<Bill Cunningham 94003.1140>
<Rick Marken 940602.2100>
Rick asks for a description of my customer successes. Glad he did.
Wish I could give glowing details of decisive victories with
defeated naysayers groveling at my feet, but that ain't so. The successes
have been small and marginal, but seem poised for some breakthroughs.
The score is Windmills 17, Quixote 6 in 2nd half. Quixote has to kick
a lot more field goals or score a touchdown and has ball on Windmill 20,
3d down and goal to go. 
The user has long described activities in cyclic terms, with each
cycle executed according to the plan of the cycle. Feedback is there,
but generally not recognized. If expressed, almost always in terms of
influencing next cycle.
There has been increased need to "operate one's own cycle" faster than does
the competition. Decisions, essentially resource allocations and subordinate
organization goal-setting, must be done in the face of enormous uncertainty.
The decision making process is well codified, but the data on which decisions
are based is always: too much of the wrong thing, too little of the right
thing, of questionable origin, incomplete, conflicting and late.Automated
attempts to deal with this have spent billions (no typo!), spawning an industry
that draws heavyweight scientific support. Success has been marginal at best,
and never beyond what the human user introduced to the product at hand.
So, there is increased user acceptance of the need to understand how the
human deals with this. I will claim considerable influence in driving that
point across. (BTW, Tom Baines' query is aimed at the problems of conflicting
and missing/partial data.)
Meanwhile, the user has come to understand that humans are independent critters
who function well together only if they have collective goals. A collective
understanding of the boss's intent has become an organizational sine qua non,
and the skill of developing and promulgating intent is now identified as
critical part of leadership art. I claim zero credit here, but it provides
an atmosphere conducive to acceptance and application of PCT.
So, with that background, what successes?
1. Have gotten across the idea that life is continuous, not based on
any planning cycle, and that mid-cycle corrections are necessary. Have
intervened in several fixed processes to provide feedback and make them
adaptive. Concept of adaptive, goal seeking, systems gaining ground.
2. Have gotten across the idea that people act on basis of their perception
of the world, which may be quite different than what the world may actually
be, and that there is no other basis on which to act.
3. Have developed enough user confidence to be the "outside expert" on
writing new "theology" to be be adopted by maybe a million military and
civilians, the number depending on whatever force size becomes affordable.
Included in the draft to date are passages like
"An individuals decisions and actions are directed toward changing the
future. Specifically, they are directed at changing the current perception
of the world into some desired perception, where the desired perception
may include both the immediate and distant future."...."Observed actions of
an adversary are merely artifacts of his attempting to achieve his goals,
and may very well be accidental and not indicative of his intent."
That's not quite how we might say it, but so far the user seems to understand
and accept. You can bet the final language will be more in terms of user
shoptalk, but the idea seems to be holding its own.
Since opposing intent incredibly difficult to discern, the TEST is explained
in terms of probing.
References are expressed as goals. Decisions are expressed as choices of
goals or of resource allocation in support thereof.
You can be sure there is extensive discussion of information, the central
point being reduction of uncertainty about the state of the world, and
classes of information that would lead (in our terms) to shifts in
which variables for which to control. Credit Martin for the original idea.
Credit me for showing how tremendous personal and organizational efficiency
is made possible by following the principles introduced.
There is a major language problem with all of this. The term "control"
means something quite different to the user, and it is locked into
official dictionary that is quite difficult to change. I'm having
to skate around this bureaucratic problem, but doing so forces me to
work within the "approved" language and helps tremendously with acceptance.
The user is still oriented on actions as output, but is accepting idea that
results of actions are perceived and that subsequent actions are based
on the difference between goal and perceived result.
There is also an extensive passage on modeling own and others decision making
processes, with hard nosed recognition of the need to understand other
cultural and personal approaches. That's why I responded so positively
to Bill P's remarks about inate and learned behavior.
4. Next week, will present tutorial to USMC theologians wrestling
with this same devil.
ยทยทยท
---------------
I can't really claim to have won anything, but playing field has been
levelled a bit and Quixote has the damn ball. The windmills can't score
without it.
And now back to the Friday Follies.
Best,
Don Q
PROFS: mon1(cunningb) Internet: cunningb@monroe-emh1.army.mil
Phone (804) 727-3472/DSN 680-3472. FAX ext 3694/2562
*Eschew Obfuscation*