Situations where people are working together to achieve a common purpose can be likened to enormous Rubik puzzles, with

countless
permutations of shape, size and form. However these situations are without a master ‘template’ showing what the ideal end product
should or could look like. At Accel, we use an ‘open systems’ approach to help management to develop team building templates. These
templates can then be used to improve management‘s understanding of their complex HR situation, and assist in bringing the pieces of the
puzzle closer to a more desirable state.

Understanding the Open Systems Approach

to Team Building
We all know how difficult it can be to solve say a Rubik’s puzzle. For the original cube alone there are millions of possible combi-
nations of the pieces, and despite many hours of unsuccessful attempts at solving the puzzle and hours spent over learned books on
the subject, there is always one final corner of the cube that is upside down or in the wrong place. We know it is mathematically
possible to solve it, and furthermore we know exactly what it should look like at the finish, but still it breaks into disarray just as
we think we have it beaten.
Human situations are similar in many respects, except there are far more pieces to the puzzle, and the number of possible
combinations would leave Rubik himself floundering to find a solution. Furthermore, we don’t know what the end product should
look like, and may well find it difficult to locate and understand all the components of the conundrum in the first place. Without
being able to structure what we have to start with, or a pattern to work towards, how can we expect to make improvements that
will give rise to genuine benefits?
Accel’s open systems approach to team building provides a basis for
• Gathering together and examining the pieces of your organisational puzzle
• Constructing models or patterns of how these pieces might work together more harmoniously
• Achieving a better understanding of the ‘solution’ that you seek to achieve

Getting the team building pieces into perspective

You may feel they know all about your organisation or department and the people therein. However it is worth pausing for a mo-
ment to review your knowledge and understanding of the relevant influencing factors. This as the starting point for considering
where improvements might be possible, in your organisation or department.
Any human situation is extremely com-
plex and cluttered, and many pages of manuscript Fig. 1 Characteristics of Rich Pictures
may be needed before you have an adequate ENVIRONMENT
description prepared. Even when this has been
achieved, the limitations of a voluminous textual
Structure and Infrastructure
description can make it difficult to judge the rela-
tionship between the scattered pieces of the puzzle,
or to obtain an ‘overview‘ so that the prevailing
conditions or climate can be appreciated fully.
We make sense of your complex situa-
tion. All the elements of process, structure and
issues are expressed pictorially, which group them
together in a concise form as a useful aide mem- People
(individuals and groups)
oire’ but also allow them to be viewed as a whole
so that the climate is more obvious. Eyeballs
This illustration of the ‘thousand words’ Eyeballs (scrutiny)
(scrutiny)
and the process of constructing it during a work-
shop, will eventually form a picture reflecting some Conflict
Issues Conflict
of the richness of your situation, i.e. containing a
wealth of information and indicating areas that are
fertile for improvement. (Figure 1). Issues
Issues
This ‘rich’ picture provides a means of Conflict
bringing together all the pieces of your puzzle to Issues
give an overview of the situation and some indica-
tion of potential problems. (Although there are
no rules about constructing the picture, certain Processes
Issues eg
conventions such as ‘eyeballs’ to indicate outside Issues
scrutiny, ‘flashes’ to indicate areas of conflict and
sketches of people, usually with cartoon balloons
showing issues are quite common.)
Team Building - Defining the Issues
Whilst the picture as a whole is useful as a summary, the issues are arguably the most important aspects, as they will have a firm
bearing on the later stages when developing models to compare with what is happening in reality. Only factors that can truly be
regarded as issues are included, rather than the minor complaints, grumbles etc. (that can be found in any organisation.) As a gen-
eral rule of thumb, if the points of disharmony indicate either fundamental problems, or frequently occurring ones, then they are
worth including as issues.

