| created |
|---|
2024-01-09 |
- Appetite: 3d (reduced by 1d given we spent 1.5d in shaping and work we did in shaping will help)
- Problem: lot of strategy-related materials but they aren't woven together or consolidated which creates a sense of overwhelm and confusion and prevents them being published and used.
- Solution: inventory materials, create framework to organize them, create roadmap for publication. If we can start on consolidated strategy.
We have a lot of rich materials related to strategy, some even quite polished, but they aren't woven together or consolidated which creates a sense of overwhelm and confusion and prevents them being published and used.
For more detail on the situation see the full SCQH in the appendix.
With our limited appetite we are narrowing our efforts to address this question:
What framework can we use to organize the materials we have, what parts can/should we complete and what effort is required so that we have a roadmap to start publishing and using the "strategy"?
- Framework
- Inventory of materials
- Most important organized using the framework in a visual map or similar
- A DAG of further recommended outputs with estimates
Bonus
- Sketch of long-form consolidated v3 strategy
- Consolidated v2 strategy
We can create a simple 3 dimensional framework and then use that to classify the inventory of material we have (we already have a list of main locations to search for material).
Building on that we will sketch a hyp tree for our consoldiated strategy and link existing materials into that tree to give us a first sketch of the consolidate v3 strategy. For v2, which is already published, albeit divided up, we can use our inventory to quickly assemble the outline.
- We have a 3 dimensional framework
- Levels: start with 3 levels macro, meso, micro
- Components: SCQA + trees. Note there are multiple methodologies (so methodology is a sub-type here): SCQA, Vision/Mission/etc, Brand Narrative etc
- How do these relate? e.g. brand narrative vs SCQA?
- Version: which version of the strategy is this e.g. v1 (2015-17), v2 (2018-2020), v3 (2021-2023) etc
- We can create an inventory of materials: we already have ~20 docs in https://link.excalidraw.com/l/9u8crB2ZmUo/3EkbCxN8qBi
- We can sketch a long-from consolidated v3 strategy with pointers to material for each section
- We can create a motivation for the revision
- We can create a level 1 strategy
- We can create a level 2 strategy
- We can create a level 3 strategy
- We can link them up
- Sketch a long-form v2 strategy with pointers to existing material ...
- There is existing published material we can identify e.g. tao/scqh, tao/plans, tao/narrative
- We can weave it together
- We can create a question tree to inform our further roadmap (see below in appendix)
Consolidated means:
- It can be read from beginning to end (with some wiki like branching allowed)
- De-duplicated -- everything is there or linked from there!
- Confident we have included materials we have (e.g. we have a list and we can check off where they went)
Technically, this is probably a single markdown long essay. This can start out as a copy and paste style consolidation from an inbox of material.
Here is a rough sketch of the structure (open to modification!)
- Background: the need for evolution of a v2 strategy. See SC in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vnWtHxNkahW_r2FcpJMYEs-Fvv8dhrJnisqAeewHjP8/edit
- The rough solution
- The focus and the problem with that: "what kind of pizza are we". How do we find more people "like us" or "like that"?
- Work on the new brand
- 3 options
- Where we are today: focus on conscious coliving
- But what is our "what"? We are a collective ...
- What is distinctive is X,Y,Z
- Why would people want to join?
- The Second Renaissance vision
- How we get there - this is the juicy part
- Part of answer is we don't know
- How do new paradigms happen
- Connecting how to the big picture
- Research is important ...
Several options e.g. excalidraw or a micro KB
- Micro KB (knowledgebase) of our strategy related material in the comms github repo starting with one section and splitting to one page for each (major) item of material and using links to organize
- The key aim then being to: see what we have, its status so that we can eliminate duplicates, see what is ready to go and what needs publishing and what we can archive/deprecative
- Ideas for fields: short summary, date, completion status, links, and notes especially re any duplication
- Elisa ask rufus to walk through https://lifeitself.org/notes/strategy-macro-to-micro-2023. We record it, transcribe it and tidy content and add it to that page and publish that as a blog post.
