Sophometrics — ideas 2006-2009

 

Web entry — March 18, 2009

“Energy Policy — Alternative Energy Capacity”

Last month I drove down to Olympia, Washington to testify for a House bill, then in committee. Since my trip, the bill passed the House and moved on to the State Senate. This is good news.

But, now I have bad news. A separate bill (5840) passed in the Senate March 10. The Senate bill modifies the method of accounting for new alternative energy capacity in Washington State and would allow selected power utilities to count existing hydro power as if it were new alternative energy capacity. Not that I have a dislike for hydro power, just the opposite.

~ ~ ~

Hydro power is the anchor of Northwest power and it provides us with wonderfully stable prices and economical electric power. We have practiced effective electric power conservation since the early 80’s and this is the reason we enjoy the power rates we have now. The point of I-937 is to continue to protect our hydro power advantage while also building the capacity of alternative sources of power from wind and solar.

The bill, as passed in the Senate, undermines the effectiveness of I-937. So, I felt compelled to send my legislators in the State House a note to tell them to kill the bill. Actually, I am comfortable if the bill passes, but only after it is changed to be more in line with the intent of I-937.

An observation: The means of making bills — capturing an idea on paper and gathering support in an effort to pass through the gauntlet of legislation — is not conducive to bringing diverse interests together. To get bills passed, we make compromises. Instead, we might be able to find systemic improvements that help solve problems and serve diverse interests at the same time. Smoke and mirrors you say? Senate bill 5840 and House bill 1747 (below) are both clear examples of lost potential. There is good reason to encourage investment in hydro efficiency improvements, but not good reason to weaken I-937 at the same time. And it is relatively easy to encourage the one without diminishing the other. Likewise, it is valuable to businesses and developers alike to improve energy performance of the built environment in the Northwest, and possible to do this without transferring risk to developers and businesses. But, caught between interests, neither of these bills describes the strongest position for any one interest; neither seeks the systemic view.

It is time we begin to seek out new solutions that create the biggest win for the most people (and the best future). Did I say this would be easy?

 

Web entry — February 15, 2009

“Energy Policy”

A few days ago I drove down to Olympia, Washington to testify for a house bill, then in committee. The bill is titled, “An ACT Relating to reducing climate pollution in the built environment,” and lives up to its title by improving building codes for new construction and initiating organizational support for energy-efficiency retrofit construction on existing buildings.

~ ~ ~

My testimony was limited to about three minutes, but I left a statement behind addressing six topics that I believe would make the bill stronger.

The bill strengthens code making authority by giving the code panel a series of targets similar to the 2030 Challenge, supported by the AIA. The bill also places the burden of action on building developers in the State of Washington.

I support the bill. But, in the same breath, I must insist that the developers in our State are shown how to accomplish the goals without accepting excess risk on their parts. Developers are generally OK with saving energy. It helps our region's economy, it reduces operating costs for each building, and it is the right thing to do for the environment. No developer argues against these values. But, the risk of failure comes with each new building idea, and this risk does not belong to the developers on behalf of our region. So, a significant part of my testimony involves the reduction of risk for the people who need to develop and implement new ideas.

But, the means of creating policy, to posit sides and search for a compromise, is not the means for finding the best way to work together. Instead, we needed a conversation in search of common goals, common gaps, and great investment opportunities, to be shared between the public sphere (the Code Committee, the Universities, planning councils), and the private sphere (building industry research departments, developers, owners, and tenants).

The bill requires a Working Committee to hash out the best ideas for code making and to find incentives to encourage change in the construction industry. They are given two years to work according to the bill's first draft. They would need that time, but we do not have that time, so I suggested they take a year and produce a draft strategy which could become a cornerstone for continued conversation.

In any case, I am encouraged that the bill is up for consideration. Even if it is eight to sixteen years late, it indicates that policy makers are joining the environmental conversation with a serious set of metrics in hand.

 

Web entry — June 7, 2008

“The Essence of Design”

A few years ago I had the opportunity to host a World Café. Occasionally, I visit the World Café Web site and this time I found a short item titled "The Essence of the World Café" by Thomas J. Hurley. Tom's writing inspired me to write about design (and integrated design) in a similar way. This is what happened:

~ ~ ~

The essence of design is a means to stop the flow of ideas and anchor a fragment of meaning in time. Design is a dialectic process; exploratory, self referential, conversational, technical, often strictly practical. It takes ideas from the social commons and gives both artifacts and ideas in return. Still, the flow of ideas through the social commons appears continuous, providing new opportunities for designers to anchor new fragments of meaning.

