Maybe somethings are best if we did not start them at all!
But the ball has been running since there were men (and women) – kind.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_missing_graph/4647545119/lightbox/
Hmm ….
Maybe somethings are best if we did not start them at all!
But the ball has been running since there were men (and women) – kind.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_missing_graph/4647545119/lightbox/
Hmm ….

Because one foot really cannot make a difference to the game till the team is willing to work as a team but more importantly works to defend for its nation. Yet we all relish that one foot that kicks “the dream goal” to reality! It is what glues us all to the set and the field, is it not? It is what inspires the “next Pele”. It is because of that special moment that football clubs around the world hope to attract millions of dollar to its doors: http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_missing_graph/4606501458/lightbox/
Heads of States are no exceptions either. They play into the notion too. They load promises of pomp and glory to the boys that bring the cup back home or scores the most hits into the opponent’s net. We even have special awards just for the best player. More often than not, it goes to the striker! For that magic foot – ball.
Yet football cannot be won by strikers alone. This is especially so when the defence is weak. And it is not difficult to see that the quality of the defence can bring the best striker and even the team down.

What makes a team strong in its defence? Is it the promise of rewards of winning? That’s for the striker! It is easy for a striker to connect a reward with a strike into the net. The more strikes that are in the more are the rewards. That’s easy to figure.
But what about the defence? The defence does not strike in. It defends or strikes a ball out! What moves one to fight for that? What do you think?
What stops the defence from leaving the defence wide open? Without a strategy? We can’t use rewards to motivate something we do not want.
So then what else will?
It is classic!
Perhaps we are working longer number of hours but we are also not the most productive.
How is that possible?
| Data extracted on 25 Feb 2012 16:34 UTC (GMT) from OECD.Stat |
| Data from 1979: | http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/42/35205504.pdf | |||||||||||
| Frequency | Annual | |||||||||||
| Time | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
||
| Country | ||||||||||||
Australia![]() |
1 780 | 1 739 | 1 732 | 1 737 | 1 732 | 1 727 | 1 719 | 1 712 | 1 717 | 1 690 | 1 686 | |
Austria![]() |
1 658 | 1 657 | 1 652 | 1 658 | 1 663 | 1 652 | 1 642 | 1 632 | 1 620 | 1 581 | 1 587 | |
Belgium![]() |
1 545 | 1 577 | 1 580 | 1 575 | 1 549 | 1 565 | 1 566 | 1 560 | 1 568 | 1 550 | 1 551 | |
Canada![]() |
1 775 | 1 768 | 1 747 | 1 736 | 1 754 | 1 739 | 1 738 | 1 738 | 1 728 | 1 700 | 1 702 | |
Chile![]() |
2 263 | 2 242 | 2 250 | 2 235 | 2 232 | 2 157 | 2 165 | 2 128 | 2 095 | 2 074 | 2 068 | |
Czech Republic![]() |
2 092 |
2 000 | 1 980 | 1 972 | 1 986 | 2 002 | 1 997 | 1 985 | 1 992 | 1 942 | 1 947 | |
Denmark![]() |
![]() |
1 581 | 1 587 | 1 579 | 1 577 | 1 579 | 1 579 | 1 586 | 1 570 | 1 570 | 1 559 | .. |
