What would it be like if every agency’s basic objectives were transparent, and could all be accessed in one place, online? Many organizations already have such a system in place internally, with very good results (ie Google, Amazon). Could it be applied and accessed externally as well? Could there be such a database of objectives and key results that is available to everybody?
Some of the world’s bigger systems already share such data collectively – the finance sector has always shared global statistics for stock exchanges, and is rapidly developing a collective data base of corporate performance and intentions regarding such issues as Climate and Biodiversity, or ‘ESG’. The transportation sector depends on rapid exchange of scheduling and planning data (ie. Flight plans, road repair). The information sector is strategically integrated in many ways. In every field, there is a collective need to know more about what all the key players are up to, and there are thousands of ways and means to dig up the info. What if that information were all in one place, and easy to access, across all sectors?
Many operations take place without identifying their true (actionable) objectives. They may be relying on unspoken assumptions, common understandings, unwritten policies, or in-house bean-counting. In such cases, a map of the agency’s goals could have mostly blank spots – so much for transparency!
GRAP (Global Realignment) is simply a process to identify and compile actionable objectives from multiple sources, and to provide public access to that data in one place. In other words, collective transparency. A sense of clear objectives is the logical prerequisite for mobilization. So what is holding it back? The answer may be, Nothing!
Who? What? Why? and How?
For ease of mind, here are some benefits of the proposed method: 1) There are literally no pre-requisites – eg. It requires no funding or legislation etc. to get going. 2) There is no pre-planning, organization, or authorization required. 3) There is no politics involved! It works best without introducing any conflict, or rivalry. 4) Scale is not an issue – it can be applied at any scale, local to global. 5) The benefits are immediate, from the minute consultation begins. 6) There is no way to abstain or object to the inquiry, because blank responses are highly informative. 7) The technology, methods, and resources are already well established, and the overall process is underway. 8) It will inform every other aspect of mobilization – planning, funding, re-organization, coordination, etc. This is the ground level data that all subsequent steps must be based on.
Why? All of the above may sound obvious – or perhaps too abstract. So here is the underlying motivation: In the environmental field, there is a critical lack of planning, awareness, shared accountability and transparency, all contributing to the current critical state of affairs. There is a loud consensus emerging: partnership and coordination are urgently needed. It is time now to mobilize.
Let’s give an example: Managers at a large poultry processing plant are concerned with day-to-day operations – inputs, outputs, etc. The parent corporation is concerned mainly with profits and liabilities. One Department of Ag Office is subsidizing that mega-business (eg. poultry) and rewards size and automation, without questioning labor sources and conditions. Another Agricultural agency is tasked with community development, and supports fair, local labor and small businesses. The Immigration Office is concerned with undocumented workers. An EPA office is focused on effluents in the stream, as is Fish and Wildlife. Literally hundreds of agencies, at all levels, may have some part to play in this one poultry operation. The problem is, these agencies may not have formulated clear objectives, or communicated them to each other, and many of the objectives may be in conflict. Each agency has a very narrow sense of accountability, if at all. It is a recipe for dysfunction and failure. On top of this, the general public may be apathetic, or distant and clueless, and they mainly want cheap chicken!. Politicians wisely keep out of it, until a crisis emerges.
This is not an atypical case! In fact, it may illustrate the general norm in the culture today, and the main reason why ecosystems and economies are crashing. In short, there is little potential for shared accountability, hence failure.
What? The communication process can start with a list of concerns that apply to this type of operation or industry, and a list of the parties involved for a given region. Then, somebody needs to approach the various parties (above) and inquire in to the actionable objectives (key results), for each concern. The results need to be compiled in to a common data base that can be presented to all concerned. To be comprehensible, the presentation will have to lean heavily on graphic display and GIS / cartography, making it possible to query the objectives and the current conditions in a common visual format. The resulting database, initially, is likely to be mostly unpopulated, reflecting a current lack of clear strategy and intentions, or lack of transparency.
Who? Each agency or corporation may already have compiled such information privately, regarding its own in-house objectives. It may also have such details about its associated partners, competitors, etc. This data, concerning Who does What, is maintained by every individual or program, according to whatever functions they do. The challenge is to collect it and compile it in to a universal and accessible format so that parties can work better together. And then start to fill in the gaps.
That process, including inquiry and aggregation, could be crowdsourced and coordinated very similarly to Wikipedia, which provides oversight, design, review, presentation, and quality control. These management functions could be done by a broad coalition, or by a single entity as per Wikipedia.
Who Not? This collective process will generally not be initiated by the agencies or corporations in question. It will not start up from within the targeted sectors – government, industry, or even non-profits – no more than currently in practice. Motivation must come from the concerned community as a whole. For example: In the finance sector, impetus is largely from concerned investors. In the public sector, it is from the general public, and various groups they support, who are deeply concerned about issues like Climate, Biodiversity, and Social Justice.
How? There are two main functions – inquiry, and compilation – which will depend on each other from start to finish. Individuals from many different backgrounds can conduct an inquiry, but it must be done in a consistent, targeted way to facilitate processing and presentation. That process design, in turn, will inform and guide the inquiry process – it works both ways. There are literally thousands of groups and coalitions who can collect this kind of data, or already do. Citizen Scientists is one obvious example of a large, dispersed global workforce that is organized, active and coordinated in this way. There are hundreds of others.
When? As soon as one person goes to interview a government official, this process is underway. Each such conversation will bear results on both sides. Further compilation will distribute and magnify those results. There is nothing preventing this type of interaction.
Where? It is very powerful to meet in person for such interviews. However, in today’s world, most will probably be remote. Current advances in meeting technology will certainly improve the exchanges.
Summary: A process that has already been proven in many areas could be mobilized across sectors and across systems to promote transparency, alignment, and collective action. As a result, many of the issues that are currently intractable, due to a critical lack of shared accountability, could start to find workable and timely solutions.
Panicaea 