"Ways to Improve the de Bono Society" CAF, FIP, Concept Extraction & Pentines
Aloha Society Members,
In one of the personal blogs, a new member who joined (who is also properly trained in thinking skills) proposes we should do some thinking! He later reveals surprising personal details about who he actually is and what he's doing here. See Manuel Oddy's blog for the comprehensive scoop... But here are the essential thinking skill parts, so when anyone adds to this thread with their ability to use the thinking tools, their efforts will be bumped up to the top of the heap here in the forum... because the blog posts will cycle out of view, (no matter how alive they remain in continuing contributions.)
So the stuff in Bold is a reprint from Manuel Oddy's blog post, with additional attributions of some of his respective responses. It seems that Manuel has gone back to his life as a cockroach and left the society. Some of the contributions that were here as comments are gone. At least some of his splendid writing and contributions live on in the front part of this post! - Franis Engel
Step #1 = Comprehensive Thinking Tools Used Together
The first part is this thinking skills exercise is to do a CAF (make a comprehensive list that Considers All Factors) of the characteristics of a Club of Mediocrity. Do a list of 10 points on what you think a Club of
Mediocrity (CoM) would contain as its characteristics. If you get 10 original points you have done well.
Here's an example that Kim Jones contributed, (using the Six Hats Thinking to help generate the list)
Note: the "official" notation for the Hats are:
All who did a CAF are now invited to do a FIP
Pick out the three most important factors in your Consider All Factors exercise, and put them in order of importance. The CAF should have been factors that come to mind
as they come to mind, in any order.
The CAF broadens perceptions. The FIP narrows down & assigns importance. Normal thinking jumps to conclusions first, usually emotional conclusions, then backs up that conclusion with logic to
justify how right it is. After you have done your
FIP, you can tell us your Red Hat on the exercise. Don't be tempted to analyze your red hat or give any reasons for your red hat. Do please write something interesting for others if you had any insights about the value of doing these exercises. Here are examples of the FIPs in a snyposis (collected by Raymund Kwok) that have been done already. (You'll need them to do the next steps of this thinking skill...)
by Donald Krsticevic
1. Everyone believes they are THE subject matter experts and can defend that belief well.
2. Members blindly follow tradition and what the others are doing, without question.
3. Members rely on credentials to impress and sustain membership and think thats enough
by Sinclair McLay
1. Repetitive
2. Obscure
3. Needless
by Manuel Oddy
1. Thinking is not valued, only word play
2. Any ideas outside the box are immediately put in a box labelled suspicious or sinister
3. Honesty is replaced by conformity
by Franis
1. Mediocre people make others into being at fault and assign blame,
instead of being pro-active to see what they can contribute to solving
the issue.
2. With any uncertainty about motives of ideas, someone in this
mediocre group will bring up terrorism or other paranoid consequences.
3. Name-calling, rumor-mongering and other misrepresentation dramas are used to keep members in line.
by Kim Jones
1. Mediocrity, when interestingly presented is quite entertaining.
2. Mediocrity, being difficult to recognise given it's widespread existence, often passes for brilliance of one kind or another.
3.Operations thinking is too hard for mediocre types.
Step #3 = Concept Extraction: The next step is to choose from the final 3 FIPs (of our colleagues above, or the FIPs from other people who have added to this thread) just one factor which can serve as a concept from which to extract ideas. This is a basic operation of lateral thinking. So
each of you choose please one factor from your colleagues final three FIPs (ignoring your own FIPs for the sake of this exercise.) Having chosen your final FIP, create three new concepts from the
concept.
I extract one or two or even 3 concepts from this one concept. For the sake of the
exercise try to get three new concepts. The way to do this is to ask:
What is the (movement or action) principle behind this concept? Keep in mind the above purpose when extracting your
concepts.
Chosen: Mediocrity, when interestingly presented is quite entertaining.
My three concepts from the above concept (final FIP)
1. Mediocrity can be used as a stepping-stone to further improve ideas
2. How to create entertainment using mediocrity
3. Use mediocrity as a provocation for interesting presentations
Now I have 3 new concepts from the chosen concept I selected from Kim's three final FIPs. The next step is to create ideas from the above new
concepts. Feel free to generate at least two or three practical ideas from each of your three generated concepts. To get these ideas from concepts we ask: What is a way to make this
concept work?