- We do the same with the main discussion forum post.
- A short history of the evolution of Life Itself
- including lessons learned that we wrote in Jan
- Stuff from "why do a revision of strategy" doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vnWtHxNkahW_r2FcpJMYEs-Fvv8dhrJnisqAeewHjP8/edit
- Inbox of all our materials with notes on what they cover (then fit into the structure) Map of materials here: https://app.excalidraw.com/l/9u8crB2ZmUo/3EkbCxN8qBi
- Finding every single document we ever produced on this
- Generating new ideas/content
- Creating any new strategy (just record the questions if they happen)
- Creating new technical infrastructure beyond the minimum to support this
History: In 2021, Rufus and others started work on "strategy v3", a major revision of the Life Itself strategy. This revision included work on each of the components of strategic planning range: vision, mission, theory of change and roadmap and also introduced multiple levels of a strategy from the high level macro "reason for existence" SCQA to the more "micro" here's what we do day to day (this lack of connected levels was considered to be one of the weaknesses of previous strategic work).1
Current state: This work was never fully finished, and has not been published as a consolidated whole even if a few parts have been published in some form e.g. Cultivating an Emerging Paradigm (top level ToC), Diagram of Macro to Micro connections. We also have an uber epic from Nov 2022, a folder in drive but we lack one consolidated document and a complete inventory/map of relevant documents.
A strategy can have several uses:
- Guide and inspire our actions i.e. enable us to make faster, better, more coherent choices about what we do, as well as provide the broad context that makes sense and gives purpose to the day to day, with the overall result of a more cohesive, efficient, impactful, satisfied team.2
- Inform/attract others: a clear strategy enables people to make sense of you -- and join in. This is especially so in our area which is novel and where a coherence, rigorous "theory of change" may be a major attractor
We have a lot of rich materials related to strategy, some even quite polished, but they aren't woven together or consolidated which creates a sense of overwhelm and confusion and prevents them being published and used.
What framework can we use to organize the materials we have, what parts can/should we complete and what effort is required so that we have a roadmap to start publishing and using the "strategy"?
Sub-questions brainstorm:
- What materials do we already have on the v3 Strategy?
- What is the consolidated v3 strategy (doc)?
- What is a "strategy"?
- What questions should strategy answer? (e.g. who are we trying to attract to Life Itself?)
- What was our consolidated v2 strategy?
- Aside: What is the relationship of strategy components to SCQA approach or to other approaches like a brand narrative?
- What audiences are we focused on?
- What do they need? e.g. a high level "map" or a detailed walkthrough or ...?
- Do we need clear high-level goals and priorities for 2024 for Life Itself as an org?
- 🔑 e.g. What is our high level theory of change, how does that connect down to the "day to day" and how do we communicate that to others so that ...?
- 🔑 e.g. What would give a new joiner to read/watch that would walk them through where we are at?
- Do we have a succinct clear statement of what we are trying to achieve, how we are planning to do so, and why?
- Do we need one?
- Where is the one official published place with our current strategy and key sub-parts e.g. theory of change?
- Adopt framework with 3 dimensions:
- Levels: start with 3 levels macro, meso, micro
- Component: SCQA (covers all)
- Component model/methodology: SCQA, Vision/Mission/etc, Brand Narrative etc
- How do these relate? e.g. brand narrative vs SCQA?
- Version: v1, v2, v3 etc
- Create an inventory of the material we have that includes short summary, date, completion status, links, and notes especially re any duplication
- Publish this
- Sketch a long-from consolidated v3 strategy with pointers to material for each section
- Then fill that in
- Tidy
- Publish
- Sketch a long-form v2 strategy with pointers to existing material ... (this should all be published already)
From macro / meso / micro gdoc (components aren't perfectly shown but e.g. description could be vision)
![[assets/macro-meso-micro-table-from-gdoc.png]]
Without a consolidated document [of what], there is confusion internally about what Life Itself is, what we are trying to achieve, how we are planning to do so, and why which means the team cannot meaningfully use the strategy to guide decisions day-to-day, which may lead to the strategy not being implemented as effectively and/or efficiently as it could be.
