play constructionism LEGO learning metaphor business Papert competition creativity

AN ONGOING COLLABORATION OF SCIENTISTS, RESEARCHERS, BUSINESS CONSULTANTS, AND PRACTICING MANAGERS, DEDICATED TO IMPROVING BUSINESS PERFORMANCE.

We hope this booklet will provide some of the answers as to why SERIOUS PLAY might work for your business.

SERIOUS PLAY is our name for the process we have developed to bring the creativity, the exuberance, and the inspiration of play to the serious concerns of adults in the business world.

Our presentation here is divided into four main sections, corresponding to the four key elements that make up the theoretical foundation of LEGO SERIOUS PLAY: 1) Constructionism, 2) Play, 3) Imagination, and 4) Identity.

To put it briefly, we will explore the science behind our conviction that constructing a metaphorical 3-D model of your business in a playful manner will unleash your creative imagination to develop an innovative and dynamic business strategy based on a clearer sense of your company's identity.

SERIOUS PLAY is a concept developed over several years by Executive Discovery, a member of the LEGO Group.

It emerged out of the research and experience of a number of academics and practitioners searching for more effective ways to meet the increasingly complex and challenging demands of the business world.

The two lead researchers, Johan Roos and Bart Victor, remain deeply involved in the development of SERIOUS PLAY and have been key members of the Executive Discovery team from the outset.

They have been joined by a talented community of practicing managers, consultants, and scientists -- all continuing the quest for the fruitful integration of work and play needed to develop innovative, winning strategies in today's fast-paced, multi-dimensional business world.

The LEGO Group became involved with SERIOUS PLAY very early in its development, both as a user of the process and as a company whose basic values are in complete alignment with the core ideas presented here.

The name LEGO itself is a contraction of the Danish phrase "Leg Godt," which means "Play Well."

SPECIFIC GOALS IN MIND: SOCIAL BONDING, EMOTIONAL EXPRESSION, COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT, AND CONSTRUCTIVE COMPETITION.

At first glance, all this emphasis on play may seem incongruous.

Social bonding is an important purpose because it brings a sense of partnership, cohesion, security, and role attribution through cooperation and cultural expression.

In terms of cognitive development, we will see, in our discussion of constructionism, how play can contribute to learning and understanding.

Through the use of modeling and metaphor, the objects of play can take on meanings and can embody abstract concepts, thus concretizing formal relationships that can otherwise be quite difficult to comprehend.

These "contests" need not be amongst the players, but can just as well serve a cohesive group "competing" for a shared objective.

Through myths, sagas, fairy tales, and family legends, people have used stories as a means for expressing ideals and values that are important to them.

In stories, we deal with issues of culture, religion, social and personal identity, group membership, good and evil, etc.

In organizations, stories contribute to the production, reproduction, transformation, and deconstruction of organizational values and beliefs.

In organizational contexts, narratives serve a number of purposes: the socialization of new members, the legitimization of bonding and organizational identification, cultural control, and they serve as a lens through which organizational action may be understood and interpreted.

The most vivid storytelling makes ample use of the linguistic construct known as metaphor; that is, a form of thinking and language through which we understand or experience one thing in terms of another.

In this section we will explore two such ideas: Constructivism -- a theory of knowledge developed by Jean Piaget, his colleagues and his institute in Geneva, Switzerland.

Constructionism -- a theory of learning developed by Seymour Papert and his colleagues at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts (USA).

Although both Piaget and Papert developed their theories through observing the behavior and learning activities of children, Papert, especially, believes that these findings are equally applicable to adults.

In one of his more famous experiments, Piaget discovered that young children believe that water can change in amount when poured from a short, wide glass into a tall, thin one.

enables them to build even more sophisticated things out in the world, which yields still more knowledge, and so on, in a self-reinforcing cycle.

Papert first began thinking about constructionism in the late 1960s, after observing a group of students, over several weeks, become deeply and actively engaged in creating soap sculptures in an art class.

