Technidigm-2000

On-the-Level

Common Sense, Technically Speaking

George Washington was On-the-Level

Chapter 3

Communicating with Communications

Section 3.1:

Being "On-the-Level"

The first of the five level-related Technidigm-2000 pieces has already been mentioned. It is simply deciding whether the problem is being addressed "on-the-level." This is an important pillar in the twelve-part Technidigm-2000 puzzle.

You have often heard the phrase "on-the-level" used as a substitute for honesty. The personal quality of being on-the-level is closely related to one's integrity. Being on-the-level is probably derived from many centuries of using scales and weights to conduct trade.

With or without the use of scales to conduct transactions, a merchant is either on-the-level or off-the-level. Once a buyer decides a merchant is off-the-level, future transactions with that merchant are not likely to occur. Likewise, if the buyer believes that the merchant is always on-the-level, the use of the scales became a formality rather than a necessity.
 
 

No Point Being Off-the-Level

You do not often hear the phrase "off-the-level," but you immediately recognize that this refers to dishonesty. Being "on"-the-level is important because there is no point in trying to conduct business or solve problems in the midst of dishonesty. Thus, Technidigm-2000 stresses personal integrity, making it a central "litmus test" for those who want to participate in Technidigm-2000. How would you like to have dishonest people operating a nuclear power plant in your community?

The need for honesty and integrity in human relations was much more evident a couple of hundred years ago when people depended on each other more than they depended on government. Being on-the-level was a litmus test for most situations, a test that quickly removed a lot of the confusion surrounding most problems.

A person's handshake was as important as a signature on a contract is today. Some would say that personal integrity was at one time more important than a signature. The fact is that integrity is just as important today as it ever was -- we have simply failed to recognize its importance and have failed to require it in a consistent manner.
 
 

Being On-the-Level: A Matter of Intent

Requiring integrity is not the same as requiring perfection. Perfection is only enable by good intentions. People of integrity have good intentions, and they should be forgiven their errors more readily than people of questionable integrity.

Integrity is a key part of Technidigm-2000 and is closely related to the "fifth dimension" of context. Integrity is needed to keep things in context or to apply experience properly in new situations.

Integrity is one of the most powerful tools that we have available to us as human beings. We associate integrity with truth and honor, so we award people of integrity an initial presumption of being correct. They do not have to prove that they are correct on an issue -- we take it for granted.

People of integrity are often viewed as being natural leaders, but they are also presumed to be good leaders as well. Their intentions are noble, so they command respect rather than suspicion. They do not have to defend everything they do. Those people who understand, subscribe to, and practice Technidigm-2000 are also presumed to have good intentions, so their mistakes are honest and not intentional.
 
 

No Greater Love Intent…

We associate self sacrifice and integrity with military organizations simply because military people sometimes have to put their lives on the line in a way self-serving people would not. To the extent that military leaders rise to the top of a military organization due to their demonstrated integrity, especially in combat, we can easily sense that integrity. They have proven that they are willing to lose their lives for, at least, something.

We presume that such a military leader would make a fine government leader, even with no previous government experience. The first president of the United States, George Washington, was a professional military officer and was known for his integrity. Dwight Eisenhower served as president in the 1950's as a result of his 1940's World War II military leadership and his aura of professional integrity.

More recently, Colin Powell could have taken the same path with similar credentials, but he was reluctant to take on our modern political and media arena. Thus, we are stuck with professional politicians who place priority on getting elected rather than on the more noble aspirations of mankind. Not only do they not have the nobility needed to place their lives on the line like the pre-revolutionary colonial Founding Fathers, they actually shun the military.

Getting a noble military leader to participate in the modern political arena will be much easier under Technidigm-2000. With enforcement by an increasingly significant segment of the voters, successful political candidates and political party campaigns will increasingly be based on integrity. While there will still be a significant portion of the voting public that makes foolish choices on election day, their numbers will continue to decrease as more people become aware of and apply Technidigm-2000.
 
 

On-the-Level Four Ways

You now know the first of the five underlying parts of the levels concept -- being on-the-level! The remaining parts are the four levels themselves: (1) opinions, (2) facts, (3) research, and (4) problem solving. These four levels apply once you know that the problem is being addressed on-the-level -- honestly and with integrity.

Interestingly, the four levels provide a framework within which we can readily communicate and determine who and what are on-the-level! We value on-the-level opinions, but we recognize that they are a far cry from effective solutions.

For those readers who are impatient, the next four sections are summarized below.
 