Externally, this confusion is likely reducing the impact that Life Itself could have in terms of engaging others.
TODO:
- No big map/context When we talk to others we don't have a single, succinct introduction/overview of what we're doing
- Connecting from how/what back to why (and bigger picture): When we want about a specific project there is simple context to situate and connect this to a wider whole
- Sense of overwhelm/confusion: There's a lot to hold ... There's NO MAP ... with which to orient oneself.
We have a substantial set of individual items/insights that by themselves could be useful/digestible to others but they aren't published and shared (or cohered together) which prevents them being seen or used by others.
- Strategy for clarity/coherence internally: Without one consolidated version, even we are confused about what we are trying to achieve as an organisation and why. This has several impacts:
- Lower capacity for collective sensemaking and decision-making around goals and strategic priorities if we are not on the same page / are unclear about the overall vision and strategy. In turn, this leads to:
- inefficiency and wasted resources (explaining things again and again, etc.)
- frustration and tensions around seemingly conflicting priorities
- missed opportunities for creativity and novelty in co-creation
- Lack of clarity about the impact that our work as an organisation (and individually) has or can have on the world --> less satisfactory, less motivating
- Team can't use strategy in a meaningful way day to day to make choices or to make sense of their own work (i.e. how it fits into the bigger picture) --> end up spending resources on things that don't support the overall vision and strategy; inefficiency
- Lower capacity for collective sensemaking and decision-making around goals and strategic priorities if we are not on the same page / are unclear about the overall vision and strategy. In turn, this leads to:
- Strategy for external visibility/comprehension Lack of coherent narrative and language/terminology about the work we are doing as an organisation and why, when presenting ourselves externally --> this may cause confusion and/or be unpersuasive, thus limiting our impact and people's willingness to engage with us
- Sharing the material we have produced because individually useful (even w/o coherence?): We have done a huge amount of valuable insightful work, very little of which has seen the light of day ... (wasted insight for ourselves and others)
- Strategy is itself part of our offer/attraction point: The strategy is itself bound up in the output (b/c you are inventing something new). Normally strategy is about how you get to somewhere but in our case the somewhere is not well defined and the strategy itself helps articulate that "where"
We are going to focus on is lack of consolidated document (or set of documents) that detail the background, development and current theory of change and our strategy (as in the things we are specifically doing to contribute to that theory of change and sustain ourselves as an organization).
Consolidated means:
- It can be read from beginning to end (wiki like branching is allowed)
- De-duplication
- Confident we have included materials we have (e.g. we have a list and we can check off where they went)
Note
We identified quite a few different problems we could have addressed. See the appendix for detailed list. Some are also covered in no-go.
Footnotes
-
see the multiple "why" levels in https://github.com/life-itself/community/issues/36
Hierarchically structured SCQHs: Like 5 whys our Why structure is hierarchical flowing down from top-most (most obvious, high-level) to lowest level (concretely what we do). It is likely that we have more than one SCQH, perhaps even one SCQH for each of these levels.
- Why: X is not working (polycrisis) (e.g. X is personal wellbeing, climate crisis, capitalism etc)
- Why: it needs a paradigm shift (i.e. to address the polycrisis we need foundational transformation - rather than improvements to the existing system)
- Why: primacy of being (left quadrants) (a paradigm shift requires (primarily) inner transformation individually and collectively)
- Why: how do paradigms shifts in general and esp left quadrant ones?
- Why: conscious communities
- Why: conscious community living ...
-
note that also we imagine having a more distributed, broad team that includes volunteers, part-timers etc so clarity is especially valuable. ↩