| This
Concept Paper was written by Gail, myself and Langdon
Morris in 1988 in response to some non-profit organizations,
in Washington DC, who were interested in the RDS.
It is a revision of an earlier version, drafted in
1985 and updated at the beginning of 1988, both of
which were based on my 1983 concept as documented
in my
Notebooks. [link].
The icons used throughout this proposal were developed
by Bryan Coffman [link]. |
| What
follows is the 1988 paper [version
1.5] with new
annotations that further expand on the concept and
set it more firmly in today’s context. |
click
on the pages to get a large screen view |
|
| I
always liked the icons that Bryan did,
esthetically, however I have always felt
that they presented the concept in
too narrow of terms. In fact, this entire
paper does this. Everything it says is
valid enough but it does not convey the
scope
of the systemic global issues that the
RDS can
- and must, if we are to live up to the
challenges of our times [link] -
deal with. We crafted this Paper to the
times
and
the
requirements
of the proposed non-profits, in Washington
DC, that were to be the host organizations.
There was nothing wrong with their focus
or concerns, it is just that they do not
approach the full scope of the RDS Concept
and possibility. This Paper is best read
in the context of
the MG
Taylor Mission [link] and,
of course, taking into account what has
happened in the 16 years between its writing
and today [link]. |
|
|
| The
article on the left is from the NY Times
and it is what sparked the original
RDS concept [link] in
1983. The critical aspect covered on
this page is that the RDS has
to have a standing office and the capability
to deploy within
24 hours. As will be described elsewhere
[link],
in time this capability will integrate
prior deployment experience with Weak
Signal Research [link] to
create an anticipatory capability. |
|
|
We
have, several times after writing this,
integrated the press into the DesignShop
process. This has been a difficult
mating as the ethics and rules-of-engagement
of the two cultures are very different.
When we have been able to get over
these
speed bumps the results have been outstanding.
To
date, none of the mobile technology has
been created. It exists, however, in
our society - at least the major components
do. None of the business related for-profit
RDS deployment
that we have done have required the
level of stand alone power, communication
infrastructure and shelter technology
support. Deployments where there has
been natural
or human-made disasters will. This may
present a ValueWeb Partnership opportunity
[link] with
the military (who often have to deploy
under these circumstances anyway).
We
have developed plans to also make portable
the complete environment that the RDS
is
installed in [link].
We are getting ready to develop
an RDS with
Armature - the first [link].
The next step up will be to do the structural
shell also [link].
This will go a long way toward demonstrating
Bucky’s vision of deployable buildings [link].
With this at least a promise will have
been partially kept [link]. |
|
|
When
this was written we could claim an
experience base of over a 100 DesignShops;
now,
that number (for the entire ValueWeb)
is easily over 2,000 - I have lost
track of the actual number. We have
done
many RDS deployments
for commercial clients, as yet, not
one along the scenario described
above.
Over
the years, we have done numerous community
based events in NavCenters and with
the RDS.
All of these have been small and not
an example of an “emergency” deployment
which is central to the
RDS mission.
There is no reason to expect the RDS will
not work as described. There is one aspect
that remains relatively untested and
that is the mix of politics and emotion
(from whatever the disaster was) that
is beyond the experience of most (but
not all) DesignShops. Some of the DesignShops
we did with the military, in the mid
90s, reached this level of complexity
and intensity. They definitely demonstrated
that the process could succeed with high
stakes situations [link]. |
|
|
| Every
deployment will be different. This scenario
describes on plausible one and much how
we would have approached the Time Beach
crises 20 years ago. The scenario suggests
that the appropriate response is to approach
the problem in “waves” dealing with immediate
issues, then developing long term options
and ultimately a solution. Each of these
waves of design would involve increasingly
larger numbers of people. We actually
tested this approach in a 30 day Designshop
that we did for the Acacia Group the
year following the initial 1988
proposal. This exercise, although done
in a permanent NavCenter, is the most
like a true RDS deployment we have done
to date. Several hundred people from
all over the Acacia organization were
involved in group of 60 working two to
three day cycles and then handing the
work off to the next team. Acacia was
one of our clients on the FAA
RDS distribution
list [link] and
this is how the idea got planted. |
|
|
| When
this was drafted, we were just working
on how to build our first round WorkWalls
as shown in the original concept. Our
first installation was at AEDC [link] in
the early 90s. The layout shown above
is a schematic was based on our capability
at the time. the desire to have a Radiant
Room in the round drove our research
on the round wall. Much of the networking,
video and multimedia capability described
in this Paper found there way into our
client NavCenters in the early 90s starting
with Capital Holding’s Center [link]. |
|
|
| This
page deals with several concepts that
are central to the RDS idea.