Constructing the models

Having gathered together the pieces (of the existing situation,) the next stage is to stand back from the real world and develop a
model, (or models,) that delegates can use to improve their understanding of how these pieces should (or could) be working to-
gether. This isn’t simply a matter of designing a new two dimensional pattern, but considering in an objective way the underlying
purpose your organisation, the activities that are taking place, and the changes that could be occurring as a result of it. The work-
shop team building exercises and activities are specifically directed:
• At achieving improving organisational (or departmental) objectives
• And / or related to the less explicit needs of individuals or groups.
By considering the situation in systems terms, we develop suitable models to illustrate what could be happening from a variety of
different viewpoints. Fig. 2 Attributes of Systems
The term ‘system’ is a familiar one,
Transformation
and even without any formal systems training,
delegates are intuitively aware of some of the
attributes that it suggests. Consider common or
everyday hi-fi systems, hot water systems, com- Environment
puter systems etc., suggesting a ‘collection of Boundary
parts working together as a whole’, producing
something new that doesn’t exist until the parts Sub-System

are working together interdependently. Sub-System

• Each of these 'systems' transforms an
input to an output, such as cold water Sub-System
to hot water, via some process or set
of activities that are carried out by the Input Output
interconnected component parts, or Sub-System
‘subsystems‘ (e.g. pumps, heating ele-
ments, radiators etc.). Sub-System
• There will he some form of regulator
to keep performance within pre-set System
limits, Measure of Performance Means of regulation and
• The system will use resources inside its control
own boundary.
Interactions
• The system will be influenced by the Continuity
surrounding environment. Resources
• The performance can be measured,
perhaps in terms of heat output.
• There will be an expectation of a reasonable life span or continuity.
All of these attributes, as shown in figure 2, are considered common to ‘systems’, whether natural ones, those designed by man, or
those where purposeful human activity is taking place, i.e. in human activity systems.
In mechanistic terms, the Rubik’s cube itself could be regarded as a ‘system, for example, a transformation takes place
when an input of pressure from the user is converted to a rotary movement of the part of the cube that is pushed; it has a number
of interconnected parts, and is regulated or controlled by the linking mechanism and so on.
Taking a more abstract view, the cube could be regarded as a system for entertaining and/or frustrating people, or even a
‘system for making loads of money for Professor Rubik!’
Likewise, human situations can be viewed as a number of different but overlapping ‘systems’ making use of the same basic
ingredients, the people and the resources that they use or consume.

Issues Based Approach to Team Building

You might for example, regard your performance improvement situation as an ‘industrial relations system’ and consider the activi-
ties that could be taking place to meet staff needs and maintain good relationships between staff and management. Alternatively,
you might simply take a neutral view that your workshop system review is to achieve the primary task of the organisation, for ex-
ample ‘to transform raw materials into motor cars.’ A variety of models are then possible, each mutually dependent on the others.
Which models are relevant depends on the purpose of the analysis; if industrial relations are considered poor, then this
should be explored; if profits are low, then a ‘profit maximising’ model could be appropriate. These issue-based models are devel-
oped by considering the system that might exist from a particular point of view, e.g. the employees, the shareholders etc.., and
could arise from the issues noted in the rich picture.

  |  Page
 For illustration purposes, consider
Fig. 3 Illustration of Conceptual Modelling
the uncontentious view, i.e. that the activities
that we expect to find in the real situation are
those that contribute to the primary task of
Raw materials the organisation, such as manufacturing motor
cars. A systems model showing how this might
be done could include subsystems for ‘deter-
Determine mining market needs, calculating cost/profits,
market needs Calculate obtaining raw materials, manufacturing com-
costs / profit ponent parts, assembling them, and testing the
end product’, together with some mechanism
Plan, control for controlling quality, etc.. (Figure 3).
Obtain
and monitor These subsystems could then be ex-
raw materials
panded by constructing lower level models to
Manufacture show the activities that should be taking place
components within each, until such time as an ordered or
logical sequence of activities is derived show-
ing how the primary task can be achieved.
Assemble The model can be similar in style to
components Test vehicles a flowchart, the difference being that it illus-
trates an idea or concept, and does not neces-
sarily reflect what is happening in practice. It
is important when developing these concep-
Motor cars tual models that the system is clearly defined
before the model is constructed.
Consider;
• From whose point of view the system could exist
• What transformation is taking place
• Who undertakes the contributory activities
• The environment that influences the system and
• Who would benefit from the outputs.
Once all these factors are defined, they will form the root from which a conceptual model grows. (Figure 4).

