{"id":713,"date":"2011-03-19T10:00:14","date_gmt":"2011-03-19T10:00:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.saasoft.com\/blog\/?p=713"},"modified":"2011-03-19T10:00:14","modified_gmt":"2011-03-19T10:00:14","slug":"qualigence-quantigence-and-synergence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/?p=713","title":{"rendered":"Qualigence, Quantigence and Synergence"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>It seems that\u00a0some people are better than others at figuring out what to do when presented with a new challenge.<\/p>\n

Every day we are all presented with\u00a0new challenges – c’est la vie<\/em> –\u00a0and for one challenge some of us seem to know what to do and others of us\u00a0are left scratching our heads.<\/p>\n

Yet,\u00a0when presented with a different\u00a0challenge the tables are turned.<\/p>\n

Why is that?<\/em><\/p>\n

Until recently I believed that improvement\u00a0was just a matter of accumulating enough knowledge and experience – but the pattern seems to be evident\u00a0in people of all ages and experience:\u00a0there seems to be more to it than just experience.<\/p>\n

So,\u00a0I searched the Internet on the topic of “problem solving” and many of the references mentioned the word “intelligence” –\u00a0a word that generates mixed feelings\u00a0for me.<\/p>\n

My\u00a0mixed feelings came from an experience I had as a student. I am, by nature, both competitive and curious and I felt it would be useful\u00a0to know my IQ and to meet others who shared my curiosity – so\u00a0I did the Mensa test. I\u00a0“passed” and was\u00a0duly invited to a\u00a0get-together\u00a0at a local pub and was informed\u00a0that I only needed to look for the distinctive yellow magazine to identify the meeting table (mensa<\/em> is latin for table). I did not need the magazine to identify the table of Mensans and\u00a0after that first encounter I chose not to return.\u00a0 I had a sense that there was something missing – high IQ was not enough – and it was that “something” I was looking for.<\/p>\n

I now know that mixed feelings are often a symptom of an over-simplification;\u00a0a signpost to a deeper awareness; and a\u00a0hint to keep digging for\u00a0the deeper meaning. Here is a definition\u00a0of the word “intelligence” that I found on Wikipedia:<\/p>\n

“Intelligence: A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings\u2014”catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.<\/em><\/p>\n

This definition resonates and prompted\u00a0a question:
\n“Are there more forms of intelligence than the ones we are familiar with in the Mensa-style Intelligence Quotient (IQ)\u00a0tests? And if so, how many forms of intelligence are there and what are their characteristics?”<\/em><\/p>\n

My intuition said “Yes – there\u00a0are more than one” and I had the sense\u00a0that are at least two forms; one that is conscious and that deals with quantities – so\u00a0I labelled that as\u00a0quantity-intelligence or quantigence<\/strong>; and another that is unconscious and\u00a0deals with qualities\u00a0– so I labelled that as quality-intelligence or qualigence<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

It also felt\u00a0that these are not independent of each other – they do not feel like\u00a0two\u00a0separate dimensions\u00a0– they feel like\u00a0two views\u00a0of the same\u00a0thing.\u00a0 It just did not feel\u00a0right that\u00a0we\u00a0might be observed, measured and scored\u00a0on independent\u00a0IQ scales and then classifed,\u00a0arranged,\u00a0ranked, selected, compared, and improved; it feels more dynamic than that.<\/p>\n

Perhaps\u00a0it is how well\u00a0we are able to employ the\u00a0multiple forms of IQ in a dynamic and synergistic way to\u00a0figure out what to do<\/em>\u00a0more easily, more quickly and more often.<\/p>\n

But what does all this have to do with Improvement Science?<\/em><\/p>\n

Well because improvement only happens\u00a0after we figure out what to do and then we actually\u00a0do<\/strong>\u00a0it.\u00a0Both diagnosis and treatment are necessary and the sequence order is important – treatment before diagnosis carries a greater risk of unintended\u00a0consequences –\u00a0and unintended consequences are usually negative.<\/p>\n

Challenges\u00a0that\u00a0require a balance\u00a0of qualigence<\/em> and quantigence<\/em> at the diagnosis stage will appear “tougher”\u00a0to solve and siuch challenges will tend to accumulate as a list\u00a0of\u00a0long-standing, unsolved and unspoken niggles – like a veritable herd of emotional elephants in the room.<\/p>\n

This niggle-mine seems to be\u00a0where the greatest opportunities for improvement are buried – nuggets of new knowledge\u00a0waiting to be uncovered.<\/p>\n

How then do\u00a0we know if we have a qualigence-quantigence\u00a0gap?<\/em><\/p>\n

I concluded that if we are continually struggling with the same old problems; are spending a lot of effort, time, and money; and are not making progress then we\u00a0 can be sure we have a gap somewhere. The questions\u00a0are “what,\u00a0where and how to convert our niggles into nuggets – our weaknesses into strengths?”.<\/p>\n

\n

It would appear that we\u00a0need three ingredients – qualigence, quantigence, and\u00a0an ability to dynamically integrate them into\u00a0something that is even greater than the sum of the parts – something\u00a0we might\u00a0call synergy-intelligence or\u00a0synergence<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

To test this idea I searched the Internet for the word “synergence” and found\u00a0many\u00a0hits that resonated with\u00a0this concept. Good.<\/p>\n

Our next step might be to look more closely at the three\u00a0ingredients and to ask:<\/p>\n