Eagle squad: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===Education/advocacy=== | ===Education/advocacy=== | ||
*Systems | ====Organisational theory generally==== | ||
*The role of legal | [[Systems analysis]]: | ||
*For good: [[Systems theory]] — [[Donella H. Meadows]] | |||
*For bad: [[Systemantics: The Systems Bible]] — {{Author|John Gall}} | |||
Solving the future: a philosophical battle between: | |||
*[[Reductionism]]: We can solve the future by policy/taxonomy/data/tech: | |||
*[[Pragmatism]]: We cannot predict emerging risks — we need flexibility and expertise to make risk decisions out in the view we can manage every risk by policy. | |||
*A mixed approach required: Make BAU as standardised, preengingeered cheap and no-nonsense as possible; leave the frontiers as clear and flexible as possible. | |||
:*BAU: [[Toyota Production System]] | |||
:*Frontier: [[Normal accident]]s | |||
Approaches which get this wrong: anything which obliges humans to rekey, fill out forms, attest, certify as to BAU: this is should be automated | |||
*[[Reg tech]] which tries to do the hard stuff and requires humans to do the clerical stuff: which forces humans to be form-filler-outers | |||
*[[Policy]] as a problem: if you codify get machines to do it. If you need humans to do it, you need to keep the rules simple and clear. | |||
===The role of legal=== | |||
*Not part of the operational stack | |||
**The two modes of legal: ''farming'' and ''building a frontier'' | **The two modes of legal: ''farming'' and ''building a frontier'' | ||
**Farming: Toyota production system | **Farming: Toyota production system | ||
**Frontier: normal accidents | **Frontier: normal accidents | ||
**The line betwixt: ''triage'' | **The line betwixt: ''triage'' | ||
*Commitment signalling: understanding the psychology of negotiation | *Commitment signalling: understanding the psychology of negotiation | ||
**Getting *their* business onside, and reframing the debate between their business and their legal | **Getting *their* business onside, and reframing the debate between their business and their legal |
Revision as of 18:06, 19 July 2021
Education/advocacy
Organisational theory generally
- For good: Systems theory — Donella H. Meadows
- For bad: Systemantics: The Systems Bible — John Gall
Solving the future: a philosophical battle between:
- Reductionism: We can solve the future by policy/taxonomy/data/tech:
- Pragmatism: We cannot predict emerging risks — we need flexibility and expertise to make risk decisions out in the view we can manage every risk by policy.
- A mixed approach required: Make BAU as standardised, preengingeered cheap and no-nonsense as possible; leave the frontiers as clear and flexible as possible.
- BAU: Toyota Production System
- Frontier: Normal accidents
Approaches which get this wrong: anything which obliges humans to rekey, fill out forms, attest, certify as to BAU: this is should be automated
- Reg tech which tries to do the hard stuff and requires humans to do the clerical stuff: which forces humans to be form-filler-outers
- Policy as a problem: if you codify get machines to do it. If you need humans to do it, you need to keep the rules simple and clear.
The role of legal
- Not part of the operational stack
- The two modes of legal: farming and building a frontier
- Farming: Toyota production system
- Frontier: normal accidents
- The line betwixt: triage
- Commitment signalling: understanding the psychology of negotiation
- Getting *their* business onside, and reframing the debate between their business and their legal
- The power of interpersonal relationships. Go see the client. Build rapport. Call them. Then put it in writing.
- The nature of catastrophic risk is that it is not what you are looking at
- Legal documents as tools of persuasion
- Drafting hacks to make something more agreeable
The basis between risk management systems and legal docs
- The value of standardisation of operational controls
The smart contract concept and how it is a metaphor The division of labour: a process that requires manual checking is a bad process.
- Example: termsheet/contract/closing memo. If you're rekeying you're wasting effort. Structure your agreement so it is a closing memo.
- How to turn legalese into plain language
- Meetings
- As lazy/selfish by convenor
- As inefficient/wasteful
- As defusing of responsibility
- As being uneasy peace/timid consensus
- Legal documents and policies as doing the same
Tools and resources
- Problem solving toolkit
Projects
- Standard document prettifier
- Triage tools
- Putting something in the way of lawyers to ward off stupid questions from contractors and reinforce vertical command lines
- Process simplifiers
- Removing pointless tech
- Waste removal: identifying common gives and eliminating escalations