Chapter 2 – All In 

Closing the Implementation Gap by facilitating collaboration

Why is it easy to make world-order-changing responses to a military event, but impossible to stop burning down tropical forests or poisoning ecosystems? Sometimes the power of the ‘Status Quo’ is amazing. What does it take to get a reaction?

One might advocate for an exciting new methodology, or for a radical new paradigm shift.  Some think that change will require severe shocks and disruptions to the status quo.  Is that really necessary?  In most cases, regarding environmental issues, all the resources, methods and policies are in place already.  So what does it take to move forward?

Here are some of the reasons why good intentions are not providing good results in the real world:

• Parties (Agencies, corporations, organizations) are not clearly defining their objectives.  In particular, they do not clearly define the desired outcomes in practical terms.
• Parties are not working together.  They do not collaborate well.  Many outside forces (or lack of)  help bring this about.
• The public (and its more bonafide representatives) are distracted, and their attention is deflected.  They are also not clear about their own objectives and desired outcomes.  They may collaborate, but often do not have common goals and methods.
• There is a heavy incentive to maintain the status quo.  Change is disruptive, and all problems tend to have their benefactors.  In general, dysfunction and status quo is more profitable than efficiency and health.  Profits tend to cluster around problems, and soon become addictions.
• Programs can add more and more layers of complexity, until they wind up institutionalizing the problems, and eventually, supporting the status quo.

Popular solutions:

• More funding.  Or less funding.
• Less government.  Or more government.
• New leadership, politicians.
• More planning.
• New legislation.
• Litigation, protest, grass roots mobilization, confrontation and conflict. 

All of these are important factors, but none of them, in isolation, solve chronic problems like we are faced with today.

There is a simple scenario that can produce results, if carefully implemented.  Here is an outline of what a healthy approach might look like.  For each agency, and at all working levels: 

• Provide a clearand simple definition of the problems and issues involved.  Describe and prioritize the conditions that need to be addressed, and possible indicators.  In other words, define the landscape, or AOI – Area of interest, or scope. 
• List and describe the objectives, in terms of actual outcomes,  ie clean water.  Present these in a clear and concise format.  Establish some basic indicators and indices, with measurable goals – ie nitrates less than 10 ppm.
• For any given set of desired objectives (ie. Surface water quality), determine which entities (public, private, non profit…) are involved.  To do this, create a matrix (spreadsheet) of players vs. functions, listing who is involved programmatically with which types of issues or resources.  Examples of this kind of exercise:  events planning, disaster response preparedness, coalition building, political campaigns.
• Every entity that can have a significant impact, pro or con, on an issue, is included in the process.  This includes ‘operators’, public agencies, and corporations.  
• Entities are systematically canvased for information, resulting in a list of objectives (with many gaps).   Objectives from all participants are compiled in to a standardized format, in simple, comparable terms. For example, meet total nitrogen concentrations of 5 ppm by 2025 in water body XX.
• Agencies work together to translate groups of objectives in to the simplest possible general format.  Align and merge objectives wherever possible, by community agreement. 
• Information and alignment are the main concern.  Parties can work towards similar outcomes effectively without necessarily working together.  Example: defense contractors from opposing countries, may work in alignment to  bring about a war, vs. peace.
• Ideally, though, parties collaborate to disseminate, educate, publicize, facilitate, and implement shared objectives.  
• Another key factor:  Success or failure in meeting objectives is shared between all agencies.  Without some sense of collective accountability, there is little incentive for success. 

The key terms in the above approach are about ‘outcomes’, and ‘collaboration’ (or rather, ‘alignment’).  My point here, is that many parties do not have a clear definition of their objectives, in terms of actual outcomes.  And they generally are not working closely together, what is being called the ‘All in’ approach. Otherwise, there is nothing new in the above approach.  So the question is, What is missing? What can be done to better motivate parties to work together and achieve the wider, shared objectives?

It may come down to hard-wired cultural perceptions and psychology. Our culture is focused on conflict.  People have come to believe that government and corporations are mis-directed, corrupt, or just plain evil, and that these different sectors are naturally in conflict with each other and with the public.  Conflict has become the dominant framework of thought and interaction, the underlying gestalt. Divisiveness has become chronic and in-grained, preventing constructive solutions between parties. The public needs to change its collective mind.  It needs to re-assume ownership of its public agencies, and re-learn the skills of working constructively and collectively.  The public, through its active proponents, must focus now on implementation, and on the real effects of the programs.  The main objective must be one simple thing:  to get the participants to take on collective responsibility and to work in alignment as a community.  To do this they must first define objectives in terms of real world outcomes, and work together to achieve those outcomes.

