Working With Bill Rutley
click on image
facilitating complex emergent systems


NOTE: This paper was written in 2005 about work that was done between 1989 and 1996. I have reason to add to it today for four reasons: first, is was never finished to my satisfaction; second, I have discovered over the years that people who have read this piece and Bill Rutley’s Memo to File do not grasp the extraordinary complexity that was dealt with with such ease and transparency; third, I think that many who have reviewed this material have let the fact that this involved the military obscure their understanding of how the methods employed and the principles of 21st Century management demonstrated directly apply to a vast area of systemic issues far removed from  this application; and, fourth, since the time this work was done the MG Taylor System and Method has grown in use to all over the world almost every day of the year. A tremendous amount of good work is being done. Complex, systemic, large scale, cross organizational, global applications are still rare and it is not generally understood, that while sharing the same methods, there are a number of critical aspects central to this kind of application that are not widely known. It is here that both provider and client/user can get into deep trouble. This is truly a “don’t try this at home” warning.

To accomplish my intent, I am going to address many issues and go deeper into details at a level rare for me on a public site. This will not be a easy read. It will demand a great deal of the reader. There will be links to follow and you will have to navigate your way back to where you were to continue the main narrative. This effort is the only way the scope and the depth of the story can be grasped whole. If you are contemplating projects of the scale and complexity described here, dig in for the information is mission critical.

Warning, that these examples are connected to the military and involve a great deal of technology is not the relevant circumstance. That much of our work from 1980s to the mid 90s was done with the military and NASA is simply the consequence of the fact, that contrary to popular opinion, these organizations because of their mission are early adaptors because they have to be. And that they have a leadership that is both technically and organizationally astute. They face hard mission critical/zero tolerance problems and they use every means possible to solve them. What was actually done can be, I will say must be, applied to every major challenge we face as a society.

In terms of organization of this narrative upon a narrative, the original writing is expanded and I have placed notes with links to a new page where detail has been added. Clicking on [#x_w_return] from any point in page 2 will return you to the place where you were when you left this page. To other links, use right click to “open link in new window” so you can return to this page exactly were you were.

One final note. Nothing is revealed here that should not be. The work described is 17 to 23 years old, although  the benefits from it are are still being felt. The return on investment is still adding up to significant numbers in the billions. What is written is accurate yet certain sensitive issues, and more importantly anything that could be taken as personal criticism, has been written in a way to avoid it. This is a story of the transformation of critical complex, emergent systems. The spirit of this narrative is to advance the art of facilitating complex change and transformation without trying the impossible which is to over design and dictate the outcome. As will be seen, however, in this kind of DesignShop, there are brief yet critical times when the facilitator has to engage in both the material and design of key aspects of the outcome. There are strict rules about this and one of the key aspects of Type I and II DesignShop architecture.

