Decked with SWOT analyses, balanced scorecards, and lengthy documents, mainstream planning boasts impressive metrics and power tools to support decision-making, policy-making, or strategy analysis. Nevertheless, few stakeholders and consultants have a confident grasp of ‘what is going on’ beneath the slick surface of statistics, indicators, and indices — but can they share that without pomp and buzzwords? The panorama is at least curious, if not alarming.
The art of efficiency™ — i.e. mastering simplicity, elegance, goodness™ — is for those who confront situations ‘as a whole’ and seek to understand structures and functions. The rest should already be happy with their mainstream choices.
1990s— ‘big data and AI will make life more intelligent’
2020s— plenty of data but no idea of ‘how things work’
Hold on!— is ‘data-rich and system-oblivious’ intelligent?
Rethink— which life orientation conduces to intelligence?
Aware— conscious, alert, lively?
self-determined, original, meaningful?
brave to question, explore, judge wisely?
Dedicated— take the time to study, reflect, mature?
A grand cause— the art of efficiency™
The good life, indeed— exceptional quality
Momentous meaning— distinctive and purposeful
Always original— thought, expression, action, outcomes
Systems Planning℠ appeals to the like-minded — e.g. curious to understand ‘how things work’ and free to ‘make things right’ — and boldly shuns pernicious mainstream conventions (e.g. consumerism, popularity).
The global interest of Systems Planning℠ is naturally abstract (e.g. archetypes, mindsets, efficiency), but maintains true to reality (e.g. objects of interest, work plan, applications) — i.e. beautiful things that work™.
The FAQ section presents some suggestions for the interest and application of Systems Planning℠ — i.e. what Systems Planning℠ is good for — in a practical, an idealistic, and an antithetic perspective.
Systems Planning℠ captures reality (ουσία) — i.e. essence (re: entities) or substance (re: phenomena) — in its objects of interest (system, process, plan), thus making dynamic complexityeasy to grasp.
Common mainstream alternatives for registering, understanding, and acting upon reality involve simplification/ aggregation through proxies or ‘shadows’, thus creating a ‘sui generis’ reality or ‘parallel worlds’ (v. antipodes).
Systems Planning℠ as a whole (όλον) makes a difference (a.k.a. ‘impact’ or ‘influence’ in ‘mainstream speak’)
beyond its premium value (Z′, Z″)
by what it stands for (Y, Z)
as well as by its endeavour (X).
“The RBP™ made us realise some important hidden assumptions [understanding]. After a few versions of the RBP™ we could see clearly our aims, leverage points, and their links [refinement]. Working with diagrams, we learned to think in a more organised and much more efficient manner [intelligence].”
Personal/ Team Fulfilment™
“In the RBP™ we managed to establish the missing relations among the SWOT points [mastery]. By simulating the alternative strategies in the DCD™ we made a confident decision [confidence]. Discovering intelligent solutions to difficult problems is always rewarding [satisfaction]. And since true ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking is rare and difficult, we received praise for our achievements [recognition].”
“With the help of the CPD™ we made our operations more agile [fluid function]. With the DCD™ we streamlined our institutional strategy [streamlined structure]. And with the help of the CPD™ we re-shaped our departments and their communication channels [tuned form].”
Despite their infiltration into academic practice and their consequent ubiquity, metrics regarding science, knowledge, or human endeavour in general (e.g. bibliometrics, scientometrics, ‘performance’, ‘productivity’) are dissociated from Systems Planning℠ as demeaning, distracting, and discouraging.
(i) positivist staples such as measurability and replicability do not apply well to human qualities and experience;
(ii) naïve assumptions such as ‘popular means good’ appeal to consumers/ followers rather than connoisseurs;
(iii) cult of status (e.g. personality, organisation, artefact), induced or ‘corroborated’ by metrics, invites false focus and judgement bias.