VPEC-T and politics

[Richard Veryard]

Adrian made a comment on the Lost In Translation blog a while ago
http://www.lithandbook.com/?p=40#comment-74

<quote>

After the recent trouncing of the Lisbon (European) Treaty by the
Irish I wondered whether VPEC-T can help?

Values - National, European; conflicting and complementary
Policy - The constituent parts of the treaty
Events - The vote
Content - The treaty, which no one understands
Trust - Complete lack of, as the populace doesn’t trust the EU
bureaucrats or understands the treaty

Could VPEC-T thinking have helped the EUcrats to a “Yes” vote by
revealing the weakness - lack of trust - and identifying the causes
and addressing. Or is this too obvious?

<unquote>

When I read this comment again, I wondered whether there was any
reason why VPEC-T would help the EUcrats more than any other
stakeholder group, and whether VPEC-T would necessarily favour any
particular outcome. Could VPEC-T thinking equally have helped the anti-
EU faction?

In a conflict situation, is there an advantage in having VPEC-T if the
other side don't have it? Or is there a greater advantage if the other
side has VPEC-T as well, perhaps by increasing the chances of finding
a win-win solution. Of course it would be nice to imagine the latter,
but do we have any real evidence of this effect?

[aapthorp]

Hmm, VPEC-T as a tool for arbitration.

I suspect it comes back to 'V' and how transparent the values are? I
wonder how far VPEC-T can take us in exposing hidden agendas, by
exposing incompatibility between dimensions...


On Sep 26, 12:36 am, Richard Veryard <goo...@veryard.com> wrote:
> Adrian made a comment on the Lost In Translation blog a while agohttp://www.lithandbook.com/?p=40#comment-74

[nigelp...@googlemail.com]

WRT 'exposing incompatibility between dimensions. ' - IMO this is one
of the most important outcomes of using VPEC-T but, as you would
imagine, one of the most difficult to for the facilitator in a
workshop situation, but sometimes such incompatibility can be best
expressed in a well-crafted report as a follow-up to the session.

[aapthorp]

Yes, but a 'report' doesn't really get the stakeholders to internalise
and take ownership to resolve the incompatibility...assuming they see
this is of value. Of course it's situation dependent.


On Sep 26, 9:55 am, "nigelpsgr...@googlemail.com"

[nigelp...@googlemail.com]

I agree, do you have any tips for helping 'stakeholders to
internalise'?
n

[Richard Veryard]

On Sep 26, 9:21 am, "nigelpsgr...@googlemail.com"

<nigelpsgr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I agree, do you have any tips for helping 'stakeholders to
> internalise'?
> n
>

Er, it's all about Meaning isn't it?

This is probably where the Reframing lens comes in. Roy Grubb took me
to task on Twitter for stealing ideas from NLP, but I think he was a
bit reassured when he saw that I was also stealing ideas from other
sources (folks, that's the difference between plagiarism and
research). See the Reframing page on the Lenscraft wiki.

http://lenscraft.wikispaces.com/reframing

I already promised Roy to develop some examples, so that's another
task on my ever-increasing pile. Sigh.

[Richard Veryard]

Might be useful to compare the VPEC-T approach to this kind of
political conflict with the TRIZ approach described by j4ngis in his
blog.

http://jangandabla.blogspot.com/2009/09/party-y-focus-use-map-to-findem-all.html

How would we combine these two lenses?