Using the model

The construction of the systems model, or models, although fundamental to our systems approach (in team building,) is only a
means to an end, i.e.,
• To determine (for clients) where improvements can be made to the actual situation.
During a workshop, a number of ways of achieving this end are deployed, the most common of which is by general discussion, and
observation of what is happening in practice,
compared to what the model indicates could
Fig. 4 Defining the System Root definition be happening.
of relevant • The model is used as a basis for examining the
system
Examine model organisation objectively;
for • Examine whether the components of the
Define: Improvement
Transformation system (e.g. ‘subsystems‘ such as ‘calculating
Worldview - i.e. viewpoints Conceptual costs/profits’, 'obtaining raw materials' etc..)
Customers i.e. beneficiaries Model are reflected in the real situation, and also
Owner
Environment
• Determining if the system attributes, (e.g.
Actors i.e. those who carry out activities measures of performance, regulators, interac-
tivity of components etc..) can be identified as
effective / ineffective in practice.
The initial systems exercise could be based on a global view of the organisation after which it may be appropriate to focus on par-
ticular ‘nested’ problem areas and construct further models for detailed examination. By progressing from a ‘holistic’ view to lower-
level functions, or activities, we ensure that any changes considered take account of the total operation, rather than just an isolated
part.
It is important that a open systems review is not carried out as an ‘ivory tower’ exercise, and that there is participation of
representative personnel at various stages. In particular, once some ideas for change have been formulated, there will be a need to
obtain views on the feasibility and desirability of such changes, taking account of the current climate, both economic and political,
and the possible effect on the organisation structure, procedures and the attitudes of the individuals involved.
As a manager, it may be possible for you to make a well-founded judgement on certain courses of action (without con-
sulting very far,) but a full debate (via the workshop format) will be worthwhile, as amongst other things, it can encourage the
eventual acceptance of change. The team building workshop would then be your choice to explore your situation, the choices, the
viewpoints, the anticipated end results and benefits.
Page  |  
 A secondary consideration for you, is that you have revised and installed new practices in the organisation (successfully or
unsuccessfully) and wish to review the impact on all parts internally and or externally affected.
The workshop will;
• Determine the facts, by interviewing, observing,
• Deploy knowledgable and skilled practitioners (in working with people to achieve improvement)
• Express the influencing factors in a cohesive, structured form.
Post the workshop:
• Submit a written report summarising the facts, (e.g. about the processes that are being undertaken and the existing struc-
tures, etc..), The report will contain observations about problems or issues that are affecting the organisation / depart-
ment.
• A critical examination of these factors and draw conclusions from the text about possible ways forward.

Summary
The complexities of human situations can be difficult to understand and unravel, particularly as there are no common patterns or
templates for use as yardsticks. The open systems approach provides a means of:
• First, summarising the relevant facts and issues, using the medium of a rich picture, and
• Then, developing suitable patterns in the form of conceptual models, enabling delegates to see how the factors could in-
teract from certain specific viewpoints.
• The models illustrate possible solutions, taking you a step (at least) forward in the search for improvements.
It is not essential for delegates to have a deep understanding of systems theory for the process to be successful. They will quickly
grasp the principles, which will lead them to understood the detached and objective thinking that is a necessary part of developing
the systems models applicable to their / your organisation. This in turn results in constructive ideas about how and where improve-
ments can be made.
It is worth remembering that, whereas a Rubik’s cube or other puzzle can be solved eventually with sufficient application
and effort, human situations can only be improved, or brought closer to the models we have derived.

Cliff Gimes
cfg@accel-team.com