Papert's contemplations on that soap sculpture class led him on a many-year journey to design a more constructable mathematics.

It was out of the repeated experience of seeing children use these sorts of materials - - not just in order to learn about mathematics and design but to actually be mathematicians and designers -- that led Papert to conclude, "Better learning will not come from finding better ways for the teacher to instruct, but from giving the learner better opportunities to construct."

Although Papert's constructionism embraces and builds upon Piaget's constructivism, over time, Papert eventually came to see some drawbacks to Piaget's stage theory.

In 1990, Papert wrote "...I think now that the ...most outstanding corrections one must make to Piaget's epistemology are related to his supervaluation of the logical, the formal, and the propositional forms of thought.

His most important contribution is recognizing the importance of what he calls concrete thinking.

His major weakness is his resistance to giving up the value system that places formal thinking "on top."

This resistance leads him to see concrete thinking as children's thinking, and so keeps him from appreciating the full breadth of his discovery of the "concrete" as a universal form of human reason."

-- Papert, 1990 Papert came to view the notion of "concrete thinking" not as a stage that children outgrow, but rather as a style of thinking that has its benefits and uses, just as logical or formal thinking has its benefits and uses.

In other words, unlike Piaget, he does not see concrete thinking as the cognitive equivalent of baby talk.

He sees concrete thinking -- i.e. thinking with and through concrete objects -- as a mode of thinking complementary to more abstract, formal modes of thought.

It is a grave mistake, in Papert's view, to forsake or cast off concrete thinking, (as a snake sloughs off its skin,) in favor of purely abstract thought, for to do so would seal oneself off from valuable modes of thinking and pathways to knowledge not as accessible by other means.

OUR FINGERS" WE RELEASE CREATIVE ENERGIES, MODES OF THOUGHT, AND WAYS OF SEEING THINGS THAT MAY OTHERWISE NEVER BE TAPPED.

Thus, constructionism is not just a theory about how to facilitate children's learning.

Constructionism is a way of making formal, abstract ideas and relationships more concrete, more visual, more tangible, more manipulative, and therefore more readily understandable.

The emphasis that constructionism places on concrete thinking has obvious import for LEGO SERIOUS PLAY.

At the core of both ideas is the notion that when we "think with objects" or "think through our fingers" we unleash creative energies, modes of thought, and ways of seeing that most adults have forgotten they even possessed.

But we were all children once, and we all knew how to play.

LEGO SERIOUS PLAY stakes its reputation on the belief that adults can regain their ability to play, can dust off those modes of concrete thinking and put them to use again, and that when they do, great benefits are in store for them.

A business or company is so much more than a building and the people in it.

It is a vast network of interconnections and complicated relationships on many different levels.

LEGO SERIOUS PLAY is our bold attempt to take the power of constructionism and apply it to the complexity of the business world, thereby making the abstract network of interrelationships that make up any business, concrete, appropriable, and comprehensible.

They can manipulate it, play with it, and ask all sorts of "what if" questions by physically manipulating their business model.

While all share the basic idea that humans have a unique ability to "form images" or to "imagine" something, the variety of uses of the term "imagination" implies not one, but at least three meanings: to describe something, to create something, to challenge something.

From the point of view of LEGO SERIOUS PLAY, it is the interplay between these three kinds of imagination that make up what we call strategic imagination --the source of original strategies in companies.

Creative Imagination is associated with innovative strategies where companies sought to make their competitors irrelevant rather than just beating them at their own game, in the spirit of what Hamel and Prahalad call "competing for the future," or what Kim and Mauborne call "value innovators."

Many management concepts and techniques, like TQM, stimulate managers to innovate "new ways of being" that are better than the current state.

CHALLENGING IMAGINATION is completely different from the other two kinds.

The methods of Challenging Imagination include deconstruction and sarcasm.

At Executive Discovery we are committed to a continuing development of both the art and the science of playing well for a purpose.

New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1990.

