Work Complexity Institute - crafting something New!

Work Complexity Institute - crafting something New!

We met on the 35th floor boardroom (thanks Pete) overlooking Sydney harbour, our view peaking above the crowded busyness of Martin Place. Our intent was to investigate interest in setting up a new institute to draw together all those who have worked with and who have an interest in the theories and practices of Work Complexity, Human Capability and Effective Managerial Leadership.

When I put this concept to the stakeholders I thought may be interested I was trying not only to cover the work of Elliott Jaques, Gillian Stamp, but also to include other whole systems thinking concepts, with one caveat; that they had proven resilient over time.


I received a number of emails expressing support and also a goodly number of people who would like to attend, but were unable for various reasons.   Interest in the concept of the institute also came from outside Australia.  I took the open space approach of whoever comes, will be the right people.


Well, what an interesting group of talented people arrived at that meeting and two and half hours passed in a stimulating and exciting debate.  The group was bound by common interests and galvanised by what might be possible.  There was a common belief that here was a space for great work to be done and  overwhelmingly felt the idea of a Institute had legs.

Here are some of the discussion points;

• There is significant scope for research and development and product development.  An impressive array of existing products could be tabled and some of the members present had ideas for new products - for example  around IT organisations - ITIL and levels of work information.  Accreditation could be offered in a range of products and methodologies.  Research was also required around a host of issues that were last critically investigated decades ago.
   
•  An institute could address issues of quality and stickiness through ongoing education of members.  Quality and education came up again and again. Why were major organisations no longer using these models?  Was it because a CEO had come or gone or because of partial or poor implementations?  Others returned to them over periods of time, while others have used it consistently for three decades plus.  Despite a long and patchy record, many of these models are still in active use precisely because they are so comprehensive and deep.  Poor quality and too rigid interventions had caused significant damage to the work complexity based movement.
   
• Some felt that gaining access to knowledge and practice was difficulty and the learning curve very steep not only because of depth but also because of IP and copyright restrictions and a closed guild mentality.  This view, while prevalent  is dated as much has been published that is in the public domain and we felt that it was in the common good to make this information more accessible through a membership base with requisite governance frameworks in place.  However, where IP existed this would be respected and where possible agreements and relationships forged.
   
• There was a strongly expressed need for cooperation and the assumption of TRUST. Independence was valued, but so was membership of a peak body.  Discussions felt the membership base would be practitioners, independent, corporate and not for profit.
  
  
• A clearly articulated Purpose would be needed plus a concept of value adding to its customer base so that membership was sought and valued.

Conclusion

The group spent some time working on a Purpose statement and the meeting ended with everyone expressing their willingness to devote time over December and January to offer input into taking the institute to the next level.

Thank you Brent, Jenny, Josh, Bryan, Bruce, Jon, Annemarie and Wayne (and to all those who sent messages of support and interest).