, more thoughtful data set from those traditional events. The change is one of attitude. No longer do key shareholders care only that the larger group “get” the “three main selling points,” but rather the key shareholders have a vested interest in seeing that the enterprise fully understands how and why the product works as it does.

In small ways, the shareholders will be modeling how to share the the product wth customers.

The larger group–the audience–is allowed to become engaged and interactive in a new way as participants. With this new kind of presentation, they can quickly see how the product meets their needs and those of their customers, whether their customers be corporate CEOs, state legislators, school principals, office supply buyers, or people who buy books for folks in correctional institutions.

The new presentation form brings many benefits to the enterprise.

• The fact that the people in the larger group are now treated as if they might be able to understand and offered the full information by confident, well-informed presenters raises the level of participation and engagement. It also raises their ability to retain what they hear, because they know that it applies to them.
• The higher-level knowledge the larger group receives prompts higher-level questions from them. Discussions become more meaningful and learning across the organization moves more quickly and goes deeper than ever before, as questions prompt high-level answers and so on.
• The learning organization now begins as the dialogue goes two ways and continues long after the presentation ends.The core values of the product or plan have been established and discussed in such a way that there is plenty to dialogue about.
• All participants enjoy the job satisfaction of working for an organization that is using their skills and abilities to the best effect and in which they take on data and make meaning according to Bloom’s Taxonomy–a foundation for learning that is built on concrete, not on sand.
• The work becomes the most fulfilling thing to do.

How could the individuals, the organization, and the customers not benefit from a structure that is based in learning like that?

–Liz Strauss