1995. Kearney, R., The Wake of Imagination: Toward a Postmodern Culture.

play constructionism socialization storytelling competition stories metaphor "social bonding" "adult play"

Learning Through Exploration and Storytelling At first glance, all this emphasis on play may seem incongruous.

Adult play is often undertaken with a specific goal in mind, whereas in children the purposes of their play are less conscious.

We have identified four purposes of adult play that are especially relevant to our discussion of LEGO SERIOUS PLAY: 1) social bonding, 2) emotional expression, 3) cognitive development and 4) constructive competition.

Social bonding is an important purpose because it brings a sense of partnership, cohesion, security and role attribution through cooperation and cultural expression.

In terms of cognitive development, we will see, in our discussion of constructionism, how play can contribute to learning and understanding.

Through the use of modeling and metaphor, the objects of play can take on meanings and can embody abstract concepts, thus concretizing formal relationships that can otherwise be quite difficult to comprehend.

Through myths, sagas, fairy tales and family legends, people have used stories as a means for expressing ideals and values that are important to them.

In stories, we deal with issues of culture, religion, social and personal identity, group membership, good and evil, etc.

Organizational members dramatize organizational life through stories, transforming mundane events into symbolic artifacts that contribute to the organization's history.

In organizational contexts, narratives serve a number of purposes: the socialization of new members, the legitimization of bonding and organizational identification, cultural control, and they serve as a lens through which organizational action may be understood and interpreted (Putnam, 1995).

constructionism Papert "concrete thinking" play LEGO business learning mathematics Piaget

Constructionism -- a theory of learning developed by Seymour Papert and his colleagues at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts (USA).

Although both Piaget and Papert developed their theories through observing the behavior and learning activities of children, Papert, especially, believes that these findings are equally applicable to adults.

In what follows, we first discuss how these theories were developed and then see what their implications are for LEGO SERIOUS PLAY.

Constructivism Jean Piaget is perhaps best known for his stage theory of child development.

Piaget discovered that children are not just passive absorbers of experience and information, but active theory builders.

In one of his more famous experiments, Piaget discovered that young children believe that water can change in amount when poured from a short, wide glass into a tall, thin one.

This theory was no doubt built out of many experiences (measuring children's heights back to back, building block towers, amount of milk in one glass) into a robust structure.

Several things impressed him: the level of engagement of the children; the elements of creativity and originality in the actual products; the interaction and collaboration among the children; the longevity of the enterprise; and the sheer sense of fun and enjoyment that permeated the experience.

He knew from his own experience that mathematics was exciting, beautiful, challenging, engaging and every bit as creative as making soap sculpture.

Papert's contemplations on that soap sculpture class led him on a many-year journey to design a more constructable mathematics.

He knew he would have to work with media more sophisticated and powerful than simple art materials.

In the 1970s, Papert and his colleagues designed a computer programming language called Logo, which enabled children to use mathematics as a building material for creating pictures, animations, music, games, simulations (among other things) on the computer.

The Value of Concrete Thinking Although Papert's constructionism embraces and builds upon Piaget's constructivism, over time, Papert eventually came to see some drawbacks to Piaget's stage theory.

He sees concrete thinking -- i.e. thinking with and through concrete objects -- as a mode of thinking complementary to more abstract, formal modes of thought.

At the core of both ideas is the notion that when we "think with objects" or "think through our fingers" we unleash creative energies, modes of thought, and ways of seeing that most adults have forgotten they even possessed.

LEGO SERIOUS PLAY is our bold attempt to take the power of constructionism and apply it to the complexity of the business world, thereby making the abstract network of interrelationships that make up any business, concrete, appropriable and comprehensible.

They can manipulate it, play with it and ask all sorts of "what if" questions by physically manipulating their business model.

imagination "creative imagination" "challenging imagination" "descriptive imagination" sarcasm deconstruction innovators business competitors

Tapping Into Our Creativity Throughout history, the term "imagination" has been given many different cultural and linguistic connotations.

From the point of view of LEGO SERIOUS PLAY, it is the interplay between these three kinds of imagination that make up what we call strategic imagination -- the source of original strategies in companies.

