Multiple Models of the Five Generic Core Processes of, AI
In fact, these generic processes have already taken on the form of “AI process models” (the 5-D model, the 4-I model, the original AI model, etc.). Each of these existing “process models” draws attention to different parts of the five generic processes in a way that is helpful in seeing the variations that are possible.
The Original Cooperrider/Srivastva Model
When first introduced (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987) this “model” was part of the transition from thinking about AI as purely an approach to the building of generative theory to thinking about AI more directly as a process for intervening in and changing organizations. The model is shown in Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3. Dimensions of Appreciative Inquiry
This same model was later depicted more explicitly as an AI process model in a way that also served to contrast what Cooperrider and Srivastva called Paradigm 1 action research versus their Paradigm 2 model. In Paradigm 1 the root metaphor is “the organization as a problem to be solved.” In Paradigm 2 the root metaphor is “the organization as a mystery to be embraced.”
The two contrasting processes are shown in Figure 3.4. Also in the early days of expanding the theory of AI to apply to organization change processes, Cooperrider created an overview of the process that remains even today as a comprehensive depiction of the whole of AI theory and practice.
Figure 3.4. Two Contrasting Processes for Organizational Change
The GEM Initiative Four-D Model
The Four “D” model (Discover, Dream, Design, Deliver) began as a sequence of sentences that described the phases of an AI process. Ada Jo Mann and David Cooperrider were working on a GEM Initiative project in Zimbabwe when they realized that the complexity of the language in describing the steps of the AI planning process was confusing for some of the participants. In place of the long explanatory sentences, Ada Jo suggested the 4 D’s as a more comprehensible process that would work better in their projects around the globe where English, if spoken at all, is a “second language.”
The 4-Ds became the “gold standard” as the most comprehensible way to use AI as a perspective for organization change processes. Based closely on Kurt Lewin’s “action research” model that focused on the problems and deficits in a system that needed to be “solved,” the 4-D model (shown in Figure 3.5) launched what has become a global phenomenon—action research from an appreciative and positive perspective!
Figure 3.5. The GEM Initiative’s 4-D Model
A Fifth D—Define
Sometime after the publication of the first edition of this book, we began to add a fifth D to the traditional 4-D Model. The fifth D—Define—describes the first process that consultants and other AI practitioners use to clarify what in traditional OD is called the “contracting” phase—that time when the consultant negotiates with the client about what they want to have happen and how they will proceed; who will be involved; and other details required to have a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities in the project. By adding this Define stage to the 4-D model, we ensured that the preparation and planning for the project would be seen as an integral part of the overall process.
Following is a description of each of the tasks in each circle of the “traditional” Four D’s. (The Define stage is discussed in detail in Chapter 4; Discover in Chapters 5 and 6; Dream in Chapter 7; and Deliver in Chapter 8.)
Discover (Appreciating That Which Gives Life). The core task of the discover phase (or process) in this model is to appreciate the best of “what is” by focusing on times of organizational excellence when people have experienced the organization as most alive and effective. In order to understand the unique factors that made the high points in an organization possible, people deliberately let go of analysis of deficits and carefully inquire into and learn from even the smallest examples of high performance, success, and satisfaction. They tell stories about all aspects of their organization—inspired leadership; generative relationships and partnerships; technologies that make work go more smoothly or facilitate better service; structures that support innovation and creativity; planning that encompasses new ideas and diverse people; opportunities to learn; and so on.
In the discover phase of the model people share stories of exceptional accomplishments, discuss the core life-giving factors of their organizations, and deliberate upon the aspects of their organization’s history that they most value and want to bring to the future. Members come to know their organization’s history as positive possibility rather than a static, problematized, eulogized, romanticized, or forgotten set of events.
Dream (Envisioning Impact). The dream phase involves challenging the status quo by envisioning a preferred future for the organization. This is the time when the organization’s stakeholders engage in possibility conversations about the organization’s position, its potential, its calling, and the unique contribution it can make to global well-being. For many, this is the first time they have been invited to think great thoughts and create great possibilities for their organization. As the various stories of the organization’s history are shared and illuminated, a new historical narrative emerges, one that engages those involved in re-creating the organization’s positive history which, in turn, gives life to its positive future. Thus, the dream phase is both practical, in that it is grounded in the organization’s history; and generative, in that it seeks to expand the organization’s potential. As images of the future emerge out of grounded examples from its positive past, compelling possibilities emerge precisely because they are based on extraordinary moments from the organization’s history.