 

Level One - Opinions

Most of us have an opinion on just about anything. Pollsters and on-the-street television crews can collect and assess opinions quite easily, but they seldom come up with any useful answers to problems. On the contrary, poorly-considered opinions can be counterproductive.

To the extent that any opinion on anything has any positive value, that value is made possible only when an opinion is on-the-level. Unfortunately, random opinion gathering, even if representative of the population, can convince the audience that a popular path is the right path. For example, it is popular to suggest that women should be in physically demanding combat roles during warfare. A thousand people offering such poorly considered opinions can do a lot of damage especially when, in this example, these people have never been in combat and are not volunteering for it as a career move that appeals to them.

There may be ten times as many people with opposite opinions and experience, but the status quo does not make a good story or provide opportunities for non-thinkers to get attention. News stories often simply include an opinion from two sides of an issue, without regard to the validity or representative nature of those opinions. Thus, Technidigm-2000 offers level one opinions can be a useful tool, but they are not sufficient for success.
 
 

Level Two - Facts

Facts are not particularly useful unless they are complete and unless they are being applied in a proper context and with wisdom. A thousand misapplied facts are not as good as a single fact that is properly applied. Interestingly, out-of-context facts are available for almost any situation, allowing off-the-level people a factual foothold from which to influence decisions.

When we do not have all the facts or when we do not know which facts apply where, then we may need to conduct research to get all the facts and to put them into a reasonably fair perspective. In the nuclear industry, inspection teams spend most of their time collecting facts and assessing them from different functional perspectives. Facts are often conflicting and require tradeoffs to achieve the best overall solution to a particular problem.

When we allow the facts on one side of an issue more weight due to the vociferous style of its proponents, we find ourselves falling off-the-level into a polarized state of confusion. This state of confusion lends itself more to off-the-level politicians than to good government.
 
 

Level Three - Research

Trying out facts to see if they work in a new situation is one form of research. We can also try to develop new facts tailored to a new problem. Sometimes we do not know when we have completed all of the required research, so we have to ask experienced problem solvers whether they think we might be getting close to developing the basis for a new answer.

With a lot of contemplation and hard work, they might be able to develop enough information to support the development of a good solution. With a necessary and sufficient set of facts, a solution becomes feasible. It is at Technidigm-2000's level three that we attempt to produce the new facts and relevant methods for answering problems. Technidigm-2000 is such a method since it provides a new framework for others to use.

Once again, a thousand researchers working on a problem are not as important in producing a solution as the person that uses that research. Conducting research does not solve problems. Also, level three is the first level that has no corresponding off-the-level counterpart. It is simply inconsistent to expose all of the facts in the pursuit of an off-the-level objective.
 
 

Level Four - Solutions

Finally we get to the top level, the one with the possibility of finding appropriate solutions to problems. Making decisions based on adequate research solves problems. By this time, it is apparent that the people who claim to be functioning at this level must be blessed with an additional portion of integrity and wisdom. How can we trust someone who is not trustworthy? Even if someone is trustworthy and well-intentioned, how can we trust their decisions when they are not also wise and able?

Level four decision makers are dependent on level three research, but they are also dependent on their independence from preconceived conclusions. They must apply their experience and knowledge impartially in resolving an issue.

Although it is not made obvious by the popular media, most people are able to perform at level four. They are not noticeably polarized by special interests, and they are able to make appropriate, fair decisions. Examples of such level four performers include arbitrators agreed to by all of the related parties, although it is possible to have such an arbitrator who is not functioning at level four.

One key to identifying a level four decision maker is whether or not level three research has been completed. Any decision make at level four will be consistent with level three, or the level four decision maker will be able to explain why it is not. Also, several such decision makers will independently arrive at similar solutions, and any differences can be understood in terms of their differing knowledge and experience.

Most importantly, if such level four decision makers consult with each other, they will be able to define a solution to a problem that is not a compromise between two poles or special-interest positions. Any compromises will be with regard to degrees in the same direction.
 
 

A 4.0 Grade

As you can see, the four levels increase in validity and usefulness from one to four. Moreover, the four levels have multiple applications, depending on the situation. There are at least four levels of communication and a corresponding four levels of knowledge and ability with which we individually or collectively form opinions, assemble facts, and produce results. The process is roughly equivalent to what students do when they write a research paper. A fully successful paper might receive a grade of 4.0.

To reinforce our tentative appreciation for the power of Technidigm-2000's four levels and to begin understanding how all the pieces of Technidigm-2000 work together, it is worth repeating the example provided when we discussed context. A doctor is expected to replace a patient's apprehensions (level one: opinions) with a comprehensive set of relevant facts (level two) as derived from tests (level three: research), before attempting to come up with a remedy (level four: solutions).