Matt Taylor
September 11, 2012


The work relationship with Col. Bill Rutley, outlined below, is important for three reasons: First, it is the story of the transformation of two very large complex systems both buried in even larger government and corporate bureaucracies. Second, the relationship between Bill Rutley and myself, and how we used the Taylor Method to achieve our goals, and how we created a mythical organization to change complex existing ones, illustrates the kind of partnership and imagination required to facilitate large scale organizational transformation. And third, although the ValueWeb Model had been developed by me ten years before the F-15 Program, this application was the first full scale use and test of the concept. It demonstrated that the ValueWeb architecture can integrate the diverse interests of a global community, made up of government, industry, military and personal interests, allowing them to create common cause, share risks and significantly overcome the barriers of their own institutions - as well as the conflicts between their organizations - to achieve an outcome which spans many countries, governments, corporations and tens of thousands of individuals. If anything is needed in the world today it is this capacity and the knowledge how to Create it and employ it.
The kind of problems - complex and systemic - which Bill Rutley had to deal with are the kind Humanity and it’s institutions face today. Humanity is “designing” it’s future by default. The Mission of MG Taylor, from the beginning, has been to build a system which can facilitate - on all scales of organization - the transformation of the human enterprise to be 21st Century able. Existing institutions and processes are not able. It is not our failures as a species which are our biggest threat - it is our successes. The sum of billions of decisions, scattered throughout the globe, made everyday is creating a complexity that the existing order cannot deal with. We have to re-conceive and recreate the architecture of individual, group, enterprise, regional and global governance.
Globally, Humanity is not lacking for ideas, technology and innovative solutions. The creativity and means exist to more than solve our problems. This proliferation of human energy is good - not destructive per se. It lacks, however, integration, design discipline and vision. The time perspective of human policies is too short. Distractions dominate. War and mindless consumption seems to be the major occupation of our species - or at least those of us seemingly rich enough to act this way. This is not a prescription for success. This is a prescription, unchanged, for disaster.
The four quotes, below, set a context for thinking about “facilitating complex systems.” Each frames an aspect of the subject. A Future by Design, Not Default addresses the idea of designing a future and that today humanity is not doing this with awareness nor exercising responsibility for the systemic consequences of the sum of all our actions. The MG Taylor Mission Statement, which describes what we do and why, is one response to this default. The ValueWeb Architecture is a scalable model which offers an alternative to traditional organizational structure which are no longer capable of being requisite with the sea of change and complexity we all are now swimming in. transformation addresses the fact that here is not organizational transformation without personal transformation. “There is no out there.” Transformation is not something you do to someone else, it is an experience you go through yourself. Facilitation means “to make easy.” When it is difficult this is feedback that an aware designer pays close attention to. The is a reason why we call the process a DesignShop and the place of work a navCenter - for navigation.
click on icons to go to more detail
A FUTURE BY DESIGN NOT DEFAULT - Time lags and Implementation Cycles
“The world we are creating - with its economy/ecology mix - is not even remotely sustainable. The fact that this is still disputed is the consequence of self-induced ignorance and self-serving myopia. Too often, people do not want to face something they believe they do not have an immediate answer to or that appears, on the surface of it, to attack their interests. Rather than embrace reality and seek new design solutions, they deny what is right before them. Rather than respond early, they wait until crises forces often thoughtless and always expensive reactions. When I say that our present situation is not sustainable I am not speaking in generalities nor philosophically. I am pointing to the concrete systemic architecture of our human system which is becoming the dominate structure of the entire planet. You cannot buy me off with the argument that humanity is creative and can find a way out of our situation. I know this. That we can is the basis of my life’s work. I have facilitated hundreds of organizations and tens of thousands of people through the creation of solutions for immensely complex problems. There is no doubt we can do it. If we will remains the key question. Civilizations have collapsed before and it is not unreasonable to assume that so have entire planets. Life, I expect, has run many experiments and there is no automatic mandate that we are exempt from the consequences of our own actions nor immune from actions that are at present outside the scope of our attention and understanding. The fact that our economy/ecology is not sustainable does not make us wrong, or bad, or even intrinsically at risk. We are just in a period between eras when the technology mix, the scale of our population and consequenses of our activities do not fit well with each other nor our planetary environment - therefore, we are not sustainable given our present configuration. It is easy to image many alternative patterns and designs where this would not be so and a population much greater than our present one can coexist with each other, a variety of plants and animals, and be in harmony with Gaia herself. This is a design problem not primarily a moral one - or, an issue of population alone. What can be pointed to as a failure of moral courage, and can be identified as the measure of our risk, is our response - or lack of it - to our pending situation. We are simply running away from ourselves. It is in this circumstance that our growing population and economy is becoming ever more destructive.”
MG Taylor Mission Statement 1983

“The Mission of Taylor Management Centers is to educate, train - facilitate and support the Transition Manager.

“We do this by:

“Creating physical environments conducive to the creative process, supplied with the tools necessary to bring forth ideas into working prototypes that are appropriate responses to today’s challenge.

“Facilitating the process of individuals and groups in learning information management and what to do to accomplish artful design and decisions; we do this with a special emphasis on developing the group genius of multi-disciplinary teams.

“Developing and implementing in client environments project management methods and management centers that amplify their ability to bring their visions into reality.”


My working model of the basic Human Enterprise, since the mid 70s, is that we have traveled full circle back to a new form of hunter-gatherer process/organization social architecture.”

“In this historical cycle, we hunt and gather knowledge and tools, live and work in local and global affinity tribes (which we choose to be in not just happen to born into), we form organizations and processes - ValueWebs - which are both our personal and work organization and social ecology - to create and ship product, learn and evaluate - then, restructure our enterprises and do it again. This is, essentially, an ad-hoc process and fundamentally as different a work process than the agrarian and industrial models were compared to tribalism. Consequently, new kinds of relationships, groups, and organizations are emerging than we are not used to thinking about and putting to proper use. These new organizational forms contradict existing structures. Because, on the surface (and certainly still legally), most organizational structures and mechanisms do not “look” much different than before, we get trapped in an old model and it’s various substructures. We think we are driving one kind of organization when in fact we are in an entirely different vehicle. No wonder we go off the road so often. No wonder we do not realize that now we do not even need a road.

