Robert Hansen (RH) posted Apr 10, 2014 5:59 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9431902) - GSC's remarks interspersed (A response had been sent on 10th April, but that was, for valid reason, found unsuitable by the Moderator): > > On Apr 10, 2014, at 12:05 AM, GS Chandy > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >> (GSC): Each single US citizen (man, woman and child) - >> some 350 million of you at last count I understand - >> consumes more than 26 Indians. >> >> So do the math. Put up your famous 30-foot PERT >> Charts on all the walls and all the corridors of >> everywhere. > > (RH): The PERT charts, like OPMS, were a failure, ... > As he so often does, RH makes false claims about OPMS.
PERT Charts failed because the very concept of 'Project Management' as management 'scientists' put it out was grievously flawed and deficient. (See further down below).
The OPMS is not yet as widely known as GSC had hoped for it - true enough - but there have been well over 100 formal, pretty high-paid workshops for Corporates - and the participants have ALWAYS expressed a great deal of keenness to use the OPMS when it is released: they had always been entirely happy with what they got out of those fairly expensive workshops. 'Failure', if any, is entirely different from the failure of PERT, the discipline of' 'Project Management', etc.
(In general, my fees to Corporates are about double the going daily rates of such workshops here. Of late, I have not been doing many such workshops as I've been focusing on issues of OPMS concept development, preparatory work on the OPMS website, etc).
There have been well over 1000 trials of various kinds (perhaps a great many more: I didn't really keep track of numbers, though I believe I do still have most of the models constructed); quite a few of them have been fairly to highly successful - the great majority of these trials were done for free. Where not "successful", the work is generally still ongoing.
I shall anticipate your demand that I put up information about these Missions, etc - but only to say that I am not about to jump at your command.
There are, indeed, plans to outline a few of the successful (and unsuccessful) OPMS applications at the OPMS website when that is launched - and all needed information will be available to people who really need such information. I may as well let you know that you will most likely not qualify to see such information. (It will be available to those who wish to apply the OPMS to issues of cconcern).
Models and case studies relating to many of these will appear at the OPMS website when that's up and running later this year.
Some of them will also appear in the book about OPMS (also planned for later this year).
In this context, I mention one specific such trial here, which may help explain my clasification system for Missions: +++++++ One of the persons who is working on the OPMS website is troubled by a garbage dump at the corner near his house (which the Bangalore Corporation people do not keep effectively cleared: dogs and other animals scavenge there, and it's a real mess).
My friend wanted to apply the OPMS to the issue: he swiftly discovered (within a week) that any *effective* accomplishment of this Mission would require group participation of at least most of the people in his neighbourhood.
This is a task he is currently unwilling to put his efforts into: this is not a 'failed Mission' - it is just a 'suspended Mission', which will doubtless be taken up in due course when I get some of the newspapers and public media channels to tackle the issue of "Bangalore becoming Garbage City instead of the Garden City it used to be".
Such a 'societal Mission' is one into which I hope to put considerable effort in due course, hopefully to resore to Bangalore some of the grace, charm and amenity it once possessed.
I should in fact classify the above as a 'successful Mission' because it helped prevent my friend from expending much time, energy and other resources - which would be useless UNLESS he is able/willing to put his effort into such a Mission. His checking it out via OPMS has also prevented him from feeling frustrated and angry about that garbage dump: it's there for now and there is nothing he can do about it unless there is adequate social pressure from concerned NGOs on the Corporation, the government, etc. ++++++++++
There is also a YahooGroup "Towards Democracy" that has over 140 members, who are all eagerly awaiting the launching of the OPMS Website. YahooGroups unfortunately does not provide adequate facilities to develop a group Mission like "working toward democracy" (in any nation).
This deficiency will be rectified in the OPMS website when launched: we shall have this Mission as well as other 'societal Missions' discussed, debated - AND PRACTICALLY WORKED ON - at the OPMS website.
(At that website, we shall give any users the freedom and the needed facilities to work on any worthy societal Mission they may choose).
Thus "Working Towards Democracy" is NOT a failed Mission - it is a Mission awaiting the resources to be taken up effectively: it is an ongoing Mission in India, as I do hope it is in the USA as well.
OPMS 'FAILURES' (and failures of other tools): +++++++++++++ There HAVE indeed been a number of 'OPMS failures', where I've given up.
For instance, I had LONG ago given up the hope that Robert Hansen would ever find out enough about the OPMS to seek to try it out on any real Mission of interest to him: I gave up when I discovered that Robert Hansen (and Haim when he was posting here) were not willing to resile from their lie to the effect that "OPMS is just list-making - and nothing else!"
