Replying to LO29200 --
Fred, we may speak different languages but we are I believe on the same
What businesses (actually all large organizational systems govs, ngos,
networks) need to get in one large benchmarking huddle -if only Bush had a
Baldrige for System Transparency - about is:
1) what you can model in numbers= "a great deal of pressure to formulate,
articulate and negotiate explicit goals and objectives for which they will
be held accountable or for which they will hold others accountable"
2) and what you can system map but never begin with numbers on
We (12000 at the ecademy) have a long topsy turvy thread on why overdosing
on numbers will make you relationship bankrupt at
http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=2115 or if you want to frame this around
contexts that interest you most write me at firstname.lastname@example.org
contexts some people might wish to huddle about include:
- most networking economies are relationship based before than they can
be numeralised http://www.normanmacrae.com/netfuture.html
- most system learning is relationship based, at least when it is
virtuous in where it leads
- a while ago, we entered a different age of service or knowledge or
intangibles or globalisation or whatever your word is - 85% of S&P 500
companies is relationship-based
- numbers often tell you 180 degrees opposite that relationship maps;
where the two collide, maps get the future right almost all the time.
There are mathematical reasons for that if people really want to chat
- there is or should be a lot of non-monetary value in the world :
learning, human responsibilities, what energizes positive emotional flows.
Its all relationship mappable; totally ridiculous to put in numbers
- there are system of system problems which those like gurus like
Buckmister Fuller have foreseen are where technology's connectivity will
blow us up if we going on numberising before relationship sense making;
clearly none of the 10 most urgent problems in poor world are going to be
narrowed without system of systems approaches. And by definition a system
of system approach needs a map not an individual person's -nor an
individual company's - highly pressurised formulation into numbers
There are about 500 of us openly working on these problems using a common
mapping standard at www.valuetrue.com with 20 joining each week. I'd need
your context to connect you to people who might best speak your language,
or come and raise questions with a cross-representation of us at
www.egroups.com/group/transtan or here...
co-author The Map that Changes Our World (Wiley Spring 2003)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Nickols" <email@example.com>
> I've been thinking lately about goals and objectives and it occurred to me
> that most people in the workplace are under a great deal of pressure to
> formulate, articulate and negotiate explicit goals and objectives for
> which they will be held accountable or for which they will hold others
> accountable. I'm not sure that this practice is always possible nor, when
> possible, is it necessarily desirable.
> Bear with me while I explain.
[...snip by your host...]
"Chris Macrae" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.