What is progress?

It's easy to think progress is measured by GDP, trade balances, or the number of things we have; that's what we read and hear about in the news. Yet there's an undercurrent that suggests such views have it all backwards.

The Glaser Progress Foundation has a program area devoted to measuring progress. Go there to see a video or hear an audio of a 1968 speech by Robert Kennedy suggesting that GDP measures all the unimportant things or to research articles they've assembled.

Thanks to Joost Bonsen's Maximizing Progress for the link. Thanks, too, to Cliff Havener and his Meaning : The Secret of Being Alive. I read that years ago, and I'm pretty certain he makes the point that Lord Kelvin was wrong: all the important things—love, peace, faith, art, ...—share the attribute that they can't be measured by numbers. I've looked, though, and can't find the reference; if anyone can provide me the page number, I'd appreciate it.

Food and fuel in the news

DrumBeat: April 25, 2008 offered two particularly interesting links.

First, Time offered How to End the Global Food Shortage, their suggestion on three actions we can take in the short term. I'm not sure I see a long-term solution there, for I sense that global population is still growing exponentially, while their solutions seem focused on taking current food production to a new level, not creating matching exponential growth in the production and distribution of food. Put in systems terms, I sense population is still driven by a reinforcing loop, while the three Time proposals seem driven by goal-seeking loops. The short-term effects do seem beneficial, as long as we don't forget the longer term.

Second, oil financier Matt Simmons has published more presentations. Check out The 21st Century Energy Crisis Has Arrived. Slides 9-10 should not be a surprise to any who took IMT 586 at the University of Washington last winter or who have worked the challenge on pages 212-213 in John Sterman's Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World with CD-ROM.

While you're there, also see his Are We Nearing The Peak Of Fossil Fuel Energy? Has Twilight In The Desert Begun? He does offer optimism, but only if we act well and only after some, um, "transitional" times. If anything, I wonder if his estimate of the rate of decline of production is optimistic, for, with the high raw demand for petroleum these days, I suspect we will deplete available reserves at a rather rapid rate.

Followup to Bush and greenhouse gases

One of the claims about working on greenhouse gas emissions is that it costs too much. Business Week tries to put that in perspective.

Fooled by Randomness: some thoughts

I read and wrote about Nassim Taleb's The Black Swan some time ago; now I'm reading his Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets.

I'm struck by the application of his ideas to environmental and ecological issues. It seems as if we're placing most of our societal bets on growth, a bet that has played well for centuries. Given the current news, though, those seem like some of the investment bets Taleb describes as foolhardy. A prudent "investor" (citizen or business person) at this stage in the Earth's development might place most or all money on bets that can't lose much. Betting on the ability of the planet to absorb more growth, on nonrenewable energy sources to remain plentiful, or on technology to increase efficiencies sufficiently yet again seems like a risky bet, given the news of the day (and year and decade).

That's consistent with the precautionary principle; do check out THE YEAR IN IDEAS: A TO Z.; Precautionary Principle from The New York Times.

What do you think?

For more on Taleb's book, see words by Andrew Gelman, Wikipedia, and James Glassman.

Business, Earth Day, and other thoughts

After teaching at my first Bainbridge Graduate Institute Intensive, I am very impressed. The administration, faculty, and student body seem, in person, even more focused on and effective with both words in "sustainable business" than they say they are. I confess that this MBA program truly excites me, and I am glad to play a small part in its work.

That led me to think about business, business practices, and Earth Day tomorrow (there is another Earth Day that passed last month). A bit of looking turned up Nice Guys Don't Finish Last, a Business Week article that indicates that international executives seem to think being green helps them. You can see more in The Economist's report.

A bit more looking turned up Climate Counts, which promises to help us as consumers and as investors, think about which companies have made more strides than others. If you're in business, see their scorecard to think about various dimensions to climate impact. While we might quibble about the weighting of the various dimensions and the focus on climate alone instead of also including usage of nonrenewable resources, social justice, and other issues of corporate social responsibility, we can probably learn from reviewing their measures. Even though I think my overall footprint as a company is quite small, it's prompting me to make an assessment and to think about additional factors that I think might be important.

If you're looking for other thoughts for Earth Day, check out the Donella Meadows Archive at the Sustainability Institute. After being part of the team that did the research and produced the original Club of Rome report, she wrote the weekly Global Citizen, which you can peruse in that archive. There's plenty of food for thought there.

