home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Shareware Overload
/
ShartewareOverload.cdr
/
progm
/
funkybox.zip
/
DAMNTRIV.DOC
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1987-11-01
|
51KB
|
1,517 lines
Damn the Trivia
Our Systems Are Sinking
UPFRONT With PeopleSystems
By
Louis A. Warner, P.E.
(C) Copyright 1987
78 Maplevale Drive
Woodbridge, CT 06525
What is happening to the quality of life in the U.S.
today? We hear people blaming the schools, the President,
the parents, the politicians, the media. Nobody is really
sure who is to blame. There are some who fault other
countries for our problems. Our litigious society believes
that someone else -- some other person or group of people
must be at fault. Why is it people know all about trivia,
but when it comes to something that is important to their
lives, they don't seem to be concerned?
We are regularly fed a diet of trivia, instead of
importance. Readers, Viewers and Listeners are constantly
bombarded with popular causes that usually have little or no
bearing on their daily lives or well being. At the same time
the real important matters are overlooked or given a once-
over-lightly treatment. The media makes it fashionable to be
knowledgible or just concerned about the whales, acid rain,
the baby seals, the rain forests in South America, Rock
Stars, book authors, wealthy celebrities, TV shows and sport
celebrities, just to mention a few.
While people are being brain-washed about trivia, the
same people are seldom being motivated to do something about
the unbalanced budget, the enormous deficit, our world trade
imbalance, the high cost of hospitals, the overdue debts
from the Third World and South America, the carnage on the
highways, our illiteracy and other important problems. The
cost of producing goods in this country makes it almost
impossible for Americans to buy their own products. We can't
afford to do business with ourselves. Nor can anyone else.
These items of consequence are all matters that we
could call systems for people -- the federal budget system,
the hospital system, etc. Probably most people assume that
there is nothing that they can do anyway, so why worry about
it, unless you are directly affected, at the present time.
Why worry about the social security system, as long as the
check comes the first of the month?
Many would like to blame THE SYSTEM. Obviously that's
like blaming the stars in the sky. Unless spoken in a
religious context, there is no one BIG SYSTEM to hold
responsible. Of course, there are many kinds of systems.
There are systems for technology and systems for people and
some systems that are a mixture of both. Our problems always
seem to start with inadequate systems. Perhaps we all are
at fault for letting our systems get so bad. The reader
should try to think of a system for people that isn't having
difficulty today. We were once a nation that other countries
tried to copy -- not so today. If you would like to know
why the U.S. isn't a model any more, join us. We are now
embarking on a safari into uncharted territory. Exploring
this jungle of systems is a fascinating frontier.
Americans have enjoyed a success rate for progress in
science and technology that is second to no other country.
At the same time, many domestic problems that are non-
technical or nonscientific lack progress or solution and
just go on and on. The technology for sending a man to the
moon is successful. Yet, at the same time, using present day
educational systems, many of our youth drop out of high
school and others don't receive a well rounded education.
David T. Kearns, Chairman of Xerox Corporation said
America's public schools have "put this country at a
terrible competitive disadvantage" by turning out workers
with "a 50 percent defect rate. . . The American work force
is running out of qualified people." What is wrong?
Our ability to understand systems for things or systems
for people (we call them PeopleSystems) begins in the early
education systems; at home, at school, and on the street.
Educators are sincerely trying to cope with the gap in
math/science education, but the shortage of teachers
equipped to teach these important thing-systems impedes
improvement.
A 1985 federal study, which will be discussed in more
detail, found the lack of early age instruction in science
and mathematics fuels an imbalance in U.S. students not
found in students from other countries. Of course, the well
rounded super student from any country is intellectually
superior, but average students in the U.S. are considerably
below average in math and science when compared with foreign
students.
In the U.S. the upper 10 percent are well educated and
competent in most educational areas, but the next 90 percent
of students are severely lacking in math and science talent
compared to students from Japan, West Germany, or the
U.S.S.R. In fact, many U.S. students avoid math and science
as much as possible in high school. Yet, there is a daily
need for most people to understand or at least have an
feeling for matters technical. Why is this so hard? What is
wrong?