So here are three ideas from the above three concepts:
1. Post mediocre ideas in order to use them as stepping-stones to quality ideas
2. Post unusual photos and ask members to generate ideas for the society using the photo as a random input form of stimulation
3. Remove the concept of mediocrity altogether and replace it with the idea of a place on the society for new, interesting, and better ideas
for members to do.
Here is an example of Franis doing this:
Chosen from Donald's FIP:
Members rely on credentials to impress and sustain membership.
The principle selected is status - the goal is to be recognized and
ultimately, to be heard, believed or taken seriously or as intended.
1. Concept of Exaggerating (Way to make it work: action of parading credentials)
With ideas added: Existing credentials paraded more prominently excite
pride and status to the mediocre, attracting more members. Since it's
these people who need thinking skills, they should be attracted in this
way. Current trainers would be featured by interviews, advertising
their websites, posting their schedules, etc.
2. Concept of Reversing, (Way to make it work: action of obliterating credentials)
Ideas added: As the cockroach has done, identity and status could be
deliberately disregarded, leaving the merit of pure ideas to stand
alone with its own value. Provide a specific section that is completely
anonymous for everyone to have an anonymous "evil twin" that can be
regularly changed, so nobody knows who is who purposefully. Those who
provide thinking training are allowed to have anonymous status on the
rest of the forum, because they provide value!
3. Concept of adding value, (Way to make it work: action of bestowing or providing credentials)
Ideas Added: Some sort of credential or badge is invented to be awarded
through membership and participation. This motivates people to
participate because they get something out of it that they can later
hold up as a credential elsewhere.
Step #4 = the Pentine: Look back over all the FIPs, and over all the CAFs again and choose
one. Then make that into a heading. Underneath that heading write 7
factors that come to mind. Then write a story in whatever direction you
like based on these seven factors. In the story you don't need to
mention the factors per se, but only what ideas the factors suggest.
You don't need to use all the factors. Write a story of about five or
six sentences or not more than half an A4 sheet that encapsulates the
seven factors.
An example from Donald Krsticevic: The CAF chosen: There is no conscious effort to change
1. Deep down, people hate change.
2. Too change is a difficult and time consuming
3. Everyone knows change is necessary but for "other people" only
4. Its hard to prove, up front, the new state is better
5. Change requires co-operation and sign off from the group.
6. Not everyone benefits from change, some are actually worse off
7. Its much easier and fun to go with the flow and maintain the status quo
The coakroach and the ape were sitting at the table. "I think we need to
change", said the coakroach to the ape. "Why?" replied the ape. "Because we
are misunderstood and feared and we should become more user friendly."
"No, " said the ape after some thinking. "We have survived and multipled over
thousands of years, and therefore must be right, that its the others who must
CHANGE."
Step #5 = use the Thinking Hats: Do the Pentine first, then your Red hats (Feelings) on your own Pentines, then your Blue Hats (Judgment on Process) on the entire thread in one sentence.
Here's another example with a Pentine from Sinclair McLay, (he made his story into a poem!) including his corresponding Red Hat on his Pentine and his one-sentence Blue hat on the entire thread:
'Clubs for those who take themselves too seriously'
1. How do you measure "take too" seriously ?
2. Would anyone admit to taking themselves too seriously ?
3. Birds of a feather - those clubs have already self-organized
4. How should these clubs be regarded ?
5. Do the driven take themselves too seriously?
6. The levity quotient - even though good ideas can come from levity not all do.
7. Occasional interaction between clubs that take themselves too seriously and those who do not could be very productive
'Why the long face ?'
Said the butterfly to the bear.
'Bees are dying
No time for fun, time of despair
Need a doctor
Now flutter off, life's not fair'
'Have some nectar'
Said the butterfly to the bear
RH Surely any idea - from whatever source - 'mediocre' or not - can be
used as a stepping stone. Or has value in itself looked at from a
different direction.
hH The tools have helped greatly - presumably the next step is what will come of their use?