| Estonia | 1 987 | 1 978 | 1 983 | 1 985 | 1 996 | 2 010 | 2 001 | 1 999 | 1 969 | 1 831 | 1 879 | |
Finland![]() |
1 751 |
1 733 | 1 726 | 1 719 | 1 723 | 1 716 | 1 709 | 1 706 | 1 704 | 1 673 | 1 697 | |
France![]() |
![]() |
1 591 | 1 579 | 1 537 | 1 533 | 1 561 | 1 557 | 1 536 | 1 556 | 1 560 | 1 554 | .. |
Germany![]() |
1 473 | 1 458 | 1 445 | 1 439 | 1 442 | 1 434 | 1 430 | 1 430 | 1 426 | 1 390 | 1 419 | |
Greece![]() |
![]() |
2 121 | 2 121 | 2 109 | 2 103 | 2 082 | 2 086 | 2 148 | 2 115 | 2 116 | 2 119 | 2 109 |
Hungary![]() |
![]() |
2 057 | 2 011 | 2 019 | 1 990 | 1 993 | 1 993 | 1 989 | 1 985 | 1 986 | 1 968 | 1 961 |
Iceland![]() |
![]() |
1 885 | 1 847 | 1 812 | 1 807 | 1 810 | 1 794 | 1 795 | 1 807 | 1 807 | 1 716 | 1 697 |
Ireland![]() |
1 719 | 1 713 | 1 698 | 1 671 | 1 668 | 1 654 | 1 645 | 1 634 | 1 601 | 1 549 | 1 664 | |
Israel![]() |
.. | .. | .. | .. | 1 905 | 1 989 | 1 887 | 1 921 | 1 898 | 1 889 | .. | |
Italy![]() |
1 861 | 1 843 | 1 831 | 1 826 | 1 826 | 1 819 | 1 815 | 1 816 | 1 803 | 1 772 | 1 778 | |
Japan![]() |
1 821 | 1 809 | 1 798 | 1 799 | 1 787 | 1 775 | 1 784 | 1 785 | 1 771 | 1 714 | 1 733 | |
Korea![]() |
2 512 | 2 499 | 2 464 | 2 424 | 2 392 | 2 351 | 2 346 | 2 306 | 2 246 | 2 232 | 2 193 | |
Luxembourg![]() |
1 662 | 1 646 | 1 635 | 1 630 | 1 586 | 1 570 | 1 580 | 1 515 | 1 555 | 1 601 | 1 616 | |
Mexico![]() |
1 888 | 1 864 | 1 888 | 1 857 | 1 849 | 1 909 | 1 883 | 1 871 | 1 893 | 1 857 | 1 866 | |
Netherlands![]() |
1 435 | 1 424 | 1 408 | 1 401 | 1 399 | 1 393 | 1 392 | 1 388 | 1 379 | 1 378 | 1 377 | |
New Zealand![]() |
1 828 | 1 817 | 1 817 | 1 813 | 1 828 | 1 811 | 1 788 | 1 766 | 1 750 | 1 738 | 1 758 | |
Norway![]() |
1 455 | 1 429 | 1 414 | 1 399 | 1 417 | 1 420 | 1 414 | 1 419 | 1 423 | 1 407 | 1 414 | |
Poland![]() |
1 988 | 1 974 | 1 979 | 1 984 | 1 983 | 1 994 | 1 985 | 1 976 | 1 969 | 1 948 | 1 939 | |
Portugal![]() |
1 765 | 1 769 | 1 767 | 1 742 | 1 763 | 1 752 | 1 757 | 1 727 | 1 745 | 1 719 | 1 714 | |
Slovak Republic![]() |
1 844 | 1 833 |
1 780 | 1 734 | 1 774 | 1 785 | 1 779 | 1 793 | 1 790 | 1 738 | 1 786 | |
Spain![]() |
![]() |
1 731 | 1 727 | 1 721 | 1 706 | 1 690 | 1 668 | 1 656 | 1 636 | 1 647 | 1 653 | 1 663 |
Sweden![]() |
1 642 | 1 618 | 1 595 | 1 582 | 1 605 | 1 605 | 1 599 | 1 618 | 1 617 | 1 602 | 1 624 | |
Switzerland![]() |
1 688 | 1 650 | 1 630 | 1 643 | 1 673 | 1 667 | 1 652 | 1 643 | 1 640 | .. | .. | |
Turkey![]() |
1 937 | 1 942 | 1 943 | 1 943 | 1 918 | 1 936 | 1 944 | 1 911 | 1 900 | 1 881 | 1 877 | |
United Kingdom![]() |
1 700 | 1 705 | 1 684 | 1 674 | 1 674 | 1 673 |
1 668 | 1 670 | 1 665 | 1 643 | 1 647 | |
West Germany![]() |
1 451 | 1 439 | 1 428 | 1 422 | 1 426 | 1 419 | 1 416 | 1 420 | 1 417 | 1 379 | 1 409 | |
United States![]() |
1 836 | 1 814 | 1 810 | 1 800 | 1 802 | 1 799 | 1 800 | 1 798 | 1 792 | 1 768 | 1 778 | |
Russian Federation![]() |
1 982 | 1 980 | 1 982 | 1 994 | 1 994 | 1 990 | 1 999 | 2 000 | 1 997 | 1 973 | 1 976 | |
OECD countries![]() |
1 818 | 1 802 | 1 794 | 1 785 | 1 783 | 1 782 | 1 779 | 1 773 | 1 767 | 1 741 | 1 749 | |
But wait! Read between the lines. It tells us something more that is not obvious immediately!
Pascal Marianna, who is a labour markets statistician at the OECD says: “The Greek labour market is composed of a large number of people who are self-employed, meaning farmers and shop-keepers who are working long hours.” Self-employed workers tend to work more than those who have specified hours in an employment contract.
The second reason Mr Marianna points to is the different number of part-time workers in each country. “In Germany, the share of employees working part-time is quite high. This represents something like one in four,” he says. As these annual hours figures are for all workers, the large proportion who work part-time in Germany is bringing down the overall average.
In Greece, far fewer people work part-time. If you account for these factors by stripping away part-time and self-employed people and look only at full-time salaried workers, the Greeks are still working almost 10% more hours than the Germans.
Europe’s top 10 and bottom 10 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Most hours worked | Most productive | Least hours worked | Least productive | |
| 1 | Greece | Luxembourg | Netherlands | Poland |
| 2 | Hungary | Norway | Germany | Hungary |
| 3 | Poland | Ireland | Norway | Turkey |
| 4 | Estonia | Belgium | France | Estonia |
| 5 | Turkey | Netherlands | Denmark | Czech Rep |
| 6 | Czech Rep | France | Ireland | Portugal |
| 7 | Italy | Germany | Belgium | Slovakia |
| 8 | Slovakia | Denmark | Austria | Greece |
| 9 | Portugal | Sweden | Luxembourg | Slovenia |
| 10 | Iceland | Austria | Sweden | Iceland |
| The UK ranks 14th both in terms of hours worked and in terms of productivity | ||||
| Source: OECD | ||||

Without a belief in oneself and others can we really expect to see performance by oneself, the organization and the country (what about the region, the world) improve over time?
Should, let us say for the sake of argument, that we do not believe in ourselves and others, is there a price that we would end up paying? What is that?
Should we first :
Let’s assume we do share those beliefs with each other. Would it then become easier for us to set up performance management systems for ourselves and others? What would they look like then?
Which should come first?
Is there such a thing as systemic development of industries? We can tell what systematic is. Yes?
But what about systemic development of industries?
Let us take a context.
Let us say we wish to see the industry of dairy production grow within the country.
What needs to happen that would enable the sustained development of this industry. Now

notice two things:
The first, notice I did not say a dairy company but rather I referred to the industry. This means it has effects on the nation . That means more dairy companies are likely to succeed better as a result the industry is growing. When we take care of ‘the whole’, ‘the whole’ takes care of the parts.
The second, when we say it is successful, in this work, we would need to define it. We would expect to see the following happen:
Yes? Is that how you see it too? These are what I meant by the systemic development of dairy production in the county.
Therefore, what needs to happen for all the above to happen for dairy production?
Well …..

Dairy or milk comes from cow. So, to see dairy production grow in the country, while anything else may or may not happen, we cannot expect it to grow without first also seeing the growth of the number of dairy cows produced within the country.
On the other hand, should we see a decline of the number of these cows (because we sell the cows so that we may pay school fees), then we can also expect to see a decline in the level of dairy milk produced in the country.
What do you notice by these discussions? Is this line of thinking the same as systematic thinking?
Did you say, no? Well, you are right!
So here’s the next question, what would make sure the systemic development of the dairy cow industry grows within the county?
You know the drill now!
What do cows (anywhere) need?
Fodder? Meaning, that the level of fodder produced needs to grow so that we are able to produce more dairy cows. Usually we do it the other way around! We say well, there is not enough (supply, given demand for) fodder. The market says that the demand is growing and then, it (the market) tries to scramble to ‘close the gap’.
When demand drives supply, that’s a sign of non-systemic development of the nation. But in a systemic relationship it is the supply that leads demand. Notice it does not drive it. It facilitates. It just makes it easier. It respects the order in which causality happen.
So, therefore before we expect to see the number of dairy cows grow in the country, we should first expect to see the number of companies that produce fodder grow within the country. This needs to happen before anything else does, almost to a fault.
When that industry grows (production levels rise at lower units costs), the amount of fodder available in the country also grows. Therefore, as a result, it will not become difficult for the cows to “eat and go forth and multiply“. And when it does, the dairy production levels in the country would naturally increase. This happens even without needing the government to take actions to intervene. This will also add up to lower costs in running the government.
What’s the next question?
Did you say, what would it take for the fodder industry to grow over time? You are right! Now we can see, you’ve got the drill.
Where does fodder come from?
You are right. Crops! Fodder is often the by-product or the remnants of crops once humans have used it for their consumption.

So what are we saying here? For dairy production to grow within the county, we need to first see the growth of crops produced in the country, grow as an industry. When that does not happen, and should it instead decline, then the fodder industry declines, which in turn leads to dairy cow production declining which in turn reduces dairy production or makes it difficult to take off for the country.
So what causes crop production to grow in the country?
Which one of the following, in your view, when it is available makes it easier for crop production to grow? Which of the following would we need to see available?:
However should crop production be the primary domain of the female gender in the country, that is, she decides when, how much and what crops to grow, it is possible she may not be willing to grow crops for cattle. This is because her primary focus and need is to grow crops to put food on her table, for her children! Not for the world! And certainly not for the cattle.
So, therefore which gender do you think should become involved in crop production, so that dairy production would grow in the country?
Should it be led by the mind of man or the mind of a woman who should lead this effort? Does it differ or not at all?
The mind of the man is typically designed to ‘feed the world’. There are exceptions, but always look at the rule. The mind of the woman is there to help nurture (of feed) her child (not the child of another woman!) Do not fight that or we risk not having mothers for our children.

When the man becomes involved in crop production, we would now be able to feed milk to our children (including the children of the women who did not wish to grow crops for the cattle). Also, men, unlike women, will inherently (even if it is just sheer strength in their muscles) to till, sow for multiple seasons and harvest larger expanses of land. This situation is there in the likes of China, Vietnam, India, Indonesia, South America for generations, where production of crops is the domain of the male gender. This has also has a positive impact on the water cycle . This means that as more amounts of the land is fertile for crops, such lands in turn encourages more frequent levels of rainfall for the country.
Is the amount of land, water, seeds, fertilizer available therefore consequential in the story. It really is not. It becomes consequential when I focus on my company. But not from a systemic development of industries and the nation.
So if I focused on changing things that are happening in my company, would that be enough to turn things around for the nation? The parts separately cannot take care of “the whole”.
Hmm …. what would we have to do differently today so that we as men, women and children can see these together as a nation?
… what we did to give in generating the revenue or increasing it and more importantly sustaining the increase (so we know we got it right!) so that it would allow the country (or organizations) to pay us increments?
What contributes to the revenue rising?
More sales (not increased prices – that is not real) and reduced costs, you say? Sure.
So, let’s go back again. When should we demand pay increments?
So should the revenue of the country decline, can we prove an increase in pay?
Yet why do such behaviours happen (or why do we let it happen) over and over again?
And bound by a belief that our views of the world and our aspirations cannot be ‘brought out into the world for others to see’?
Job descriptions, yes they describe the job we do or that someone should do. But it is that ubiquitous clause at the end that always says, ‘To carry and obey all lawful orders of persons who have authority either over or within …. or sometimes put more simply: ‘And any other jobs as delineated by the supervisor’ that really nails the deal.
It defines who is the boss, I mean the real parent / master, and who is the child (might I say ‘slave’).
Yes, on a day-to-day basis it lays out clearly the tasks that the supervisee will carry out for the supervisor and serves as a document that makes it clear why payment should either be or not be made out depending on the services carried out as per the document.
There is no dispute to use of that document and its validity for doing so.
It is the effects they have in placing someone ‘in his place’ that we would need to watch out for in the long-term.
[More …. soon.]
Remember, without demand there will be no supply. At the marketplace it is the demand (overt or otherwise) that drives supply!
Take anything:
Can you think of more?
Is going after supply ever going to solve the problem, or do we really do it to help boost the country’s government revenue (charge the one who charges!)? Or do we do it because it is just easier than going after demand?
When would we solve (once and for all) the problem?
Chasing the supply? Or the demand?
Hmm …. have we thought of this question? As a country?

To appreciate the question, first we will need to find out what is causing the standards of education to go down persistently! Or did we choose not to ask (or think about) the question, because we thought it was a non-starter? Or we just did not go “there” to think?
That is to stand back and wonder that us and perhaps generations before us had worked hard to set up whole institutions (in the adult world) and invested resources just so to remind us and if not, to correct falling standards of education. To do so we would have put in place measurements to make sure standards stay up.
This is different from what we would otherwise like to see happen for our children (in the child world), i.e. to see our child reach out for rising levels of educational standards. Yes?
So we (the adult) work hard to teach, but they (the child) are not learning?
So, what causes standards of education to go down despite having had measures, standards, resources, infrastructure to prop it up for these years? Has anyone counted how much we have already spent? Within the country? As a globe? Since post WWII? That is 50-60 years. How many dropped out of school compared to those who have acquired PhD?
REALITY NO. 1:
How has levels of education compare with the investments placed into it. Did you say, it has gone down not as expected? How does the trend of resources compare? It has gone up? Hmm … that does not make sense, does it?
So what went wrong?
What would instead cause things to turn around to see levels of education go up?
But if we asked that question, then our attention would shift to the teachers (the adults). Yes? It is one adult world (parents) talking to another (the teachers).
Then if so, what is the question we should ask, so that our attention is on where it matters? The learners (or the minds of the learners (the child)).
So what is stopping or preventing the child from wanting to / being willing to learn?
Because once we have figured that out, there would be no stopping in the standards of education reached by the children. They would easily outstrip and standards we set for the teachers. Yes?
Except which is easier to manage? The motivations of the teacher or that of the student?
But taking the easy way out would usually leads us back into the problem.
Not the fireman!
I could not, at any age, be content to take my place by the fireside and simply look on. Life was meant to be lived. Curiosity must be kept alive. One must never, for whatever reason, turn his back on life.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Are the two worlds really that different or there is merely a thin line separating the two?
Are these two worlds defined by the women or by the men or by both or by persons beyond the couple?
I had a surreal experience yesterday.
I was on my way to an engagement party and I had my usual driver help me get to the venue which was an hour’s drive away. My driver, in his late 30’s or early 40’s, over time has grown accustomed to using the time he has me in his car to share his concerns that he finds in his life and as a sounding board for his thoughts. As the journey continued, the conversation turned to ‘what does a woman want from her man’? He asked, “is it a roof over their heads or a box of chocolates from him?” Well, I said, “while the box of chocolate may not be the same as a roof over their heads, but if she also receives a box of chocolate from him, it helps her see him as more than a provider for the family to also the lover in her life”, I said.
At soon as those words left my mouth, it felt like a cannon had suddenly been let loose within the car! He became rattled and began by saying “such days have long gone”. Well, I added, “you would not want her to see you as her father or brother, would we?” He continued to disagree. He then shares, that had I known better, I would know that “it is not unusual for the women in the country to “keep small houses by their side”. While she may have the ‘main meal’ with her husband, she continues to enjoy ‘side dishes’ with other men”. He adds that having come to know about that part of her life, it is making it difficult for him to relate towards her as her husband and as the only man in her life. He then repeated several times that it is not easy for a man to give flowers and chocolate to “a prostitute”. He for now is choosing to live a life separate from his wife, even choosing not to eat within the same house. Deep in my heart, I knew “he was crying inside” and I ended that part of the conversation with “this may have been a chance for her to learn to turn into a woman, a chance another man may not do it for her, except you”.
Half an hour later, we arrive at the home where my hosts were hosting an engagement party for their twenty-something year old daughter.
And then, almost in an instant, it looked like I had walked from one world into another world – a world ‘fit for a princess”. The place was teeming with men and women working side-by-side, putting together the venue for an evening of merriment and joy in celebration of exchanging and accepting the dowry between the groom and the bride’s family an event which was held earlier in the morning. I sat by the corner, watching and soaking in as much of the buzz of the evening and location. It was all new to me here. The women were washing plates and dishing food and drinks out to the guests who were arriving and laying tablecloths on the tables The men were preparing the firewood that was going to part of the braai stands that would grill enough meat for an anticipated guests of 500 to 600 persons. Perhaps even a 1000. Elders were playing out their traditional roles receiving the bridal parties on both sides and observing the protocols of the day. Meanwhile tiny tots scaled the length and breath of the venue adding colour and vibrancy to the occasion with their spanking new clothes and their chirping voices. Nothing over the top. Only sheer joy meandering all around in the togetherness.
Two hours later and when the venue, food and the guests were set, the bride walks in, in the arms of her fiance. He was beaming from ear to ear eager to show his bride off to the world. Both of them took the main stage and sat on their assigned seats (well, I actually want to mean ‘thrones’). She sat on her side, glancing from the corner of her eyes and chatting at her fiance from time to time, while taking in the whole place and the evening and how it has been laid out in front of her. She did not hold any airs about her but smiled sweetly knowing she was being treated like a princess from her groom to her father.
I sat at my chair within the audience enjoying how much the bride was enjoying the evening.
The next morning, that is today morning, something struck me.
How did I go from, in less than one hour and in a distance of less than 100 km apart, hearing the story of a ‘prostitute’ in the guise of a wife to seeing a princess about to become a wife?
Both assaulting my senses in the same evening.
How did the same land produce both princesses and ‘prostitutes’? Which one is more? Which side is growing? And which side is seeing declining numbers?
Why does this happen?
As you read the article. notice how many times we broke the laws of dynamic complexity. These laws govern the nature of dynamic (recurrent problems) complexity.
I see three laws here. They are laws 8, 6 and 4. I have listed the laws against the text of the article below and the explanations at the end of the texts.
There are more.
Show us what you see.
World leaders probably spent more time worrying about the euro zone crisis than anything else in 2011.
And that was in the year that featured the Arab Spring, the Japanese tsunami and the death of Osama Bin Laden. What’s more, 2012 looks set to be not much different. But as euro zone governments hammer out new rules to limit their borrowing, are they missing the point of the crisis?
Follow the path to find out.
Continue reading the main story
The euro zone has agreed a new “fiscal compact”
But didn’t they already agree to this back in the ’90s?
So who kept to the rules?
But the markets have other ideas
So what really caused the crisis?
Cut spending…
Don’t cut spending…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16301630
@1 When we state country, the one that comes to mind (obviously), it is the government (and therefore) the public servants are spending (the Ministers must be corrupt , etc.). But the areas of the highest leverage, the citizen, the family, the industries stayed hidden behind the ‘name of the country’. Law #8 says, the areas of the highest leverage are often the least obvious. We need to be understanding this about ourselves and use it to turn the situation around.
@2 Taking loans out, which is borrowing money and spending money we do not have, is easier than freezing wages (and choosing not to spend the money). Notice what we are avoiding. We usually do not watch what we are avoiding. We need to be watching both should we expect to turn a situation around.
@3 Loss of competitiveness shows how things have got worse after some time of seeing things become easier or better. This indicates that the two (when things got worse and the things that got better) are interconnected. As we appreciate the interrelatedness of these issues, we now begin to have a handle on the situation.
@4 What law is broken here? Why do you say that? Do explore the reasonings with each other.
The Ministry of Agriculture is noticing the following situation (Case 1, Case 2, Case 3).
We pray for the rains to come. And they do, eventually. Often when we are at our most desperate. Sometimes they do not. It is possible someone out there is praying for rains not to come. There are inconveniences the weather brings with it. The floods, waters enter homes, the mud, the humidity, the sheer wetness, the leaking roofs, laundrys do not dry up, the house feels musty, lost businesses on the street, and so on. Of course, those who plant crops want to see rains.
What if it drizzled everyday? What would we say?
The nature of water cycles is such that the less we rains we receive over time, the less the rains that come back to us with time and space.
We learned in school about the water cycle. What we did not realize is, these cycles have a tendency to grow either positively or negatively with each iteration. They do not remain the same over time. This point was not made clear to us in our science and geography classrooms.
History and the reality today:
For the past forty years, the country finds it is not easy to meet its food production targets much less shake off its dependency on importing food from our neighbors. This is particularly so in areas where raw materials produced in the country (e.g. milk, vegetables, grains, potatoes) for the processing of foods (e.g. for tomato sauce, cheese, pesto) continues to face production shortages.
Current Strategy:
Each year, the government assists the population gear up to produce so that farmers may place food on their tables (food security which included having enough food for guests at funerals and weddings when the village descended on the events) as well as cash money from the sales of their produce in their pockets. Despite these efforts, we are not able to produce enough to meet the national consumption needs. Consumption (the hands that eat) has been and continues to exceed the level of the country’s ability to produce (the hands that produce). This story resonates for production of most raw materials across the country.
Seeing Complexity:
In my effort to understand the behaviour of agricultural production in the country, we examined historical annualized data that would allow us to see the behavior of production patterns of crops across the country. To do so, the Ministry, collected a twelve-year data of typical variety of crops produced within the country.
When the data came through, we noticed a rather unusual behavior over time of the graphs. This was something most people had not noticed previously.
There was a tendency for one type of crop to show a distinct increase in production levels over the years. The graph showed the crop resisted droughts better and was increasingly successful over time at doing so. Over time the peaks peaked higher.
This suggested that today compared to ten or thirty years ago, the levels of the crop produced had risen, sometimes by as much as six to ten folds high even if that included farmers finding alternative lands to produce the corps. This meant the crop had found new lands and hands even as old lands and hands had become barren; often at commercial levels and driven and supported by research efforts to use seeds that had even higher levels of resistance to droughts.
Conversely, we noticed another type of crop produced in the country showed a steady decline. It required more water for its survival. It was becoming less successful over time. The troughs in the pattern digged deeper troughs each time.
So which one in your view was rising and which one was declining?
The one that was rising was sorghum and the one that was declining was maize.
I was concurrently observing data on rainfall levels recorded for the past fifty years for the country. In general, rainfall levels declined steadily across many parts of the country, particularly in the western, central, northern and southern parts of the country. Where the pattern showed a distinct difference was in the extreme eastern parts of the country.
Do the results surprise you? We say in this work, statistics may lie. But trends do not know how to lie.
Which archetype do you think created the pattern that we saw above: http://www.lopn.net/System_Archetypes.html?
Understanding Complexity: What is causing it?
As these trends were unfolding, the Ministry was also resorting to choosing variants of maize that were hardier and more resistant to survive bouts of lower rainfall. This would mean, the seeds were able to grow into plants in the likes of sorghum, wheat, oats, barley and hybrid versions of maize without requiring a lot of water for its survival and at a shorter maturing period.
Are these patterns and outcomes a coincident? Is there a reason behind the behaviour of these graphs?
Think cactus. Cactus is the ultimate form of a drought-resistant plant. Yet, when we crack open a cactus what do you see? Water. Right? The nature of water is to flow rather than stagnate.
The more there are deserts, the more there are cacti. This is what strikes us when we first drive past a desert. Seeing cactus survive in a desert is a part of the story. They are sometimes held up as stories of our triumphs against odds. The reverse is also true. The more the cacti survive (just like when we as humans believe that we can beat the odds and overcome the challenges of desert living and that gives us a sense of achievement in) the deserts, the more the deserts are likely to also grow further.
Eventually the cacti (and us) may not survive the desert. At first the deserts would look like they are semi-arid. Over time, they become a true desert. And then ravines and canyons. How did that change happen?
So what could happen next should we continue to increase sorghum production?
What’s leading that thinking?
Think the word ‘food security’. Is the thought based on a sense of belief in oneself (as a farmer) and the land or is a thought or belief based on our fears of failure and survival of the self? Can a farmer who fears his hands may not grow enough food for all, be able to grow them in abundance? Or is he likely to produce just enough for himself?
What should the nation do?
Which nations in the world share a similar story to this? Where are they located? What percentage of the world do they make up across the globe? In what ways, do you think they may have an impact on the behavior of the weather over time? So are our efforts at agriculture production really thwarted by global warming or is it the making of our own actions in our own backyards?
Do these patterns occur by accident or could they be systemic? Given they have remained persistent for the past thirty years over wide spans of land, they assume a systemic nature!
Question:
Course Work:
More notes here: http://www.lopn.net/ST_Casestudy_Growing_A_Nation3_Loop2_EnvironmentSystem.html
Leave your reactions and comments here. Will be greatly appreciated.

One day my neighbor as he passed by my garden, noticed how the grass in my garden appeared greener than the ones in his garden. The next day he approaches his gardener and asks, “Tell me my man, why is the grass in Sheila’s garden greener than the one in mine?”
In all humility, the gardener turned and faced his boss, and said, “That’s because, Sir, Sheila feeds her grass with fertilizers (food) that then waters (water) them to allow them to turn greener (health)”.
The boss, my neighbour, realized at once what he had to do.
He turns to his gardener, “Come on my man, let’s go to the nursery. We need to get those fertilizers to feed the garden so that the grass on this side too will be green!”
You must be logged in to post a comment.