lasting vs. changing vs. the whole

Sustainability implies "lasting." In the context of "the whole". And do that requires "change". But if you change, is the thing that is lasting now different? Did it last?

SO, I'm thinking that in our sustainability plans we should take care to have one discussion about what it is that we want to last, and another discussion about all the different aspects of it that we want to last. The lasting part is usually done with things like net present value analysis. The comprehensive part of it is done with the triple bottom line of social, environmental and economic aspects that we want to keep in front of us, as dimensions of the lasting. The implicit implication is that the thing we want to last is something that has boundaries, that we can define with boundaries. We want our city to last, say. Or our house. And the way that we will ensure that it lasts is to pay attention to all the dimensions of the ways that "it" interacts with the triple bottom line.

So the basic idea of sustainability is that the thing with boundaries that we want to last, won't last unless it keeps at bay all the factors outside of its boundaries, and hopefully adds value to them. So whose plan is it? The plan of the thing to last (the inside plan), or the plan of the overall system to survive with or without the thing (the outside plan)? This reminds me of the quote about "God is the space between the individual and the 'other'." It doesn't make sense to have a sustainability plan for a thing with out the system having a plan (which it doesn't, generally), or for the system to have a plan that ignores the things that want to last. We are left with the "idea" of sustainability as some way to make a connection between what the thing needs in order to last (the self) and what the system needs in order to last (the other), with or without the thing lasting.

Let me know if you could follow this. And what it means. And I'll put it into my sustainability plan. :)

Sustainability Plans Schmans

How could you have a "sustainability plan?" Isn't the idea of sustainability that everything you do is part of a system that is consciously making the world better than you found it? Does it have to be conscious? Can you have a plan to seek something that keeps changing as the system around your organization keeps evolving? I can understand having a set of sustainability performance metrics and measuring them and tracking your progress on them. But, isn't sustainability the ultimate "wicked problem" that can never be tamed into a structured plan, because as soon as you try, the stakeholders change, their interests change, and your options change? In a plan you have objectives and alternatives for action that you evaluate based on criteria for meeting your objectives. With sustainability, there is no such thing as "good enough." You are in a constant dance with everyone else about what you are willing to do and what they are willing to do, and it keeps changing. I defy you to "plan" that. The result would be people "declaring victory" because they could say they "achieved their plan" even though there may be no evidence that as a result the system is any more or less sustainable, because their plan took no responsibility for the larger system, only their particular role in it, which may or may not have led to greater sysem sustainability.

We have a case here of our eyes being bigger than our stomachs. We can understand an abstract concept of sustainability, and of systems, and we can use the resulting logical structures to change our behaviors to "move towards sustainability". But we don't have a world government that is taking responsibility for global sustainability (and there is no other kind that has true meaning). We don't have global taxes, and global representation on global priority-setting bodies (OK, other than fees we pay to the UN for things like www.MAWEB.org.

I would like to see a series of charts that show the contribution of my local community to the various metrics of global sustainability, both positive and negative. This would help us prioritize which aspects of sustainability make the most sense to spend time and money on at the local level, in the hopes that somehow our local actions would matter to the global system. We could use the way that we become conscious and make conscious decisions as an example to others, as well as find out what others are doing in this regard and follow their examples. But I can't tell you who the "we" is in this story. We are left with each person, each organization trying to make up their own "sustainability plan" and convincing themselves that it isn't a complete oxymoron.

In the meantime I will continue to search for understanding about how to show these ideas visually. Let me know if you have suggestions!

probability vs. rules

So you want to make a decision about something, and you want to know the sustainability implications of it. What is the probability that you will like the decision you make thirty years from now? What it the probability assessment based on? It's based on a combination of rules about how the system works, and the probabilities of certain outcomes based on the probabilities of certain inputs. This sounds like a "systems dynamics model" or SD model. Such as "SimCity". Where are these models? How do I find them, and have them be easy to incorporate into decisions?

Well, there are at least 4 vendors that sell them (Stella/iThink, GoldSim, VenSim, and a free one I forgot the name of). But all they sell is the tool, and certain shared modules that people in their respective user groups have developed. What we need is a global SD utility that is providing everyone with probability projections about certain global and local outcomes. Kind of like the weather report on the news, we could have the sustainability report on the news, and see how today's events changed the projections for global sustainability in 30 years. This is not a new idea. I just want to see it happen. Otherwise all sustainability claims are arm-waving.

Visualization and the seven kinds of intelligence

I'm on the other side of the wall now, as I left my job at the Port of Seattle in December and am now inventing a new life as a sole proprietor of a "strategic visualization" practice. Someone told me that to be successfully self-employed, you have to structure your week so that you spend at least some time working in each of your key "departments:" Research and Development; Marketing and Communications; Operations; and Administration and Finance. The fact that it took me almost four months to get around to posting on this blog is direct evidence of how long it has taken me to make the transition from "other"-organization to "self"-organization.

Someone else told me that consulting is like surfing, that you need to be ready to catch a big wave and try to ride it as long as you can, and then paddle back out and wait for the next one. This is a very different model from working in an "other"-organization, where there is always too much work and never enough time, so breathing is really not an option. I heard once that you should always consider your employees to be "volunteers," because they can always chose to work someplace else, and now that I have made that choice I can really feel what it feels like to be a volunteer.

Structure is a "strange attractor." You crave structure and routine, and are drawn into it, but once you get caught up in something you have lost a piece of your autonomy, or at least it can feel that way. There is something important and difficult about being able to get caught up in meaningful work and be able to sustain the feeling that what you are doing is "enough". This is not so much a function of your organization or job, as much as it is a zen-like mindset that allows you to feel satisfied, abundant, and enough, in the face of interminable needs, challenges and resource constraints. I had a friend once named Mary Lynn Pulley who wrote a book on "resilience" and I wonder if this quality is what she found in people who she observed to be resilient.

So, for now my quest is to find out what visualization tools are easy to find and use, to explain what we need to know and do in order to increase our system effectiveness and sustainability in this world. People talk about transparency without showing posters of how everything fits together. I am determined to change that. I want to see every meeting have posters up which show the participants who they are, where they are going and with whom, when and why. I am a why kind of guy. There must be a way to use graphics and visualization to show how all our competing objectives related to each other and us. The Rotary "four way test" is: "Is it the truth, is it fair to all concerned, is it beneficial to all concerned, and does it build good will and better friendships?" How would you answer these questions without a map of some kind, showing who, what, when, where, how and how much for "all" to see. I will let you know what I find out. I will post my findings here and on my Facebook page, my website http://www.burrstewart.com/ and maybe sometimes on Twitter (burrst). Maybe someday I will convince these social networking sites to have a graphical mapping component that helps you see your friends' lives playing out in multiple dimensions, not just the linear time line of day-to-day posts. Stay tuned.

Oh, what about the seven forms of intelligence? Anyone remember what they are? I think it's: Logical, Verbal, Emotional, Visual, Musical, Kinesthetic, and Self Knowledge. With the possible eighth one out there called Environmental, or maybe it's called "System Context." The point is that we have got to get on with the job of educating ourselves on the other intelligences beyond "reading, writing and arithmetic," which we now know isn't enough to do the job. So, get on with it!