Step #6 = Suggestions from these exercises: Contributors who have gone through these steps now list items for using the tools as CAFs or Creative Hit Lists, or areas of general focus. Think of six to 10 factors from this thread (or new factors that arise) as objects for future consideration, furture work, creative projects or sources for future thinking skills exercises.
Future Topics for Thinking from Franis:
Admin needs to extract the related blogs, threads, etc. that got accidentally posted in various unrelated areas together. Social responsibility. Providing a suggestion box for future topics. An area called "Think tank" where
topics may be meaningful to members. A contribution requirement of
participation in a certain number of thinking skill threads? A way to
"earn" the concern of others for your own personal advantage becoming
one of the topics addressed as a thinking example?
(optional) Step #7 = Pre-Flight: Before going through this process yourself, use the Six Thinking Hats to contribute your ideas on effectiveness.
Raymund Kwok, hB: Just thinking for the sake of thinking, creativity is important, but is EBNE (Excellent, But Not Enough.) You can find creativity is just only one of the six hats. Results and values are the goals of the
thinking processes. I found it is a waste if the discussion does not go further to produce some results. I want to try converting ideas into workable actions.
That's the challenge - Let's See Some Thinking NOW from those who want to play!!! - Franis Engel
In one of the personal blogs, a new member who joined (who is also properly trained in thinking skills) proposes we should do some thinking! He later reveals surprising personal details about who he actually is and what he's doing here. See Manuel Oddy's blog for the comprehensive scoop... But here are the essential thinking skill parts, so when anyone adds to this thread with their ability to use the thinking tools, their efforts will be bumped up to the top of the heap here in the forum... because the blog posts will cycle out of view, (no matter how alive they remain in continuing contributions.)
So the stuff in Bold is a reprint from Manuel Oddy's blog post, with additional attributions of some of his respective responses. It seems that Manuel has gone back to his life as a cockroach and left the society. Some of the contributions that were here as comments are gone. At least some of his splendid writing and contributions live on in the front part of this post! - Franis Engel
Step #1 = Comprehensive Thinking Tools Used Together
The first part is this thinking skills exercise is to do a CAF (make a comprehensive list that Considers All Factors) of the characteristics of a Club of Mediocrity. Do a list of 10 points on what you think a Club of
Mediocrity (CoM) would contain as its characteristics. If you get 10 original points you have done well.
Here's an example that Kim Jones contributed, (using the Six Hats Thinking to help generate the list)
- hW Mediocre types will always find each other.
- hB Mutual Admiration societies are universally uncreative.
- hR Preaching to the choir is there elevated to an artform.
- hY Mediocrity, when interestingly presented is quite entertaining.
- hG Mediocrity, being difficult to recognise given it's widespread existence, often passes for brilliance of one kind or another.
- hW Mediocre thinkers love to describe the thinking processes they understand
- hW Mediocre thinkers rarely report on how their thinking skills have affected their own lives but more likely the lives of others.
- hY Clubs of any kind offer protection. Mediocrity, being so widespread, can enjoy lavish intellectual protection there, given the style of thinking of the mediocre is never under any threat.
- hH It may be that mediocrity is oblivious to mediocrity. There is a need to show mediocrity to itself in a way that will change its self-perception.
- hR Operations thinking is too hard for mediocre types. They will always fall back into description.
Note: the "official" notation for the Hats are:
- hW = white hat
- hR = red hat
- hG = green hat
- hY = yellow hat
- hB = black hat
- hH = blue hat
All who did a CAF are now invited to do a FIP
Pick out the three most important factors in your Consider All Factors exercise, and put them in order of importance. The CAF should have been factors that come to mind
as they come to mind, in any order.
The CAF broadens perceptions. The FIP narrows down & assigns importance. Normal thinking jumps to conclusions first, usually emotional conclusions, then backs up that conclusion with logic to
justify how right it is. After you have done your
FIP, you can tell us your Red Hat on the exercise. Don't be tempted to analyze your red hat or give any reasons for your red hat. Do please write something interesting for others if you had any insights about the value of doing these exercises. Here are examples of the FIPs in a snyposis (collected by Raymund Kwok) that have been done already. (You'll need them to do the next steps of this thinking skill...)
by Donald Krsticevic
1. Everyone believes they are THE subject matter experts and can defend that belief well.
2. Members blindly follow tradition and what the others are doing, without question.
3. Members rely on credentials to impress and sustain membership and think thats enough
by Sinclair McLay
1. Repetitive
2. Obscure
3. Needless
by Manuel Oddy
1. Thinking is not valued, only word play
2. Any ideas outside the box are immediately put in a box labelled suspicious or sinister
3. Honesty is replaced by conformity
by Franis
1. Mediocre people make others into being at fault and assign blame,
instead of being pro-active to see what they can contribute to solving
the issue.
2. With any uncertainty about motives of ideas, someone in this
mediocre group will bring up terrorism or other paranoid consequences.
3. Name-calling, rumor-mongering and other misrepresentation dramas are used to keep members in line.
by Kim Jones
1. Mediocrity, when interestingly presented is quite entertaining.
2. Mediocrity, being difficult to recognise given it's widespread existence, often passes for brilliance of one kind or another.
3.Operations thinking is too hard for mediocre types.
Step #3 = Concept Extraction: The next step is to choose from the final 3 FIPs (of our colleagues above, or the FIPs from other people who have added to this thread) just one factor which can serve as a concept from which to extract ideas. This is a basic operation of lateral thinking. So
each of you choose please one factor from your colleagues final three FIPs (ignoring your own FIPs for the sake of this exercise.) Having chosen your final FIP, create three new concepts from the
concept.
I extract one or two or even 3 concepts from this one concept. For the sake of the
exercise try to get three new concepts. The way to do this is to ask:
What is the (movement or action) principle behind this concept? Keep in mind the above purpose when extracting your
concepts.
Chosen: Mediocrity, when interestingly presented is quite entertaining.
My three concepts from the above concept (final FIP)
1. Mediocrity can be used as a stepping-stone to further improve ideas
2. How to create entertainment using mediocrity
3. Use mediocrity as a provocation for interesting presentations
Now I have 3 new concepts from the chosen concept I selected from Kim's three final FIPs. The next step is to create ideas from the above new
concepts. Feel free to generate at least two or three practical ideas from each of your three generated concepts. To get these ideas from concepts we ask: What is a way to make this
concept work?
So here are three ideas from the above three concepts:
1. Post mediocre ideas in order to use them as stepping-stones to quality ideas
2. Post unusual photos and ask members to generate ideas for the society using the photo as a random input form of stimulation
3. Remove the concept of mediocrity altogether and replace it with the idea of a place on the society for new, interesting, and better ideas
for members to do.
Here is an example of Franis doing this:
Chosen from Donald's FIP:
Members rely on credentials to impress and sustain membership.
The principle selected is status - the goal is to be recognized and
ultimately, to be heard, believed or taken seriously or as intended.
1. Concept of Exaggerating (Way to make it work: action of parading credentials)
With ideas added: Existing credentials paraded more prominently excite
pride and status to the mediocre, attracting more members. Since it's
these people who need thinking skills, they should be attracted in this
way. Current trainers would be featured by interviews, advertising
their websites, posting their schedules, etc.
2. Concept of Reversing, (Way to make it work: action of obliterating credentials)
Ideas added: As the cockroach has done, identity and status could be
deliberately disregarded, leaving the merit of pure ideas to stand
alone with its own value. Provide a specific section that is completely
anonymous for everyone to have an anonymous "evil twin" that can be
regularly changed, so nobody knows who is who purposefully. Those who
provide thinking training are allowed to have anonymous status on the
rest of the forum, because they provide value!
3. Concept of adding value, (Way to make it work: action of bestowing or providing credentials)
Ideas Added: Some sort of credential or badge is invented to be awarded
through membership and participation. This motivates people to
participate because they get something out of it that they can later
hold up as a credential elsewhere.
Step #4 = the Pentine: Look back over all the FIPs, and over all the CAFs again and choose
one. Then make that into a heading. Underneath that heading write 7
factors that come to mind. Then write a story in whatever direction you
like based on these seven factors. In the story you don't need to
mention the factors per se, but only what ideas the factors suggest.
