Meeting Notes
February 20, 2007
Meeting duration: 2 hrs 15 min
Jack Harich, Michael Hollcraft, Glenn MacMillan
This meeting began with some introductions by all members. Glenn summarized
content from a previous email about his background, passions and visions.
Glenn and Michael exchanged some synergies with respect to restoring
farmland.
Michael and Jack briefly outlined their backgrounds specifically with
respect to the AA journey.
Michael was invited to discuss his latest experiment that he held late
last week. A group of 17 people were invited to conduct the first experiment.
Michael was encouraged by the high level of constructive discussions
by at least 4 people in the group following the First Experiment. Michael
explained briefly the socioeconomic backgrounds of the participants
to help with Glenn’s question about what types of audiences these
experiments target. Michael assured Glenn that the group he was
working with is a local community group with families and typical social
and environmental concerns.
The discussion lead into what familiarity Glenn has with the experiments.
Glenn indicated that he could understand the content of the experiment
and the process taken to conduct it as well as review it, however, felt
he needed clarity around the purpose of the experiment--especially with
regards to potential issues with communicating a US focused experiment
on ‘folks’ in Australia. Glenn indicated that he had contacted
Philip Bangerter from Hatch to discuss whether he had converted the
US experiment into an Australian version. Philip responded that he will
use the US experiment as he is confident his audience would be able
to make the distinction.
Jack and Michael began to explain the purpose of the experiment which
was to test how a high leverage
point reacts to an attempt
to push on it. Jack carefully explained the two-part definition
of what constitutes a high leverage point:
1. It’s a place in the system where a small change causes a
large change in system behavior.
2. The effort to make that small change is itself small.
Glenn threw in some mental models to get some clarity around his understanding
of leverage points. For example, one question he asked was: Is
a high leverage point where you could physically go up to the ‘premier
of the state’ and ask them to influence a decision for you?
The response from Jack was that although there would be great gain
if the premier was to support your request and was to implement it,
this would not be classed as a high leverage point because the effort
involved in being able to have a discussion with a premier would be
enormous--and hence does not fit the point 2 discussed above.
Jack then continued to explain that however, to use Glenn’s example,
to show what might be seen as a high leverage point would be to imagine
where you could implement a system change that would allow your concerns
to be addressed via the local community representatives like the local
members of parliament or local councils or laws.
The effort required on your behalf would be minimal while the
gain would still be maximized, since the representatives have channels
to move your issues to the premier in an efficient manner.
Michael explained that the purpose of his experiment was to test to
see if the general ability to detect political deception is a
high leverage point. Michael then spoke about how he shared
the Dueling Loops model to the group after conducting the experiment. He
also explained to the group that this First Experiment was conducted
as a double-blind, randomized experiment. This means
that that neither the testers nor the participants knew which participants
received the treatment or not (i.e. which people received the ‘control
group’ questionnaire or not).
Glenn then mentioned the 10-year drought in Australia and asked if
that could become another leverage point opportunity given that nearly
all Australians (even the politicians at the top) are all experiencing
hardship because of it. Water restrictions are common throughout
Melbourne and the rest of Australia. Water shortages and its impacts
on the community are published in the papers everyday and have been
for well over 12 months. So, the question Glenn raised is could
this hardship situation be used as a leverage point? In other
words, could we expend only a small amount of input or effort to show
that the PoHC proposal will likely increase global warming and consequently
exacerbate our water shortages in the future?
Jack responded with the explanation that the drought is an event,
not a high leverage point. It is data that could possibly be used in
pushing on a HLP. This would require analysis and a sound solution strategy
using identified HLPs.
Michael agreed that there might be merit in using this approach once
a high leverage point strategy had been developed, because then the
strategy could be bolstered by the “activation approach” focusing
on climate change in Australia (i.e. the water restriction situation). In
other words, the general awareness about the water restriction situation
could be directed to focus on the PoHC proposal, once a high leverage
strategy has been developed. Michael also mentioned that most
people in the USA have not really been impacted by global warming to
the same degree yet, except for those people who directly experienced
or were affected by Hurricane Katrina. Generally speaking, people
in the USA are still too insulated from climate change issues, and focused
mostly on attending to their everyday lives, still rather unaware
of climate change and sustainability issues.
Jack acknowledged that while this constructive ad hoc approach to AA
was important to generate discussion and ideas, he felt it was time
to start focusing on the PoHC draft report and to begin establishing
ways to address it.
Jack explained that from his limited knowledge of this problem, he
could see that these types of issues normally come to a head when a
flaw is identified in the way the government has gone about doing their
job. In the US, this opens up them for lawsuits etc…to
address/correct the problem. Jack mentioned that this may be a
leverage point, but perhaps not the only or best way to address the
problem.
Other examples were identified. For example, Michael asked about
the possibility of changing local laws to prevent the PoHC proposal
from becoming a legally binding instrument.
Glenn felt there was a parallel group taking an approach that was bringing
together local land owners to petition for local law changes in response
to the PoHC draft. Glenn will find out more about this approach.
The meeting then moved into executing the System
Improvement Process on the problem. The first step is to define the problem
using this standard format:
Move system A under constraints B to goal state C by deadline D
with confidence level E.