Remember back to the time of NASA's flights into space
in the 1960's. Washington was prodded by the nation's
voters to put some of those great scientists to work solving
domestic problems. It sounded like a good idea, but it
didn't have any real basis for success. Adept at controlling
the physical environment, the scientists selected had no
experience handling the sticky political ecology in the land
of NeverNever -- Washington, D.C.
The direct application of technical expertise to the
nation's people problems was not productive and the idea
soon died. Today, the considerable differences between
thing- systems (the systems of technology) and systems for
people which we call PeopleSystems are clear. Applying thing
systems expertise directly to PeopleSystems problems
obviously was the wrong approach. There will be more about
this later in the book.
Let's look at thing systems first and then
PeopleSystems. Although relatively new, thing systems from
technology are quite common in everyday life. Thing systems
can range from simple, common principles like most bolts
normally have right hand threads, etc., all the way up to
the big complex systems. Systems that operate automated
machinery or protect airline passengers with involved flight
control systems. For instance, most everyone knows how to
tighten a nut clockwise, if it has a right handed (R.H.)
thread. Of course, turn the nut counterclockwise, if it's
left handed.
A more detailed thing system works when tightening a
number of nuts holding a large piece of machinery. First
tighten all nuts by hand before using a wrench. Let's take
our example one more step. Few people may know about a
graduated torque wrench. It makes the final adjustment
leaving all nuts torqued or tightened to the same force. Not
one nut will be over or understressed.
Now, let's take a quick look at our systems for
people. PeopleSystems -- the systems of, by, and for the
people trace back to the early tribal laws in Middle Eastern
civilizations. Later in UPFRONT, the author defines and
classifies PeopleSystems (PS). For now, please study the
following chart listing some common PeopleSystems. Notice
the various levels of creative control.
Common examples of PeopleSystems classified by level:
GOVT/LAWS CUSTOMS HABITS
===================================================
LEVEL I LEVEL II LEVEL III
traffic laws teach kids to drive kids reckless
marriage/divorce kind to ladies wolf whistle
funeral/will hold a wake wear shoes
pay attachments speak English talk clearly
ingredients on pack eat three meals chew politely
don't mark bills use US money carry money
get married set up a household date others
pay taxes earn a living buy things
This book on PeopleSystems does not propose applying
technical systems directly to problems in systems for
people. Instead, PeopleSystems will make a new and detailed
study of the various systems for people. Systems that are
working and systems that are not. This study may help
redirect Washington's attention towards solving systems
problems. Some long awaited answers may develop. There is a
pressing need for better methods and systems for people.
Universities may someday award degrees for the study of
systems for both things and people.
Few will ever forget the ivy covered halls, where we
learned about the world's problems. We tried to solve them
one by one. It all seemed so easy then, but we were very
young and very foolish. We seldom learned that while solving
problems A and B, we might be creating problems in C, D and
probably X, Y and Z.
In English Comp 101, students learned to 1) state the
need; 2) organize the problem; and 3) propose the solution.
What can a poor researcher for PeopleSystems do after
discovering that 1) the need has long been self-evident.
2)There are actually hundreds of serious problems to
organize. And 3) that finding solutions may depend on
cooperation from those who have power to deny the existence
of such problems?
Why not just ignore the big problems and attack one of
the tiny problems? We can hear Professor Snood whispering to
the class. Can't you still hear his raspy voice saying,
"Nibble on the problems -- don't chunk-off more than your
readers can swallow." That is exactly what has been
happening in systems for people, or as we know them
PeopleSystems (PS). For example, look at the Social
Security System. Once, one of the great accomplishments in
PeopleSystems, imitated by many foreign governments.
Washington has nibbled away until Social Security hardly can
sustain itself. Today, even felons in prison receive checks.
Originally self-supporting now there is talk of possibly
abandoning the once solid financial system.
