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 | |
|
