Task D5.3: Look for Co-conspirators

What is Task D5.3?

Task D5.3 is part of the "Act" phase in the Viability Canvas methodology, specifically within the "Hack" step (Step D5). This task instructs you to "Find supporters and collaborators. Address potential detractors and find ways to influence them beforehand."

Purpose of Finding Co-conspirators

The purpose of this task is to identify and engage allies who can support your hacking initiatives while proactively managing potential opposition. This serves several important functions:

1. Increasing implementation capacity: Bringing additional skills and resources to the initiative
2. Distributing risk: Sharing the responsibility and consequences among multiple people
3. Enhancing legitimacy: Building broader support to demonstrate the initiative isn't just a personal agenda
4. Accessing diverse perspectives: Incorporating multiple viewpoints to improve the hack's design
5. Navigating organizational dynamics: Leveraging existing relationships and influence networks
6. Preempting resistance: Identifying and addressing potential opposition before it becomes organized

By finding co-conspirators and addressing potential detractors, you significantly increase the likelihood of successful implementation for your hacking initiatives.

Understanding Co-conspirators and Detractors

In the context of the Viability Canvas "hack" approach:

• Co-conspirators are individuals who share your understanding of the need for change and are willing to support your initiative outside formal channels. They might be peers, subordinates, or even those in higher positions who see the value in your approach.
• Detractors are individuals who might oppose your initiative, either because they disagree with the approach, feel threatened by the change, or have competing priorities. They have the potential to block or undermine your hack if not addressed proactively.

This task involves mapping both groups and developing strategies to engage potential allies while managing potential opposition.

How to Complete Task D5.3

To find co-conspirators and address potential detractors:

1. Map the stakeholder landscape for each hacking initiative:
   • Who would benefit from this change?
   • Who has complementary skills or resources?
   • Who might feel threatened or disadvantaged?
   • Who has influence over the success of this initiative?
   • Who has expressed similar concerns or ideas?
2. Identify potential co-conspirators based on:
   • Shared frustration with the current situation
   • Common vision for improvement
   • Complementary skills and resources
   • History of openness to unconventional approaches
   • Relationships of trust
   • Appropriate position and influence
3. Approach potential co-conspirators strategically:
   • Start with one-on-one conversations
   • Frame the initiative in terms of shared interests
   • Be transparent about the unconventional nature
   • Clarify what you're asking them to contribute
   • Respect their assessment of personal risk
4. Identify potential detractors based on:
   • Competing priorities or initiatives
   • Attachment to current approaches
   • Position that might be threatened by the change
   • History of resistance to similar changes
   • Formal responsibility for areas you're "hacking"
5. Develop strategies to address potential detractors:
   • Preemptive engagement to understand concerns
   • Modification of the hack to address legitimate issues
   • Clear communication about intent and boundaries
   • Identification of potential common ground
   • Plans for how to respond if active opposition emerges
6. Create a support network for implementation:
   • Define specific roles and contributions
   • Establish communication channels
   • Agree on decision-making approaches
   • Plan for how to respond to challenges
   • Schedule regular check-ins

Example from Canned Tornado

In the Canned Tornado case study, they identified co-conspirators and addressed potential detractors:

• Innovative team leaders in production:
  • Co-conspirator value: Direct influence over teams, respected by peers, understand operational realities
  • Engagement approach: One-on-one discussions about frustrations, shared vision for improvement
  • Contribution: Leading local experiments, gathering data, providing feedback
• Forward-thinking engineers in R&D:
  • Co-conspirator value: Technical expertise, desire for better production integration
  • Engagement approach: Informal discussions about manufacturing challenges with current designs
  • Contribution: Involving production perspectives early in design, testing producibility
• Quality managers with an interest in process improvement:
  • Co-conspirator value: Data on quality issues, legitimate reasons to be involved across departments
  • Engagement approach: Discussions about root causes of quality problems
  • Contribution: Providing data to justify changes, framework for measuring improvements
• Addressing potential detractors:
  • Middle managers concerned about authority: Emphasized that experiments would be limited in scope and focused on learning
  • IT department concerned about system changes: Involved them early in discussions about data needs
  • Finance department concerned about unauthorized spending: Designed initiatives to work within existing budgets

By strategically building this network of co-conspirators while proactively addressing potential detractors, Canned Tornado created the social foundation needed for their hacking initiatives to succeed.

Strategies for Effective Co-conspirator Engagement

When building your coalition of co-conspirators:

1. Start small and selective: Begin with a few trusted individuals rather than broadcasting widely
2. Match contributions to comfort levels: Allow people to support in ways that align with their risk tolerance
3. Create psychological safety: Establish a culture where honest concerns can be raised without judgment
4. Clarify boundaries: Be explicit about what is and isn't within the scope of your hack
5. Emphasize learning: Frame the initiative as an experiment to generate insights, not a definitive solution
6. Develop contingency plans: Discuss in advance how you'll respond if challenges arise
7. Recognize diverse motivations: Understand that different people may support for different reasons
8. Build broader allies over time: As you demonstrate small successes, gradually expand your coalition
9. Maintain communication discipline: Be thoughtful about how and where you discuss the initiative

By building a strategic coalition of co-conspirators while proactively managing potential opposition, you create the social architecture needed for successful implementation of your hacking initiatives, significantly increasing their chances of creating lasting positive change despite operating outside formal channels.