There is no dispute that the U.S.A. is still the finest
country to live -- in spite of its domestic problems. We
sing America, "My country, 'tis of thee." It says our
country is great because of its people. How did a young
country become so powerful so quickly? Probably the
homogenization of diverse knowledge and experience brought
by its immigrants was one key factor. Is the U.S.A. still
used as the model for progress by the other countries of the
world? Or has the U.S.A. slipped off its pedestal somewhat?
Has the melting pot boiled dry -- refined and packaged
into a shiny hollow plastic bubble with nothing inside? Has
the rush for riches created a money-hungry people? Are we a
product of too much specialization, too narrow concepts, too
much futile experimentation? Do we have too few basic
principles? Where is "The Bottom Line" -- the jargon for
profit from an enterprise that ignores everything else. Are
most Americans ignoring everything but that which enriches
themselves? Recently profits seem to come mostly from
selling off assets. Can Americans reexamine their priorities
before it is too late?
Becoming familiar with a systemic concept like
PeopleSystems may stretch the reader's mind at first. It is
not difficult, provided the reader is willing to take one
step at a time. (A few readers are probably wondering: If
it's so damned important why haven't I heard of it before?)
Each new science has had to establish its own turf. Or as
R.G. Ingersoll put it, "Every science has been an outcast."
If the reader likes to approach a new concept gently,
then the reader should skip this chapter UPFRONT. Use
UPFRONT as a reference if mired down in confusion.
ELSE IF the reader wants all the new ideas lined up in
a row, like bowling pins "Then, lay on MacDuff." Study/Read
UPFRONT and follow on with the explanation in the remaining
chapters. Readers willing to accept new concepts, at least
until they thoroughly understand, will find this book easy
to read. Yet, those who would parry every inch of the way,
defending the virtues of concepts inherited may find the
book intolerable. H.L. Mencken said, "The public, with its
mob yearning to be instructed, edified and pulled by the
nose, demands certainties;...but there are no certainties."
UPFRONT with PeopleSystems is for those who like their
information up front clear, simple and logical. Please, DO
NOT TRY TO SKIM when studying this book. There are many
concepts here brought together in a unique manner. It needs
the reader's concentrated attention, if he or she wants to
understand. The reader who is used to dashing through an
article that contains only one or two basic ideas and a lot
of fluff may be unhappy. Don't try to skim/read this book
in that manner.
There ought to be a word for study-reading because
useful information becomes more complex every day. Skim
reading a difficult subject just doesn't work, unless you
are already an expert on the subject. In the event the
reader feels obliged to play critic, he won't be able to
properly judge the carelessly examined ideas. Publishing
savants always say that they READ a manuscript which means
they really scurried through a page here and there. No
wonder the publishers try to decide what books aren't
readable. Then, with this wonderful negative system, why do
publishers print so many books that people don't buy or
read?
Speaking of skimming, the author remembers meeting a
young trial lawyer called into a complex technical law suit
at the last moment. "Give me ten minutes to get the gist of
your report. Then I'll argue them deaf, dumb and blind,
right up to the courthouse door." If the reader just plans
to get the gist and make a quick judgment -- don't waste the
time. The reader's presumptions will probably be wrong. If
you're not interested in studying complex systems, and
involved concepts, reexamining predetermined ideas -- then
pass on. Don't read this book. Of course, few who suffer
this malady will recognize its symptoms.
Someone is grumbling in the back of the hall. "But, I
have a right to my opinion about any subject. It's the
American way." True, true. Then, pray tell, do you have an
opinion about open heart surgery or celestial navigation?
Are you up to date on the latest techniques? DO you know
why technology has been so successful with its thing-systems
while people-systems are stumbling around. Then READ/STUDY
this book carefully. Please, thoroughly chew and digest the
concepts before arguing with them.
Historically, the educated people carefully study
what's already said many times before. The works of
Shakespeare and Thoreau annually give birth to still more
volumes of commentary. Too often, however, new authors may
take one or two new concepts and grind them to powder.
Writers invest many words looking at their concepts in
every conceivable way. Readers now expect most books to be
full of fluff, and the worthwhile ideas can be gleaned with
ten minutes of skimming. This book proposes a broad
exploratory concept which requires the attention and
patience of the reader. Of course, it's much easier to
criticize new concepts than it is to struggle and understand
them. Throw the manuscript back on the slush pile and find
one that says something you already know.