The essence of place making stems from the essence of design; moving further toward the technical and practical. Place making captures, modifies, expands, and repeats symbols required to understand place. The means of understanding is experienced by individuals in discrete happenings; but appears as continuously changing, reinvented, conversational, mental markers in the social commons – this provides place makers new opportunities to create and facilitate new experiences.

The essence of integrated building design stems from the essence of place making; moving yet further toward the technical; relying on conversations to celebrate the practical, physical, economical, functional; and make these visible, valuable components of integrated structures. Integrated design borrows from collaborative business process, team management, the art of conversation; if integrated design were new, then it would be early to tell what it will give in return. So far, integrated design has given us a new view into the act of weaving together, visualizing new possibilities, remembering old experiences, colliding the fantastic and the mundane and, perhaps, a new means to learn.

But, integrated design is not new. Instead, it is old. We are experiencing the rise, in the cycle of fall and rise, of integrated design, this time in a particularly technical time with a particularly pressing need. Integrated design is firmly connected to sustainability as a mental marker for designers, but in parallel integrated design is growing to include many aspects of functional accomplishment that cannot be obtained otherwise.

So, I am guessing that collaborative process in design will channel design meaning such that the ideas we choose to anchor will celebrate and ensure the future of humankind. Thus, the design cycle will come around again, this time weaving the possibility of sustainable futures into the social commons.

This is the essence of design.

 

Web entry — November 7, 2007

“The Possibility of Significant Change”

In my professional experience — engineering, teaching, planning, managing, team building — I have heard many managers say, “people are quick to learn new technical tasks, but they are slow to change their attitudes and habits.” I have heard others say, “people never change” or “people never learn.”

Early in my career, this seemed a cynical, and too often true, observation of human nature. But, looking back on working through tens of large projects, with hundreds of people, making thousands of decisions, I see a different pattern.

People constantly learn. And people have the capacity to incrementally or radically change every moment. But, what people learn often reinforces their world-view and guides them to repeat well-worn activities. The reasons for this stem from the relationships between people, from the systems we have erected within Western society, and from our relationship with power; especially when it serves people in power to maintain existing systems. Thus, my new cynical observation, replacing the old cynical observation, is that systems are difficult to change because certain individuals do not want them to change — even so, people change, adapting to new situations gracefully.

This new observation suggests a new focus for individuals working for change, a new way to identify best alliances in situations requiring change, and new hope for the possibility of significant change. Further, in the face of limited global resources, I believe that change and survival are coincident events. Thus, evidence that significant change (short of revolution) holds a rational, realistic place in our future, is a good thing.

 

Web entry — October 29, 2007

“The End of the Beginning of Mankind”

The early Twenty-first Century marks the end of the beginning of mankind. By this I mean — after thousands of years — the way we think about ourselves as people will shift in the next two or three decades.

• We will talk about the evolution of large organizations, modes of government, and civilizations; not about the evolution of individuals of the species.
• We will think about our lifetimes in terms of real, global resource limitations; not in terms of expendable resources.
• And we will depend on organizations as a means of connecting each of us to our common future; not as social constructs anchoring us to our past.

These are necessary changes stated as the “least” that can happen, because, in turn; individual evolution is no longer connected to the progress or survival of the species; we have reached the first real, global limitation to resources that are utilized by humans; and we have too many complex problems to solve them without connecting the solutions to our future.

Mankind’s alternative is to perish.

As mankind moves beyond its beginnings we may observe an increased strength of global connections between civilized people and an increased celebration of national heritage (rather than of national boundaries); a practical recognition that big projects and big problems far exceed an individual’s span of control; and a shift away from greed and toward contribution as the focus of our living hours and the measure of our expectations of each other.

And, perhaps, the “quality” of an individual will no longer be held out as their ability to go it alone; but rather as their ability to participate within various communities of action.

Just a thought.

 

Web entry — October 8, 2006

“The Commons & Acting into the Future”

At the end of September I participated in a workshop titled, “Climate Change, Water, and the Choices Ahead” at the Whidbey Institute. If you explore the Whidbey Institute Web site, you may find this:

Reclaiming The Wholeness of Life
~ Environmental, Spiritual, Social, Economic ~
For Island, Bioregion, and Planet

These words represent their work — their history reaches back more than 30 years.

