Action Plan with monthly and quarterly milestones (Table 2)

The model

Prasad Kaipa, in 1989, developed the 3-dimensional modeling process employed here, which is called a pyramid model. It was further developed and actualized in 1992 with the help of Chris Newham and is reported in System Thinker article (1998). Although the model is generally used in a visioning process, it has a wide range of applications. A tangible, 3-dimensional model offers another way of perceiving the relationships posed in the system. In the previous case, by building one 8 inch plastic color tetrahedron for each participant allowed them to “play” with the model and see the interconnected nature of various components and their interactions.

The tetrahedron allows the viewer to gather information about the model that is not easily understood from the abstract verbal description (Kaipa 2000).

Fig: 4

The model communicates abstract as well as aesthetic information. It has corners, flat sides, edges, and color. The concepts involved in the model, absent shape, color, and texture, are related abstractly in the text model. But in its tangible form the model adds the dimensions of color and relationships within physical space. This invites visual and tactile mani pulation of the model. Among the many options, one can rotate it in space, move it from one face to another using an edge as the axis of rotation, or consider what would be necessary to keep the model balanced on the tip of one of its corners. This process of mani pulation offers a constant change in how the pyramid is perceived. Likewise, there is an ever-changing flow of ideas about the relationships that it contains and how they might be combined.

Physical description of the model

This model uses the shape of a tetrahedron; it has four corners, six edges connecting them, and four faces. (The Egyptian pyramids have four triangular sides and a square bottom) All sides of the tetrahedron are triangles equal in area and dimension in this model although in reality these can be distorted. Figure 1 above contains the elements of the pyramid. A subset of the fourteen basic elements of this model will be considered here. The discussion will begin with the cornerstones of the system and proceed through the edges that connect the corners. The faces created by any three cornerstones and their connecting edges will not be considered in this chapter.

Leadership, Culture, Strategy, and Structure will be the cornerstones in this model (fig. 1). Any two cornerstones are connected by an edge, which describes a reflexive relationship between them. As this relationship is developed and refined it becomes what is called a “competency.” Now what exists between the cornerstones is much more than a reflexive relationship; it is a skill. It functions not only to describe something that happens by the interaction of the cornerstones, but can now be used as a tool for accomplishing something.

Any three cornerstones and their connecting edges define a face, which can be viewed as a scenario of how things would look if those elements dominated the organization. (Fig 3)The cornerstone and its three edges that are missing from the scenario can be seen as simply running in the background (at best) or actually missing (at worst).

The models created here will have two aspects, one Bright and one Shadow. If one is looking at the tetrahedron mani festing all the positive qualities of a system, one is viewing the Bright side. If one could then turn the pyramid inside out, the Shadow side would be visible. This dichotomy creates a tension between the positive and negative elements within the system. It adds another dimension to the model as one considers the information it has to offer. We will be considering the Bright side primarily, although we will offer examples of the Shadow side when we refer to the negative attitudes and behaviors.

In the next sections we will discuss the pyramid structure which will become in essence our “"genetic map"” of the organization. These discussions will take a broad look at each component and a sample of the range of possibilities associated with it. One can then refer to the case at the beginning of the chapter to see how that component was mani fest in the organization under consideration.  

Go to Mapping the Organizational DNA - Part II

<< previous   1 | 2 | 3 | 4

What can we do for you?

Call: 408-871-0462

Email us