In systems for people a piecemeal approach has patched
the dyke. Patches which come undone every time the need for
repairs surface like bubbles in the pool. Mind you, repairs
are a way of life in any progressive activity. Repairs are
necessary to even keep a spider's web useful. Spiders spend
much of their time filling in and repairing their webs.
Every so often, however, even a spider must stop and decide
to move to a more effective operation. He must swing out
and build a new superstructure for his new environment.
The concept of PeopleSystems, which the author first
identified in 1972, in his first book Standup, may already
have achieved immortality. An advance copy of PeopleSystems
has been critiqued in a small national publication, C.S.N.
on Monday, March 30, 1987. Unfortunately the editor didn't
really take the time to understand. PeopleSystems must have
rattled his cage though, because he carefully avoided giving
the complete definition. He tried to play down the
importance of PeopleSystems by calling it junk mail. If it
was so unimportant, why did he give it priority location?
It was a two column sidebar, high on the editorial page and
in color -- no less. Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
Free your presumptions, loosen your imagination let
your mind soar. Americans are all in this same boat together
seeking a better quality of life. Some have their hands on
the oars and some control the tiller. We'll all sail faster
and better when we start the engines and untie the anchor
line dragging for a long time.
Time is an important ingredient in the learning
process. Don't pass judgment until you've heard it all and
then have reflected on it a while. AND then, only if you
are confident that you really understand, then can you
accept or reject the concepts. If you don't understand or
don't care to understand PS, just ignore it. Don't try to
destroy PeopleSystems because you feel insecure about its
concepts.
The subject of PS is broad and yet quite definitive. PS
can't be spoon-fed to the reader. The reader needs a clear
map of where PS is coming from and where it is going. That
is why our editors suggested writing this chapter UPFRONT --
a capsule version of PeopleSystems.
PeopleSystems is not a religion, nor a political party,
and it's not fattening. PeopleSystems can provide help
just like a magnifying glass to examine systems for people
that need improvement and repair. The rest of the book will
amplify these ideas and further explain their consequences.
Don't act surprised if the author views many of the new
concepts from different directions. It may help the reader
to a better understanding. Be patient -- who would expect to
learn a new language in an hour or two?
For those disconsolate readers who neither accept nor
trust anything new, we'll perhaps be building a boat that
hovers like a dirigible. In their minds it will soar like a
jet, dig like a backhoe, plane like a speedboat, tunnel like
a mole. This will all take place within five rooms and a
bath with chrome wheels! If a reader isn't willing to accept
anything new, then how can he or she expect to learn
anything new?
To those readers interested in quick fixes and nothing
else, we suggest reading science fiction. SciFi has all the
answers to everything except that which is needed today.
Please do not expect to apply technical solutions to systems
for people. It's a lot more complicated than that.
PeopleSystems doesn't presume to know all the answers.
The author may be aware of some possibilities and will share
them with the careful reader. The skimming reader will
probably fly right over them.
This book will examine some improved PeopleSystems
methods that can help find answers. Don't look for quick
fixes. These occur only in fairy tales, Hollywood scripts
and politician's promises. Don't try to understand
PeopleSystems if you want to cross examine it, line by line,
while you are first learning about it. To learn about a new
and complex concept, first take the time to patiently learn
about it, try to understand it, then when you feel competent
in its ideas, argue with it. Don't argue from a position of
ignorance, rather from the standpoint of personal knowledge.
If a reader is disappointed not to have strong feelings
about PeopleSystems, don't let that concern you. An open
mind is the garden for new concepts. If the reader is moved
to have strong feelings in favor of the new concept, perhaps
it's because PeopleSystems has merely organized this
reader's thinking into a coherent thesis. BUT, if the reader
quickly feels resentment or resistance towards these new
concepts, he or she should examine their own attitudes
towards technology and systems. Perhaps there is already an
underlying antipathy about math and science and a hang-up
exists about the importance of technology and its systems in
the future.
Let's look at the basic premise. Why should we compare
systems for things with systems for people? Let us go back
to the beginning of the period of technical advancement
towards the end of the Renaissance. The need for honest
scientific information was obvious. Prior to people leaving
their agricultural heritage for the cities, there was little
need for development of crafts guilds. People were usually
poor and isolated, except some who lived in the castles,
cities, churches and manor houses. There were few useful
systems, either for people or for things.
The control of the people and their systems has changed
hands many times in the past. In primitive beginnings, the
tribe and its leaders were in control with the power of life
and death over the members. Later in history, in the city
the mob sometimes took control out of the hands of the
rulers. On occasion the mob pressured progress, but more
often, it produced chaos.
For many decades in various countries, the struggle
for control frequently changed hands among the clergy, the
politicians and the mob. Most recently a new and powerful
contender for control has arrived. The media is no longer
just an observer, a scrivener, a reporter of facts. Media
tries to influence people's opinion and guide decisions.
Even though it may begin in an unorganized manner, the hype
grows as if there was only one single opinion. Such ballyhoo
is self-feeding and fattens on itself until something more
newsworthy comes along to displace it. More later in
Chapter VIII.
The growth of the cities emerging from the Dark Ages
increased the need for tradesmen and job specialization.
There were butchers and bakers and candlestick makers needed
and money slowly began to circulate among the working
classes. There were no patent systems prior to the 16th
century and few lawyers to protect against infringement.
Transportation systems developed from town to town
country to country, over both land and sea. There are many
ways to trace the progress of systems for things. The
increase in travel speed or the quality of the candlemaker's
product are simple yardsticks. It is not so simple,
however, to determine the progress made in systems for
people. In fact, the author discovered that progress in
PeopleSystems usually occurs in big jumps that sometimes are
backward, as well as forward. More later in Chapter II.
It is common knowledge that today many of these systems
for people are ineffective and need improvement or
replacement. Schools began in a one room schoolhouse, where
every one helped each other to learn. The ungraded primary
school is no more, but there are strong advocates for its
return. Instead, an experiment with open classrooms has
hampered elementary education.
Important differences between systems for people and
systems for things quickly become obvious. How do the people
rectify a mistake in a basic process?
In the world of things, if the candlemaker produces a
batch of poor candles he melts them down and makes better
ones. That is, if he values his reputation as candlemaker.
However, when the King of England imposed an unfair tax on
tea imported by the colonies, this despicable PeopleSystem
remained. The repeal took many months and spawned a
Revolutionary War in the process. If a system for things is
not producing, a manufacturer can pull the plug on a machine
that doesn't work properly. How can the common people pull
the plug on a bad law or an ineffective system?
How can we compare systems for things to systems for
people? They are diverse sets of systems at best. Except for
the fact that each is a group of systems for the benefit of
mankind, there may be little in common. Please be aware the
comparison's greatest strengths will be in the differences
and in the success rates of each group.
We can easily compare the progress of the group of
systems for things, with the lack of progress in systems for
people. Oh yes, PeopleSystems have been improving over the
years, mostly because of the individual efforts of the
people affected. In fact, the need for making a comparison
between thing systems and PeopleSystems may not be obvious.
The recent quantum leap forward in computers, electronics
and medical technology, however, makes the study imperative.
We will pursue the history of PeopleSystems and thing
systems in more detail, later in Chapter I.
For now, let us compare progress in thing systems as a
group with systems for people as a group. In fact, the
author suggests the reader make a list of successful
technology systems. When the list gets to ten items stop.
Now start compiling a list of successful PeopleSystems in
the same manner. If the list gets to ten items, again stop
and add another ten items to the thing systems list. It is
soon obvious that the list of successful thing systems will
grow and grow. While at the same time, the list of
successful PeopleSystems will be quite difficult to compile.
With each PeopleSystem proposed there will be many questions
about whether it's a real benefit for the people -- or not.
Try PeopleSystems as a party game. Divide the guests
into two teams, the Thing-People versus the People-People.
Have each team select a leader. The Systems-Person leads the
Thing-People team; the Word-Person leads the People-People.