What suggestions and thoughts do you have?

President Bush and greenhouse gases

I haven't been a political blogger, and I'm not about to start now. Yet the news of the past few days does offer ways to illustrate systems concepts I've mentioned before, and so I thought I'd point out what I hope is obvious to all here.

For but one example, take US President Bush's goal of having greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions stop growing by 2025, which is stirring up comment world-wide.

In system dynamics terms, GHG emissions (largely CO₂) are a flow, and the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere is a stock. If you recall what I've written before on stocks and flows, you'll see that stopping the increase of a flow does not mean that the stock will decrease; it simply means that it will increase less rapidly.

In other words, even if we do meet this goal, things may well continue to get worse well after 2025, but they will at least get worse less rapidly after then.

I want to show you a little model that demonstrates that behavior, but, to publish it here, I'd like to get the numbers at least close to right, and that would take a bit of research time I don't have tonight. Let me try an analogy, instead; those of you who studied and remember the calculus can probably make a more elegant argument, and those who do system dynamics models can create one on your own in a few minutes (if you have the needed parameters, let me know, or post a pointer to your model).

In the real world, we are emitting CO₂ into the atmosphere by breathing, burning fossil fuels, and the like. That stock of CO₂ in the atmosphere is growing and threatening climate havoc.

Some of that CO₂ is taken out of the atmosphere each year through the action of photosynthesis and perhaps other mechanisms.

According to the science I read, we have too much CO₂ in the atmosphere at present, and our global CO₂ emissions per year, already above what the environment can naturally purge, are increasing. If that weren't the case, there would be little reason for President Bush's call to action.

Let's look at an analogous situation. For example, let's say you have a bathtub that's three-fourths full of water. The drain is open, but it's partially clogged, and so it's draining slowly.

In addition, the faucet is turned on, putting more water in the tub. It so happens that the water is currently coming into the tub faster than the partially-stopped drain can take it out, so the water level is rising, causing fears for the well-being of the bathroom floor.

The person controlling the faucet is opening the faucet as we speak, letting water come into the tub at an ever faster rate. That person, realizing the risk to the floor, promises to stop opening the faucet anymore in about 15 minutes.

What do you think will happen to the floor?

Even with the rough data I supplied, I hope you can see that the water will rise increasingly rapidly for the next 15 minutes. If the person takes their hand off the faucet in 15 minutes, the water will continue to rise until it overflows the tub (assuming it doesn't overflow sooner). The only way to save the floor is to reduce the flow of water from the faucet to below the flow of water out of the drain before the tub overflows. Even if they started reducing the flow of water out of the faucet now, the water in the tub would still rise until the inflow was less than the outflow.

Of course, this is a silly little example; the real world of GHG emissions is much more complex. Yet the general principle of stocks and flows holds: as long as the inflow exceeds the outflow, the stock will rise.

I'm not about to use this short, informal essay to argue for or against specific GHG or climate proposals or to try to balance climate stability against economic stability. I am suggesting that we all remember the lesson of stocks and flows when we are thinking about or evaluating policies such as these.

PS: Thanks to colleague Wayne Wakeland for, in a totally different situation, reminding me of the effectiveness of simple bathtub models (and I hope it worked here!).

All but blind

I stumbled upon "All but blind," a poem by Walter de la Mare, and I thought it might have a good message for those of us who work in organizations. You can find it as number 16 in this online collection. What do you think?

Incidentally, de la Mare started out his professional life as a statistician, but I don't think that qualifies this as another "Making sense with numbers" entry.

A sense of urgency and a great opportunity

Glen Hiemstra posted Peak Oil and Global Warming - the Cross Matrix linking to important material by Jeremy Leggett, Dr. James Hanson, and Al Gore. The Jeremy Leggett clip is about 10 minutes long and seems to be an excerpt of a longer talk; the Al Gore segment lasts about half an hour and seems complete.

All of the links in Glen's posting are worth checking out, but you may not find too much new in Leggett's lecture if you're familiar with basic arguments about climate change and peak oil.

I do encourage you to watch the entire Al Gore segment, though. What I find important there is his careful, passionate, and, yes, somewhat optimistic reframing of the issues we face. Do check it out, and then let me know what you think.

