HOMI was designed to address the significant failure rates that research shows for organizational initiatives ranging from standard Organization Development, M&A, Growth Strategy Implementation, etc., to more focused initiatives such as introducing Collaborative Software, improving Talent Management, etc.( Model Overview )
The most common reason for such failures is that interventions are pitched at a level beyond what the organisations systems can accomodate. HOMI and its derivative applications address this problem by ensuring that such initiatives gain traction by being designed and excuted at the appropriate level aligned to the functioning level in the organization, as mapped on the HOMI learning framework.
HOMI provides a normative methodology to 1) assess levels of functioning throughout the organization, 2) show gaps between, and within, organizations, business units or departments across all activities, 3) initiate interventions so that they gain traction, and 4) guide required change, integration, development and growth in a manner that is sustainable all the way to leadership levels.
The HOMI diagnostic framework is a matrix derived as follows:
1. Y-axis: Stages of learning described from various schools of Psychology, ranked in order of increasing integration o 15 stages of learning split between 2 Divisions: Integration – At these levels developmental initiatives if deployed with good change-management protocols should achieve traction Disintegration – If deployed at these levels, initiatives around change and development will not gain traction and most likely degrade the system further. In such cases, and in M&As, any dimension measured in the disintegrative part, if not addressed as a priority, will contribute towards failure.
2. X-axis: Dimensions of organizational functioning called Dynamics
- Grouped in Modules
- The Dynamics are ranked left to right in order of increasing integration, and ideally, developmental programmes should address each Dynamic in that order
- Each organisational Dynamic comprises several Constructs. Each Construct is represented by a diagnostic question to determine its level of functioning on the learning framework
Integration refers to the potential to take on board change, development initiatives, growth strategy, etc., and the ongoing alignment of all resources/initiatives/processes within an organisation to drive organisation-wide strategy
Many corporate failures have occurred where results had given the impression of a successful organization, where this metric would have revealed critical dimensions operating at disintegrative levels
The more organisational dimensions or dynamics measured in the INTEGRATION side (level 6 and up), the fewer critical issues to be addressed
OVERVIEW of the LEVELS of LEARNING:
TECHNICAL NOTE RE. NUMBERING OF STAGES AND PHASES
Please note the purely technical detail that because of a function of the automation processes of the website that automatically produces the reports, the developmental phases as represented in this table on the right are represented in the reports by a number that is 1 greater than the corresponding diagnosed stage as above and in the dashboards. Therefore a construct that is diagnosed as operating at the Competitive stage is designated Stage 7, while in a developmental report, applying the Competitive Phase is designated as Phase 8.
IMPLICATIONS OF DIVISION FOR DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMMES
If a construct is diagnosed in the sub-integrative division, it is a certainty that any intervention introduced will fail through lack of traction. This explains why so many interventions have failed. For these constructs, interventions must begin with Phase 1b which is the lowest start level in the framework. For integrative constructs, interventions begin with applying functionality appropriate to the phase above the diagnosed stage.