Taking turns, each team must propose a thing system or a
PeopleSystem that is successful. Let the comments flow. The
game soon runs out of successful PeopleSystems. That is,
unless the group starts proposing PS in Customs or Habits
where there are many good ones. Discussions can get heated
over the meaning of successful.
Using some of today's thing systems, technology can put
a man on the moon, and give him a vehicle to ride around in.
Then, by pressing a few buttons, bring him safely back to
earth to his loved ones. Yet, using today's PeopleSystems
many youngsters can't get through high school learning what
they need to be good citizens. How to enjoy a happy
productive family life -- free from fear and want. The
statistics are clear about problems in PeopleSystems.
School dropout rates approach 50 % in big cities and 50 % of
all marriages fail.
Using another of today's thing systems, we can dial a
phone number and talk with anyone in the free world. Still,
some people can't communicate with their loved ones in the
same room about an emotional subject.
Please note that the word things appears in the context
of physical entities or at least closely related to them.
Not the way the average dictionary defines things as in
ANYthing. Avoid using the word things for matters non-
physical. In Hollywood, a guy can have a physical thing for
a lady, but not in PeopleSystems.
There are many kinds of systems affecting our lives
today. Most separate into systems for people (like marriage,
nursing, education, etc.) and systems for things (like
aircraft guidance, surveying, machinery, etc.) Of course,
there will also be hybrid systems for both things and
people. Nevertheless, let's not get mired down with
semantics. The definitions will become clearer as the reader
becomes more familiar with PeopleSystems.
Some readers may pale at the word systems and the
author chooses to define it as simply as possible. A SYSTEM
is just a set of EVENTS with a PURPOSE. Yes, some thing
people prefer a more technical definition, with clauses that
discuss matters like testing, established, related events,
often sequential, etc. Simplicity is the key to systems
research. If you can't describe a concept in a simple
manner, maybe there is something wrong with the concept.
Here's a high sounding thing system that many people
won't recognize, even though they are probably very familiar
with it. The automotive lubrication volumetric measurement
verification unit indicates the machinery needs oil. That's
right, the dipstick shows low. When the reader has studied
systems in depth, he or she will find there is no simpler
definition. A system is just a set of events with a purpose.
Please don't ignore this definition of systems just because
it's simple. Einstein's E=mc^2 was simple too.
There is no such thing as THE SYSTEM. We hear the
common complaint: "I HATE THE SYSTEM!" There is no single,
all powerful system that controls all of us, unless spoken
in a religious context. There are many individual systems,
however, as well as interrelated systems. If the complainer
had said,"I hate the political system" it might be broad and
ambiguous, but understandable. Nevertheless, there is no BIG
SYSTEM to satisfy the complainer's need to strike out and
blame someone or something -- anything.
It is obvious to a student of systems that there are
good systems, bad systems, old systems, new systems. There
are systems that work and some that don't. Perhaps a word
like pattern instead of system would be acceptable to those
who have a hangup. Some people don't appreciate seeing words
like systems and people in the same sentence. People are
generally very systematic, whether they know it, believe it,
or not. More later in the Introduction.
The reader has noted the two major divisions of systems
-- thing systems and PeopleSystems. Please spell the latter
exactly as shown -- one word, capital P and S, no space
between. PS is a new concept and needs identity in a new
word form.
Thing systems are by far the most prolific and most
successful and technology can take credit. Most thing-
systems are the product of economically motivated
technologists who enjoy solving problems. Some people joke
that thing-people are born problem solvers to whom problems
present a challenge. But, people-persons instead, grow into
problem watchers and see people themselves as the challenge.
Please see Chapter III for more on the subject.
PeopleSystems are really as old as history. Some trace
back to the Hebrew laws and Cuneiform cave markings in the
Middle East. The prohibition against eating pork was wise.
There was no refrigeration. PeopleSystems affect large
numbers of people and are constantly in need of change and
improvement. And of course, there are hybrid or mixed
systems which may contain a number of lesser PeopleSystems
and thing systems. Usually a hybrid system fits into either
category depending on the importance of its various
component systems. For instance, teaching computer
programming needs more technical talent than teaching
talent. There are many detailed discussions of systems and
the types of talents and jobs involved in later chapters.