By creating possibility statements that make clear the shared visions for the organization’s future, there is created a beacon, a set of unique statements that paint a picture of the group’s vision of the organization’s most desired future.
Design (Co-Constructing the Future). The design phase includes the creation of the social architecture of the organization and the generation of possibility statements that articulate the organization’s dreams in ongoing activities. These two processes ensure that everything about the organization reflects and is responsive to the shared vision of the organization’s future created in the dream phase.
As stakeholders create the organization’s social architecture, they are defining the basic infrastructure. Constructing an organization requires careful consideration and widespread dialogue about what the structure and the processes of the organization will be. Possibilities for the organization are raised by the kinds of questions asked: What kind of leadership structure is needed and what is the preferred behavior of the leaders as they do their work? What is the organization’s strategy and how does will it be formulated and carried out? What are all of the structure elements needed?
Once there is agreement on the myriad possibilities for structuring the organization and an image of how they will function in relationship to the each other and to the organization as a whole, the task of the group is to articulate those decisions in possibility statements. These statements make explicit the desired qualities and behaviors that will enable each part of the organization to function in a way that moves it toward the higher visions articulated in the dream phase.
This creation of the social and technical architecture of the organization and aligning it with the overall organizational vision insures that everything about organizing reflects and is responsive to the dream. Both the dream phase and the design phase involve the collective construction of positive images of the future. In practice the two often happen in conjunction with each other.
Deliver (Sustaining the Change). The final phase creates ways to deliver on the new images of the future, both the overall visions of the dream phase and the more specific possibility statements of the design phase. It is a time of continuous learning, adjustment, and improvisation, much like a jazz group, all in the service of shared ideals. The momentum and potential for innovation are extremely high by this stage of inquiry. Because of the shared positive images, everyone is included in co-creating the future.
The deliver phase is ongoing. In the best case, it is full of continuing dialogue; revisited and updated possibility discussions and statements; additional interviewing sessions, especially with new members of the organization; and a high level of innovation and continued learning about what it means to create an organization that is socially constructed through poetic processes in a positive frame that makes full use of people’s anticipatory images.
Over the years since the 4-D model emerged, others have created innovative processes and ideas for ways to work from an AI perspective. Below is an alternative model as an example of the kind of innovation and creativity that is an integral part of what we refer to as “living” AI.
The Mohr/Jacobsgaard Four “I” Model
In addition, to demonstrate the flexibility and innovation encouraged in AI, we have included one of the many models for practicing AI that are being created and used by practitioners and leaders around the world. The 4-I model is an example of how Appreciative Inquiry can be adapted and used in a wide variety of models and approaches, affirming the fact that AI is a perspective and theory rather than a prescribed “model.”
As with the development of the four “D” model, it was the need to create something in the field which would fit a certain situation that led to the development of the four “I” model (Initiate, Inquire, Imagine, Innovate). During an advanced NTL Institute AI workshop (a field practicum) Bernard Mohr and Mette Jacobsgaard found themselves asking two questions:
1. “How can we graphically highlight the critical phase of foundation building—the work of educating the client system so they make an informed choice about proceeding with AI as well as the work of putting into place the necessary management structures to support the change process and also of course the fateful choice of inquiry focus and topics?”
2. “How can we graphically spotlight the terribly important phase of moving from the dreams and provocative propositions to reconnecting and modifying the socio-technical architecture of the organization to bring the dream and propositions to life?”
Mohr and Jacobsgaard were also concerned with the need of the “client managers” (with whom the program participants were working) to have language in the model which spoke to their experience of “initiating” something and the need of the “consultants” (the program participants that we were training) to have a model that covered all key processes of an AI-based change effort. The model they created is shown in Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6. The Mohr/Jacobsgaard Four-I Model
All the models have within them the core processes of AI. Each of the models emphasizes something a bit different, depending on the context in which they were created.