What is IM?
Interactive Management is a process developed by Professor John
Warfield to cope with the management of complexity.
It is used on an intermittent basis to deal with issues or situations that are beyond the
normal organizational context for problem solving. NL_John
We are referring to those instances
- where in spite of meetings with people in teams closely connected to the flow of work,
a sense of frustration is still being experienced because intuitively
everyone senses that
the outcomes should be more effective.
communication needs to take place over a far wider front and in greater depth
than may be initially acknowledged.
IM recognises that effective action in resolving complex
problem situations requires the consideration of multiple view-points on social
and technical issues by all the affected stakeholders. This
process of sharing 'mind sets' and bringing rich personal context-sensitive knowledge to
the problem situation in a collaborative environment is vital to develop the deep
understanding necessary for achieving break-through performance.
Many group problem solving & planning methods tend to fall short of the mark.
Common problems include:
· They achieve a hollow, temporary consensus.
Although the members of a syndicate group or task force may
think they have reached an understanding around some key statements, in reality there are several different
interpretations lurking behind the words they have used which
subsequently hinder effective communication
· The ideas produced are often perceived as too loose and global to effect practical
on the ground. Alternatively, they sometimes turn out to be too low
level and tactical to make
a really significant impact on the business.
· Often the bridge between innovative, strategic-level thinking and concrete,
of action is weak or non-existent.
· Management often finds itself asking, was the time invested in all that group work
Team-building without some tangible results
is a luxury few organizations can afford.
· The documented record of decisions reached in group planning exercises and of the
itself - often produced days after the event - may be a bland abstraction of
the real discussions
that took place, difficult for anyone who was not present to
interpret, or so complex and detailed that it fails to produce a coherent strategy for the