According to PeopleSystems, what is the difference between a
surgeon and a physician -- or a tax collector and a tax
appraiser?
The natives are getting restless and trying to form
their own definitions of PeopleSystems. The time is now.
PEOPLESYSTEMS DEFINED
======================
PeopleSystems are the repetitive patterns of people
activities. The habits, the customs, the laws and
regulations that guide, control or affect our daily life.
PeopleSystems divide into three levels of control:
1. Laws/Regulations Level I These PS affect very
large groups. Created by representative political
government, presumably expressing the will of the majority.
2. Customs Level II Created by the people themselves in
concert or by the elite leadership. These PS affect large or
small groups of people.
3. Habits Level III PS for individuals -- created of,
by and for the individual person or people.
Many systems involve both people and thing activities,
but there are unmixed, plain or pure people and thing
systems. Plain PeopleSystems are like the marriage system or
the criminal law system, the Social Security or Welfare
systems, also teaching or preaching. By comparison, some
plain thing systems are land surveying or navigation,
accounting and mathematics, meteorology, etc. More later in
Chapter III.
Technology (thing) systems are growing at a rapid rate.
Just consider the recent progress in computers, space travel
and medical technology. Meanwhile, PeopleSystems seem
struggling and stagnant -- Social Security and Welfare;
Family Marriage and Divorce; Public Education, etc.
For many decades the U.S.A. was the model for the world
in new systems. The U.S. Constitution, the Congress and the
Patent Office, etc. have been copied. Why aren't today's
PeopleSystems as effective as they once were? Washington
spends over $400 billion per year on PeopleSystems. Some
Americans believe in throwing money at problems. How can
they reduce the waste? Is the U.S.A. still a model that
other countries want to copy? More on the budget billions
in Chapter 1.
Washington's struggle with improving PeopleSystems has
been very slow. It's like the old story about the drunk
staggering around under a street light. As he stumbled over
the curb, again and again, a policeman asked what he was
doing. "Looking for me wallet I dropped me wallet." Asked
where he dropped the wallet, the drunk pointed to a dark
section of the street. The bluecoat asked why wasn't he
looking over there. And the drunk politely explained, "The
light's better over here."
Maybe Washington has been looking for answers too near
the lamp post, but, not where they dropped the ball. This
author has researched how the recent stagnation came about
in PeopleSystems. Where did the leadership drop the
taxpayer's wallet?
Thing systems have been making progress, even while PS
are mired down in their own problems. Congress passed a
balanced budget control law last year. Congress now is
talking about ignoring their own new law even before the ink
is hardly dry.
Some PeopleSystems are much easier to accept and follow
than others. PeopleSystems are often more successful in
Customs Levels II and Habits Level III. These PS developed
of, by and for the people. They are not the result of
governmental edicts, and don't contain penalties imposed by
law. Three meals a day is a fine PS from Customs Level II.
Not chiseled in stone, these PS get tested by time and by
the people themselves.
It seems that the more input the ordinary people have
in the creation of PeopleSystems, the more useful the
systems become. With Customs-II and Habits-III the people
themselves usually create, test and put these PeopleSystems
into use without any interference. They know that it is the
people -- themselves -- whom they must satisfy. Otherwise,
a PeopleSystem may be difficult to install, enforce or
continue.
The Supreme Court just approved a bad PeopleSystem that
caused considerable public disapproval. The Court said that
reverse discrimination is acceptable in cases where
minorities had been penalized in the past. In California, a
woman should have received the public works dispatcher job,
instead of the more qualified man. This decision fails to
satisfy the majority under PeopleSystems rules. Even pro-
women's groups disapproved of this reverse discrimination.
There is a need for a test to examine PeopleSystems for
usefulness and acceptability? If we look at the three
levels I, II, and III, we find the basis for a Universal
Test for PeopleSystems.
