Mark, I need to outline how we would go about developing a ‘needs analysis’ for a big coaching project we are bidding for with a major potential client.  My experience with these is that they are essentially gap analysis tools which runs right against the SF approach.  Are you aware of anything that might have been written up that provides an SF approach to this?  I would really like to be able put up an alternative approach that achieves better outcomes than the traditional gap based needs analysis.

I am quite a fan of the ‘reverse Kirkpatrick’ method of needs analysis.  This takes Donald Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaulation (with which many of you may be familiar):
 
reaction of student – what they thought and felt about the training
learning – the resulting increase in knowledge or capability
behaviour – extent of behaviour and capability improvement and implementation/application
results – the effects on the business or environment resulting from the trainee’s performance
 
and reverses them. So, we get a process like:
 
1.  Results - the desired effects on the business or environment resulting from the trainee’s performance (and, in SF fashion, the benefits of this for all stakeholders including the learning participants)
2.  Behaviour - therefore, the desired behaviour and capability improvement and implementation/application is… (and, in SF fashion, what do we know from previous experience of doing this in this organisation that will help.  What’s the best you ever did at this?… How did you do that?…)
3.  Learning - therefore, the desired increase in knowledge or capability to be taught is… (And in SF fashion, including what of this do they do already, how to affirm that, how to build on it, etc)
4,  Reaction of students – (and lastly how we wish the learners to respond on the day, which will usually be engaged, stimulated, affirmed, supported and clear about their next steps).

Do try this and let me know how you get on.  I’ve found it very helpful in the past.  And what’s more, it makes the evaluation process very straightforward, as you’ve already thought about all the criteria for the evaluation.

What is a ‘sign’?  In the dictionary, sign (noun) is given as:

“An object, quality, or event whose presence or occurrence indicates the probable presence or occurrence of something else.” 

In SF work, a sign is an indicator that useful change has happened… either in the past, the present or the future.  Note that this is not at all the same as ‘what will bring change about’.  That’s an action.  A sign is something that tells us that things are moving in the right direction.  It might turn out to be actionable or it may not.  So, what’s the advantage of talking about tiny signs?

Suppose we want to describe a better future – something we want to have happen.  It’s interesting what happens when we do this in terms of ‘first tiny signs’. 

• The description becomes very concrete.  We start thinking about small observable and detailed elements. 
• The description becomes very generative.  These are first tiny signs – but the precursors of all kinds of bigger things to come. 
• A rich description can be generated by thinking about many tiny signs – each possibly insignificant on its own, but in unison amounting to an exciting new possibility. 
• The description can become action-oriented – the tiny signs themselves lead to ideas for actions. 
• And finally, the tiny signs can be used in the future as reference points to spot change starting to happen.  Once you know what you’re looking for, it’s much easier to spot it. 

I notice this sometimes when I work with people from other traditions.  It seems like they are happy to discuss better futures at a general abstract level, but when get a little nervous when I suggest we ask about ‘first tiny signs’.  Maybe talking in these terms raises the stakes a bit – the future starts to seem nearer, and we may actually have to deal with it starting to arrive!  But surely that’s a good thing?

I disagree with Steve on this. There are surely many more ways to learn SF than this, even if we had thousands of hours to spare. And these days, most people want to get somewhere rather quicker than that. The recent SFCT Trainers Conference in Bad Soden, Germany started with a plenary session on ‘showing and telling’. See the photo on the rights – on the panel Kirsten Dierolf, Peter Szabo, Peter Rohrig (chair), me and Yasuteru Aoki.

I guess all SF trainers use practical exercises and activities, and use live demonstration coaching sessions and/or tapes of past work. This is what I call ‘showing’ – addressing the practice as an activity in itself. But what is the role (if any) of ‘telling’ – using theory, models, cognitive frameworks, heuristics, metaphors etc to support the learning process. We might think of these aspects as scaffolding; structures which support the learning while it takes place, but can be removed afterwards, like a ladder which can be cast aside once it ha1s been used.

Sometimes I envy the Appreciative Inquiry people. Their approach, derived explicitly in an academic context, has some ‘official’ models like the 4-D cycle (Discover, Dream, Design, Destiny/Deliver) and five principles (see for example http://www.positivechange.org/about-us/appreciative-inquiry/). SF is a much more slippery creature than this. There are no official ways to describe it, much less teach it. Everyone finds their own version, and appreciates other versions. All of this makes an incredibly rich school of practice – and a nightmare when someone wants the low-down on one Powerpoint slide!

Perhaps because there are no official models, some SF trainers use little or no ‘telling’. Some of those (like Solutionsurfers) do this from a position of clear choice. Others seem to be unaware even of the possibility that anything else is feasible. Personally, I think there is a good role for the judicious application of models and frameworks to support learning. In The Solutions Focus book, now published nearly 10 years ago and still selling well, Paul Z Jackson and I introduced two such frameworks. One of these has proved much more useful that the other, in my view.