Making more sense with numbers, part 4

This could be called Monty Hall and cognitive dissonance. John Tierney just published And Behind Door No. 1, a Fatal Flaw, a brief review of the Monty Hall problem and a report on its potential application to psychology, including its potential to invalidate some prior claims about subjects such as cognitive dissonance.

I'll leave the psychological arguments to others; the point is that thinking carefully isn't always as easy as it seems. If you're not convinced, read the start of that article down to "Before I tell you the answer, I have a request," and then write down your answer before proceeding. Then try out the online version to see if you got the right answer, to get a visceral feel for the game, and to see the reasoning.

Once you get the hang of those, try out Monty Hall’s Other Problems.

Do you now think you've got the hang of it? Just to confuse things a bit more, read Behind Monty Hall's Doors: Puzzle, Debate and Answer?, Tierney's 1991 report of playing the game with Monty Hall. By the end, you may have an even deeper appreciation of the challenge of making sense with numbers.

And if you wonder what this might have to do with business, remember that the impetus for Tierney's column was Yale economist M. Keith Chen's application of the Monty Hall problem to psychology. Are similar gotcha's waiting for us in business?

PS: Yes, there is a Making more sense with numbers, part 3.

LTG redux

Just one more short posting on LTG (Limits to Growth), at least for now: in looking for something else, I found The Limits to Growth: Abstract established by Eduard Pestel. A Report to The Club of Rome (1972), by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis l. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, William W. Behrens III, which is well worth the time it takes to read, especially if you haven't read one of the original versions of LTG. It summarizes in very readable prose the essence of the entire LTG argument in just eight short pages.

Even though this was written 36 years ago, it seems very up-to-date. Or, perhaps better put (as Ugo Bardi did), because it was written 36 years ago and we've learned more, it seems more pertinent today than it did then. For a review of the changes since the original publication, see Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update or Matthew Simmon's review linked from my prior posting.

Grow or die

The title is a rough quotation from an interview I read by a CEO recently. It doesn't matter who it was; it's a common business notion, I sense.

I understand the sentiment, really I do. There is a real fear that, if we don't grow, we'll be overtaken by those who do grow. Or that we'll become stagnant and stale.

Yet I'm mindful that, if we all grow, we'll surely die (or at least suffer), too. Read Limits to Growth, if you're uncertain about my statement. Note that "limits to growth" in that book is not a statement of an environmentalist's hope; it's a statement of fact. We will face limits to growth. We can choose the nature of those limits (or at least we have had the chance), but stop growing we will. You can't exceed the carrying capacity of an environment forever.

So, if it's true that we all (or most all) want to grow (our companies, our houses, ...), and if it's true that we will face (and are already facing) real limits to that growth, what do we do?

I've written about growth a number of times, but I admit that I don't have all or even many of the answers yet. Perhaps I'll find out more in the next few months, for I'm co-teaching a systems thinking course at Bainbridge Graduate Institute.

If you're not familiar with BGI yet, their vision is "To infuse environmentally and socially responsible business innovation into general business practice by transforming business education," and they've got a good reputation in this area.

As I did when I taught system dynamics at the University of Washington, I suspect I'll learn a lot here, this time with a distinct focus on sustainability and business. I'm really looking forward to this experience. (And, as I did last time, I will refrain from telling you anything that goes on in class unless I have explicit permission, but I may tell you a bit about how I grew.)

The importance of a focus on disconfirmation

Here's a lesson from John Sterman's Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World section 1.3.7: we gain little to no new insight by observing cases where data supports our hypotheses. We gain much from testing cases where data might disconfirm our hypotheses.

For more on that, see Raymond Nickerson's Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises, Bob Dick's Rigour and relevance in action research, the Skeptic's Dictionary entry on confirmation bias, Wikipedia's entry on the same subject, or one of my prior essays on skepticism.

System dynamics in practice: lessons learned

Drew Jones, Don Seville, and Dana Meadows of the Sustainability Institute wrote Resource Sustainability In Commodity Systems: The Sawmill Industry In The Northern Forest. That provides a good example of a way to use system dynamics models (it's of course not the only way).