Descriptive Imagination not only reveals what is happening in the often confusing world "out there," but it enables us to make sense of it and to see new possibilities and opportunities.

The literature on strategic management prescribes a wealth of techniques to stimulate our descriptive imaginations.

Value chains, 2-by-2 matrices, flowcharts, as well as more artistic pictures of the business environment are all examples of such techniques, as is the delineation of future business scenarios.

Creative Imagination Creative imagination occupies a central role in the literature on strategy making.

Creative Imagination is associated with innovative strategies where companies sought to make their competitors irrelevant rather than just beating them at their own game, in the spirit of what Hamel and Prahalad call "competing for the future," or what Kim and Mauborne call "value innovators."

Many management concepts and techniques, like TQM, stimulate managers to innovate "new ways of being" that are better than the current state.

Challenging Imagination, often using deconstruction and sarcasm, overturns all the rules and wipes the slate clean.

Scott Adams' sarcasm and parody of the business world has become a vital force within conversations among strategy makers across industries throughout the world.

play successful imagination executives business "strategy making" "original strategies" portfolio management

The eight top executives of a major European metals company gather in the boardroom.

They've been meeting once a week over the last four months to flesh out the next strategic plan.

The senior vice president of the largest business unit sighs.

"This is disheartening," he says, flipping through the pages before him.

"Our portfolio strategy looks an awful lot like the one we came up with five years ago."

He looks at the CEO for some sign of agreement.

"We know the industry's changing fast, the data show it.

All of us feel we've got new business opportunities."

Original Strategies: How About Some Serious Play?

seven years with our same four business areas, the same old thing."

The Senior VP says, "I just don't think we're imaginative enough."

The CEO says, "OK, so how are we supposed to become more imaginative?"

The problem is that all the advancements in the methods and tools for strategy making have not changed the essential challenge, which is to develop original and powerful strategies.

Nor have all these advancements replaced the ultimate source for such strategies: the human imagination.

These executives are looking for a strategy which has the originality and the power to move their company from where they are now to where they need to be in the future.

Over the last four months they have been analyzing their industry and critical success factors of generic strategies.

The idea they are searching will likely come from one - and only one - source: their strategic imagination.

So how do we make it possible for experienced, informed executives to imagine original strategies?

"Research in dozens of companies, shows clearly that what was missing from the strategy making process was some serious play!

To imagine profitably, we need to have the possibility to make choices that do not really matter, to move in directions that may well lead us nowhere, and to say whatever comes to mind.

Playing is one of the best ways to stimulate the imagination.

Unfortunately, while most children play frequently and well, most adults do not.

Using a large supply of Lego bricks and a couple of hours, we gave the executives that started this story the opportunity to construct the best business portfolio they could imagine.

Our experience teaches us however that personal visions are not enough to make a good strategy.

For our imagination to move organizations into action, we must not only produce great ideas.

Today, too many strategic ideas never move beyond a small circle of executives.

As a result, management theorists are rediscovering the importance of story telling.

Such differences appeared not only in the details, but also in the underlying assumptions about how the business works, what the customers want, and how competition might respond.

Perhaps most importantly though, they were able to share a common sense of the gap between where they were today as a business and where they could be tomorrow.

"Play can be a context in which risks can be taken without risk, in which the unimaginable can be imagined without fear, and in which the unhoped for can be realized without hesitation."

When a child can bring others into their imagined world, the next phase of play can begin.

Child psychologists claim that children learn best through play.

In so claiming, they are not referring to the learning process of a grammar lesson, but the essential learning that brings a child successfully to adulthood.

IMD is generally regarded as the business school in the vanguard of executive education.

In our experience, more people than you might first imagine think serious play could be very useful.

But it is also the case that the chances for success are significantly better if the serious play starts at the top.

Professors Roos and Victor are developing an approach for how to apply Serious Play in executive teams.

