Each of the Technidigm-2000 levels requires more explanation. Keep in mind that we are still only addressing one of the two fundamental structures for the new paradigm - levels, and the other being systems. Systems are introduced in the next group of topics. We will combine systems and levels after that. But first, it is useful to expand the discussion of levels by comparing them with each other. Again, any discussion of levels includes the assumption that we are on-the-level and are trying to solve a problem in an honorable manner - with integrity.
Level one (opinions) is the least dependable level. It includes unvalidated information, and it requires little thought and no significant effort. Level two facts are better. Nevertheless, even if we validate a thousand facts trying to achieve level two or level three factual communications, the presence of a single unsubstantiated opinion can cause the discussion to remain at level one, just as one weak-link in a chain causes the chain to be just as weak. Levels two and three do not include the broad perspectives or resources needed to sort out unrelated facts and opinions, although they may be used to show that some opinions are contradicted by related facts. We can investigate a weak link and declare it to be weak, but this requires direct effort on a case-by-case basis.
It is not until we assess facts and the remaining, uncontradicted opinions at level four that the weak links become apparent and can be placed into their proper perspective. Even then there may be residual uncertainties regarding what is a fact and what is an opinion. We are just more prepared to deal with this at level four, applying education and experience. It is at level four that we apply wisdom, a combination of education and experience.
Level two (facts) requires effort to establish the reliability of all the facts presented and to ensure that the available facts are complete within each topical area. In contrast to much of what is undertaken in our perfectionist society, a complete set of the available level two facts is realistically limited and is not intended to be defined herein as the totality of all available topical information.
For example, consider the issue of whether the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should approve a newly developed cancer drug for use in cases where a patient is already dying from cancer. A sufficient amount of level two information might be that the experimental drug was found to be beneficial in certain similar cases. Reams of documentation and years of perfectionist contemplation should not be needed to justify the drug's use with terminally ill cancer patients. Still, the issue would be decided at level four, with additional inputs from those people having other perspectives.
With additional understanding from a systems perspective (discussed in later sections), the relevant information could be assessed by a level four review panel, and a responsible FDA official could make the common sense decision to allow such treatments. Note that level four decisions require only a sufficient body of information, an opportunity for differing perspectives to be made known wherever interfaces exist, and a decision by the responsible individual. Also note that decisions are made by leaders and by responsible officials or managers, not by panels and committees. Under the current management and adversarial cultures found in many organizations, such decision making by leaders has become rare, resulting in significant loses to all of us.
No significant topical experience is needed for someone who is developing level two facts and opinions, just dedicated fact finding and a sense of sufficiency relative to a specific issue. The level two topical information developed for an issue may even be considered to be sufficiently complete to undertake a level four problem solving session. Level two fact collecting is sometimes referred to as research since students often consider looking things up in the library as research. This is not the same thing as level three research, which is defined as state-of-the-art research. Opinions may be validated using level two facts, making level two information noticeably more credible than level one opinions. Level one opinions are usually based on at least some unvalidated facts. Nevertheless, level two and level three facts have to be developed in the relevant topical areas for each issue before we can deal effectively with the interfaces of those topical areas at level four.
Level two fact collecting would seem to be helpful in building a good airplane, but this topical information would not include the advanced level of experience and cross-topical knowledge needed to build the airplane. Level two airplane knowledge would not cover related topics such as the impact of the airplane's engine exhaust on environmental pollution. Level two also does not include recognizing and dealing with the interfaces between potentially related topics. Interfaces are dealt with only at level four as part of the problem solution process, often resulting in the need for more fact finding at levels two and three.
Some additional perspectives on the relationship between levels two and four can be achieved. For example, it is not likely that a college student would be expected to produce a research paper that explained how to build an airplane and also go into depth on how it would impact the environment. These are different topics and disciplines. Someone in a different topical discipline would have to undertake the environmental fact finding. The college student could still get a perfect grade on a fact-finding project, but this level of information is not adequate in itself to achieve useful results in the real world.
Thus, an attempt at level two to develop a problem solution (e.g., we can build something like the Concorde airplane) would be based on a relatively narrow range of facts, although the facts would be accurate. Such a level two argument would be subject to attack from the different perspectives represented by the various related topical areas that may not have been fully considered (e.g., atmospheric pollution and economics). In the political arena, decisions are likely to be made to do something largely because we are able to do it, with little assessment of whether we should do it.
Even when a project or problem is considered at level four, we can still end up with non-optimal results simply by failing to inject the experienced leadership needed to identify and reach valid goals. If the goals are political (e.g., national prestige), and if the politicians are in charge of level four solution decisions, the results can be a waste of resources even if the intended political goals are met. It is at level four that we attempt to define what we mean by optimal results, but achieving optimization requires time (the fourth dimension) and context (the fifth dimension). Time and context are parameters that require the presence of a solution system, a management tool described in the later sections.
Level two is similar to level three in that it provides uncoordinated topical facts. The difference between level two and level three is that you probably will not be able to find level three facts in your public library reference books or in any published document. As described above, level three is reserved for topical, state-of-the-art knowledge and abilities that resolve very limited questions or issues. Both level two and level three provide facts that can be useful to level four deliberations.
Level four is the most valid problem solving level and, overall, is potentially the most helpful or useful level for most issues, especially complex problems. Level four communication is an active, circumspect process and not a passive, reactive process. All significant decisions and undertakings are appropriately accomplished at level four, where coordination with all interfacing topics or systems is emphasized. To be optimally productive, all discussion, research, and decision making on any significant matter should naturally be undertaken in support of level four multi-topical deliberations. Such deliberations address all of the relevant physical and conceptual systems and their interfaces, providing level four leaders with all of the information needed to make a responsible decision.
Level four facts arrive from level two (available facts research) or level three (additional state-of-the-art research). Level two and level three fact finding may discover that we do not know something that we need to know. It then becomes the function of level four systems to find out what it is that we do not know and to make the necessary adjustments. This fact finding process takes time and may involve conservative corrective actions until the necessary additional facts are finally uncovered. Also, it is up to level four processes to screen facts for accuracy and to eliminate distortions that may not have been recognized at levels two and three. Level four provides the fifth dimension - the most accurate and complete context achievable for the issue or program.
The limitations on level three experts being able to deal effectively with level four deliberations become more apparent when we consider that there are often more than a dozen topical areas that must be considered at level four, each topic having a unique interface with the issue being considered.
Return to Technidigm.org Home Page