That would be a major change.  It is not a new idea, and there are many examples of successful alliances and  interventions by the public and various groups it supports (EDF, Nature Conservancy, WWF, and many others). Now we get down to the real question.  How can we motivate people to get involved in this way? What could bring about this change? And are there any new developments that can make a real difference? 

The world has fundamentally changed.  For one thing, the way we manage information has changed dramatically. It can be transmitted much more quickly, and easily. And it can be presented, and visualized, in new ways.  Keep in mind that data about the worlds conditions can be infinitely complicated, and incomprehensible.  In the past, planners would produce roomfuls of written text and graphs and maps, meaningless to most.  Today, we have many new tools and technologies to work with. For example, GIS (geographical information systems), can be used to present data-rich maps in clear and interactive formats.  These can be used across languages, cultures, and diverse interests, to compile conditions and objectives and help visualize the means to achieve them. Users can interactively bring up the data of their choice, amongst hundreds of different data layers, all at their finger tips. They can ‘drill down’ through these layers to visualize and analyse the relationships between conditions and objectives.  A picture can tell a thousand words, but a mapping software is virtually unlimited in providing control and understanding to even a moderately proficient user.  And GIS is only one of many such emergent technologies.  

People have also changed.  Younger people (millenials, etc) DO think and behave differently.  Social media, collaboration, info resourcefulness, persistence, community thinking have evolved.  And perhaps they are more likely to collaborate than to butt heads, compared to the boomers and their protest generation.  Keep in mind that there is infinitely more info available today than there was 40 years ago, and that ‘young’ folks have had to learn how to filter, sort, organize, share and act on it, as a part of everyday life.

Anybody can talk about visions and opportunities. But what will provide the motivation?  Do we need some super spiritual shift?  A radical new paradigm?  A war? Shock and awe?  Before Grappling with that, let’s turn first to some nuts and bolts of the collaborative process.  Let’s consider some ‘facts’ about organizations, government in particular (and for more detail, see Appendix 2).   In this and subsequent chapters, lets talk about the simple mechanics that could be applied to the generation of goals and outcomes across a wide swath of agencies, orgs and corporations.  First, some assumptions:

Assumptions:

• Core concept:  A vast amount of a nation’s resources (potential) are tied up in the existing structure of entities – govt, corporate, academic, religious, non-profits, military, media, financial…..  . But these resources are often overlooked when considering solutions.
• In our society, there is little attempt to align these resources, consciously.  We tend to value freedom, flexibility, and independence!  This may be different in a ‘planned’ society, like China.  Or within a big corporation. But our culture leans towards independent vs. collective accountability.  We are basically divisive and we value separation and freedoms. There is an aversion to integrated and authoritative government.
• Certain outcomes are universally held, such as financial growth or profit.  They tend to work in alignment, they self-coordinate and produce consistent results.  These objectives (make money!)  are simple, visible, and ubiquitous.  The profit motive is more or less omni-present.
• But many other critical concerns, such as childrens’ health, homelessness, environment or education, are peripheral to most people’s attention, and do not align around simple shared objectives.  This happens even though they may be crucial and universally shared.  A prime example is soil health, the make or break determinant of all civilizations  – and who ever thinks about it?  Much less coordinate.
• In a divisive land of independent leaning and somewhat ornery participants, groups tend to isolate, build walls, maintain distance, defend ‘territory’, limit information, corral assets, lust after for market share, gravitate towards secrecy, obsess over appearances.  And avoid accountability as much as possible.  
• Unless the parties adopt collective goals, they cannot be accountable for collective results.  No one farmer blames himself for a dirty river.  No one agency either, unless they establish those shared outcomes and structure their efforts to meet them, together. 

Popular Misconceptions:

• Every solution or program requires additional money. (Wrong – many problems would benefit from less spending,   ie. Fossil fuel subsidies, industrial Ag)
• All current trends (growth, birthrates, appetites, energy use, war) must continue forever.  (Wrong, many of them MUST CHANGE, and FAST)
• Most agencies and corporations have clear and transparent objectives.  (wrong)
• Somebody must be keeping track of social objectives, and compliance with same.
• Somebody must be keeping close track of critical, long term concerns, such as national debts and climate change.
• Agencies are focused primarily on outcomes that the public really cares about. (many are focused only on in-house ‘bean counts’. )
• Participants need to be collaborate closely if they want to succeed collectively.  (No, they just need to be working in alignment)
• Non-profits are aligned and working together towards society’s collective goals. (wrong)
• Companies don’t care about outcomes that are good for society. (wrong, they do)
• Public agencies and NGO’s work only for the public good, and are not focused on making money.  

The next chapter will provide more detail and examples of how information can be gathered and presented in support of collective action and re-alignment. See ‘Chapter 3 – GRAP Basics – Changing the Planning Environment’ .