You don't need to use all the factors. Write a story of about five or
six sentences or not more than half an A4 sheet that encapsulates the
seven factors.
An example from Donald Krsticevic: The CAF chosen: There is no conscious effort to change
1. Deep down, people hate change.
2. Too change is a difficult and time consuming
3. Everyone knows change is necessary but for "other people" only
4. Its hard to prove, up front, the new state is better
5. Change requires co-operation and sign off from the group.
6. Not everyone benefits from change, some are actually worse off
7. Its much easier and fun to go with the flow and maintain the status quo
The coakroach and the ape were sitting at the table. "I think we need to
change", said the coakroach to the ape. "Why?" replied the ape. "Because we
are misunderstood and feared and we should become more user friendly."
"No, " said the ape after some thinking. "We have survived and multipled over
thousands of years, and therefore must be right, that its the others who must
CHANGE."
Step #5 = use the Thinking Hats: Do the Pentine first, then your Red hats (Feelings) on your own Pentines, then your Blue Hats (Judgment on Process) on the entire thread in one sentence.
Here's another example with a Pentine from Sinclair McLay, (he made his story into a poem!) including his corresponding Red Hat on his Pentine and his one-sentence Blue hat on the entire thread:
'Clubs for those who take themselves too seriously'
1. How do you measure "take too" seriously ?
2. Would anyone admit to taking themselves too seriously ?
3. Birds of a feather - those clubs have already self-organized
4. How should these clubs be regarded ?
5. Do the driven take themselves too seriously?
6. The levity quotient - even though good ideas can come from levity not all do.
7. Occasional interaction between clubs that take themselves too seriously and those who do not could be very productive
'Why the long face ?'
Said the butterfly to the bear.
'Bees are dying
No time for fun, time of despair
Need a doctor
Now flutter off, life's not fair'
'Have some nectar'
Said the butterfly to the bear
RH Surely any idea - from whatever source - 'mediocre' or not - can be
used as a stepping stone. Or has value in itself looked at from a
different direction.
hH The tools have helped greatly - presumably the next step is what will come of their use?
Step #6 = Suggestions from these exercises: Contributors who have gone through these steps now list items for using the tools as CAFs or Creative Hit Lists, or areas of general focus. Think of six to 10 factors from this thread (or new factors that arise) as objects for future consideration, furture work, creative projects or sources for future thinking skills exercises.
Future Topics for Thinking from Franis:
Admin needs to extract the related blogs, threads, etc. that got accidentally posted in various unrelated areas together. Social responsibility. Providing a suggestion box for future topics. An area called "Think tank" where
topics may be meaningful to members. A contribution requirement of
participation in a certain number of thinking skill threads? A way to
"earn" the concern of others for your own personal advantage becoming
one of the topics addressed as a thinking example?
(optional) Step #7 = Pre-Flight: Before going through this process yourself, use the Six Thinking Hats to contribute your ideas on effectiveness.
Raymund Kwok, hB: Just thinking for the sake of thinking, creativity is important, but is EBNE (Excellent, But Not Enough.) You can find creativity is just only one of the six hats. Results and values are the goals of the
thinking processes. I found it is a waste if the discussion does not go further to produce some results. I want to try converting ideas into workable actions.
That's the challenge - Let's See Some Thinking NOW from those who want to play!!! - Franis Engel
Tags: CAF, Concept, Creative, Extraction, FIP, Hit, Lateral, List, Pentines
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Raymund Kwok on -
Franis, Thanks for putting them together.
I caught a cold during my business trip to Shanghai in last week. I got headache all the time even after taken a lot of drugs. I could not sleep but I found my brain working in a random thinking mode, which gave some good ideas related to by job and also the thinking process.
I found we can actually use one tools to support another tool. For example, Kim used 6 hats on CAF. When we perform a CAF, we usually take out the ideas with our recent experience. That means it may not really all factors. Here, I believe random word and septine may help. For random word, I randomly open a page of a book and randomly point to a word.
