Beach Haven

I thought I’d take a stab at sharing ideas around a specific area that has long been an interest of mine. It’s probably fair to say that each of us has had to make decisions based on fewer facts than we would have liked. Even if we have a large amount of data, inevitably we can’t think of every possible effect our decisions have. We stumble along doing the best we can with what we know, and hope things generally turn out for the better (whatever we think ‘better’ means). Some of the results of our decisions are like medical side effects. Most of those side effects seem to be all about potential problems, but sometimes they result in a whole new area of benefit we hadn’t thought of.

Not all ‘unintendeds’ are ‘consequences’. That’s why I will stay away as much as possible from the moniker of ‘unintended consequences’. I’m sure in this new blog thread many of the stories will speak to such consequences, but there are also other unintended areas. For example, in the world of technology where I butter my bread, there are also often unintended uses that result from user experimentation. I supposed one could argue that’s a consequence, but I think of a consequence as an outcome, not as a ‘next step’ such as in the world of technological innovation. In that sense, targets of technology use the artifact in ways designers did not intend. That’s some fancy jargon to say ‘necessity is the mother of invention’.

Like most things I produce, this thread will be something my narcissistic side will create for myself. If someone out there is masochistic enough to follow along, I apologize in advance. Writing has become a sort of cheap therapy for me. If you choose to waste your time with this, think of it as me simply thinking out loud in an attempt to understand something of interest to myself. If that’s not the very definition of egocentric then I don’t know what is.

Let me start with a straight forward example. For years we lived in northern Virginia and I rode a commuter train into Washington DC for work. The train is called the Virginia Railway Express (VRE). From my stop on Brooke Road to Union Station in downtown DC the ride took about an hour. All sorts of people got on and off along the way. For example, it seemed like most riders I got to know were federal government employees of one sort or another. There were many military folks who wore uniforms. Tourists or visiting families were an obvious stand out on some days. People studying college courses of one sort or another could be identified with their books out and laptops busy doing homework. Dress ran the gamut from very casual to very formal.

I usually sat on one of the upper tier seats. You get a better view of the Potomac River from there. One day I noticed a young lady of maybe late 20s or early 30s sitting across from me in a similar seat position. After a while, she pulled out her phone and began staring at it and moving her head in the way one does while taking a selfie video. My old man eyeroll went unnoticed. My judgmental attitude was of course behind it. A few minutes later I glanced back and everything changed. My ‘get off my lawn’ brain had faded and my ‘techie’ brain engaged. She was obviously in the act of applying her makeup in preparation for the work day. Her clothing was quite professional, and everything about her seemed the opposite of my original assumption.

I am quite sure the inventors of the cellphone camera did not imagine themselves to be providing a makeup mirror when they added it to the base product. Yet, here it was. In the world of the swiss-army-knife of electronics, a tech user had managed to remove the jangling burdens piled into her purse by one more item thanks to the unintended use of the cellphone camera. Her makeup mirror has no doubt been relegated to the back of one of her bathroom drawers, and will likely never see the light of day again. A quick scan online these days produces a long list of makeup mirror apps that are downloadable to any 'smart' phone.

​Maybe in a future writeup I'll try to unpack the idea of the phrase 'smart phone'. At least I may have the intention to.

Bibliography
​Vifell, A. C., & Soneryd, L. (2013). Organizing Matters: How 'the Social Dimension' Gets Lost in Sustainability Projects. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 41(2), 104-113.

Review by Michael Beach

The authors examine sociality in sustainability projects from a specific framework of their own design. “We argue that the way sustainability projects are organized will affect how the social dimension is taken into consideration” (Vifell & Soneryd, 2013, p. 104). They describe projects based on three dimensions they call pillars: economic, ecological, and social. They note how organizations often have set project group forms and structures so reflection on whether those set social forms meet project requirements of the task at hand “is a rare phenomenon” (Ibid.). The authors assert that “a practice cannot be fully sustainable until all three dimensions are fulfilled” (Vifell & Soneryd, 2013, p. 106) meaning the three pillars, but they don’t really define the dimensions beyond their basic titles.

