Shh! It's vive la résistance, co-authored with Nicholas D. Sweers II,  that appeared in Journal of Business Strategy, 31 (6), 2010 will re-printed in Strategic Direction.

My paper co-authored with Yuan Lin, Towards Evidence-Driven Policy Design:  Complex Adaptive Systems and Computational Modeling, will appear in The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal.

I hope to use this post to begin a discussion on this question. Specifically, how do we define network resiliency when examining large-scale public sector networks. These networks span multiple-levels from individuals to organizations and may even involve consortiums. Consider the case of the US intelligence community (USIC). The USIC involves both public sector organizations (e.g. CIA, NSA, FBI, etc) but also collaborates with intelligence agencies in other countries (e.g. MI6, BND) and even private organizations (Xe Services LLC). The USIC must ensure that its network is resilient. Its resiliency is dependent not only how well it plans for, and executes, responses to changes in its internal and external, but also how well its network (which consists of many organizations it does not have formal control, or even influence, over) fairs in times of crises.

Today, I was examining the literature in telecommunication networks for concepts that we could draw on. The engineering literature has a myriad of concepts that we could draw on to build a framework for organizational network resiliency. For example, consider the concept of load-balancing. Load balancing is essential to the design of robust electronic networks. While its primary purpose is to allow us to plan for efficient usage of resources, load balancing also helps with managing against overload on devices. To describe the concept without getting too technical, one might conceptualize load balancing as follows: incoming information requests to a network are distributed to the appropriate device within the network by a load-balancer. The load-balancer is responsible for routing the request to the best available device (different algorithms might be used for this, and we can have different criteria for determining the best device to route a request to). Load balancing can help us design failsafe mechanisms (for e.g., if one node is down then traffic is routed to a backup node).

Should we have load-balancing mechanisms for organizational networks? Absolutely! I actually think that organizational networks do have implicit load-balancers. Some view these as gatekeepers? Gatekeepers play a vital role in determining how information moves within networks. Do you know of any organizations that manage their gatekeepers mindfully? If so, how do they do it? Also, are there other organizational concepts that are similar to load-balancing?

During my visit to the CIS @ LSE, I conducted an inquiry into how ecological models might help us understand robustness of networks, especially terrorist networks. One idea that I worked hard on is how do agents within a network adapt under conditions of duress. For example, assuming you took away a food source from an ecosystem, how might the various entities (species) adapt and create work-a-rounds? Would the nature of competition among the species change? Would the patterns that drive the reorganization of the ecosystem be predictable?

My second post on the Harvard Business Review site went live today! The post was written in collaboration with H. James Wilson and is titled, Finally, A Majority of Executives Embrace Experimentation. The post outlines the value proposition of building an experimentation culture within organizations and how executives can support employee experimentation.

The post has been picked up by Bloomberg Businessweek as well.

We would love to hear your comments on the ideas presented.

Along with my doctoral student, Yuan Lin, I have co-authored an article that describes how we might move towards evidence-driven policy design. This article draws from the keynote that I have at the 2010 Computational Social Science Society Conference.

Efforts to design public policies for social systems tend to confront highly complex conditions which have a large number of potentially relevant factors to be considered and rapidly changing conditions where continuous adaptation delays or obscures the effect of policies. Given unresolvable uncertainty in policy outcomes, the optimal solution is difficult, if ever possible, to nail down. It is more reasonable to choose a solution that is robust to as many future scenarios that might ensue from the decision. Arriving at such a solution requires policy makers to actively explore and exploit rich information to support their decision making in a cost-efficient, yet rigorous manner. We name this new working style as evidence-driven policy design and outline the characteristics of favorable evidence. We then argue that computational modeling is a potential tool for implementing evidence-driven policy design. It helps the study and design of solutions by simulating various environments, interventions, and the processes in which certain outcomes emerge from the decisions of policy makers. It allows policy makers to observe both the intended and, equally important, unintended consequences of policy alternatives. It also facilitates communication and consensus-building among policy makers and diverse stakeholders.

Along with several colleagues, Jaka Lindic (University of Ljubljana), Peter Baloh (BISOL, d.o.o), and Vincent Ribière (The Institute for Knowledge and Innovation (IKI-SEA), Bangkok University), I co-authored a paper for the International Journal of Information Management.

Organizations must innovate if they are to survive in today’s fiercely competitive marketplace. In this paper, we explore how leading organizations are using emerging technologies to enable novel forms of ideation that can radically increase the sheer volume of ideas they explore. In addition, we outline how organizations use technologies to cost effectively manage this increased volume of ideas by optimizing generation, mobilization, advocacy and screening, experimentation, commercialization, and even the diffusion and implementation of ideas. Critical to this is the management of knowledge during the innovation process.

Lindic, J., Baloh, P., Ribière, V.M., and Desouza, K.C. “Deploying Information Technologies for Organizational Innovation: Lessons from Case Studies,” International Journal of Information Management, Forthcoming.

On a fairly regular basis, I am asked, “What kind of a consultant are you, Kevin?” I admit that my typical response has been to take the easy road by responding, “It depends.” For the last several weeks, I have begun to think more creatively on the nature, type, and roles of management consultants in organizations. I have served in various capacities as a consultant to a myriad of organizations; reflecting on what I do in the various situations can only help me get better. During these reflections, I have come to the realization that there are archetypes of management consultants.

