Insight on Implementation

Implementation: The process of moving an idea from concept to reality. In engineering and other fields, implementation refers to the building process rather than the design process (wikitionary).

So, in terms of Governance, Implementation should be the phase when an organization is actually ready to build a new system, what engineers call the building phase. But an engineer would only consider entering the building phase after being able to state the following:

"Now that the requirements are complete we can move on to implementation" (wikitionary).

Requirement:

1. A necessity or prerequisite; something required or obligatory;
2. (engineering) A statement (in domain specific terms) which specifies a verifiable constraint on an implementation that it shall undeniably meet or (a) be deemed unacceptable, or (b) result in implementation failure, or (c) result in system failure. (wikitionary)

So... how does all this fit in with my insight? Simply put, it appears to me that implementing DG should be tackled like the process of building an actual physical structure. In other words, there are necessities or prerequisites that must be met before going any further:

1. Dream/vision;
2. Plan/research/analyze/prepare/consult/share/train;
3. Implement;
4. Evaluate;
5. Adjust;
6. Re-evaluate;
7. Readjust... and so on...

Looking into the most common complaint/concern I hear from various individuals I highly respect, it is becoming clear to me that it would have been much wiser for me to spend more time preparing the ground before taking the first shovel to the dirt. In other words, I am beginning to see that Edenburg's analogy to mechanical systems is much wiser and much deeper than I ever thought before.

The most common complaint I hear is that DG is taking time, and is not showing clear and concrete results right away... In other words, if DG was actually so good, we should already have short, effective meetings that lead to great results that would not have been attained otherwise.

But there is a fundamental paradox in these statements, and I have just moved from feeling that paradox to being able to identify it: To do things well, it takes time. And if a person/group feels that DG is not leading to anything clear, then it is likely that things were not clearly organized to begin with (and I say this with the utmost respect for all that has been and is being done by all my colleagues).

I remember how John Buck kept repeating that when a group uses DG, the "pink elephants" come out on the table very quickly, be it a personality conflict, a personnel issue, or, in a case I am facing these days, a lack of clearly organized work structures.

DG is many things at once:

1. A decision-making model;
2. A communication structure;
3. A mechanism to organize work within a system;
4. A philosophy of life;
5. A political system;
6. I am sure the list could go on...

So, in setting the path for Implementation, it becomes evident that much work must be done before any construction can begin.

Does this mean Yukon College went about it the wrong way? I don't think so. In fact, I would say that John was right in stating the pink elephants would come out first: in our case, it is becoming apparent that our pink elephant is a lack of clear structures. What I mean by this is that the College is an institution filled with amazing people, individuals who are committed to their work and the students, driven by a passion to do things well. This is set in the context of a bureaucracy, which is essential for the good functioning of any large institution... but, it is becoming apparent that there is a need for work to be done around clarifying the roles, mandates, and responsibilities of various areas of the college, along with the roles, mandates, and responsibilities of various individuals.

Unless we do this, how are we supposed to know what decisions belong within this or that circle? Without a clear description of the "terms of reference" of each area of our institution, how are we supposed to know who should be tackling what issue? Organization and dis-organization are very fluid concepts. An architect never stops looking at a creation without seeing potential improvements. The same should be true of all organizations. Regardless of how good we are (and there is much, so very much to be proud of at Yukon College), there is room for changes that can lead to significant improvements on all fronts: personnel satisfaction, student enrollments, government funding, and so on.

The first Implementation Committee meeting will happen in two days. I can hardly wait I am so excited!