The following are my CAF on COM:
Based on my experience
(1) Follow the existing practice
(2) Do not want to have confrontation with other members
(3) Negative confrontation (as suppose to have positive confrontation)
Based on random word (I randomly select a page and randomly point to a word)
Random word: frustration
(4) People use too much red hat, and do not control the emotion.
Random word: lobby
(5) People waiting for others to act first
Random word: Simulator
(6) Many ideas cannot reflect the real world situation
Random word: eyes
(7) Do not spend the time to observe the problems and finding background information
Septine: action, perception, design, thinking skill, education, experience, opportunity (This is copied from “Think, before it’s too late”, p177
(8) Thinking without generating actions and values
(9) Do not treat contributing to the society as a self-education process
(10) Do not share good opportunities with others
So, I got the 10 CAF points. I review them and I expect the important factors should be here already. It is possible to get more ideas using random word and septine, but I expect additional ideas may have only secondary importance.
-
Permalink Reply by Franis on -
Thanks, Raymund. I am very impressed of how you have used what you have learned so far about thinking skills! Especially the combining and relating other thinking skills to this one, as Kim has demonstrated. Am curious to hear what one of the trainers have to say about this activity.
-
Permalink Reply by Raymund Kwok on
-
From the ten CAF points, I used bH to find weakness on each point.
(1) Follow the existing practice
(2) Do not want to have confrontation with other members (not much here)
(3) Negative confrontation (not much here)
(4) People use too much red hat, and do not control the emotion (some, but sometimes can help discussion)
(5) People waiting for others to act first (Let them wait as long as there are people initiate activities)
(6) Many ideas cannot reflect the real world situation (can be covered by Pt 7)
(7) Do not spend the time to observe the problems and finding background information
(8) Thinking without generating actions and values
(9) Do not treat contributing to the society as a self-education process (most members understand more contribution, more self-training in thinking)
(10) Do not share good opportunities with others (people are sharing information here)
So, my three FIPs:
(1) Follow the existing practice
(2) Do not spend the time to observe the problems and finding background information
(2) Thinking without generating actions and values
-
Permalink Reply by Franis on
-
My favorite hat is hG = Green! I love improvisational thinking, even though I'm not as able to be as humorous of a person as I'd like to be more often.
Right now, I do have a decidedly marked chosen reorientation to the hY = Yellow hat.
Come to think of it, any hat can be described with the point of view of each of the hats.
For instance, describing all the hats while wearing the hB (Black) would result in:
Red: - gushy and over-emotional, letting impulses of feeling ruin your potentially global decision-making abilities; resulting in selfishly driven, "drama-queenish" either/or possible choices
Green - continuous ideas that never result in action, all improvisation, no deliberate choice, disallows cumulative action, practice or gradually developing skills from having an effect
Yellow - Pollyannaism - (word comes from a Disney movie of the same name called Pollyana) Seeing the positive side of everything so often that there are no standards and anything is acceptable. This waters down results
Black - sarcasm and negativity. Nothing happens because there is always an objection that effectively blocks any action at all. Choice by elimination often leaves nothing left; choice by default.
White - facts can be positionally selected and statistics do lie depending on their interpretation
Blue - too abstract, authoritarian, too difficult to understand, unclear, compliance may require education
Anyone else want to try making an observation about the various hats while wearing a hat?
I think this is in keeping with the context of this thread... Or maybe it should be moved over to the thread "Do a PMI on doing a PMI"?
-
Permalink Reply by Raymund Kwok on
-
Dennis,
During a selection process, it is more effective in finding negative factors and then eliminate the items. You will find if a comment in a thread is trying to tell a difference, it is also easy to be classified as bH.
I believe once trained, 6 hats should be mixed together (or resonant together) during the thinking process.
It is also not very helpful to label a person bH.
-
Permalink Reply by Franis on
-
Agreed - in this place, labeling someone as hB is saying they are stuck. Someone is only stuck when they are not use the other hats, (which is not Raymund.)
Couldn't going through a selection process be done more productively at a certain, (later) time rather than on the front end? This to me seems to be the major limitation of tending to favor the hB. Because the goal of the hB is to eliminate the selections by finding something "wrong" with them, using the hB too soon - (as you say, Raymund, doing the activity of making a selection) would eliminate the number of selections that you have to choose from.
