Integrated-Autonomy

Move from either-or to robust both-and solutions

Five Structural Elements – Min Specs

1. Structuring Invitation

“Have you ever felt the tension between standardization and customization, or between centralized control and local autonomy? In our work, how are we integrating centrally while enhancing local autonomy? We’re going to tackle these challenges and discover how to move from either-or to more of both!”

2. Space and Materials

• Groups of four chairs around small tables [breakouts of three].
• Integrated~Autonomy templates (attachments)
• and pens for each F2F participant [digital version for each group in a visual collaboration space].

3. Participation Distribution

• Roles include host [tech host] and participants.
• There is no minimum group size.
• Everyone involved in the challenge, both far from and close to the work (central and local) is invited and has an equal opportunity to contribute.

4. Group Configuration

• 1-2-4-All
• Individually to generate topics
• Small groups of 4
• Whole group

5. Steps and Time Allocation

Intro: Share the structuring invitation and hand out the Integrated Autonomy template (above) [participants draw their own template]. Display Steps for Integrated Autonomy (below under Collateral Materials). (1 min.) List Activities: Participants list activities where there are tensions between integrating or centralizing their work and customizing or maintaining local autonomy. For example, in medical treatment, doctors must balance evidence-based recommendations (centralization) with patients’ individual decisions (autonomy). (3 min.) Combine Lists: Participants form pairs [breakouts of three] to combine key items from their lists [in the visual collaboration space]. (7 min.) Brainstorm Actions: Pairs join to form quartets [remain in trios]. They pick one activity from the list and brainstorm actions to integrate the activity (Section A) and actions to customize the activity (Section B). (10 min.) New Actions: The groups brainstorm actions to increase both integration and autonomy and put them in Section C. (20 min.) Prioritize Actions: Everyone returns to plenary. Invite everyone to review Section C and identify the most promising actions that promote both integration and autonomy. (15 min.) Plan Follow-Up: The group plans how to move forward and when to evaluate progress. (15 min.)

WHY? Purposes

• Develop innovative strategies to move forward.
• Avoid wild or “bipolar” swings in policies, programs, or structures.
• Identify the complementary-yet-paradoxical pairs that are important and manage the paradoxical decisions productively.
• Evaluate decisions by asking, “Are we boosting or attending to both sides?”
• Evaluate and launch new strategies

Taking it online

Online, use a 1-3-All configuration instead of 1-2-4-All.

Practice insights Tips and Traps

• The tension between central and local perspectives is often hidden. If a group gets stuck or argues, ask each side to adopt the other’s viewpoint and argue from that perspective. As the session progresses, revisit the initial question, ““How are we integrating centrally while enhancing local autonomy?”
• Draw on field experience and imagination in asking questions such as, “How can we do more of both?”
• The goal is fidelity in a few core global attributes and differentiation in each local setting
• Laughter and groans (e.g., arrgh) help to identify progress
• You may need to encourage the group to try many experiments simultaneously
• There often are no quick fixes and you may need to return to the challenge periodically with additional rounds of Integrated~Autonomy
• When you start, the creative tension between the central and the local sides is relatively invisible. If the group gets stuck or starts to argue, tell each side to put on the hat of the other side and argue the opposite point of view.

Riffs and Variations

• Making progress with Integrated~Autonomy can shift what is possible for the whole organization as people start to understand that what helps them succeed in addressing a particular challenge applies across the board. Whenever this happens, use Min Specs to go deeper into must-dos and must-not-dos.
• Substitute “collaboration and competition” for “integration and autonomy.”

Practical Applications

Adapt guidance based on people’s experience. We invite novices to honor the basics, while encouraging more experienced hosts to adapt an LS. In an agile environment, develop distributed version control systems while maintaining code integrity and accommodating local adaptations

Examples

• For hospital-system leaders to develop the contents of new management contracts for small hospitals in the same region
• For a group of political leaders trying to formulate what should be legislated at the federal level and what should be decided locally
• For infection-control experts trying to create hospital-wide policies that do not inhibit unit-based innovations

Attribution: Liberating Structure developed by Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless.

Source: Liberating Structures