Participants at the workshop identified two goals. First, the Northwest region must implement significant changes to water policy and water utility systems in order to adapt to changes in climate. Second, the Northwest should not give up its leadership role in reducing its CO₂ contribution to the global atmosphere in order to help reduce the source of climate change.

As we identified these goals, we also identified opportunities. For example, in specific cases, a local water system, constructed on a building site, will provide an astounding business opportunity; including lower overall utility costs, lower capital investment, and less impact on regional water systems. A local water system does not consistently make economic sense; instead the circumstances of each individual project drive the best economic solution.

Our conversations about water parallel a broad range of issues related to climate change. The issues are larger than those covered in the workshop. This is how I characterize the overall situation:

•  •  •  •  •  •

We have reached an interesting time in the history of human kind.

Although society’s attention seems to be thinly scattered across many topics, and many individuals do not believe in the perils of the course we are on, the future of the human race is in jeopardy. One reason this is an interesting time, rather than a crisis of unimaginable dimensions, is that we have a generation to make the changes we need to survive. The other reason is that the necessary changes are extraordinarily future bound: progressive, constructive, and valuable to every individual on the planet who chooses to participate.

These necessary changes include nearly every aspect of society. At least:
 •  Energy systems
 •  Manufacturing (with sustainable technologies)
 •  Construction (with sustainable design solutions)
 •  Democracy and social systems
 •  Health care
 •  Education

Strengthening each of these aspects of societies around the globe would allow us to keep a place on earth both for humans and for capitalism (which seems to be the best system humans have created to facilitate immediate needs and desires). Strengthening each of these aspects of societies would also improve the quality of life for the majority of people on the globe. Strengthening each of these aspects of societies stems from considering the future whenever we transact to meet present needs.

Tall order? Of course.

Once we decide to protect and improve our future in our daily business, civic, and personal activities our actions will begin to exhibit fantastic synergies — often missed now.

The logic for changing course is in place. Many examples of success are in place. The emotional energy of many people is aligning with the need to act. Early evidence of political will can be found. The human race can exploit this opportunity for change.

If we do not, we forfeit our survival. We do not have time for a revolution. We do not have time to rebel against power structures. We do not have time for war. These things cause lasting damage, requiring lifetimes to repair, and waste precious natural and financial resources. These things work against the stewardship we are taught to exercise in our spiritual and civic lives.

We only have time for dialog, for reinforcing actionable structures, and for leading toward the future. The actions we take today must result in lasting improvements and in structures that result in continuing improvements at every level. And, that can only be more challenging and interesting than what the human race has been up to for the past few decades.

 

Web entry — September 26, 2006

“The Commons & the Puget Sound”

In 1992, I observed that a relatively small group of experts (mostly in academia and in the public sector) had begun using the term “the commons” to talk about something more than US colonial history. By 2000, the Society for Organizational Learning, Whole Earth, In Context, and Vulcan (referring to the development in the South Lake Union area of Seattle) had all used “the commons” to support messages about possible futures. I had been reading the term for nearly a decade when I chose to use “Building the Commons” on my business card.

Today, a search for “the commons” on the Web returns about 7,860,000 hits and I hear the term used in conversations about development of any complex project in the community, the environment, infrastructure & resource management, urban places (although no longer a moniker for development in the South Lake Union area of Seattle), and human justice. That is the sense in which I have always used the term. I hear the term more often both because I am more sensitive to it (having placed it on my business card) and because it is actually used more often.

“The commons” is used more often because as a society we have recognized that building and protecting our future includes protecting those portions of the commons that we did not create. The emerging language of sustainable development and sustainable growth follows from a focus on environmental futures added to a growing understanding of economic futures.

The demand for work and the potential for reward related to this view of developing the commons is only just beginning to be appreciated. Sustainable growth advocates suggest that economic success and sustainable activity are already reinforcing each other. And beyond that, we are beginning to see business examples of growth where the attainment of an alternative goal (i.e., establishing an environmentally or socially sustainable activity) is the cause of exceptional economic success.

We are all in the process of developing the commons. Once we recognize this, the important question is what impact our development decisions have into the future. Thus, it is with some pride and an acknowledgement of the privilege, that I will join the  Whidbey Institute  as a participant at their September workshop, “Spirit and Practice of a Bioregion: Living into a New Landscape — Climate Change, Water, and the Choices Ahead”.

Let’s just say I owe you a report.