I know that there are many people who get confused by too many selections. In fact, it's a proven situation that the more selections someone has - ( the more often they are allowed to reverse their first choice,) they are unhappy with the results. I believe this happens because often people's standards of distinction go up and up. This results in every possibility not being met, so there remains nothing that they are can be happy about in general. For every choice, there is always the choice you reject. The combination of special preferences that each choice reflects becomes more and more rare to find in combination. So there are always trade-offs. The only thing people who make many distinctions really get to keep are their ever-escalating standards.
Your observation about the activity of telling a difference being a hB activity... I have questions for you, because I'm not sure what you said.
When you say "tell a difference" do you mean...
...communicating a difference that you already noticed that you believe other people haven't noted yet? (this is being helpful, which is hR)
Do you mean detecting a difference that is already present? (this is description, which is hW)
Do you mean comparing to reveal an assumption? (this is hG - uncovering assumptions not obvious at first glance)
Do you mean matching to group together characteristics that have something desirable (or unwanted) in common? (desirable is hY, and unwanted is hB - the act of matching is sort of an operation that is neutral, if I'm not mistaken. Dennis???)
Speaking of "operations" someone can also a "lumper or a splitter" by nature. People who group things are "lumpers" and people who slice and dice stuff up into bits (which could be re-combined in other ways) would be "splitters."
A person can find something wrong that results in elimination, using multiple shifting priorities - this I've observed too. So it is helpful to prioritize on the front end first - (ordering into a priority heirarchy seems to be a hH activity, right Dennis?)
What action, activity or "operation" is favored by a person determines certain results they tend to get. For instance, I've noticed that most people "match." Matching is comparing our list of what already exists to see if there is something in common that it can be "lumped" together with similar characteristics. This list of items could be generated by circumstances or other people's efforts...or, we would have possibly needed to assume the point of view of other hats to generate
On the other hand, what I tend to favor doing is to contrast to uncover or reveal differences - so I can generate new items on the list. The goal is to reveal what is missing from the list. I'm not sure if contrasting to reveal differences is a "splitting" activity - because it's more like an "adding" activity. "Splitting" can be a multiplying function, I guess, if you're growing something, as in someone splitting roots and then growing new plants from each smaller root ball.
Anyway - this has been my exploration into the process of "telling a difference."
What do you guys think?
-
Permalink Reply by Raymund Kwok on
-
Franis, I mean when a comment showed a different opinions to the previous posting, it is quite easy to be treated as a bH because the comment is finding the weakness of the previous posting no matter it is new information (wH), something better (yH), or others.
With my training in scientific thinking, we need to find the similarities for grouping items together while finding the small difference to separate items within the same group or forming subgroups. This is a process helps us to link, understand and use the items.
-
Permalink Reply by Raymund Kwok on
-
Today, I finally received the 6 hat CD and CoRT CD. CoRT 3 is interaction, and CoRT 6 is action. I am going to read the materials. I will see how to consolidate different opinions and then suggest actions.
-
Permalink Reply by Franis on
-
How are you doing with your proposal to consolidate different opinions and suggest actions after reading about Six Hat Thinking and CoRT - and then suggest actions??
Sounds like a big job!
-
Permalink Reply by Raymund Kwok on
-
I read CoRT1-6 from the CD, one each day. They are all general thinking skills or can be treated as tools. The way to use the tools effectively is itself a thinking process. Here I would like to see if we can demonstrate how to put the diverse ideas into consensus and then develop actions.
I found some member may not select their best three FIPs from their CAF, which may be affected by the red hat. If anyone would like to revise the FIP, please do it.
The following are the PIF selected from the members:
by Donald Krsticevic
1. Everyone believes they are THE subject matter experts and can defend that belief well.
2. Members blindly follow tradition and what the others are doing, without question.
3. Members rely on credentials to impress and sustain membership and think thats enough
by Sinclair McLay
1. Repetitive
2. Obscure
3. Needless
by Manuel Oddy
1. Thinking is not valued, only word play
2. Any ideas outside the box are immediately put in a box labelled suspicious or sinister
3. Honesty is replaced by conformity
by Franis
1. Mediocre people make others into being at fault and assign blame,
instead of being pro-active to see what they can contribute to solving
the issue.