“Transformation is not something you do to an organization. It is a process that you go through yourself. Transform means to change form. Structure wins and that is the root of the issue and the key to completing the journey successfully. Both you, and others, and the organization have to change together. This change will be punctuated evolution: long periods of linear change broken by moments of disruptive shifts that are death and rebirth experiences.”
click on icons to go to more detail
I have worked with Bill Rutley since 1991 - almost 15 years as of the first posting of this article in 2005. We did a number of projects together. His Memo For Record, written in 2004, outlines a few of them. I have worked with many fine leaders over the last 50 plus years and Bill Rutley is at the top of the class. He also is the exemplar “owner” and user of the navCenter environment, process and technology. He had that rare confidence in himself and in the Taylor Method to not control the navCenter but to let it facilitate his work and that of the commands he was responsible for. Given the nature of these assignments, and their political-economic environment, this is a remarkable and almost unbelievable achievement. Because of this, of all the applications of the Taylor Method to date, he accomplished the highest returns (human, organizational and financial) on his investment - a ROI so remarkable that it’s full significance has remained largely unrecognized for nearly 20 years.
Memo for Record
Date: 29 Feb 04
Subject: William Rutley Experience with MG Taylor Models/Processes/Environment
Intellectual Property (IP)


I served in the USAF for nearly 26 years, retiring as a Colonel in Aug 1998. Following a brief flying career as a WSO in F-4s, I spent the rest of my career in Air Force acquisition, R&D, and sustainment assignments to include Commander of the Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) and System Program Director (SPD) for the F-15 Eagle fighter. Following my Air Force career I spent three years as a Principal with the Cap Gemini Ernst and Young (CGEY) Accelerated Solutions Environment (ASE) before taking on my current position as Jacobs Sverdrup Director for the Enterprise Information Services (EIS) Group.

I first met Matt Taylor in late 1991, shortly after I became Commander at AEDC. My predecessor as Commander had Matt design and facilitate a DesignShop for AEDC Strategic Planning involving over 60 of the Center’s top leadership. The AEDC planning organization recommended I meet with Matt and examine the MG Taylor models, processes, and environment for myself. I have always believed in the inherent ability of people, regardless of race/creed/education/color/culture/age/sex, to work collaboratively in generating great value, if - leaders and managers provide the models, processes and environment for continuous breakthrough innovation through relentless focus and alignment on excellence. Over my professional career I have, and still, employ many tools to accomplish this goal, e.g. Six Sigma, TQM, Theory of Constraints, GE Workouts, Juran, Covey, Peters and more.

BOTTOMLINE: The MG Taylor models, processes, and environment are unique in an ability to drive real value through focused and aligned innovation and transformation, day after day and year after year. All the other tools become much more effective when applied within the innovation context created through the MG Taylor IP. The ROI between most of the other tools and MG Taylor IP is the difference between an improvement of 10% to 50% and an improvement of an order of magnitude (X10).
The key results at AEDC, summarized below, led me to bring MG Taylor onboard when I became the SPD of the F-15 program following my AEDC tour. The application of the MG Taylor IP for the F-15 program had equally spectacular results to those achieved at AEDC and these results are also summarized below.

Ernst and Young recognized the power of the MG Taylor IP and sought a long-term partnership and license with MG Taylor that has transformed how consulting value is delivered for E&Y Consulting, and ultimately its successor, Cap Gemini Ernst and Young. CGEY has extended the high value of the MG Taylor IP to many Fortune 500 companies across sectors from Healthcare to Energy to Automotive to Aerospace to the Public Sector. I was part of this fantastic journey for three years as a senior facilitator and ASE leader for CGEY. A groundbreaking patent now recognizes the incredible value and uniqueness of the MG Taylor IP worldwide.

Finally, I have arrived back as a User for the MG Taylor IP as I employ it to create a new business line within Jacobs Engineering and Jacobs Sverdrup, known as Enterprise Information Services (EIS). That chapter of my journey with Matt is still being written!

Major Accomplishments Utilizing the MG Taylor IP at AEDC and the F-15 Program:

Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC)

AEDC was on a down hill slide in 1991 partly due to only the Air Force extensively used the test capabilities, while the Navy, Army and NASA used AEDC only if they had no other choice and in most cases maintained their own facilities. With the number of Air Force systems being brought through development dropping AEDC was laying off highly talented people and looking hard at closing and/or demolishing test cells. A world-class national capability was in trouble.

