Note: In the following, 'OPMS' stands for 'One Page Management System'.
I had claimed that we are (ALL of us, ALL the time!!) working from 'Mission Statements' like the statements listed in that post for illustration.
Those 'Missions' appear in our minds willy-nilly (whether or not we have formally stated them or even *consciously thought* about them).
That is the nature of the human mind.
I have found, over many years of live experience, that it is extremely useful formally to write out one's *more important Mission Statements*, and then to use the OPMS process on some of those to help clarify to oneself in one's own mind whether the right things are being done with the right focus to help accomplish those Missions. (These *more important Mission Statements* would turn out to be a tiny fraction of the Missions that appear in our minds).
It is quite impossible to write up ALL the Missions that one may think about and construct models about them. Not to worry. Just list out the ones for which it may appear to be worth doing the work involved - and there may be quite a bit of work involved in the 'full detailing' of any OPMS!
(In fact, it is quite possible that one may NEVER ever 'formally complete' ALL the modeling that may be involved in any OPMS taken up!!
(This is a fact of life in complex systems that does not cause any practical difficulties at all for us. Our 'human problem solving powers' are designed to handle such realities of life in complex systems: every infant more or less successfully handles most of the practical issues he/she is confronted with - without doing ANY formal modeling at all!! As adults, we're a lot less successful in our real lives than are infants. OPMS could help to improve our 'success factors' quite a bit, though we may never match up with the success factors of infants).
Once we gain some experience, we find that our own minds are able swiftly to gauge whether or not any specific 'Mission' actually demands formal construction of an OPMS.
We also find - after just a few One Page Management Systems have been formally worked on - that much (even practically all) of the work for a new OPMS has already been done and the results are readily available and accessible in our own minds. For instance, I'm writing out this post from my mental pictures about relationships already articulated from previous OPMS's constructed on this and related issues.
All I've done here is to think
"To explain a bit about stuff not adequately covered in the earlier post" -
and all the needed ideas, words AND linkages are readily available right there in my mind in a 'route map form'.
On occasion I do need to do a little modeling of just a link or two to 'fill in some gaps', so to speak. I allow my intuition to tell me whether I should do some systems modeling or not - most often, that 'trained intuition' leads me right. 'Trained intuition'? - yes, self-trained via *systematic OPMS modeling*.
I have found that the OPMS process is ALWAYS a great help!
I am NOT claiming that the OPMS process leads to success in all cases of Missions tried out!!
I would guess that - OPMS or no OPMS - we generally fail at a VERY SIGNIFICANTLY larger number of Missions that appear in our minds than we ever succeed with. This is the nature of the human mind and of the world it inhabits. But working via OPMS does help, very significantly, to clarify the doubts and difficulties in our minds, to clarify for us the nature of the systems we are working in and with.
What is the percentage of 'Successful Missions' Vs. 'Unsuccessful Missions'? I wouldn't know, and I don't really care. I claim that - at the 'mental modeling level' at which this kind of work is being done - numbers mean little or nothing: they're not necessary at all. All of this stuff done in an OPMS happens long, LONG before numbers ever enter the 'picture'.
Standard Deviations, variance (and other such statistical tools) are utter nonsense at this level of thought (whatever 'israeliteknight' might like to claim)!
The phrase "VERY SIGNIFICANTLY larger number" is good enough to go by. More important is the idea that we are able, through the OPMS process, able to become 'VERY SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CLEAR' in our minds about the systems we inhabit and what we're doing in them - I don't really care about numbers here, either.
But you insist - "What is the 'percentage clarity of the picture in your mind', GSC?"
OK, if you absolutely MUST have a number:
My picture is 99% clear in respect of 100% of the claims I make (whether those claims be about the Montessori system of primary education or about OPMS). It is entirely possible that I still make errors, considering the very complex systems we're discussing: it is my habit to acknowledge my errors and correct my mental models (and 'formal representations' of them as soon as I learn and accept that I've made a mistake).
(Special note to 'israeliteknight': And yes, if you're talking about the statistical etc stuff here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation, I'm willing to take up a fresh CHALLENGE that I understand it all at a significantly 'deeper' level than you ever will [assuming of course that we're able to set up a measuring and monitoring system that will ensure no cheating].