2. With any uncertainty about motives of ideas, someone in this
mediocre group will bring up terrorism or other paranoid consequences.
3. Name-calling, rumor-mongering and other misrepresentation dramas are used to keep members in line.
by Kim Jones
1. Mediocrity, when interestingly presented is quite entertaining.
2. Mediocrity, being difficult to recognise given it's widespread existence, often passes for brilliance of one kind or another.
3.Operations thinking is too hard for mediocre types.
By Raymund Kwok
1 Follow the existing practice
2 Do not spend the time to observe the problems and finding background information
3 Thinking without generating actions and values
Next from these PIF, we select the top three PIF. During this process, we need to first consider other people's view. Next, an easy step is to combine similar ones. Followed by finding additional evidence to support the points. Then, we can use AGREEMENT, DISAGREEMENT, IRRELEVANCE to classify each point. I expect this will allow us to remove many of the points here.
Please also suggest better precess to select the top three FIP. I will do this tomorrow (if I will have no urgent conference calls at night).
-
Permalink Reply by Franis on
-
Our trainer had students individually select a top FIP to do a concept extraction and then another one to do a Pentine exercise. The Two that each person selected for each exercise reflected their individual values, so we did not have to agree on what these values were determined. An OPV was already conducted, because people had already written indicating their views in a list by doing a CAF.
The beauty of this design is nobody has to convince or agree with everyone else in sort of a contest for the "top three." It accommodates those coming later to the party, so many people can continue to make their suggestions - AFTER they do the concept extraction, not before. (Step #3.)
See - the concept of MOVEMENT in a new direction needs to happen AS AN ACTION before you generate ideas to evaluate or eliminate. Otherwise you're only choosing from and eliminating from choices you already know about. (..or after collecting what others already know about.) We're aiming to come up with idea we didn't know we could get....or at least, I think that's the point of thinking.
So - we did some lateral thinking by doing Concept Extraction. (Step #4) Why not do an ADI on the results of those ideas that came out of the Concept Extraction? After the concept extraction we actually got some "real" suggestions about practical things we could really do to take things beyond mediocre.
We could group and evaluate those ideas, now that we have them. Nobody has done that yet. Each person could do that for the group of ideas - group them, eliminate the ones that were very simliar and suggest criteria for evaluating these ideas.
Then we could do the same for the Pentine ideas. We can do an ADI and select ones that will "work." Wouldn't it be more productive to generate a new list that would be used to appraise the ideas against?
Example: scope, time to implement, cost to maintain, etc.
Then it would be much easier to decide which ones to put on the back burner, which ones to reject, which ones to develop further and which ones can be easily implemented right now or what was something that has already been done that could become a new "policy" that would improve this site.
At that point, the black hat works for us, very well indeed.
If we narrow our range of what to choose from (before the the lateral thinking resulted in actual new ideas) to select the "best" by whatever criteria from the FIP and the CAFs, what is the point of that? That's using the red and black hat too soon, IMHO.
-
Permalink Reply by Raymund Kwok on
-
Franis,
I believe the main difference is that your approach is trying to generate more ideas with the fundamental believe of "more ideas are good". But when we have the goal to produce actions, we will have the tendency to select only the good ideas to develop plans for actions.
For CoRT, it also includes the steps to for interacting with people for idea discussions, and for generating actions. As an R&D team leader for more than 15 years, I found we can have good some ideas during the initially thinking process, this helps to setup a framework. But a lot of good ideas come actually during the interaction with people for discussions of ideas and planning the actions, and during the implementation process. When I find new ideas any time in the process, I can compare with the existing plans and I can change the existing plan if a new idea is good. That means I accommodate "lateral ideas", but at the same time, I aim for the results from the actions.
This was the reason that I responded to the previous thread, and I wanted to add "actions" in addition to "thinking for the sake of thinking".
© 2013 Created by Administrator.
Powered by