If you have questions or are interested in a dialogue on this topic, just send an e-mail to: roos@imd.ch or victor@imd.ch.

peaks "fitness landscapes" exploring metaphor "organization science" autopoiesis "knowledge landscapes" "potential knowledge" climb

Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 12.3, forthcoming June 1999.

Based on the complexity theory concept of fitness landscapes, this article develops and discusses the concept of "knowledge landscapes."

A knowledge landscape is metaphor of an ever-changing knowledge of each individual and organization.

Each one of us is surrounded by potential knowledge landscape peaks and valleys.

Individuals, communities, and organizations move on their own knowledge landscapes by simultaneously climbing local peaks and exploring other visible peaks.

The higher one climbs, the harder it is to climb still further.

The ability to climb is also limited by the identity, who we are, which on an organizational level is linked to the tightness of organizational interconnectedness.

Co-evolutionary struggles between individuals and organizations can lead us to climb potential knowledge peaks faster.

Moreover, our knowledge landscapes exist on many levels of scale, meaning what appears to be one peak is actually a series of sub-peaks on a smaller level of scale.

The purpose of this article is to introduce and discuss the concept of "knowledge landscapes"-- analogous to the concept of fitness landscapes in complex adaptive systems theory-- which we believe brings forth new insights in the organizational science realm.

More precisely, viewing individuals and organizations through a lens of knowledge landscapes raises new research questions on what is the boundary of organizations (Scott, 1987), the role of managers (Thompson, 1967), co-operative strategies (Hamel, 1991), and organizational learning (Huber, 1991).

Because it rests on a different set of assumptions than much organization theory, the concept of knowledge landscapes also raises important questions regarding research methodology (McKelvey, 1997).

Some scholars have pointed out that extending theories developed for natural sciences to social systems is fraught with potential pitfalls (e.g. Mingers, 1995).

While we acknowledge these concerns, we believe metaphors and analogies can allow cross- fertilization between complexity and other theories to improve our understanding of organizational phenomena.

Johnson and Burton themselves concede that metaphors are "fair game" in the context of discovery processes.

The value of analogies has similarly been highlighted by Holland: analogy helps to generate new rules applicable to a novel target problem by transferring knowledge from a source domain that is better understood (Holland, et al., 1986).

The current state of organization theory-building drawing on complex adaptive systems theory bears many similarities to the situation facing organizational learning in the early 1990s.

A small but dramatically increasing number of people are conducting research in the area, and a number of conferences, seminars, Internet list servers, and journal special issues are drawing more and more attention to the topic.

An inevitable "jockeying for position" is underway in complex adaptive systems theory development analogous to the process cited in Huber's (1991) critique of organizational learning.

However, some emergent order is becoming evident as the field seems to be dividing into two streams: those developing theory using computer modeling (e.g. Bruderer and Singh, 1996) and those using metaphors and narrative (e.g. Lissack, 1997).

This article follows the latter research stream.

We use metaphors and analogies to relate the concept of fitness landscapes to organization theory.

Using his NK model, Kauffman has developed simplified versions of fitness landscapes containing a series of peaks and valleys of varying heights and depths.

He postulates that in the competition for survival, species use mutation and selection to take "adaptive walks" to reach higher viability "fitness points" in their "adjacent possible".1 Species who fail to move to higher points on their landscapes may be outpaced by competitors who are more successful in doing so, and thus face extinction through a process of natural selection.

Each move up a local peak reduces the number of directions in which the technology can be improved by a constant fraction, so climbing becomes more difficult.

Autopoietic systems engage their environment through a co- adaptive process of structural coupling, which leads to structural changes in both the system and its environment.

From the rolling contours of a species' fitness landscape, using the notion of knowledge potential we can develop an analogy of an individual, community, or organization (actor) in its own "knowledge landscape".

Knowledge landscapes surrounding organizations with identities that are characterized by more connections will have more hills and valleys, containing many lower "compromise" peaks rather than one easily- apparent optimal peak.11 As epistatis--the equivalent of "K" on fitness landscapes- - increases, the knowledge landscape becomes more "rugged".

