Wednesday, 27 November 2019

Is Labour anti-Semitic?

Is the Labour Party anti-Semitic? I don't think anyone will ever know all the facts, but it seems to me that the media are playing up this label because
  1. it's sensational, and the media love sensation, and
  2. it's an easy way to tar Labour's image without actually analysing its policies or politics.
I'm Jewish by birth (though I became a Christian in my teens) - so that makes me Jewish by race, if not religion. I'm also a Labour supporter. That's because I believe that Labour's policies are the best for the country as a whole (and I'm not just talking 'Brexit' here). My take on Labour's so-called anti-Semitism is as follows:

Parties are made of people, and they sometimes get things wrong!

There are some Labour MPs and members who have said unfortunate things about Jewish people. That is wrong and they are being investigated about this. No large political party will be totally clear of prejudices, and it would be unrealistic to expect it. What you need are clear, robust and transparent processes for dealing with prejudice when it arises. Labour aren't perfect in this sense, but they are trying to be better. See my section about the Tories, below.

Anti-Semitism versus anti-Zionism

Current Labour views on political Zionism are more left-wing than previous ones (e.g. under Blair): basically this means they are more openly critical of Israel's political Zionist policies than in previous times (and much more so than the Tories). Political Zionism isn't the same as Judaism - the former is a political stance about the sovereignty and geographical extent of the nation Israel [1], and it gets confused with Judaism all the time! You can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic! It's worth noting that the pro-Zionist lobbies in the US and UK are very powerful, and are possibly behind the smear campaign because they fear what a Labour government would mean in terms of continued support for Israel's Zionist policies.

For example Richard Burgon is under fire, but his comments were about Zionism, not Jews; quote "The enemy of the Palestinian people is not the Jewish people, the enemy of the Palestinian people are Zionists and Zionism is the enemy of peace and the enemy of the Palestinian people. We need to be loud, we need to be proud in support of a free Palestine." [2]

That is a valid political view, it has nothing to do with religion or race! One may not support that view, just as one may or may not have supported the Falklands War, but if you didn't support the Falklands Ware that didn't mean you were anti-British!

Tory prejudices

By the way, it's not just Labour. Does anyone recall Boris Johnson's comments about women who choose to wear the burqa? quote: "absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter-boxes" [3] - offensive stuff if you ask me! And how about this statement, again from Johnson: "It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies" [4]? Both of these were things he wrote, not just off-the-cuff remarks. He later apologised for both these remarks and said the latter was satirical and not meant to offend - but no one is dragging the Tories through the mud for their prejudices!



Thursday, 3 December 2015

Project Viability – a cybernetics approach, part 4

So far this series I have looked at the idea of Requisite Variety (part 1) in project management communications in terms of assessing the environment (part 2) and internal communications (part 3) within the project. In this final part we return to the environment this time looking at how we get the project messages “out there” effectively.

Systems 1 and 4

You’ll recall that the role of “listening” to the environment falls to systems 4 and 1 of Stafford Beer’s Viable Systems Model (VSM). In the VSM system 4 is responsible for the wider environment and for "horizon gazing” whilst system 1 only looks at the immediate environment in terms of what it needs to deliver.

These same levels of responsibility hold true for the outgoing communications too.

What are the outgoing communications?

These fall into two main types:

  • I want something
  • Let me tell you about…

The former focuses on internal needs where a solution is required from the environment. Using our Reception System project scenario (purchasing an IT system to enable a customer-facing reception desk to log calls (a mini-CRM)).

The immediate environment will include:

  • Suppliers we are using to provide the products/services;
  • Direct customers of the service we’re providing;
  • Any aspect of the immediate environment that will impact on operations.

The wider environment will include all of the above from the perspectives of a longer timeframe (e.g. future customers) and a wider perspective (e.g. alternative suppliers). It will also include other potential areas regarding emerging markets, competition and so on.

I want something

This can range from researching to gather information to conducting tenders and engaging with suppliers. The project and associated methodologies deal with this sort of thing quite well. For example tenders will generally follow well established processes, and researches – assuming they are sufficiently experienced – will have a range of mechanisms at their disposal.

Nevertheless, in my experience things still go wrong – usually because the amplification process is ill thought through. (And part of the problem is that there is no conscious realisation that it is amplification that needs to be achieved).

Let’s take tenders as an example.

At the weighty end of the scale is large scale tendering using European Union regulations (for EU countries – outside the EU there may well be similar schemes). The problem here is that the system is so bureaucratic that it can put off some of the audience you wish to attract.

At the other end of the scale is where you selectively tender from a chosen few suppliers. Here the problem is that your selection may well be cutting out other, possibly better alternatives.

Both of these have amplification problems because the process is actually acting as an attenuator. What is needed is for the initial stages to be amplified – so that we can get the message that we need something to as wide an appropriate audience as possible, and then use the attenuator later on when making a decision about what solution to choose.

Most of us know this instinctively and would carry out some form of marketplace analysis pre-tender. What I’m saying is that this is really essential, and that the marketplace analysis should be properly conducted and resourced so that it’s an effective amplifier.