The key question for most physical illnesses is less related to the problem than to the doctor. You are welcome to get a second opinion, and you should choose your doctors wisely. Chances are that you will get the same diagnosis regardless of the doctor. However, depending on the doctors' pre-dispositions, you may get a different course of treatment.

A surgeon might recommend surgery, and a doctor of internal medicine might write a prescription. Nevertheless, each option might be a good solution to the problem. A thyroid problem can be treated by surgically removing the thyroid or by irradiating the thyroid with radioactive iodine. Sometimes the specific path forward is best selected by the patient.
 
 

Simply Put: Four Levels of Communication and Ability

Under Technidigm-2000, we limit ourselves to only four levels, making the paradigm as simple and effective as possible. Each of the four levels includes an inherent communication component that defines the general character of the level. There is also a corresponding component that reflects an individual's ability relative to a given topic. For each issue or problem, there are often four experience or competence levels that correspond to these four information levels. It is easy to find people with enough experience to offer opinions at level one, but it is difficult to find someone qualified to produce solutions as level four.

A gross approximation to the four levels of ability can be made in terms of education and experience. Level one approximates the competence of a high school student, level two the competence of a college student, level three the competence of a research scientist, and level four the competence of an industrial engineer (or other professional) who must apply knowledge to get useful results.

Ability also varies with the topic. Most of us never get beyond level one on most topics, but we periodically achieve level four in our own fields of endeavor and expertise. We are amused and sometimes appalled observing other people functioning at lower levels in our own fields. Nevertheless, it is often quite difficult to tell what is happening in other fields because we just do not know who is at what level. Technidigm-2000 can help us sort this out when we apply the 12 elements.

Again, all discussions involving Technidigm-2000 levels one through four presume that the opinions and facts associated with an issue are "on-the-level." Those readers who have paid attention to all of the details to this point already know what this caveat means. As soon as someone deliberately raises an opinion or a fact that is known by that person to be untrue or distorted, the entire discussion becomes invalid. This is a very important and powerful consideration because it is the primary underlying difficulty that we have with current social paradigms, such as those involving special interest groups.

With Technidigm-2000 in place, the unprincipled will either have to convert to the truth or they will be increasingly recognized for what they are and will be ignored. For example, tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear politicians have less influence under Technidigm-2000. They are off-the-level and can not easily be restored to credibility.
 
 

Level Four Perspectives

Getting to level four solutions usually requires leaders and decision makers to have much more experience and wisdom than supporting workers at the lower levels. Wisdom primarily consists of education and experience. For some issues and problems, a level four leader or decision maker must have a special level of education or set of experiences.

For example, it is not likely that someone who is not experienced in the nuclear power industry could provide effective leadership for that industry even with all of the facts in hand. This is because different facts have different weights in determining the path forward. Deciding how much weight to assign to each fact requires experience. When I led the technical assessment of each of the 150 repair projects for the Brunswick Nuclear Plant in 1992, each project had to be considered from different perspectives and weighted accordingly.

Most importantly, we assessed each project on-the-level and at level four, resulting in an incredibly effective path forward for this plant for the next several years. Up to the point that our team arrived at the nuclear plant, each of the middle managers was skewing facts and analyses in favor of his own pet projects or areas of responsibility. They were off-the-level, offering unsubstantiated opinions and incomplete facts in their efforts to get priority for their projects. Plant management's effectiveness and credibility were at an all-time low, and the NRC placed the plant on its Watch List for poorly performing plants.

Senior managers were simply not able to sort out the myriad complex relationships and priorities without outside, independent assistance. Our team had the advantage of technical expertise, which we were able to apply on-the-level and at level four. The task was arduous but straight forward.

Becoming an Expert with Levels

Once again, to use Technidigm-2000 effectively, you should study these four communications levels in more detail by reading the expanded discussions provided below. Those who simply want an overview of the concepts involved can skip to the next 4-part subject, systems, and come back through the details on the four levels later, as desired. As for most endeavors, you can not fairly judge that which you do not understand.

By now you may have started to realize that this approach recognizes the impatience of some Internet surfers and the boundless energy of others. Those readers having boundless energy will be able to understand and appreciate the value of Technidigm-2000 as an aid in just about every arena. They will be far more effective in everything they do!

The four Technidigm-2000 levels:

The twelve elements of Technidigm-2000...