Kauffman also draws the concept of co-evolution into a species' climb up peaks on its fitness landscape.

A co-evolutionary struggle can ensue between "predator" and "prey" species, in which the former develops a slightly better predation method that is subsequently countered by a new protection innovation by the latter, and so on.

The knowledge landscape concept rests primarily on the theoretical grounds of complex adaptive systems and secondarily on theories of autopoiesis.

Eigen, M. and R.W. Oswatitsch (1992), Steps Towards Life: A Perspective on Evolution, New York: Oxford University Press.

Garud, R. and P. Karnoe (1996), "Path Creation & Dependence in the Danish Wind Turbine Field," Presented at INFORMS College for Organization Science, Atlanta, November.

Kauffman, S. and S. Levin (1987), "Towards a General Theory of Adaptive Walks on Rugged Landscapes," Journal of Theoretical Biology 128, p.11-45.

Kauffman, S. (1993), The Origins of Order: Self- Organization and Selection in Evolution.

Kauffman, S.A. (1996), "Investigations: The Nature of Autonomous Agents and the Worlds the Mutually Create," Santa Fe Institute Working Paper: 96-08-072.

Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline, the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, London: Doubleday Currency.

Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Chaos.

Wright, S. (1932), "The Roles of Mutation, Inbreeding, Crossbreeding and Selection in Evolution," Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Genetics 1, pp. 356-366.

reaction step away from those that currently exist.

The adjacent possible can be said to describe the fitness landscape that could exist in time t+1, which is the effective limit to adaptive walks for any given time t.

2 Represented by "K" in the NK model.

couple grows, increasing the probability of internal conflict within the species over the value of a particular step in its adaptive walk, and reducing the chance that an improvement will take place.

threshold", and information within a species is completely lost (Eigen and Oswatitsch, 1992).

with the mechanical arts or applied sciences", and can thus can be considered knowledge-based.

receive signals from its "domain" (the realm or sphere within which it engages external systems), but closed to changes to internal rules or norms of operation.

These rules change only when an external signal stimulates processes that already exist within the system.

Embodied knowledge and internal rules the system follows to reproduce itself constitute the system's "identity"--the basis from which autopoietic systems self-reference.

There is also a growing application of the use of the autopoietic epistemology in the management literature, including work by Morgan (1986), von Krogh, Roos and Slocum (1994), Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), and Sveiby (1996).

Grant's (1996b) assertion that only individuals can engage in knowledge creation would also seem to lend indirect support to the autopoietic epistemology.

Each seem to share many anti-representationist assumptions (Varela, Thompson, and Rosch, 1991; von Krogh and Roos, 1995).

Moreover, on a more fundamental level, a coevolutionary world is brought forth through interaction: whether by structural coupling (autopoiesis) or nonlinear interaction among adaptive agents (complex adaptive systems).

The "autopoietic entity" can be compared to the adaptive agent in complex adaptive systems theory.

Each theory has also been shown to be scalable-- interaction on one scale leads to emergent behavior on a higher scale.

Von Krogh and Roos (1995) postulate that autopoietic knowledge development might be fractal across different scales.

If what is a system at one hierarchical level of scaling is an agent at the next level up, patterns that apply to one can be seen in the other in some form.

10 A metaphor used by Waldrop (1992) to convey the dynamics of fitness landscapes.

Such an organization is thus forced to make many internal compromises to develop new knowledge and adapt, and is prone to getting "stuck" on local peaks.

At the other extreme, an extremely loosely-connected organization can explore a broader part of the landscape and take on new innovations/genes with relative ease.

However, as each sub-unit attempts to selfishly climb peaks on its fitness landscape, positive innovations will not spread easily throughout the organization, possibly leading to a wildlyshifting fitness landscape.

overlooked the possibility that air flows and directions would vary drastically, once outside the confines of the laboratory.

