Meeting Notes
February 27, 2007
Meeting duration: 2 hrs
Jack Harich, Glenn MacMillan
The meeting began by going through the actions arising from the last
phone linkup on the 21st of Feb 2007:
1. Jack to prepare the problem definition
2. Jack to send through some IPAT information to pass around
3. Glenn to prepare summary of meeting and pass onto Michael.
4. Michael to add comments and to add to any gaps
5. Jack to review the edited version before adding to web
site
6. Michael to send through to glen some info on local ordinance
experiences
7. Glenn to find out more about the parallel group exploring
individual shire petitions
8. Next phone linkup to be Tues Feb 27th, same time 7am
(GA time) 11pm (Melbourne time)
It was agreed that all of the above items had been completed.
All information has been added to the project file and
forum on thwink.org.
Glenn confirmed the splitting up of the previous forum
information from the current PoHC detail was a good feature
on the web site. This allows new people visiting the site
to choose which content they are interested in.
Glenn explained to Jack some of the responses from activists
already asking questions regarding the PoHC draft. One
in particular is an interview with a politician that is
scheduled for next week. Catherine, who is a homeowner
in the path of the proposal has organised a meeting with
a local member of parliament to ask some questions about
the proposal. Glenn spent some time explaining to Catherine
the basis of AA and why political corruption is seen as a cause to
such unrest with respect to the draft. From this the system is setup
to continually degenerate to such a point that optimizing the common
good of the people is not achieved. Glenn suggested to Catherine to
test the politician by explaining her concerns and then asking to
see how these concerns can be relayed onto the next level of command.
What Glenn was trying to test is that he feels, from what he has learnt
from AA, is that the politician will ‘modify’ the information
Catherine was relaying into something that fits the politicians’ objectives
at that time. The point being is that the politician has other more powerful
influences that they choose to satisfy like large corporations rather than to
those constituents they are meant to be serving.
Jack observed this is a good experiment.
Jack suggested reading about decision ratings in the dueling
loops book to see how politicians currently go about obtaining
ratings and to learn how for the system to be optimizing the common good of people the
decision rating process, or something like it, should be
adopted.
Glenn sought clarification from Jack around the practice
of developing the strategy maps. Glenn did three practice
maps. Glenn attempted several problem definitions and finally came
to the realization that they hinge on the definition of System A,
as developed by Jack. System A is defined as the social control model
used for small units of Australian government that provide public infrastructure.
Next step is to build a strategy map of the symptoms, defects,
flaws, fixes and then structural changes.
One suggested symptom was not optimizing the common good of the people.
Jack pointed out how this would be at the top of the symptoms section of the
map, and would have sub-symptoms under it.
Jack suggested spending time on the symptoms without too
much effort with the defects and flaws at the moment. If a flaw is
identified when developing the symptoms then note this but don’t get bogged down with flaws yet.
The emphasis is on changing the system so that defects
are prevented rather than relying on classic activism which only removes
defects, rather than the cause of the defect.
For example the pollution example in the AA book that says
that environmental problems continually increase. This is because
we are only removing the defects and not preventing them from occurring.
The point was made about the six sigma model used which
reduces the number of defects for business by avoiding the defect
in the first place, by changing the system to not allow defects to
be produced rather than continually addressing the defect when it
is produced.
Glenn explained this is very common in manufacturing, where
they refer it to ‘firefighting’.
Time and money is wasted on putting the fires out rather than preventing the
fires from starting in the first place.
In developing the symptoms Jack mentioned the 3 main sustainability
components: environment, social and economic. Here we should stay
focused by putting only the environmental one on the strategy map.
Jack suggested using the software package Visio 2003 standard
to help build the strategy maps. The Visio files can then passed back
a forth until the final map is developed.
Glenn shared with Jack the point of establishing this map
for the POHC draft. [NOTE – As I’m later editing this, I don’t think the strategy
map can be developed in time. Plus it would probably be hard for them to understand,
unless it was part of a larger package. - Jack]
The overall system dynamic model will take sometime to
develop. Glenn expects that there might need to be several other problems
to apply AA and strategy maps to before a robust generic system model
is established. Glenn identified several examples where other problems
could be addressed with strategy maps. Including local planning issues,
deforestation and pollution issues. Even though each problem might
be different in their specific detail, the overall system behaviour
should be similar and hence be capable of assisting in the fine-tuning
the generic system dynamic model.
Jack raised whether more books were needed at this stage.
Glenn asked whether an easier way of passing on info from sections
of the book was possible. One reason is that Glenn is reluctant to
pass on the complete PDF file to people, because eventually Glenn
would like to include these people in an experiment. And with one
of the prerequisites being not to be familiar with the truth test
before participating in the experiment, then handing out the PDF might
be dangerous.
Jack suggested he would put a word version of the book on the web page. Glenn
could pick and chose which chapters to pass onto people. Glenn also highlighted
that the people he wants to target are very busy people, they would not have
the time to read through a whole book. Maybe at this stage sending small parts
might be more beneficial.
Jack suggested we consider changing the name of the problem
to be more inline with public infrastructure and not just any old
government department. The current name the social control model used for small units of Australian government
that provide public infrastructure includes all units of government.
One suggestion was “the social control model used for the Victorian
Government Public Infrastructure.” Glenn and Jack agreed to think
about this.
Glenn then discussed at what pace to step through the strategy maps as the deadline
for submission were soon and we needed to get something in place to raise this
AA approach while we develop the models in the background.
Jack agreed that the best approach would be for Glenn to
spend time now putting together some paragraphs on how to structure
the submission with reference to AA. Jack would assist in helping
with the structure to ensure the correct message is being communicated
in the submission. This submission can then posted on the forum as
a reference.
The strategy maps can then be slowly developed in the background
with a more concentrated effort applied after the submission
date.
Glenn agreed that while he spoke with some of the relevant
people he could be collecting symptoms and potential defects
to help build the strategy map.
Jack concluded by suggesting that a scheduled meeting may
not be needed until after the March submission deadline
is past. Instead, feel free to call at anytime. It seems
Glenn and Jack enjoy the same self employment arrangements
that allows for flexibility in working on these sorts of projects.
Unfortunately for Michael he has had to step aside for a while as
he attends to more pressing necessities.
The new todos were minor:
1. Glenn will writeup the meeting notes and send them to Jack, who
will edit them and put them on the website.
2. Jack will make the AA manuscript available in DOC form on the site.
3. Both will think about how to best rename the project.
