questions_creative_process |
| When
promoting the idea of street lights and side walks
in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin was asked of
what use were they?
He replied “of what use is a new baby?” His
point, of course, is that all of the ramifications
of a
new idea cannot be known in the beginning that that
too many demands can kill the “baby” before
it is old enough to defend itself. There are questions,
no matter if through intent or consequence, that
can cut off the creative process and there are questions
that can augment it. Creativity is largely
a process of asking the right questions in the right
order, answering them, and then eliminating the unnecessary.
Too often, however, the desire to know destroys
the ability to learn. Managing this question/answer
process (for oneself or for a community of work)
is one of the
great facilitation tasks in bringing systematic innovation
to organizations. |
| The
RDS concept is unique in that it
is new and established at the same time. New in
that it has never been employed for the principle
purpose for which
it was designed [link].
Practiced in that the DesignShop process
upon which it is based has been done, over the last
25 years, well over 2,000 times, for
organizations of all types, supporting a myriad of
different applications, and in many nations of the
world. A bout 5% of these events have involved portable
RDS-like facilities. So, there are things
that are still unknown and things that are
known
very well. |
| The
questions below are all ones that have been asked
over the time that that this concept has been coming-into-being. |
|
Is
the Armature necessary?
| In
Amadeus [link],
Mozart, in response to the King’s remark
about too many notes, said that there
were just the number required - nor more, no
less. You can have some (not nearly all) of
the utility required to support the Taylor
processes without the Armature but rarely the
environment that fully augments the process.
I say rarely because it is not impossible just
highly unlikely. There may be that rare accident
when an RDS is deployed to
a building that is both good architecture and
happens
to be scaled
such that the RDS fits within
it in the way necessary. The Armature makes the
space used and becomes the interface between
the RDS work
environment and the larger structure in which
it is placed. It also provides necessary power,
lighting, sound systems where they are needed;
it becomes a
room within a room. The Armature provides
signature. |
| We
built many NavCenters without Armature in the
early years however this required either settling
for an environment
that lacked key features or making extensive
modification to the building shell itself [link].
The “armature,”
in effect,
was built in. |
| The
ability to control light, sound, view and the
sense of the space is important in
creating the amenity of place necessary
for the participants and KnowledgeWorkers to
spent the long concentrated
hours required by the process without undo
distraction and fatigue. The WorkFurniture
without Armature provides horizontal control;
of the space. Add the Armature and three dimensional
control is possible. The goal is to be able
to set space, tools, knowledge resources, lighting
and mood to match the work going on. This is
augmentation. The WorkFurniture even through
it has architectural scale cano do this alone. |
link Armature Concept •
link Armature History |
|
What
is different about the RDS from a NavCenter?
| As
little as possible except the issue of portability.
The objective is to be fully functional with
no compromises compared to the best of fixed-in-place
Centers. And, the intent is to ultimately be
able to deploy the shell of the building as
will be be discussed below. The end-state of
the RDS concept is that it
can be totally self contained, can be deployed
anywhere and be
connected to the Internet and all other Taylor-type
Centers on the Earth under all circumstances. |
| Until
now, RDS units have been deployed
only for DesignShops. It will be necessary
in the future
that the RDS is capable of
all NavCenter functions as well as supporting
conventions and other
large meetings through a PatchWorks [link] process.
RDS units will have to support
sustained project management functions for
complex projects. |
| In
addition to having the capability of completing
its mission, the RDS is a
step toward other Taylor goals such as the
ability to incubate the Worthy Problem
Projects [link] and
develop the postUsonian Project [link].
This is not an immaterial consideration. Each
capability and demonstration that MG Taylor
invests in and develops has to stand on its
own, earn it living, and it has to
lead to the next work on our agenda.
This
is the
only
way that
we can get HERE from THERE [link].
This forward linking of projects conserves
resources and keeps the R&D process on track.
It is a long path from where we started to
the capability we have today. It is a longer
path to the capability we need. |
What
data supports the idea that the RDS Concept can accomplish
what it aims to?
| 25
years of experience with DesignShops and patchWorks
exercises. We have worked in various NavCenters
projects [link] whose
issues that represented the kind of complexity
and emotional intensity
that
a mission
focused
RDS will typically encounter.
