The Collaboration Project
1. Project Overview
2. The Difference Is an Analytical Approach
3. The Preliminary Analysis
4. How You Can Evaluate the Preliminary Analysis
4.1 Examine a Sample Application of the Problem Solving Process
4.2 Study the Core Argument of the Preliminary Analysis
4.3 Watch a Film on Application of the Process to All 3 Subproblems
5. How You Can Collaborate
6. Leading Strategic Change
7. Materials
Project Overview
On January 25, 2008 Joe Starinchak of US Fish and Wildlife initiated The Collaboration Project. As stated in the document Climate Change ~ A Catalyst for Creating a Sustainable Society PDF , emailed to several dozen contacts who had expressed interest, the goal is to first review the preliminary analysis, and accept it or revise it and accept that. Then, using that as our foundation, the next goal is to launch an effort to execute the process on the sustainability problem, with emphasis on climate change.
Please note that the material presented here should not be interpreted as the way forward. It's only an example of a better way and a first iteration, one that should help us bust out of old unproductive paradigms and into new productive ones. We expect to combine the good ideas of many people and organizations as we move forward in collaboration.
The Difference Is an Analytical Approach
What differentiates this problem solving effort from others is we are taking an analytical approach. Once you understand what this really means, you may come to the same unexpected conclusion that we have: all past solutions have been based on intuition. This suggests that the sustainability problem has never been analyzed deeply and correctly. As the Analysis section of Climate Change ~ A Catalyst for Creating a Sustainable Society explained, the two main reasons for this are poor analysis and faulty problem decomposition. Both are caused by lack of a process that fits the problem.
The Preliminary Analysis
This is briefly presented in the Analysis section of the short document PDF (Climate Change ~ A Catalyst for Creating a Sustainable Society) Joe emailed out. For those who did not receive one, here is the cover letter that went out with the document.
How You Can Evaluate the Preliminary Analysis
(1) The first and quickest way is to examine a sample application of the analytical approach. Given that change resistance appears to be the crux of the problem, the most convincing application would be on that part of the problem. This was performed in 2005 by Thwink.org and written up in The Dueling Loops of the Political Powerplace paper. As you read, please remember this is not presented as the analysis or the solution, but as an example of a better way forward. This example, more than anything else, should demonstrate the potential of this project and the new way of thwinking that will be required to solve such a huge and novel problem.
The Dueling Loops are an example of how the System Improvement Process can be applied to the change resistance subproblem. Even if the Dueling Loops do not exist or do not behave as hypothesized, they should serve as enlightening proof that the right process will find the right structure and high leverage points needed to solve the crux of the problem.
(2) The second way to evaluate the preliminary analysis is to study its core argument. If the premises are true and our logic is correct, then the conclusions hold. Below is an outline of the argument, along with links, which allow you to find out more about each proposition and verify it.
A. The sustainability problem is a difficult problem. - See An Assessment of Problem Difficulty.
B. The more difficult the problem the more mature the process used to solve it must be. - Self evident. A proof-by-analogy is that science was unable to reliably solve scientific problems until it invented and adopted a process that fit the problem. This was the Scientific Method.
C. The System Improvement Process (SIP) fits the sustainability problem. - SIP was designed from scratch to fit the problem. See this glossary entry. The reason SIP fits the sustainability problem is its extreme emphasis on deep analysis, the use of the key tool of system dynamics modeling, and recognition of the three subproblems, notably change resistance. The four main steps of SIP are:
1. Identify the problem.
2. Analyze the problem (system) until key cause and effect relationships are understood.
3. Use that knowledge and experimentation to converge on a solution.
4. Implement the solution.
The three subproblems are:
A. How to overcome change resistance. Once that's solved, the system will now "want" to solve the problem as strongly as it resisted solving it before. This makes solving subproblem B an order of magnitude easier. If change resistance is high, as it usually is on difficult social problems, then how to overcome it is the crux of the problem.
B. How to achieve proper coupling. This is what most people think of as the problem to solve. But actually, the problem consists of all three subproblems.
C. How to avoid excessive model drift , to prevent problem recurrence. The solution model must keep the system in the goal state. If the model drifts too far from what's needed the problem will occur again. So the solution must be self-evolving and self-managing.
The process can be better conceptualized by using the grid shown below. (Click on it for the larger version) The grid has been filled in with the results of a first iteration of executing the process (Except for step 4) on the sustainability problem. The grid is from near the end of the Cracking the Mystery of the Progressive Paradox film.
Note how columns A and C are generic. They apply to any problem whose solution would benefit the common good, not just the sustainability problem. This illustrates how deep the analysis has gone, so deep we are resolving root causes, instead of going with intuitively derived symptomatic solutions, which only address intermediate causes. That of course is why intuitive approaches fail. They have fallen into the Intuitive Process Trap.
D. Therefore the System Improvement Process, if executed well, is capable of solving the problem. - Of course, now that 30 years of solution failure has occurred, we are in overshoot. So solving the problem no longer means avoiding large scale health and economic catastrophe due to environmental collapse. It means minimizing the size of that catastrophe, as global society attempts to enter the Age of Transition to Sustainability.