14 This metaphor is echoed in the common phrase "surfing the internet".

management "coherent viewpoint" business Internet production instructions customers context efficiency

In March 1999 Hewlett Packard announced a major restructuring.

The old scientific instrument part of HP was recreated as the "measurement" company, leaving the computers and imaging businesses coupled together.

Certainly, because the two businesses were operating in vastly different worlds.

Clearly the marketplace for measuring instruments does not change at the tumultuous rate that marks the computer and imaging markets.

But, there is a more straightforward explanation: Coherence, or rather the lack of it.

Though sometimes hidden in the guise of such words as "alignment," "synchronicity," or "fit," coherence is critical for day-to-day productivity and effectiveness of both individuals and organizations.

"Coherent actions are those that make sense to all relevant people in organizations."

Coherent actions are those that make sense to all relevant people in organizations.

HP decided to break itself apart so that its managers could act coherently and in the absence of coercion from above.

If the key actors in a business all have vastly different understandings about these issues, no actions will have coherence.

For people to take actions that make sense to them and others, both the actions themselves -- and the underlying viewpoint from which they stem -- must be aligned with the basic values and purpose of the individuals and of the organization.

Corporate culture serves as the base on which coherence and coherent viewpoints are constructed.

What the old HP lacked was a coherent viewpoint from which to contemplate strategy and tactics.

By 1998 the company had been losing contracts from established customers to rivals, operating margins had shrunk drastically, as had revenues.

And huge production problems had resulted in the closure of two assembly lines.

Boeing is embedded in an intertwined mesh of hundreds of contracting firms, subsidiaries, etc., all dependent on one another.

The company itself admits that it needs to be dragged out of the dark ages of management and into the (post-) modern, dynamic and rapidly changing world.

"Coherence is a characteristic that is necessary across the whole spectrum of activities, from development and production to marketing and sales."

In the past, business markets were less complex -- for managers to view all the different entities as separate and independent was a false but acceptable way of managing.

However, nowadays, given the dynamic and evolving natur e of a complex industry such as aerospace, this approximation is entirely inadequate.

"When a system is coherent, virtually no energy is wasted on achieving internal synchronization."

Coherent organizations thrive in attainment of their goals.

Power is maximized -- the power to adapt, flex, and innovate, resulting in a major leap in efficiency and effectiveness.

To this end, a few, simple guiding principles matter.

Every action is interpreted through our mental model and our actions are based on that interpretation.

Building canals for these flows means locking them into a reality that will be outdated before the canal even opens.

Consider the space created by ad campaigns such as "cool Britannia", "Intel inside", or the current "AOL: we make the Internet easy."

Southwest Airlines does the same with its consistent image of "family", which it applies to employees, customers and suppliers.

By contrast, the many-paged rulebook at the old IBM or the present mega-merger company does little to create space.

"Stories allow others to relate to facts, contexts and emotions, and to bring their own interpretation to what they hear or read."

5.Tell stories to give others the benefit of shared experiences.

Conclusions and instructions provide no thinking room for the person hearing the conclusion or receiving the instruction.

Coherent actions demand a context, which is itself coherent.

Mastering Corporate Complexity through Coherence" (Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London, April 1999).

Fein G. “Pretend Play: Creativity and Consciousness.” in G. Go¨rlitz, D. and J.F. Wohlwill. (eds.)

Curiosity Imagination and Play. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1987.

Hamel G. and C.K. Prahalad. Competing For The Future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1994.

Hammer, M. The Reengineering Revolution: A Handbook. New York, NY: Harper Business. 1995.

Kearney, R. The Wake of Imagination: Toward a Postmodern Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988.

Kim W. Chan and R. Mauborne. “Value Innovation: The Strategic Logic of High Growth.”

Harvard Business Review (Jan-Feb. 1997).

Mellou, E. “Creativity: The Imagination Condition.” Early Child Development and Care 114 (1995): 97-106.

Singer J. & D. Singer. “Fantasy and Imagination.” in Bergen, D and D. Fromberg. (eds.) Play from Birth to

Twelve and Beyond: Contexts, Perspectives, and Meanings. New York, NY: Garland Publishers, 1998.