Lawyers: Management consultants often are called in to act as lawyers. These engagements occur when an organization is need of specialized, strategic, decision-making advice. When done correctly, the consultants are called in to help an organization evaluate strategic options before they choose a major course of action. When done incorrectly, consultants are called in to help mitigate damage from actions, or even to address public relations disasters.

Engineers: One of the most popular role for management consultants is that of an ‘engineers.’ Most graduates take on this position as their first job after completion of their  studies. In this role, the consultant helps an organization to ‘build’ something, most commonly an information technology solution or a human resource process. The management consultant builds a new organizational artifact and helps an organization make it a part of its operational fabric.

Designers:  Consultants who act as designers, or architects, oversee the work of engineers who might later build something. Designers are involved in the process of architecting organizational re-designs, system integrations, and even process improvement projects. The major element that differentiates designers from engineers is that designers need to have broad knowledge about the business and industry in which the organization operates. Engineers, on the other hand, have deeper knowledge about their particular too lsets.

Doctors: There are management consultants who are called upon to work as doctors. They deal with specific organizational problems, when management knows that either 1) the organization needs a routine check-up, or 2) the organization is suffering from an ailment and needs a medication (fix) to remedy the situation. Management consultants that work as doctors have deep knowledge within specific domains and are often experts in these spaces. Doctor-like management consultants are common for issues such as employee morale boosting, global innovation team management, or assisting in managing organizational change programs.

Artists: The most eclectic of management consultants function as artists. These individuals bring innovation into an organization. They bring new ideas that the organization did not know were there and are meant to stimulate fresh thinking and reflection. Like Picasso or van Gogh, artists rarely come up with creations to meet specific needs of an organization. It is more common for organizations to recognize the value of their work and then bring their ideas into the organization. Like hanging a painting on the wall, the ideas are meant to stimulate the organization to fresh and invigorated thinking.

Coaches: Management consultants who have a track record of working with senior executives and organizational leaders are often called upon to take on the role of coach. This also happens to be my favorite role as a consultant.  In this role, the coach serves as a confidant and mentor to an executive. Executives use their coach to help them improve their skills (from building effective business plans to creating effective teams).  In turn, the coach puts executives through a series of "exercises" to train them on how to become effective leaders.

How do you feel about this classification scheme? Have I missed any other types of consultants? What kind of management consultant do you want to be and why?

My friends and colleagues know that I love wine. I love to drink, collect, learn about, and share wine. For the last few months I have been pondering what it might be like to write about wine. So, as an experiment, I sent a letter to the Editors of Wine Spectator. To my surprise, the Editors decided to publish the letter in the November 30^th issue of the magazine. Below, I provide the letter that was published for your reading pleasure. I also include a small part, shown in italics below, that was omitted from the published version.

What Not to Do

I enjoyed reading Matt Kramer’s article “The Biggest Mistakes” (Oct. 15).  I agree with Kramer on the three points he raises. However, I would like to offer the following three as my own perceptions of the biggest mistakes people make when choosing wine.

First: volume instead of variety. I have been collecting wine for over 12 years. A lot of my friends ask me if I stock up on wines that I like. While, the obvious answer is yes, I do take great care to keep a diverse collection. Rookies make the mistake of loving one particular kind of wine (e.g. Cabs or wines from Italy) and then blinding themselves to other regions and varietals. My suggestion: for every five bottles of wines that you buy from places that you know, try one bottle from an unknown region.

Second mistake: not trusting your own nose. To a large degree, enjoying wine is a personal experience. Yes, you can share this experience with friends who love wine, but in the final analysis, your taste and preference is what makes the wine you drink enjoyable or not. Rookies get carried away by name brands and jump too often on bandwagons, instead of taking time to understand the kind of wines they like (and do not like). [Omitted: My suggestion: when you enjoy a good bottle of wine, take the time to research the wine, learn about how it was made, its composition and approach, and what other wines are similar for you to try.]

Third mistake: not asking enough question. Too often, [people] who are just beginning to experience wines in a serious manner feel intimated about asking questions of wine makers or merchants, or even of sommeliers. Learning about wine is a lifelong quest. One very reliable channel for easily digestible information on wine is talking with experts. Most wine enthusiast and experts love to share their knowledge and opinions on wines, and they yearn for the opportunities to converse with people about wine. So do them a favor and engage them in a conversation. You will not regret it.

Nicholas (Nick) Sweers, a former graduate student of mine at the University of Washington Information School, and I have published a case study in the Journal of Business Strategy that illustrates the challenges of managing underground resistance. This hypothetical case study takes place at a mid-sized consulting firm specializing in innovative web development solutions. An underground resistance movement surfaces in the final stages of an organizational restructuring effort, threatening the final implementation phase. The change manager, a young senior partner at the firm, is now faced with the reality that his plan may fail. The psychological underpinnings of the movement, rooted in the natural human tendency to resist change, provide a framework for examining the inherent difficulty of successful change management.

The article can be accessed here: [LINK]

Sweers, N.D. and Desouza, K.C. “Shh!  It’s Vive La Résistance…,” Journal of Business Strategy, 31 (6), 2010, 12-21.