In order to examine the social dimension, they examine two case studies in Sweden: The Action Plan 2010 to Increase Organic Consumption and Production of Food Products and A Safe Radiation Environment. The first is a non-governmental campaign by The Ecological Forum to encourage increased ecological food production and a varied agricultural landscape. The second is a government response by The Swedish Radiation Protection Authority to public opposition to increasing 3G cellular services throughout the country of Sweden. Yes, this is about 3G cellular, but remember this study is from 2013.

The authors assume tasks associated with the two case studies are organized into projects, and that the sociality of groups working on the projects are reflected in the group ‘mind-set’. They examine how such mind-sets are defined and incorporated into project teams. The forms of mind-set they define are: open or narrow framing, action orientation, participation, and lastly knowledge gathering and production. The authors spend several pages defining in their own way what they mean for each of these dimensions. The paper then reviews each of the four dimensions are they are exhibited in the two specific cases.

Open/Narrow Framing - In the food production case, certain farming approaches were excluded as they became politically charged in Sweden. As a result, some specific groups advocating these farming approaches were also excluded. This leads the authors of this paper to put the effort more on the side of narrow project scope definition. There was no definition of ‘sustainable’ given as part of the project charter which made this part of the process more on the open side. In the radiation case, social sustainability was never specifically addressed. The points to be addressed by the project were given in a very specific list. The list related to already ongoing projects, so the authors consider that project as operating in a narrower frame.

Action Orientation - This question is couched by contrasting what might be done as opposed to encouragement to do what has already been decided to be done. In the food case, there had been several failed projects previous to this one. The steering group of the first version of this project resigned as a result. The new project focused on moving forward to finish the original plan, so clearly a desire to take some measurable action as a project group and not just encourage others to act. The action, though, was to complete previous decisions, so not necessarily action to come up with new approaches. In the radiation project, the group in charge, called the SSI, came up with a clear project plan that included tasks. Before they even involved other groups, they had an idea of what needed to get done.

Participation - As mentioned above, there were a number of organizations that participated in the agricultural project, but some specific ones with agendas that seemed to be too entrenched on politically hot issues in Sweden at the time were excluded. There was a steering group that headed the project with representation from more than one concerned organization involved in the related topics of encouraging increased food production at all levels. In addition, there were synthesis groups used to gather relevant knowledge. No socially focused group was created as the goal was to find equilibrium between food supply and demand. When the first steering group felt as if they could not meet the goals they dissolved. The second group did not change the focus, but sought to complete the original approach. They felt like the most extreme views were getting in the way of the first steering committee and decided to take out group members with those views to allow progress. In the radiation case, all the participants were officials at SSI so they invited some additional actors with a wide range of perspectives to join the conversation. The idea was to create an approach as “a forum for tuning the suggested measures or new or re-formulated objectives” (Vifell & Soneryd, 2013, p. 110).

Knowledge Production - In the agriculture example, content was produced by the six synthesis groups on various topics. The group indicated a need for some statistics to help inform decisions. As it turned out, industry organizations were skeptical the data could be produced. The second steering committee took the synthesis group reports, tacked them onto the end of the steering committee plan as appendices, then stuck to their own plan. Knowledge was a highly contested issue in the radiation case. Trust in information from specific organizations was deemed suspect by some committee members. The group organized sub-groups to participate in brainstorming sessions on specific topics, noting problems and potential solutions. Later ideas were distilled to more realistic approaches. Since the goal was to reduce or control radiation, in the end, social issues raised were simply declared as out of scope.
​
The paper’s conclusions are helpful if one adopts the specific three sustainability dimensions and the four frames as the authors describe them. It’s one way to try to account for the aimed-for social dimension of the two projects reviewed. It could be more helpful for project teams, such as those involved in the agriculture and radiation projects in Sweden, to include some similar framework in their own up-front project planning. Even if such a project team chooses to ignore social factors on their decisions, at least they would be doing so consciously.