From its inception AEDC has used a large (over 2000) contractor workforce with approximately 300 to 400 Air Force military and civilian people. This is a complex team that includes 13 unions. A major strike had taken place during my predecessor’s time as Commander. While the strike was over, the damage to morale and teamwork was extensive. Tools being employed like TQM, Juran, and others were only marginally effective.

To me, as the “new guy” AEDC needed a breakthrough in teamwork and focus. If AEDC were to not just survive, but to thrive in the coming world then it must transform, and maintain that transformation, to a higher value entity for the U.S. Government, the taxpayer and the companies involved in the aerospace and defense work. Only by establishing a higher value path could AEDC maintain and justify its unique place in the future of aerospace development.

My introduction in late 1991 to Matt Taylor and the MG Taylor IP convinced me that a full commitment to the DesignShop IP would provide the innovation, focus, and alignment needed to find the “best value” path. The Sole Source Justification was written from this assessment to contract with MG Taylor for 2 years during which AEDC would learn the IP, be certified in its application, licensed and full transfer would take place, such that AEDC could run the IP on its own while being a member of the MG Taylor ValueWeb. This was completely successful.

Several Major Strategies Emerged during the Grand Strategy DesignShops early in the process:

AEDC needed to develop win-win and collaborative alliances with NASA, Navy, and Army test centers and program offices as well as maintain those with the Air Force side.

Examination of the founding of AEDC and dialogs on the components of National Security led to the conclusion that AEDC needed to find a way for both military and commercial aerospace products to be tested at AEDC. Laws and regulations in effect in 1991 did not allow for commercial aerospace testing at AEDC.

AEDC needed to lead the way in establishing a national public-private aerospace partnership (value web) that would reverse the erosion in the U.S. economic and military leadership in aerospace. This included recognition that National Security is mainly composed of economic, military and political strength. AEDC was intended to contribute to both military and economic strength, but over 40 years had remained dominated by military needs and, increasingly, Air Force needs.

AEDC was successful, using the MGT IP, in building a value web with U.S. Defense and Commercial aerospace companies, who, through their elected representatives, enabled a change to the law that created AEDC. This change to the law provided AEDC a mechanism by which commercial and government organizations could do aerospace testing through a fair pricing and access process. It was estimated that this change added over $750M in new revenue to AEDC over the next 20 years (1993 to 2013).

As a result of the AEDC led Public-Private aerospace testing alliance the GE, P&WA, and Rolls Royce engines for the 777 were all tested and certified in the AEDC unique ASTF test complex. Because the FAA was involved from the beginning, and the testing was so complete and accurate, the FAA released the 777 for overseas routes 2 years early. The economic impacts for Boeing, the engine manufacturers and the airlines were in the billions of dollars. In addition, this led to unprecedented cooperation between government and commercial aerospace organizations that benefited the U.S, economy, the defense sector, and the U.S. taxpayer.

The value web that AEDC built, via the MGT IP, with the Navy led to the Navy deciding to incorporate all Navy testing at AEDC and to join in making AEDC a multi-service organization. Today, both Navy and Army people are stationed at AEDC and the integration of the services ground test needs at AEDC has saved the taxpayer at least $30M per year.

Today, AEDC leads a collaborative government and commercial aerospace alliance value web that encompasses all DoD services, NASA, and U.S. commercial aerospace industry.

The F-15 Eagle Fighter Program

The success of the MGT IP at AEDC led me to bring it to the huge, complex and global F-15 program.

The F-15 System Program Office (SPO) has responsibility for over $50B in F-15 hardware and software, $2.5B in R&D projects involving over 1000 USAF F-15s and the F-15s of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Japan.

At the time I took over the F-15 program the McDonnell Douglas F-15E production line was coming to an end and was to be completely shutdown, with no production, for 18 months or more before the new F-15s for Saudi Arabia (72 jets) and for the USAF (18 jets) would begin production. The production line was to drop from over 1500 people to approximately 150. This is normally a disaster for cost and quality for the follow-on jets. Using the MGT IP we took the following steps:

We held a DesignShop that included all the major stakeholders: warfighter, F-15 SPO, Pentagon, McDonnell Douglas, P&WA, Northrop Grumman, Hughes, and others. The main goal was to build an effective and efficient value web for the F-15 program.