I like that paper for several reasons. The model seemed good (at least from the explanation; I haven't explored the model yet), and the explanation of the model and its implications seemed good. What may be especially interesting to some is that they spent the last third of the paper talking about what they learned about the human side of the equation: how people responded to their work, and what they learned from that. The top of page 26 seems noteworthy, although you'll probably have to read the preceding 25 pages to make good sense of it.

Management theory, management practice

For some now-forgotten reason, I printed out a copy of Sumantra Ghoshal's Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practice some time ago to read. Last night, I discovered it and took the time to read it.

If you are a manager or a management educator, I encourage you to do the same. It's not something to force yourself to read today, for it likely won't tell you anything you need to do a better job on your current project. It is something to read and not ignore. It will, I hope, make all of us think.

Here's an example of his ideas (pp. 79-80). It's often said that the job of a public company is to make the maximum profit for the owners. As he notes, stockholders don't really own a corporation; they simply contribute capital in exchange for a share of certain cash flows. Employees contribute their work in exchange for their livelihood. If we were to maximize the gains of a corporation to benefit those who have invested a stake in its success, we would have to focus those gains in service of a much wider group of people. Employees would seem to have a much bigger influence than stockholders, for they typically can't change jobs nearly as easily as stockholders can buy and sell stock, and their contributions are typically much more individualized than the fungible resources stockholders provide (cash).

For another, he claims that much management theory (and thus practice) today is based on an assumption that people will try to take advantage of companies (pp. 82 ff.). Yet, he claims, experiments and evidence shows that such a belief is incorrect and tends to create a self-fulfilling prophecy (which makes me glad to have been part of the company Bill and Dave founded).

His concerns focus on two areas. First, management theories have focused (out of "physics envy") on "a narrow version of positivism together with relatively unsophisticated scientific methods" (p. 86). Second, for ideological reasons, management theory has focused efforts on "containing the costs of human imperfections" rather than on working with the broader, more complex, true nature of people.

The challenge in management sciences lies in what he calls a "double hermeneutic" (p. 77). While bad theories in physics don't change the path of electrons (they can't read, and, if they could, they wouldn't change simply because elite scientists said they should), bad theories in the social sciences (of which management is one) are read by practitioners and turned into practice.

Finally, he notes (pp. 86 ff.) that falsification, which is fundamental to to the positivism to which some aspire, is very hard to apply in the social sciences. As "many different and mutually inconsistent theories explain the same phenomenon ... nothing can be weeded out."

He has explained his ideas much more effectively than I have in this brief summary, and I do encourage you to read it and consider how it might apply to your practice of management. If you deal in any of the social sciences, I also encourage you to think about the nature of falsification as he describes it and how that applies to how one knows what one knows.

Focusing on the symptom or the cure?

I recently read Jay Forrester's "Churches at the Transition Between Growth and World Equilibrium," a paper prepared for the National Council of Churches and published as part of Toward Global Equilibrium: Collected Papers, ed. Meadows and Meadows and published in 1973 (also available from Pegasus Communications).

Forrester emphasized two points that may be worthwhile today to some of you reading this:

• When fundamental changes happen in the environment in which we operate, old rules of thumb likely no longer appply.
  
• Trying to fix problems by focusing on symptoms is highly risky, for, even in static times, our intuitions don't always work as well as we need. In times of transition and turbulence, it's especially important to ensure one understands the dynamic causes of the problem being faced before engaging in actions that could be counterproductive.
  

Forrester was a bit more direct than I was in my paraphrase. "One should never attempt to find a solution without first establishing the dynamic causes," he wrote, and system dynamics was his tool of choice for testing whether one had found the underlying causes or not.

Today we face increasing energy costs, increasing population density, increasing effects on climate and on the inhabitants of the Earth from the by-products of our industrial and private activity, fundamental shifts in the distribution of production and wealth, a scarcity of resources that were abundant in the past, and the fall-out from overextended financial markets. No matter your type of organization, the complexity of these changes taxes our understanding.

In a time of such changes, how do you make sense of the challenges your organization faces? How do you determine which actions to take to achieve the sustainable successes you want?

If you'd like to discuss ways in which you might make more sense of those issues, ways you might understand the likely causes of the dynamics you face, and ways you might test your proposed actions faster and at less risk than by just trying them, get in touch. Perhaps I can be of help as you seek to fix problems and not just reduce symptoms. Of course, there's no charge or obligation from such an initial discussion.