The Universal Test for PeopleSystems requires that
1) the PeopleSystem must be the truth of the matter. It must
meet the requirements needed and it must be workable. Else
2) it should clearly state that certain exceptions or
defects still exist and 3) name the defects. 4) There should
not be any extraneous matters attached like the common
practice of riders hanging onto the coat-tails of popular
legislation. 5) Finally, the PS must be acceptable at all
levels, at least by a majority of those affected. No matter
how good it sounds to the leadership, the people should test
proposed PS at each level. The politicians must query the
individual, the small group, and the large political
subdivision. A majority must agree. No longer can the
leadership assume last minute compromises are acceptable to
the average taxpayer.
As we know, there are two major divisions in systems --
PeopleSystems and thing-systems. There are also two major
groups of talents. Some people enjoy either people talents
or thing talents or both. Unhappily, some people have none.
People persons jobs include teachers, nurses, artists, sales
people, physicians, (not surgeons) musicians, etc. Also
included is the powerful elite leadership group of word
people.
The word persons group includes authors, writers,
editors, directors, personalities, commentators, and news
people. There are also legislators, politicians, clergy,
lawyers, judges and others whose work product is generally
in the form of words either written or verbal.
Word-people usually create, control, direct, or at
least guide PeopleSystems. Word-people have been around
for centuries. In ancient times the scribes were the ones
able to read and write and often held positions of trust.
Unfortunately, most word people today have little training
and experience with complicated systems of various kinds.
Studies made by the author show that word people generally
shy away from being involved with things. They prefer to
interact with people. In a study group of fifteen
congresspeople, only two showed interest in anything but
politics or sports. One politician even said his hobby was
politics. More later in Chapter IV.
Popular TV quiz shows demonstrate how few technical --
subjects are available for the contestant to choose.
Unfortunately, most of the questions relate to trivia about
literature, history, geography, movies, rock groups, or
personalities. On the JEOPARDY show there are six different
lists of questions to pick from. Usually not more than one
of the lists has mathematical or scientific answers.
Readers Digest has continued a monthly quiz feature on
Increasing Your Word Power for as many years as the author
can remember. Seldom do the general magazines discuss a
technical subject, unless it's a put-down against nuclear
energy, acid rain, or pollution. There is nothing evenhanded
about the present treatment of technology and thing systems.
Thing-people make up the largest group with their
thing-talents and training. They are the people involved
with some phase of a product, or mathematics, finances,
scientific or technical services, etc. Thing-person jobs
include bakers, mechanics, butchers, pilots, builders, bank
tellers, mathematicians, scientists, engineers,
technologists, cashiers. Also include surgeons (not
physicians), financial people, repair persons, farmers,
ranchers, etc. Obviously there are also many mixed or
hybrid jobs that need both thing and people talents and
people with mixed talents do this work. More later in
Chapter III.
Among the thing people, there is an elite group.
Systems people are an emerging leadership, some of whom may
not even be aware of their own significance. They are
probably too busy making things happen. Not all technical
people are systems people. Diversity in training, experience
and talents are needed. The systematist should also be a
word person with reasonable people talents for leadership.
There are many technologists unaware of the responsibility
of the systematist. The need for people to create complex
systems blossomed with the electronic and computer
industries. Most systematists apply their expertise to
specific technical systems and may have little desire or
opportunity to work with non-technical systems. There is a
real need for trained systems people who can double in brass
and handle more than their own specialty. Although sorely
needed, there are no established criteria for training
systematists -- the super-people.
Systems people generally create thing systems though
they may not recognize this new title. Although systems
people come from technology, some may not possess systems
talents of a broad enough nature. They probably can handle
systems for their own specialty, but may not be adept at
broad based systems planning. Some managers with technology
backgrounds, the author has observed, seem to have good
systems planning talents.
If the reader still needs convincing about the
importance of thing-systems, this may do it. There are twice
as many jobs connected with thing-systems as jobs connected
with systems for people. The number of thing jobs is growing
rapidly. Just count the number of motors in your home today
and compare this with the small number that Grandma had.
Many kinds of systems play a growing part in our lives.
People might as well learn to enjoy them instead of fighting
them. Systems are here to stay.