Shareware Overload/ShartewareOverload.cdr/progm/funkybox.zip/DAMNTRIV.DOC

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.