Out of this DesignShop came 3 major objectives for the USAF F-15E Tail Number 210 in comparison to the last jet produced before production line shutdown, USAF Number 209:

1. F-15E Tail Number 210 would have a unit cost 10% less, in constant year dollars, than 209.

2. F-15E Tail Number 210 would be at least 1.5 times more reliable, nose to tail, than 209.

3. F-15E Tail Number 210 would be equal to, or greater than, 209 in combat capability.

The above objectives had never been accomplished before and, in fact, based on all previous history the following results would be expected:

1. Tail Number 210 would be 10% to 20% more expensive than 209, in constant year dollars.

2. Tail Number 210 would have significant quality problems and be of generally lower quality than 209.

3. The combat capability should not be an issue once the quality problems were resolved.

The DesignShop that produced the F-15E Tail Number 210 objectives, and the follow-on DesignShop sessions, produced the following results:

1. Tail Number 210 was 12% less in constant year dollars than Number 209.

2. Tail Number 210 was over 2 times more reliable, nose to tail than 209.

3. Tail Number 210 was over 1.5 times as combat capable than 209 due to the advantages of incorporating new technologies.

The MGT IP is responsible for the superb results achieved by the F-15 in transforming how the Government—industry team delivered on the warfighter and taxpayer requirements. Creating collaboration, innovation and alignment among all the stakeholders in the F-15 program was a remarkable accomplishment. The example above is only the most dramatic example of many successes.

AEDC and the F-15 were truly complex systems. They represented the kind of systemic issues that we originally created MG Taylor to deal with. This work, done in the early 90s, represented a robust test of our Method and proof-of-concept that the kind of problems we envisioned in the 70s could in fact be resolved in a successful way.
In September 2005, Bill Rustly left his employment with Jacobs to join an industry team developing a new space vehicle. Hopefully, projects like this will lead to new opportunities for employing the method to the creation of complex systems.
Our work with Bill, when he was in the military, allowed us to apply our Method in ways not possible before then. This was the first practical large scale test of the concept. The networks involved were large and complex and cut across many kinds of organizations and different cultures. The enterprises were global in scope and the work was mission critical. Failure could cost lives, strategic complications and billions of dollars.
What follows are a number of experience derived standard and rules in regards employing the Taylor Method to facilitate transformation.

September, 2012 NOTE:
The following section reviews issues of ownership, control and economics of the Taylor System and method. While the focus is centered on the navCenter facility, the same principles and rules which govern the DesignShop process are those for multiple events in many different centers and RDS units over extended time. The process, properly employed facilitates itself and all those who are part of the exercise as well as the knowledge agents (objects) gathered, used and reused before and during the event.

After this section, there follows details of  how what Bill Rutley described in his Memo To File (which although written after retirement, is still an official record) were actually accomplished. This includes the DesignShop events themselves, the facilitated work in between events, and also the design and strategy sessions between Bill and myself. This latter part is the critical secrete sauce, rarely discussed and often eliminated, when “traditional” organizations (mis)use their own centers and over control them. This is important but not critical when doing tactical level events. It can be extremely critical in strategic/transformational circumstances. Many people think, when asked for references, that I give them Bill’s name because he will say good things about the Method, MG Taylor and me - which he does. Yet, this is not the reason, who gives out “bad” references? The reason is that Bill can tell those new to the Method how to use it and what not to do that just makes it harder on everyone and adds risk. Instead of references, a new user needs a guide. When in a DesignShop, in the process, there is little difficulty for someone new to the work. It is the in between formal event times, outside of the an environment created for collaboration that old habits come to the front.

Economics and Control of a NavCenter

In the case of AEDC and the F-15 (using the AEDC facility) a navCenter was central to the transformational effort.

A careful reading of this memo will establish the true economics of the process. The Air Force invested about 2 million their first year and had $40 million back with in a year. Literally everything after this was for “free.” It should also be recognized that Bill Rutley was hands down the best user of the process in its entire history to date. Not only was he a good leader, he allowed his entire organization, including himself, to be facilitated. Few leaders are confident enough to do this.

It is worth your while to get the intimate details of how Bill and I worked together - these will be discussed below. There was the process and there was the partnership. Both are necessary to the full utilization of the Taylor System and Method. When transferring the Method, we have to get three elements in place. They progress one to the other:

1) The DesignShop practice established on a competent level. This is not difficult to do today given all the resources and talent available.

2) The NavCenter and its operations. This is a more complex system and extremely important in the support of large scale organizational transformation. There will be a greater education and training effort required here as there are fewer with this experience.

3) The intimate relationship between the NavCenter lead and the client leader. This is a relationship that requires a through knowledge of the Method, strategic design capability and the entire system has to be maintained with total integrity.

