• Home
• Overview
  • Philosophy of HCS
  • What is HCS?
  • Why is HCS Important Now?
  • Ethics and Physics
• Theory
  • Wave Theory
  • History of the Wave
  • History of the Wave - Part 2
  • Emotions of Change
  • The Wiggle and the Pop
  • The Wiggle and the Pop - Part 2
  • A New Look at Normal
• Issues & Solutions
• Reviews
• Articles
  • Sharkonomics
  • The Hard Way: Lessons Learned from Economic Collapse
• Vital Links
• About HCSI
• Contact Us

wave dissection

Paul Kordis, September 2008

As waves of change will be frequently discussed on this site it would be useful to describe a single wave in sections and to articulate the resulting implications for the process of change. Dudley Lynch and I first described the wave in its entirety in 1988 (Lynch & Kordis). The following description and illustrations build upon that model:

The above figure illustrates a single wave of change. The horizontal axis represents, over time from left to right, the amount of resources (time, money, people, equipment, etc.) that are invested in a particular system, institution, relationship, or artifact. Viewing the illustration one can see that results, represented by the red line, vary quite a bit over the lifetime of a wave.

When a new wave begins it typically starts when on discovers the need to change. If the change is different enough from the current state 9for example, moving towards 100 percent environmentally friendly fuel sources) one will experience a dip in performance. This is because moving towards a very different way of doing things almost always involves a significant learning curve on the part of the people involved, and the adoption of new materials, methods, resources, and-or designs will usually require a period of adjustment and engineering before they begin to work properly. This dip in performance is called the discovery trough and it is a phenomenon that must be accounted for ahead of time because the necessary initial increase in resources yields a temporary decrease in performance. If this is not accounted for, the almost certain plunge in results can cause people to go back to the old way of doing things and to reject the proposed change.

If, however, the dip in performance is expected, the benefit of the change has been clearly established and agreed upon, and people are not punished for the temporary decrease in performance, then the adoption of change stands a fair chance of success.
Once the change has been completely adopted and all of the new systems, artifacts, institutions, and relationships are in place and functional, it is likely that any further increase in resources will yield a commensurate increase in the desired result. This happy occasion is called the flow state and typically demands that one merely characterize and improve one’s method to achieve even higher returns.

Once this characterization and continuous improvement effort is established, one will eventually arrive at the sweet spot on the wave. This is the point at which the system has, essentially, been optimized and only small corrections are needed to maintain performance. Much like the surfer who finds the sweet spot on the wave, one need only maneuver once in a while and with minor adjustment to experience the full benefit of the wave.

However, most systems and artifacts eventually peak in terms of their usefulness. This typically happens when a newer, more efficient, more effective or more marketable product or systems comes along. For example, one can be the best and least expensive buggy whip manufacturer in the world. One could even have the most loyal and satisfied customer base possible. But eventually the automobile will be invented and drive the buggy whip business to an unprofitable level. One may still produce the best buggy whips and people may still love them. Unfortunately they simply won’t need them anymore.

As this process of obsolescence transpires one’s results will peak and then steeply decline. If no major correction is made the results will continue to slide down the back side of the wave towards minimal or even negative results. Therefore, in order to avoid abject failure one must make the necessary changes in order to leap onto the next more functional and profitable wave. The longer one waits the further down the wave one will be and the larger the gap between current dysfunction and productive function in the future. On the back side of the wave the transition from increasing dysfunction to future function is called the recovery trough and can happen at any location along the wave after the results have peaked.

However, change has been accelerating at a breathtaking rate over the last century and this phenomenon has, in most cases, pushed the need to change from the back side of the wave to the front.

When the need to change shifts to the front side of the wave the transition can be even more jarring because the time to start changing generally coincides with the sweet spot on the wave. It is difficult to contemplate change when one has finally gotten to the perfect spot on the current wave and keeping things going well requires only a minimum of effort. It is very easy at this stage to adopt an “If it ain’t broke why fix it?” attitude and to discount and marginalize the need to change.
In order to establish cooperation and to garner the necessary resources for change one must establish a method for looking far enough into the future to see the need to change now. Then, one must simultaneously attempt to get the most out of the old way of doing things while working through a new discovery trough. Once one has worked through the challenges of the new change and the new processes, artifacts, and relationships are functional one can drop the old method and put all of one’s resources into functioning on the new wave.

references

Lynch, D., & Kordis, P. L. (1988). Strategy of the Dolphin: Scoring a Win in a Chaotic World. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.

Respond to this article.

Next article: History of the Wave

founder

Paul L. Kordis, PhD
Human Capital Sustainability

advisors

James H. Banning, PhD
Campus Ecology

Gary Geroy, PhD
Human Capital & Economic Development

Ed Goodman, P.E., MSCE
Sustainable Architecture

Bruce Hall, PhD
Social Services

M.L. Johnson, EdD, PhD
Education and Physiology

David T. Moran, PhD
Neurobiology

Beverly Title, PhD
Restorative Justice