James, in his response to the questions and experiences of Bill regarding
arriving at a shared vision reveals a question that I hadn't realised was
lurking in the background of this "vision thing". I've already called
into question the value and the possibility of a shared vision in any
meaningful sense but James' response reveals a whole new area.
> What happens next? This is simple, we just
> develop a roadmap that takes us in the direction of that future condition.
(snip)
> Is it really the right thing to do; you bet!
> Without a vision, it will be impossible for an organzation to go anywhere,
> except to wander. The vision must be shared by all (common sense dictates
> that if we want everyone to go on a journey together, we must ensure that
> they all know where we are trying to go). The measurement part is easy,
> and follow the entire planning process: develop the vision, determine
> what the indicators of positive movement are, determine which of these are
> most important (we can't do everything), determine where we are starting
> from, and develop a plan of how to move in the future direction. The
> measurement is done as the differential between the starting point and the
> current situation. This process (based on Hoshin Planning) has been used
> very effectively in mfg, service, health, govt (?), and education. Go for
> it!
>
When "vision" is being used, does it just mean a goal? Is it the kind of
thing about which we can have "roadmaps", "indicators of positive
movement", and "determinants of what is relevant"? Can any kind of
planning system be brought to this arena?
If a vision is that simplistic, that linear in accomplishment, and that
clear in knowing what to do and how to measure it, what was the need for
the phrase "vision" at all?
The background of vision statements which I hadn't noticed so strongly is
that our relationship to the future is one which can be reductionist,
linear, cause & effect, and predictive. If the world is a composite
complex adaptive system which emerges from other complex adaptive systems,
then our relationship to it is not characterised by the features that
James' approach assumes.
There are distinctions and operational definitions missing from this
conversation which are fatal to its success, I predict. My use of vision
is that it is the expressions - constantly interative and changing - which
is the first tentative speaking about what is desireable and might be
possible in a world where many possibilities are attractive and none of
which will be realised in any but the most general of ways - and by
unpredictable actions and means.
--
Mike McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
"Postmodern society is the society of computers, information, scientific
knowledge, advanced technology, and rapid change due to new advances in
science and technology." Postmodern Theory, Best & Kellner