E. Nearly all current approaches to solving the sustainability problem, or its subproblems, such as climate change, have used an intuitive analysis step. - See An Assessment of Process Maturity.
F. The sustainability problem is in the same class of immensely difficult problems as putting a man on the moon, building the Channel Tunnel, planning the Normandy Invasion, and pulling off the Manhattan Project in record time. It is analysis that makes or breaks the entire effort for this class of problems. - Self evident. Imagine what would have happened if they had shortchanged the analysis step in any of these problems. (This premise also provides the rationale for casting this as an engineering project.)
G. Therefore the first reason current approaches are failing is poor analysis.
H. The proper practices to live sustainably already exist or there is a quick path to them, which is the proper coupling or technical side of the problem. - Consider the IPAT equation. Lowering the P (population) enough will solve the problem. So will lowering the A (consumption per person) or the T (impact per unit of consumption). So will a combination, which is easier and more practical. An example of an existing sustainable proper practice is walking or cycling instead of driving. This radically lowers the A and the T to a sustainable level.
This premise may be contentious, but consider the evidence as shown in the bar graph below. Several ecological footprint pilot programs in the UK have demonstrated that we already have the proper practices needed to reduce the footprint from an average of 5.45 global hectares per capita (gha) in the UK to levels of 3.2, 2.56 and 2.4 gha, while maintaining comfortable standards of living. Considering that a footprint of 1.8 gha is needed to be sustainable, we are already almost there with easy to deploy off-the-shelf practices. The remaining gap is easily closed by further research and experimentation. There are some deficiencies with ecological footprint measurement, but overall, the pilot programs demonstrate this premise is probably true.
I. Society has not adopted these practices, which is the change resistance or social side of the problem. - Self evident. For example, look at the global resistance to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Or examine this graph, from the Cracking the Mystery of the Progressive Paradox film:
The failure of the curve to level off (or better yet, to come down to the one planet line) is smoking gun proof that society has failed to adopt the proper practices needed to live sustainably.
J. Therefore change resistance is the crux of the problem.
K. Achieving proper coupling is where current approaches focus nearly all their attention. - Again, see the chapter on An Assessment of Process Maturity. Notice how 8 out of 10 organizations focus most of their attention on process elements 2, 3, and 4. These all deal with finding the right proper practices or getting them adopted. The proper practices, once adopted, will properly couple the human system to the environment.
L. Therefore the second reason current approaches are failing is faulty problem decomposition. - We have already seen that the System Improvement Process is capable of solving the problem. It decomposes the problem into the change resistance, proper coupling and model drift subproblems. Change resistance must be solved first, because it is the crux of the problem. But the above premise shows this is not being done. Ergo, the reason for solution failure must be faulty decomposition.
Getting more strategic, it follows from the above that:
M. The root cause of society's inability to solve the sustainability problem is application of the wrong process. - Without realizing it, those attempting to solve the problem took the wrong fork in the road a long way back. This conclusion is expected to be rejected by those who are unable to see anything but the problem solving paradigm they have lived in for so long. But as for the rest....
N. If we focused our efforts on executing the right process, the problem would be solved as fast as is humanly possible. - This would put us back on the right road. It is still not too late to greatly reduce the size of catastrophe. It can no longer be avoided, due to overshoot. But it can be reduced, if we act quickly and correctly.
If the premises are sound, then so are the conclusions. If the conclusions are sound, then the next logical step would be to mount a serious effort to execute the process, as explained in the last conclusion.
(3) There's a third way to verify the preliminary analysis. Thwink.org has performed an initial pass of the analysis and solution convergence steps on all three subproblems. Currently the best high level overview of the approach and the results of executing the System Improvement Process on all three subproblems is in the two hour film, Cracking the Mystery of the Progressive Paradox. (Here "progressive" does not denote political party affiliation, but something much deeper.)
How You Can Collaborate
We are just beginning to develop this. One venue is the forum. Register and express your thoughts there. Another way will possibly be a regular (monthly?) teleconference, with video or something like RealVNC to allow us to all see what others are presenting. And then of course there is phone and email. But the forum is preferred over email, because it is so much more scalable and everyone gains the benefit of each message.
Joe has already started this thread.
Leading Strategic Change
This is a hand picked group. Everyone in the collaboration group has the potential to help lead the strategic change so necessary for 6.7 billion people to cope with the sustainability problem before it's too late, and the human system becomes so weakened that solution is no longer possible. But for you to effect change, you must first change yourself.
This can be done by seeing exactly what the differences are between the old paradigm, the one that's being used now to solve the problem and has failed for the last 30 years, and the new paradigm. The only way to change is to redraw your own mental maps. To help you do this, here is the Introduction to the New Paradigm.
A summary of the new paradigm is for problem solvers to:
Become process driven instead of informal
Be analytical instead of intuitive
Use true systems thinking instead of event oriented thinking
Materials
For those working on this project, a free copy of Analytical Activism is available. Just ask Joe to have Jack mail you a copy. This book and the Dueling Loops paper covers everything you need to evaluate the potential of this new way of thwinking. And if you twist Joe's arm, maybe he will throw in a copy of the Dueling Loops book, which contains much more than the paper.