There are two reasons why I respond to Robert Hansen's messages, and neither of them has anything to do with a hope that he will ever understand: One, to sharpen and strengthen my interpretations of the OPMS models I develop on the issue. And two, to try and refute Robert Hansen's falsehoods in a way that other readers at Math-teach would understand.
Most OPMS failures arise when the person(s) making the trial is/are unable to do the work of learning + 'unlearning' that's required to apply the OPMS process to real issues.
Failures also arise when the user is unable to understand/ accept his/her own weaknesses - this forms, I believe, part of what may be termed an 'inability to unlearn'.
The failure of PERT Charts is entirely a different from the lack of desired success (thus far) of OPMS - AND I'm certain that RH is fully aware of this difference (but he is choosing to conceal such awareness).
PERT Charts failed mainly because management 'scientists' did not understand that it is impossible to study a system by examining how Events/Milestones in a system "PRECEDE" one another in time. (The basic idea of articulating 'system factors' and 'system relationships inhering between factors' by way of graphical pictures of mental models held is entirely sound: management 'scientists' failed by totally misunderstanding the role of the "PRECEDENCE" relationship within systems.
It is remarkable that management 'science' has spent several scores of years on this futile effort of chasing PERT Charts - they have even come out with a discipline that they have miscalled 'Project Management'.
No doubt it was in pursuit of 'Project Management' that Robert Hansen created those FAMOUS 30-foot PERT Charts of his?
When I looked at Project Management the first time around, I was certain it can lead ONLY to project mismanagement - and I so advised my customers.
Robert Hansen rightly discovered the uselessness of PERT Charts - but only AFTER creating those 30-foot PERT Charts and plastering all the walls and all the corridors of the offices where he worked! (Doubtless he was well paid for all these stupendous efforts).
Such a waste of time, effort and other resources - ALL of which might have been easily obviated by considering the simple and entirely obvious fact that the "PRECEDENCE" relationship simply cannot help to enhance our understanding of the system under consideration - unless the stakeholders in the system already have a fair understanding of that system! Such a basic understanding is readily gained by exploring system using the "CONTRIBUTION" relationship to structure and help display graphical pictures of mental models about systems.
These are matters that every freshman college student I've demonstrated the OPMS to has understand almost instantaneously when explained. The differences between the "PRECEDENCE" and the "CONTRIUTION" relationships do, in fact, come up very often soon after someone starts work on OPMS. Most people do come to understand the difference; some never do.
I observe that PERT Charts may well provide some marginal utility when regarded as a minor dimension of OPMS: PERT and Gantt Charts and their interpretations do indeed constitute the "EVENTS Dimension" of the OPMS - they are not much used in development or understanding of the tru system picture.
(I do hope that some readers would understand the significant differences between the 'OPMS failures' and the failure of PERT Charts, 'Project Management' and the like. Should Robert Hansen or anyone else fail to understand my reasoning in the above paragraphs, please do let me know, and I shall surely do my best to clarify). +++++++++ > > ...that was > my point when I described the work I did with them in > the 80?s. You learn through failure, well, some of us > do. > Well, you clearly didn't learn through your failures with those 30-foot PERT Charts. Or, if you DID learn something, you unfortunately learned the wrong lesson. This often happens when people don't understand the basics of 'systems'. See above. > > And I didn?t consume anywhere near 26 (or more) > indians last year, maybe 3 or 4.:) > Is that right?
This focuses only on the 'environmental impact of US consumption habits' - and it obviously did not take Robert Hansen into conideration. Take it up with the Scientific American - they really should learn to do better.
I do recall that you had often boasted about your: RHRHRHRHRH - -- US $ 200,000 p.a. income; - -- two cars; - -- lovely house; - -- holidays anywhere you choose a couple of times a year; - -- going out to dinner whenever you choose; - -- etc, etc, etc. RHRHRHRHRH
I'm by no means grudging you any of the above 'goodies' enclosed between "RHRHRHRHRH"- but there IS a slight 'discrepancy' between the above and your claim that you "didn?t consume anywhere near 26 (or more indians last year, maybe 3 or 4.:)".
That listing is clearly beyond the combined wherewithal of not just 26 average Indians - it is beyond the combined wherewithal of I'd guess around 100 average Indians!
You evidently hadn't noticed the discrepancy. Or your understanding the world around you is deficient. Or perhaps it is just your mathematical skills (addition, etc) are poor. Or something. Inexpensive courses are readily available in India that could help if you wish to rectify such lacks of specific needed skills. I don't believe that we have, as yet, courses to rectify sloppy thinking, but we do have good courses for many other things.
GSC ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!! Not GOADING!!!")