The basic point here is that we often accidentally use attenuation when we are seeking information when actually initially we need an amplifier to broadcast the fact that we want the information.

Let me tell you about…

When we want to get information “out there”, there is usually no such confusion about the roles of amplifiers and attenuators. The problem is how to amplify effectively so that our messages get picked up by those for whom they are intended. Volume is not the answer because the louder we shout, the louder everyone else will too. Metaphorically speaking, how do we make sure our voice is heard above the hubbub in a crowded room?

Companies still take the “shout loudly” approach – cold calling, bulk mailing, advertising campaigns, etc.. but how effective is it really? What we’re beginning to see, with the onset of “big data” and the tools to analyse it, is more carefully targeted campaigns. Google, Amazon, and the like, are selecting what adverts you get shown depending on your browsing and other web-based activites. Of course this can misfire as well: if I have just bought a new TV online, I don’t want to see adverts for TVs! But it will get better as the technology develops and the learning of how to use it advances (as in the movie Minority Report).

The underlying feature of this is personalisation: the messages are being honed to the preferences of the people they are sent to.

Just as with the “I want something” stream above, the trick is that you need to plan carefully the messaging before you execute it. Wide-channel broadcasting is too hit-and-miss; the personalisation approach is thinking along the right lines.

In project terms, this is about carefully defining who needs to hear your message and understanding their needs. Project management already has great tools for this (Stakeholder Management, for example). What is required, in many cases, is putting more effort into understanding stakeholder needs so that the “personalisation” of the messages can be more effective.

In summary

Project management already has pretty good tools in place for communicating outwards. When using them, the important points to consider are:

  • ensuring we don’t confuse amplification and attenuation;
  • putting sufficient effort into understanding the environment (e.g. market research);
  • putting sufficient effort into understanding the needs of people and organisations in the environment (e.g. stakeholder management).


Over the four articles in this series we have seen that project management actually has many good tools and techniques for handling communications along viable systems lines, but there are some gaps that arise because there is insufficient understanding of the cybernetics involved. Using an approach such as Stafford Beer's VSM and understanding of requisite variety these can be more clearly identified, and the project management tools used to greater effect.

Thursday, 26 November 2015

Project Viability – a cybernetics approach, part 3

In the first part of this series I introduced the idea of Requisite Variety and attempted to outline how it might apply to project management.  The second part looked in more detail at the inputs into a project from its external environment and the need for Attenuation (or filtering). This third installment covers information flows within the project.

Friday, 20 November 2015

Project Viability – a cybernetics approach, part 2

In the first part of this series I introduced the idea of Requisite Variety and attempted to outline how it might apply to project management.  This second part will look in more detail at the inputs into a project and the need for Attenuation (or filtering). There are two aspects to this: where attenuation should occur and how to attenuate effectively. The terms attenuation and filter are used interchangeably below.

Monday, 19 October 2015

Project Viability – a cybernetics approach, part 1

A lot has been said and written about why projects succeed and why they fail. Surveys are carried out and analyses published. And whilst many common themes emerge when you read about them, not a lot seems to change. It leaves me wondering whether we’re on quite the right track when we ask about project success or failure. I wonder of we should ask about project “viability”. Let me explain…

Thursday, 15 October 2015

The five powers of “why”

As a parent I well remember when my daughters were little and they would often ask the question “why?”… repeatedly, and sometimes to the point of frustration! Intuitively they knew the power of why: it’s so much more important than what or how or who or when.
This article briefly discusses several ways in which why is so powerful.

Monday, 21 September 2015

The little law of project management

OK, so you think project management is an overhead. You know what has to be done, so why not just get on with it? All this paperwork just adds time (and cost)!

If I could have a penny for every time I’ve heard this or seen it written I’d be as rich as the proverbial millionaire! (Well a bit of an overstatement, but you get my meaning).
Well, for anyone who is a PM sceptic (and maybe even those who aren’t) let me introduce you to Little’s Law.

Friday, 10 July 2015

Business as unusual

The great InThinking thought-leader Bill Bellows gave an inspiring talk at the recent Lean Management Journal (LMJ) Annual Conference in Amsterdam (8-9 July 2015). A lot of what is written below draws from his insights1 but I have added some of my own thoughts and references as well.

Tuesday, 16 June 2015

Is our fishbowl too big?

Imagine you are in a fishbowl. Imagine that you can see all around it, so you're completely aware of what's going on inside it. If you saw other fish causing havoc to the fishbowl environment so that the water is getting polluted and that the bowl has sprung a leak, would you ignore that? "Gosh, the water is running out and if I/we don't stop it draining the bowl, soon we'll have no water left!" If that was your reality, would you act?

Wednesday, 10 June 2015

If people want to do a good job, why don't they?

You often see it written or hear it said that people don't want to do a bad job at work. They may not love their job ("it's a means to an end") and they may not be workaholics ("I work the hours I'm paid"), but nevertheless while they are at work they don't want to do a bad job because it's demoralising and not good for self-esteem.