We have also deployed the PatchWorks process
in
support
of several traditional conventions in order
to develop Red Threads [link] that
synthesized the sum of many process modalities
and, often, controversial
content. There is no reason to think that theRDS will
not be effective in facilitating the results
required as history supports just
the opposite. It supports the assumption that
the RDS will accomplish, on
a reliable and regular basis, what other methods
have only
done now and then and more or less by accident. |
| The
greatest area of unknowns is in the realm of
the ValueWeb Architecture [link] and
the ValueWeb Partner [link] relationships.
In other words in the
business of the RDS.
ValueWeb architecture applied on a conceptual
level was a great factor in the successes related
to the 777 project [link],
the F-15 [link] and
the repositioning of AEDC [link].
The ValueWeb is the end-state model of how
MG Taylor will be organized [link] and
we are making great progress with the iteration6 [link] initiative
However, a true ValueWeb in the technical sense
[link] is
yet to be realized. This is where
the greatest innovation is required and therefore
the greatest risk to be managed. There remain
several architectural, technical and process
challenges - these, however, are well within
the range of numerous advancements that we
have made before. |
| The
remaining major technical challenge that remains
are in the design, configuration and logistics
of the technical and support systems
[link] necessary to deploy to an area where
there is no energy, shelter
and
support
systems.
These, while new to us, are well practiced
processes by the military and civilian emergency
units. In fact, in many cases the RDS will
be using these existing capabilities for deployments. |
How
is the RDS financially supported
| The
model [link] for
the RDS social value equation
is the same as for a NavCenter [link].
Although there are aspects of this that still
require engineering and actualization (see
above), this model it not that far outside
of traditional
social norms with the exception of the integration
of non-profit and for-profit elements. With
the development of public-private partnerships
and the recent move of foundations to make
grants to for-profit companies that are providing
direct social value, the way is eased in this
regard and barriers that existed when the RDS was
conceived are far weaker than they were then
[link]. |
| The RDS will
be supported no one way and this is
the basis for its fiscal viability. The concept
has for-profit
and non-profit aspects. It will be able to
earn a large part of its own costs. It fits
the agenda of many corporations, levels of
government, and foundations missions. The innovation is
to get all these different social agencies
to cooperate and to partner with the RDS governance
so that the capital and expense burden is minimal
to each member of the ValueWeb. There is intrinsic
value in the process of accomplishing this
support as the achievement of this goal of
cooperation is, in itself, a needed function
(and a rare happening). Without doubt, the RDS process
will have to be employed in order to design
and implement this level of cooperation and
funding integration. |
| There
are three key aspects to the RDS economy
and each of them is usually missing from efforts
of this sort. The first is that the SYSTEM is
fully supported and capable in anticipation
of of deployments and that there is a financial
reserve so that deployments can be made rapidly
and without regard to funding issues [link].
Money, therefore, in not a barrier to any community
that needs the RDS. Second,
that built in to every deployment and the solution
that emerges out of it is a long term payback
[link] to
the RDS. This is not only
necessary to the long term sustainability of
the RDS, it is exercising
the principle of (true) profit [link] and
incorporating sustainable and life-cycle economics
into the solution. This means that the community
in
crisis ultimately takes responsibility for
its condition [link] and
consequently its redesign and success. There
are no victims with this process and view of
the world [link].
The important lesson from any disaster is what
errors were intrinsic in the design of the
community and its system that suffered it.
Third, that a CommPlex [link] is
established that has the capability of not
only directing
deployments
but of seeing the pattern of them and therefore,
ultimately, being able to effectively anticipate
requirements. Since so many tragedies and crises
are, at the root, human induced, anticipatory
deployments can save billions of social treasure [link] and
immeasurable amounts of human suffering. For
this reason, insurance companies, given
the prospects ahead [link],
should become enthusiastic supporters of the RDS. |
Why
should I care and why should my organization invest?
| Well,
you should not care if you have no feeling
for humanity and the legacy the human race
has provided you and future we all might have.
Nor should you if you think that events like
9-11 [link] are
just
random
acts
of evil and craziness with no prior causal
relationship on the part of several nation
states. Or that building conventionally on
barrier islands and areas
in high hurricane zones constitutes good real
estate practices [link] and
that people who subsequently lose their houses
are “victims” [link].