Jack volunteered to work on the problem definition and to apply AA
to this.
First, we identified the system. Glenn gave an overview of the governmental
roles and responsibilities, focusing briefly on the role of Federal
versus State and even Local governments. Next, we specifically
identified “the system” as small units of government that,
in the case of the PoH problem, are part of The Department
of Infrastructure (of Victoria) operating at the state level. Glenn
explained the role of the Port of Hastings Corporation which helped
Jack and Michael get their heads into this system and the constraints
of our problem.
Jack concluded that the best starting point for the system would be ‘Units
of Government’. (See his later write up on the problem definition
for more detail.)
System:
Constraints were identified as:
- money/labour
- existing laws
- minority of interested citizens
- truth about the PoHC proposal (transparency)
Goal state was defined as:
- The POHC objectives are not being addressed by this
proposal. (more detail later)
Deadline: 12 –18 months
Glenn identified that while a submission deadline was for March 14,
2007 this discussion/strategy was not going to influence or change things
that quickly, in time to meet the submission deadline. However,
with a federal election coming up and the possibility that the federal
government will lobby to take control of the states’ ports, it
may be feasible to develop a solid strategy within 12 to 18 months—perhaps
even in time for the upcoming elections.
Confidence level: 90%
Glenn discussed that this 90% was to do with the probability of moving
the system to the goal state within 12-18 months. We agreed that this
was reasonable; however, our confidence level for the PoHC draft to
be amended or for the plan to be retracted was much lower than this…possibly
20 or 30%.
Jack then proceeded to steer the discussion towards some immediate
ideas and ways to step forward.
Jack then instructed the group to view the PoHC website to look at
the objectives of the proposal. Here they are:
The Port of Hastings Corporation has been established:
- To manage and
develop the port of Hastings in an economically, socially & environmentally
sustainable manner
- To ensure that essential port services of the
port of Hastings are available and cost effective
- To ensure, in
cooperation with other relevant responsible bodies, the
sustainable growth of trade through the port of Hastings
Jack believes there is an issue or conflict with what the draft objectives
are proposing to deliver. For example, point 1 is to manage
and develop the Port of Hastings in an economically, socially & environmentally
sustainable manner. Point 3 says the PoHC objective is
to ensure the sustainable growth of trade through the Port
of Hastings.
Michael identified that the argument would go back to the definition
of sustainability. Jack defined sustainability as “the ability
to continue a defined behavior indefinitely”. Michael
also suggested contacting Dr. Cumings for assistance, perhaps with an
Environmental Impact Assessment or similar environmental study which
has already been done for the Port of Hastings.
Jack mentioned that if the proposal is introducing more infrastructure
and trucks etc…, involves the destruction/removal of habitat,
then it cannot be classed as sustainable growth. Why? Because
this behavior cannot be carried out indefinitely (i.e. for
an infinite amount of time). Thus, our goal may be to demonstrate
that the PoHC proposal cannot meet its’ own stated objectives,
because those objectives are not actually sustainable.
In short, we may be able to defeat the PoHC proposal by
demonstrating that it has one or more inherent flaws in
its’ stated
objectives, which therefore makes the PoHC proposal environmentally unsustainable.
Jack feels there is a real opportunity to include the IPAT equation
to help show that any growth forward could only be negative.
Jack then mentioned we should define the decision-making process involved.
A model is to be constructed. Here are a few questions to get the ball
rolling:
- Why have the environmental groups failed in the past?
- Out of that will come insights to where are the leverage points?
Glenn questioned whether to ‘put’ on his learning cap
when developing the model? Jack mentioned that Glenn is
a domain expert of the PoHC proposal/problem, who can use
his understanding of physical models to help inform the
solution models we will be using to move forward. Jack will develop
the model, as others learn how. The meeting concluded with the following
action items:
- Jack to prepare the problem definition
- Jack to prepare info on the 3 objectives and IPAP possibility
- Glenn to prepare summary of meeting and pass onto Michael.
- Michael to add comments and to add to any gaps
- Jack to review the edited version before adding to web site
- Michael to send through to glen some info on local ordinance experiences
- Glenn to find out more about the parallel group exploring individual
shire petitions
- Next phone linkup to be Tues Feb 27th, same time 7am (GA time) 11pm
(Melbourne time)
Glenn raised the request regarding whether it was OK to circulate extracts
of the book to local activists? Jack encouraged this to occur.
Glenn also asked about the content of what goes onto the Web site. Glenn
questioned whether the discussion on this could be seen as offering
the ‘opponents’ insight into what they may generally need
to be prepared for.
Jack’s reply was to keep everything as transparent as possible.
The terms and strategies identified are meant to be open for public
comment. These are leading strategies that will promote honest, truthful
discourse designed to lift the veil of secrecy currently surrounding
the PoHC proposal. If we employ secrecy then we will be encouraging
a race to the bottom, instead of to the top.
Glenn said that he would like to sit down with Ralph from the PoHC
and show him the Thwink web site and even begin a dialog about this
project…(i.e. more eyes on this project!)
Michael concluded that he can help make sure that the information put
on the website is expressed in a transparent manner.