Our six SIMPLE principles – a conceptual framework – was intended to act as a high level guide to what is, and is not, solutions focused. It is accurate, yet hardly anyone finds this a good place to start and support learning. I have found it a good place to finish a training – people can relate to it once they know about SF, in terms of a summary. And it carries the important message of staying simple and SIMPLE.

Our six Solutions Tools, on the other hand, have proved a real boon in helping people get to grips with SF practice quickly and confidently. By bringing different phases of SF into view – Platform, Future Perfect, Scale, Counters (finding what’s working), Affirm and Small Actions – we find that learners can quickly distinguish between USING a tool – working with a particular element – and MOVING to another tool. The whole tools metaphor is helpful – tools each do a certain job, we have a choice of different tools, each one requires skill, and we need to know when to pick each up and also when to put it down and move on.

As our learners become more experienced, they also become more skilled and more fluid with the tools, and more creative in fitting their work with the context. It seems to me as if frameworks like this can really help people short-cut ‘watching thousands of hours’.

So as time has gone on, I and the sfwork team have been developing different tool-sets and frameworks to help in this manner. OSKAR coaching (also with Paul Z Jackson), MAGIC negotiation and iFLOW personal effectiveness (with Shakya Kumara), PARTNER conflict management (with Antoinette Oglethorpe)… All of these offer support to people wanting to find ways to engage the power of the SF approach in particular contexts without spending years grappling with the overall approach. I find no conflict in using these frameworks in teaching, learning and using SF ideas – as long as we also keep in mind that the SF approach is NOT reducible to a framework.

http://alturl.com/kfnus

You can read my chapter on my Academia page at <a href=”http://herts.academia.edu/MMcKergow/Papers/1049163/Solution-Focused_Approaches_in_Management “>http://herts.academia.edu/MMcKergow/Papers/1049163/Solution-Focused_Approaches_in_Management</a>.

We are looking to engage business and organisations in Bristol into the Happiness Challenge to learn about happiness and start on a journey towards a happier workplace.  The data is unequivocal – happiness is no laughing matter!  A happier workforce has been widely demonstrated to be more: productive, loyal, responsible, creative, efficient, resilient, self reliant and collaborative. Happiness is also shown to correlate with lower carbon usage and greater community cohesion and equality. It can be at the heart of better HR, CSR, PR, organizational development and leadership.

The Happiness Challenge gives you the chance to put your business on the Happiness Map and inspire positive action throughout your organization from the word GO!  I will personally be working with the Happy City team on the initial programme, starting on 9 November 2011.  This will include three one-day sessions, an in-house consulting session, weekly learning updates and interactions in our online forum and a wonderful experience for the participants both in terms of their own workplaces and in connecting with others.  Read the online pdf brochure at http://www.happycity.org.uk/sites/default/files/challenge_brochure_web_version.pdf.  For more information and to book places, call Mike Zeidler on 07836 706978.

Stephen is a big fan of SF and in particular of my ‘rutenso’ philosophy (see http://sfworkblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/rutenso-the-art-of-thriving-in-times-of-constant-change/).  In the latest page at Dragons At Work he mentions this explicitly, and goes on to give seven excellent tips to go from ‘worrier’ to ‘warrior’.  Check it out at http://www.dragonsatwork.com/from-worrier-to-warrior-in-7-steps/ and remember to sign up there for future installments!

Jeff has been working in situations where it’s key to keep certain parameters in the right zones (a little like the balanced scorecard approach). He has developed an approach to using scales called ‘dials on the dashboard’, taking cues from aircraft cockpit design and elsewhere, where the scale is displayed as a round dial with ‘good’ as straight up.  This means that things can be ‘less than good’ either by being too low or – interestingly – too high.  Jeff led an energetic session where we explored this idea, which is slightly different from the classic SF scale where 10 is ‘miracle’ and any movement upwards is welcomed.  Jeff has used this piece of work as his SFCT review, and you can read about it at his SFCT page at http://www.asfct.org/jeffmatthews.php. 

The day continued with our usual collection of emergent topics and reflecting teams.  Sarah Cudmore (http://www.cudmoreconsulting.com) shared some work on ‘Sf-ing’ workshops for behavioural safety.  We also had reflecting teams about running follow-up sessions with groups (particularly about varying the processes) and about stress management for GPs.  I outlined a little of my latest thinking on ‘rutenso’ – the art of thriving in times of constant change – to round off the day. 

The next SFCT telecall (for members) will be on 17 August, the host is John Brooker and the topic is conflict and teams.  Our next CPD day is Monday 17 October in London.  Anyone can join SFCT – more details at http://www.asfct.org.