Or that half the world in poverty, uneducated
and with no independent
means to advance their society is a reasonable
social economic condition. Nor should you care
if
you believe
- talking into account the sure-to-come advancements
in military technology - that another century
of conflicts like the last one will work out
just fine. If you think that the ecological
imbalances caused by human development are
of no consequence or that we are really getting
ahead of the germs or that 100,000 uncharted
asteroids capable of destroying life on earth
is an OK risk [link]; then you should not care. If
SYSTEMIC problems do not bother you
or if you think that they are truly being dealt
with
adequately by existing means and that none
of this has anything to do with the organizations
you are associated with - then, you should
not bother. |
| However,
if you suspect that we humans are falling a
bit short on the practice of system integration;
that our ability to anticipate what is obvious
in retrospect seems to be a chronic habit;
that the way we treat humans, other life and
nature
is not only immoral but unnecessary; that another
25 years of development - even “good” efforts
- may add up to something that has little sustainability;
if you are inclined to accept the idea that
our responses to natural and human-induced
change may be a shade slow and we are falling
further behind; if you think that power and
wealth are the major deciding factors on the
issues
that are effecting the human race as a whole
- then either support the RDS, find another
way or demonstrate that “somehow” it is all
going
to be OK. I offer a solution that, at worse,
cannot fail to help doing what we do a little
better. At best, it may solve - and transfer
the ability
to solve - complex, systemic problems that
are getting larger and more difficult, that
seem to have no end and the the sum of which
may overwhelm our ability to respond at a critical
planetary moment. |
| But
then, perhaps you think that all this will
hold together for the length of your time and
that of the organizations you support and which
sustain you will all be OK - and, of
course, so will your
prodigy. In this case, there is not reason
to get involved with the RDS.
I suggest you think twice, however, and check
your design assumptions. |
| I
am not saying that the Taylor Method, or NavCenters
and the RDS are going to solve
all the worlds problems. I am saying
that this is a refined system that
was designed to address the kinds of
issues we now face; that this process is is
practiced; that it works. It is a
beginning. I also point out that there is,
sadly, a remarkable
absence of alternatives are being offered up.
This is not a competition between existing
robust systems. This is a “competition” between
a proven capability and apparent indifference
at a scale of evasion that makes an ostrich,
with its preverbal head in the ground, look
like
a paragon of anticipatory design. |
| I
think it is prudent to invest in the RDS,
develop, test and apply it strategically.
It cannot
do worse than existing systems and processes
and will most likely perform much better. It
has the seed of its own advancement and transformation
built in to it. It is low risk and a minor
investment against the value it can create
- and this is demonstrated fact. Yes, I think
a RDS investment is a prudent and necessary
investment as is any other system-method that
is as good or
better
- if
you can find it. No, I do not think we have
a great deal of time to spare. Humanity is
way behind the power curve of appropriatly
responding to the circumstances that it has
created itself and that now constitute the
major factors that form our natural and social
environment. |
How
long will it take to Get an RDS capability in place?
| A
basic capability exists now. The deployments
planned for the first quarter of 2005 [link] with bring the system up to its highest level
to
date. |
| MG
Taylor is the currant steward [link] of
this capability and has the administrative
band width to continue
to do so until a level of activity exists that
requires a more appropriate organization - and,
such an organization can be created. |
| Deployments to serious disaster areas without
or beyond functioning infrastructure are not
possible now. This can be arranged by partnering
with
military or other capabilities. Deployment funding
does not exist so the ability to do work without
some
level of income is not doable. |
| The immediate task ahead is to start building
the ValueWeb necessary for taking this concept
to the next level. Also, necessary for finding
the appropriate deployment opportunities necessary
for demonstrating the case. |
|
|
Matt
Taylor
Elsewhere
October 14, 2004
SolutionBox
voice of this document:
INSIGHT • STRATEGY • CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT
|
|
posted:
October 14, 2004
revised:
November 11, 2004
• 20041014.425121.mt • 20041031.759235.mt •
• 20041101.311329.mt • 20041111.234426.mt •
• 20041128.621983.mt •
(note:
this document is about 65% finished)
Copyright© Matt
Taylor, 2004
IP
Statement and Policy
|
|
|