When these three elements are brought together, real transformation can be expected. The consequences are not linear. Improvement is quantum. It costs about 10 million dollars to bring on line and run a full capability NavCenter for five years. The economic payback can be in the tens to hundreds of millions. In cases of very large systems, in the billion
s. And, these are just economic outcomes. The social transformations can be of a much greater and longer term consequence.

It is this economic result, for their customers and for themselves, that any NavCenter ValueWeb® partner has to keep their eye on as a partnership is forged between them, MG Taylor and their primary customer base. If this is done successfully, then transformation is for free.

Saving on the “cost” side is not the issue. MGT, and every NavCenter in operation today no matter their ownership, runs a very tight ship, operates at extremely fair margins and reinvests the major portion of its profits into the continuous improvement of the System and Method and the capacity to deliver work.

What is paid us in License fees, support work and royalties is fractional to the benefits the NavCenters and their customers will enjoy.

DesignShops work because they are an overwhelming response to the “problem.” They bring enough resources to bear in a very brief period of time to cause breakthrough. This means the participants (the number and who attends), the support KnowledgeWorkers, the environment, the knowledge Objects, provide enough variety and reserve flexibility to respond to whatever emerges in the process. This means, above all, the freedom, in the terms of engagement, necessary to have the maneuvering room to do the work that is necessary.

People are used to managing meetings and making them affordable and safe and predictable. In doing so they restrict the variety of the event which is then defeated by the complexity of the problem. DesignShops cannot be managed. they have to be performed with an unrelenting focus of the outcome. We do not manage “down” costs, we design “up” results.

A Taylor trained facility and crew do not need to be told how to do their work any more than a surgeon needs to be told by the customer how to do the brain operation. Of course, in the case of the the Designshop and NavCenter operations the customer is involved in the design and planning through a rigorous collaborative process. This is a coequal relationship. Who is paying the costs is only who is paying the costs. No special authority or privilege comes for this other than this is also who is gaining the real profits.

The DesignShop and NavCenter products cannot be sold, contracted, “managed” or created in the way that conventional business is done. This does not mean they are capricious or unregulated. Regulation is a built into practice. You fly this airplane by the rules of airplane flying and you improve the practice continuously as you learn more. Think what could be saved if airliners just took off with the fuel that was theoretically required to get them to the destination. It would be very practical and “economic” until 300 people died. Instead, the practice model of ‘airplane is keep protected from business concerns which would be appropriate in other circumstances. What has to be understood is that what we have created is a “hard,” no-fault system. It is engineering at its root. It is not a method where one opinions is as good as another. It is open to an extraordinary range of ideas because it is an idea engine. The execution is, however, feedback driven, self-regulating and objective.

We have never had difficulty in establishing navCenters that can be self-regulating. However, over time, ownership and It’s represented “management” has destroyed every one. One of the distinguishing characteristics of The AEDC navCenter during Rutley’s tenure is that he was the ideal “owner” and stewart of the Center and allowed it to facilitate him and his team independent of traditional management control. He brought extraordinary leadership to this effort and as a result harvested an extraordinary result.
Unfortunately, under subsequent Commanders, this “hands off” policy slowly eroded and the navCenter was managed to a shadow of it’s former capacity. The strategic awareness created in the Rutley years faded and over a 15 years period some of the negative conditions which had been removed from AEDC, in just an 18 month period, returned. The old order partially reasserted itself. This would not have happened if the integrity of the process had been kept in place and if cooperation was not confused with true collaboration, and the the fact of ownership had not dominated the necessary protocols of peer relationships and the creation of deep trust.
What is Behind Bill Rutley’s Memo?
I was brought into AEDC, prior to Bill’s time because the four star had told them that they had to develop a strategic plan and now. I had just finished a DesignShop for the Jet Propulsion Lab and Wright Patterson Air Force Base [#x_w_return]. When the Planning Head of AEDC did a search I was recommended. I was interviewed by the Commander and Senior Staff of AEDC and turned down the assignment The situation was this.
What does this mean?
What did we do?
How did we do it?
Where can this go?
Matt Taylor
September 1, 2005


SolutionBox voice of this document:



posted: September 1, 2005

revised: November 16, 2010
• • •

• • •
• • •
• •

(note: this document is about 35% finished)

Copyright© Matt Taylor 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2012



Search For:
Match:  Any word All words Exact phrase
Sound-alike matching
From: ,
To: ,
Show:   results   summaries
Sort by: