Processes, automation and human potential (final cut)

After a solid overhaul, and with added concepts and information, the article “Processes, automation and human potential” is now published and available on It is also available here.

From the abstract:

The following article attempts to illuminate some important aspects of business and organization, such as:

  • What can and should be automated?
  • When should you trust people rather than processes?
  • What is responsibility and how can you ensure the intended production?

This article tackles the basis for automation, processes and human potential for reaching goals.

For the readers interested in Scientology – this article incidentally explains why perhaps the main policy of Scientology, the “Keeping Scientology Working” spells the demise of the subject itself.

36 thoughts on “Processes, automation and human potential (final cut)

  1. After first run-through. Wow!

    I’ll run-through it a number of times, but so far, wow!

  2. This is a bit off topic, but I figured it was pertinent enough to post:

    Watch this video to learn how “positive thinking” propaganda and “The Secret” fooled the world:


    1. Dio, this isn’t off-topic at all because ANY set or fixed way of thinking that excludes any other way is what makes a fixed process a problem (as per Geir’s article). Funny enough, I posted a comment (below) at the same time you posted this one, where I mentioned that with quantum physics we actually have an example of a flexible process where the decision of a being (consciousness)can determine what the “process” will be or at least affect it to a certain degree.

      But even in QM, there’s a “probability distribution”, meaning (as I understand it)that there is only a certain distribution or range of choice possibilities. I think it’s the same way with anything. There are physical forces (like tsunamis, as an extreme) that limit our choices and there are also other beings who are themselves making choices that may affect our own. The power of “positive thinking” can work, I do believe, but that doesn’t mean it has unlimited workability.

      Good video! Good ideas – just missing some related ones, IMO.

    2. Hi Dio,

      You will probably like this article:–The-Universe.htm

      The author of this video really missed the point!

      The examples of the Bush administration and communism are waaaay off base — its a bit weird accusing people of being “negative” when the project is bombing people and the government is busily engaged in pogroms. Its a no-brainer that there is something very fishy about exhorting to be “positive” in the face of such things. This has nothing to do with taking a positive attitude towards creating one’s future. You can always do that and you can act in positive ways and that may include dismantling communism. There is much confusion about the difference between attitudes and emotions, and what is actually positive versus negative. i.e. If you don’t have a positive attitude then you really will just smile a lot and mumble mantras while they pack you off to Siberia. Then again, maybe one can be very happy working in a gulag.

  3. On second run-through, with a slight alteration in terminology and context, this could easily serve as an excellent analysis / overview of mental processes. Nice!

  4. I thought of mental processes too and the comparison would be: fixed ideas (whether reactive or learning/training patterns) as opposed to creative or fluid and flexible present-time thinking. And even where thoughts and thinking are purposely held as a set form or process, if they are used like tools, with awareness and evaluation and not just as rigid, pre-set mental structure, then you maintain the difference between fixed and flexible mental processes.

    Actually, this very basic principle could be the basis for a whole new theta-MEST theory, since MEST is fixed and consists of pre-set mechanical processes while theta sets and un-sets both the processes and their results.

    Come to think of it, even MEST isn’t totally fixed – the QM theory seems to say that the very rigid physical universe does have some flexibility. And because of that, we could say that even the “input” of the universe is under the control of theta.

  5. 3rd time through.

    It seems that the responsibility triangle can be viewed from two perspectives – an outer or objective state and an inner or subjective state. As an example, the business and its personnel have a need for awareness of external factors that impact business production and expansion. At the same time they have a need for awareness of internal factors, both at the individual and group level.

    Also, I see the word responsibility as being more RESPONSE-ability when viewing the components of the three triangles. Eg. values would include moral/ethical choices as limiting / prescribing choices — i.e. green, fair trade, etc.

    It seems to me that there is some kind of unstated overall pooling factor or process — a means of ensuring that there is a kind of sensitivity to changing conditions and a means of enabling assessing / pooling resources to respond.

    1. I guess what I am considering here is a coordination / cooperation aspect of enabling fulfillment of a purpose which permits smooth execution across / among participants.

      1. So it seems that the organization itself needs a set of triangles, and that the one of Opportunity would involve someone (1) responsible for being on top of all external and internal factors, and then (2) ensuring the awareness of those who are specifically affected as well as (3) coordination among those individuals, This would be in keeping with the concept of every function having a certain person responsible.

        1. LOL, I have a nerve theorizing about something I have almost no practical experience with, Once again, though, I’m like the receptionist in a brainstorming session – ya never know! 🙂

    2. It’s really good when you offer new angles and insights like this. Thanks, and please continue. My viewpoints are shaping up.

  6. Perhaps conceiving the diagram in a 3d mode can assist in forwarding the concept and integrating the notion of cooperation / collaboration?

    Not to say that this is the correct 3d concept but to just give an idea of direction. i.e. there are many interlocking triangles and perhaps the spaces in between…? Or something along that line.

  7. Maria got me thinking about your triangles again. I had tried what you suggested in the article, to treat the corners as:

    input – top, change – right, and output – left.

    That didn’t go as well for me as when I compared this Production cycle to the be-do-have triangle and then looked at the corners in this sequence:

    (be) input –right, (do) change – left, and (have) output – top

    The way I came to this sequence was that the corners on the right seemed most like “starting points” or inputs – or “beingnesses”: Resourcefulness, Resources, Desire.

    Then, Changes to those inputs would be made by applying, as “doingnesses”, the corners on the left: Competence, Time, Values.

    The outputs or “havingnesses” would be the top corners: Confidence, Authority, Awareness.

    So you get these sequences:

    Resourcefulness, enhanced or changed by adding Competence to it, with the result of Confidence

    Resources, changed and affected by adding Time, making Authority possible.

    Desire, modified and changed with Values, to get new Awareness

    And the big, overall Responsibility triangle corners would have this sequence: Ability, changed and qualified by adding Opportunity, resulting in the output of Purpose (“purpose” here meaning realization of the intended purpose).

    1. You might be interested in a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle triangle, which is related to the following “primal triangles”:

      1. be – 2. do – 3. have
      1. start – 2. change – 3. stop

      Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle triangle:

      “1.” is the observer, we who create things.
      “2.” is a particle in motion whose energy is known but location is unknown because it keeps changing.
      “3.” is a particle whose location is known, but whose energy (motion) has been stopped and is therefore unknown.

      “So these primal triangles relate to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which to my mind validates Heisenberg more than the other way around!”

      Something that occurred to me with this triangle is that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle might correspond to Gödel’s Theorem somehow…

    2. Here’s my answer:

      Input – Be – Awareness – Confidence – Authority
      Change – Do – Desire – Resourcefulness – Resources
      Output – Have – Values – Competence – Time

      1. Ha! I see that way as better now – probably because of now having thought more about each of all the corners. Nevertheless, with any true triangle you should be able to start out at any corner – because of their recursive, fractal nature (if I have that right).

        1. Yup, right.

          You will find that the “middle corner” (the lower right” represents the core of the triangle – the “change agent” so to speak. While the top is the “monitoring” corner and the lower left is the “gain” corner.

          1. isene :Yup, right.
            You will find that the “middle corner” (the lower right” represents the core of the triangle – the “change agent” so to speak. While the top is the “monitoring” corner and the lower left is the “gain” corner.

            That makes me think: top-thetan, right-mind, left-body. And it seems then that the corners of a triangle aren’t really equal, even if they are interchangeable, as regards be-do-have, start-change-stop, or input-change-output. Actually, ARC is like that – I can see that the C is the core of the triangle (and LRH gave it prominence too), A the monitoring corner, and R the gain. But I can also see how you could take it from that R point (gain) to make a new triangle that starts out with R.

            (Trying out your new format. The lines to the left should prove helpful. But the comments seem all out of order – my comment came out at the top of the page instead of the bottom and this reply to your comment seems way out of place, but let’s see what happens when I post it. Maybe I just haven’t figured out how it all works yet…)

  8. Hi Geir,

    I have read the article and I think there are very practical and interesting tools.
    I would like to give you some answers by which I would shape up a few of my viewpoints on Responsibility triangle:

    1.Where does belong the communication in the frame of Responsibility triangle?
    2.Where does belong the love in the frame of Responsibility triangle? (I think it belongs to resourcefullness corner)
    3.Where does belong the emotional and physiological state of a person in the frame of Responsibility triangle? (I think it aslo belongs to the resourcefullness corner)
    4.Where do goals and plans belong in the frame of Responsibility triangle? (I think it belongs to the same corner as values)
    5.Where does belong the control in the frame of Responsibility triangle?
    6.Where does the mindset of a person belong in the frame of Responsibility triangle? (I think it belongs to the same corner as awareness)
    7.Where does belong the will in the frame of Responsibility triangle? (I think it belongs to the same corner as desire)
    8.Where does the space belong in the frame of Responsibility triangle? (I think it belongs to resources corner and the same corner as time)
    9.Where do the personality traits belong in the frame of Responsibility triangle? (I think it belongs to resourcefullness corner)
    10.Where do the roadblocks belong in the frame of Responsibility triangle? (I think it belongs to the same corner as time)
    11.Where do the attitudes of other people belong in the frame of Responsibility triangle? (I think it belong to the same corner as authority)
    12.Where does the vision of a person belong in the frame of Responsibility triangle? (I think it belongs to the same corner as awareness)
    13.Where does the identity of a person belong in the frame of Responsibility triangle? (I think it belongs to the same corner as awareness)

    I am looking forward to your answers and inspirations in advance. 🙂

    1. 1. Ability
      2. Ability
      3. Propose
      4. Propose
      5. Ability
      6. Propose
      7. Propose
      8. Opportunity
      9. Purpose
      10. Opportunity/Resources
      11. Opportunity/Authority
      12. Purpose/Awareness
      13. Purpose/Awareness

  9. I would add 2 more questions:

    14.Do you think that each small triagle is indeed the triagle of control? (start-change-stop)
    15.Do you think that by running the dichotomies of each corner of each triangle we could indeed increase the level of responsibility? (for example: I am confident-I am not confident)

    Sorry if some question seem obvious. I have asked this set of questions in order to understand the concept in greater depth and with the intentions of innovation.

  10. I think that interesting fact about the responsibility triagle is that it is like fractal – all corners of all triangles could be further divided to triagle. I have thought about it a little bit and I have figured out that there could be postulated for example the next following triangles:

    *awareness-identity, focus, viewpoint
    *values-visions, outcomes, plans
    *confidence-self-esteem, self-worth, self-ideal
    *resourcefullness-emotions,personal traits,intelligence
    *competence-skills, knowledge, experience
    *authority-people, laws, agreements
    *resources-money, energy, space
    *time-past, present, future

    It is my viewpoint and it could be also otherwise. I would be very happy if anybody will find the weak parts in my viewpoint and improve it. Feedback is very welcomed. Thank you very much. 🙂

    1. imo, any triangle is reality based, and then it grows based on purpose. Persons grow towards GOD and he grows towards persons based on their own realities. What God, 😀 , I don not know , there are so much of them.


  11. I have an idea: maybe there is also missing piece in the concept of control that consist of Start-Change-Stop parts. I think that the missing piece is “Continue element”. It is sometimes neccessary to be able to control something by “keeping it going”. Therefore I think that a person have control over something when he can Start-Continue/Change-Stop it. 😊

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s