Sutton-Smith, B. The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.

Gruber, H and J. Vone`che. (eds.) The Essential Piaget. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1977.

Harel, I. and S. Papert. (eds.) Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1991.

Harel, I. (ed.) Constructionist Learning. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Media Laboratory, 1990.

Kafai, Y., and M. Resnick. (eds.) Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking, and Learning in a Digital World.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.

Papert, S. Mindstorms. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1980.

Papert, S. The Children’s Machine. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1993.

Papert, S. “What’s the Big Idea? Toward a Pedagogy of Idea Power.” IBM Systems Journal 39.3-4 (2000).

Resnick, M, Bruckman, A. and F. Martin. “Pianos Not Stereos: Creating Computational Construction Kits.”

Interactions 3:6 (1996).

Boje, D. “Organizations as Storytelling Networks: A Study of Story Performance in an Office-supply Firm,”

Administrative Science Quarterly 36 (1991): 106-126.

Lakoff, G., and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Morgan, G. Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997.

Oliver, D., and Johan Roos. Striking a Balance: Complexity and Knowledge Landscapes.

New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing, 2000.

Ortony, A. (ed.). Metaphor and Thought (2nd Edition). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Tsoukas, H. “The Missing Link: A Transformational View of Metaphors in Organizational Science.”

Academy of Management Review 16 (1991): 566-585.

Bateson, G. Steps Into an Ecology of Mind. New York, NY: Ballantine, 1972.

Berk, L. & Winsler, A. Scaffolding Children’s Learning: Vygotsky and Early Childhood Education.

Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1995.

Caillois, R. Des Jeux et des Hommes. Paris: Gallimard, 1958.

Chaˆteau, J. Le Jeu de L’enfant Apre`s Trois Ans, sa Nature sa Discipline. Paris: Vrin, 1946.

Csikszenmihalyi, M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1990.

Duflo, C. Jouer et Philosopher. Paris: PUF, 1997.

Fry, W. Jr. Sweet Madness: a Study of Humor. Palo Alto, CA: Pacific Books, 1963.

Garvey, C. Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977.

Geertz, C. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1973.

Huizinga, J. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1955.

Jung, C.G. Errinerungen, Tra¨ume, und Gedanken. Zu¨rich: Rascher, 1962:202-207.

Kafai, Y. Minds in Play. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1995.

Kearney, R., The Wake of Imagination: Toward a Postmodern Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988.

Mellou, E. “Creativity: The Imagination Condition.” Early Child Development and Care 114 (1995): 97-106.

Nicopoulou, A. “Cognitive Development, and the Social World: Piaget, Vygotsky and Beyond.”

Human Development 36:1 (1993).

Oliver, D., & J. Roos. Striking a Balance: Complexity and Knowledge Landscapes. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill, 2000.

Papert, S. The Connected Family. Atlanta: Longstreet Press, 1996.

Piaget, J. La Formation du Symbole Chez L’enfant: Imitation, Jeu et Reˆve, Image et Repre´sentation.

Neuchaˆtel: Delachaux et Nie`stle´, 1945.

Piaget, J. The Child’s Conception of the World. London: Routledge, 1951.

Putnam, H. “The Face of Cognition.” Journal of Philosophy (Sep. 1995).

Rieber, L. “Seriously Considering Play.” ETR & D 44(2) (1996): 43-58.

Schon, D. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books, 1971.

Sutton-Smith, B. The Ambiguity of Play. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA: 1997.

VanderVen, K. “Play, Proteus and Paradox” in Pronin Fromberg, D. and D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from Birth to Twelve

and Beyond: Contexts, Perspectives, and Meanings. New York: Garland, 1998.

Varela, F., E. Thompson, and E. Rosch. The Embodied Mind., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.

Wilson, F. The Hand: How Its Use Shapes the Brain, Language, and Human Culture,

New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 1998.

LEGO? SERIOUS PLAY?