We must address social problems and disasters
with the same intensity and creativity
that
today we reserve for war and highly
competitive businesses. Systemic problems
are not resolved with a little help or
a study. They are resolved when “overwhelming”
intellectual and emotional force are
brought to bear on them and adequate
resources
are made available for implementation.
However, systemic, complex social issues
are by their nature controversial. They
require the transformation of individuals
and organizations. This change-in-form
requires a neutral, safe haven if it
is to be accomplished with the minimum
of conflict, rick and pain. The RDS has
to be operated by those who will function
as TRANSITION MANAGERS and live up
to its creed. The creative process requires
personal risk and exposure. Group Genius
requires that this be done, together,
with a number of people some of which
may well have entered the engagement
as “enemies” or with conflicting agendas.
The safety of the space and the integrity
of the process is critical and those
attributes of the RDS that provide
this can never be compromised. |
|
|
| These
functions are done routinely today in
commercial RDS deployments
and the practices are well established.
An RDS ValueWeb
will establish many rules-of-engagement
and protocols over time. These, however,
will always be based on the primary intention
of the RDS and
aimed at accomplishing its mission [link]. |
|
|
| Different
players but the structure, today, will
be much the same however implemented
in an ValueWeb architecture. The RDS
concept has to be kept whole and free
of politics and marketplace pressures.
The NavCenter is a neutral place and
the way that “business” is done in regards
the mission critical deployments has
to be equally transparent and neutral.
The for-profit deployments can be conducted
much as they are today. High ethics and
fiduciary responsibility but an entirely
different political environment. |
|
|
The
stewardship of theRDS concept
remains in MG Taylor hands. This Concept
paper
was originally written in response
to an indication that several non-profits
were interested in sponsoring the program.
As it turned out, nothing happened.
There
were two “almost” deployments in the
following years. One was for the baseball
strike and the
other
to look at ecological consequences
of the first Gulf War. Both stopped
one
phone call short of the final decision
maker.
The RDS still
needs a home. I believe the MG Taylor ValueWeb
is ready to take this on and that there
are non-profit and for-profit opportunities
given today’s circumstances and marketplace
[link].
The Consortium of Knowledge Workers
remains a dream and there are several
hundred KnowledgeWorkers dispersed around
the globe who do this work on a regular
basis. |
|
|
| The
value model for participation is as valid
today as in 1988. Today, there is a great
deal more data to back it up. |
|
|
| These
numbers are 15 years old. Depending on
scale and scope they can be double these
today. It will not be necessarily make
all of this investment up front. When
the Paper was written, there was no functioing
MGT Center at the time. Now there are
over 30 MGT client NavCenters and ASEs
in the US, Canada, Europe and Asia. There
are several RDS units
although none are configured for the
kind of scenario described
in this Paper and none are the current
state-of-the-art. The RDS being
prepared for the WEF Annual Meeting [link],
and
other events in Europe [link] will
be the closest to what is required and
what
was originally envisioned. In other words,
the investment will be greater today
but some
portion
of it has already been made. |
|
|
go
to
APPENDIX for the last 9 pages of the 1988 Paper |
Matt
Taylor
At
Elsewhere
October 23, 2004
SolutionBox
voice of this document:
INSIGHT • POLICY • PROGRAM
|
|
posted:
October 23, 2004
revised:
November 9, 2004
• 20041023.345000.mt • 20041025.342981.mt
•
* 20041026.700128.mt •
20041109.398126.mt •
(note:
this document is about 60% finished)
Copyright© Matt
Taylor, 1982, 1983, 2000, 2001, 2004
IP
Statement and Policy
|
|
|
