Re: STIA- The Natural Step LO3474

Michael McMaster (Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk)
Sat, 28 Oct 1995 09:16:29 +0000

Replying to LO3417 --

Dave asks what planning model I use. My first thought was that I
don't believe in planning. But I suppose that I do use approaches
that might be called planning and might be useful to share.

It's not true that I don't believe in planning. It's just the actual
planning part is not interesting to me as it's already been mastered
by many. What I've been addressing in my post is arriving at an
intention that will move into effective action and produce desired
results. I'm interested in the nature of those processes to the
extent that they are non-linear and adaptive - fit for a complex
world - and in the ways of relating to possible futures.

My approach to the second is a linguistic one based in complex
adaptive systems research and in interpretive philosophy. My
thinking isn't interested in projections, selecting from options nor
"stretch" targets (the worst of the bunch). I interesting in
creation and generative approaches which are based in the idea that
the space of possibility is larger than we can ever explore - for any
arena that might be interesting - and that the most interesting
challenge is to develop theories about what might be and then invent
ways to explore the greatest part of that space in economic ways.

In these approaches, the "leap into the future" and that will then be
"worked backwards from" is *the* challenge. This leap will occur in
dialogue which has certain linguistic features. The ability to think
in this arena is strongly influenced by the approaches one has
available to explore the space of possibility selected. It is also
strongly influenced by the "whole of the structure of the present" as
it relates to the past and might relate to the future. (I'm
withholding some of my terminology and detail here in anticipation of
a paper being published in the Long Range Planning Journal UK but am
not intentionally withholding the thinking behind it.)

I use a technique which might be called "theoretical brainstorming".
It's based in the idea that it is theory that is the first
requirements for deciding on what portion of the space of possibility
to explore. I do not mean anything "heavy" when I refer to theory
but only that there be some rigour to the thinking and approach which
is selecting.

My "planning model" is - suprise - also a set of conversations.
That is, in my interpretive approach, I consider everything to be
conversations. The question is, having decided on an intention
(preferably a general intention appropriate to operating in a complex
adaptive environment), what conversations will move a team, group,
community towards its realisation. I don't consider this to be a
series of conversations but rather a group which are iterative and
recursive. The next conversation which is likely to be needed is
determined by what is most missing in that moment of realisation.

By "tricking the ancient ways of thinking" I'm referring to the 2,500
year old "western" way of thinking which is linear, mechanistic,
reductionist, etc and which limits what we can consider as
possibility.

Your example was a great one. I would indeed have enjoyed watching -
or being part of - the process you describe. I frequently use the
metaphorical or analogic to get beyond the existing thinking limits -
such as your "changing the gas tank while racing". Interpretive
approaches will suggest the theory and methodology of this and NLP
and Synectics, among others, will suggest more specific techniques.

What I would have enjoyed was the process of arriving "back" at
something that was still not possible and the interative and
recursive nature of the conversation that got you to a point of
success.

I also appreciate the match between intention and result as not being
perfect - but more than satisfactory and more than could have been
dreamed as "really possible" beforehand.

--
Michael McMaster
Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk