• Home
  • Dan’s Career
  • Technology Management
  • Renewable Energy
  • Relationships
  • Consciousness
  • Contact
  • Admin

Dan Webb

Realize what you're dreaming.

Technology Management

1 March 2015 by Dan Webb

Technology ManagementDan Webb has managed ambitious software development projects based on the best practices of business process management, collaborative process improvement, success metrics, and high-performance teamwork.  He has been responsible for the design, development, and implementation of nationally-marketed software products and enterprise-wide Web applications.

Founders of Open Systems Inc.

Early in his career in the role of CEO, Dan led a profitable software business from startup to acquisition.

Dan offers professional consulting services in project management, strategic planning, effective teamwork, and Web application development to startups and large enterprises including high-visibility contracts at Microsoft Corp., The Boeing Company and 3M Corp.

Filed Under: Featured, Technology Management

Consciousness-related topics

29 October 2013 by Dan Webb

Lisa Website The Sentient Body is an invitation to step deeply into our experience of being, to inhabit our personal landscape of the body and, through the wisdom of these deep encounters, weave ourselves into the greater landscape of the Earth. We invite you to explore the world of sensation and subtle experiences; we invite you to step into the Sentient Body and from there explore and participate with the underlying essence level of being.
Vision: Can Human Beings Drop Their Divisive, Reactionary Thinking and Move to a Higher Level?
Peace Talks Radio: The Neuroscience of Getting Along
Peace Talks Radio: Nonviolent Communication with Marshall Rosenberg
Help Create a U.S. Department of Peace
Micro-lending in developing nations empowers women and families with self-reliance and self-responsibility. (And it makes money for the lender!)
A progressive manifesto by Robert Reich applies the lessons learned from the Great Depression recovery about how broadly shared prosperity creates sustained growth and global competitiveness.

Diaphragmatic Breathing Exercises
Eckhart Tolle on A New Earth — discussions with Oprah Winfrey about awakening
the observant presence, the attentive stillness, the space of awareness between the thoughts

Byron Katie’s process of inquiry (“The Work”) that enables you to identify and question thoughts and beliefs that cause you suffering.
It’s a way to understand what’s hurting you and how to change that.

Quotations by Albert Einstein
Regina Brett’s 50 life lessons — essential wisdom
The Conscious Army in a Spiritual Conspiracy — Love is the New Religion
TED — ideas worth spreading

  • Jill Bolte Taylor, a neuroanatomist, had a stroke in her left brain, observed her discovery of nirvana in her right brain, and recovered to tell us about it
  • Elizabeth Gilbert, author of Eat, Pray, Love, speaks about creative inspiration, having a genius vs. being a genius, and calling upon the incomprehensible spirit that comes with the perfect content, on loan, while you go about doing your job.
  • Ray Kurzweil: How technology’s accelerating power will transform us
  • If the world is not as it seems … If the world is as we are … — shifts in sensation, reasoning and perspective — six-year-olds learn math and science principles by experimentations using the $100 laptop
Filed Under: Consciousness, Resource Links

Consciousness is Meta-Awareness

28 October 2013 by Dan Webb

I think the most wondrous product of creation and evolution is human consciousness — that is, our capacity for becoming aware of the processes at work in our own awareness.   As a perceptual psychologist, I look at how we form perceptions, cognitively and sensually, and how our perceptions shape our reality and identity. I’m fascinated with the processes of clarifying one’s perceptions and expanding one’s sense of identity — i.e., discovering the many sources of energy and personality within us beneath the surface and learning to express all of those energies creatively while stepping out of the trap of “This is who I am.”

Identity is a belief that clings to a particular set of energies and resists other energies, leading to a protected space of selective perception. When we free ourselves from addiction to specific identities and learn to express all energies creatively, we discover an unexpected expansion of the meaning and enjoyment of our life.

A profound and transformative skill is to observe as an outsider the beliefs we’re holding that may be undermining our effectiveness.   The Work of Byron Katie provides a simple process for inquiring into beliefs to determine by examination whether or not they are true.

Many of us have not fully discovered a moment-to-moment awareness of our sensations — that is, what we’re feeling within our body as if we were connected to the sensations in every organ, every joint, every muscle, every part of our body all at once. In fact, we are. That sense connection is a source of profound meaning and a satisfying feeling of being.

Modes of Perception

  • Systems Thinking — observing as an outsider (what might be thought of as “masculine” perception)
  • Sensual Connection — observing as an insider (what might be thought of as “feminine” perception)

Dan is a facilitator of Voice Dialogue.

Voice Dialogue is about becoming more conscious and more alive in our relationships, especially with ourselves. It’s a playful, acceptance-based process that enables us …

  1. to be more flexible in how we face the circumstances of our lives
  2. to mature gracefully
  3. to become more fully present with our significant others

Through the Voice Dialogue process, we learn to see things from any perspective by freeing ourselves from ego identification (“This is who I am.”) associated with any particular point of view — that is, learning to “hear” the voices (selves, personas, sub-personalities) in our personality without identifying with them. This enables us to integrate the energies in us that may have become overly strong in how we express ourselves and to integrate the energies we’ve repressed, pushed away or disowned. The result is deepening trust and understanding — of our selves and of others’ selves. And less self-create stress.

Deepening Sensual Connection is a workshop about experiencing ourselves and each other more deeply through the senses.

The Sentient Body

The Work of Byron Katie

Chair Yoga

  1. With your feet a little in front of you, move your belly button in a circle, as if you’re slowly twirling a hula hoop. Circle in both directions.
  2. Resting your arms on the armrests, slowly point your chin in a circle, reaching to the comfortable limit of motion in each direction around the circle. Circle in both directions.
  3. Sitting at the edge of the seat, stretch your legs out in front of you, straighten your knees, grab your ankles, and pull your belly button toward your thighs.
  4. Reach your left elbow straight up in the air. With your right hand, pull your left elbow toward the back of your chair. Hold for 10+ seconds. Do the same on the other side.

Systems Thinking

Systems Theory
Introduction to Systems Thinking — an approach to understanding the behavior of complex systems over time. It deals with internal feedback loops and time delays that affect the behavior of the entire system. What makes using system dynamics different from other approaches to studying complex systems is the use of feedback loops, stocks and flows. These elements help describe how even seemingly simple systems display baffling nonlinearity.
System Dynamics Modeling — Using system dynamics modeling of a “bathtub dynamic,” here’s how to show people the quantitative impact of CO2 on climate change and how the most common proposals for dealing with the problem will affect the rate at which CO2 will build up in the atmosphere.

Best Practices in Technology Management
Guiding Principles of Team Effectiveness
“Where Good Ideas Come From” by Steven Johnson (video 4:00) — Steven’s TED presentation (video 18:00) 
Basic Concepts of Quality Management
Balanced Scorecard — Handbook for Basic Process Improvement

Murphy’s Law and its corollaries

Filed Under: Consciousness, Featured

Deepening Sensual Connection

26 October 2013 by Dan Webb


This is a promotional video for our workshop about living in the sensations of love and pleasure to create a new life, together. For more information, please click here

Filed Under: Consciousness

Reunion of the Open Systems Family,
First Generation (post)

28 May 2013 by Dan Webb



Date:

Venue: MacHalecs’ Lakefront Retreat


(details to follow by e-mail directly to intending participants)

Invitation:

Please bring the following:


  • food to share

  • Open Systems-related artifacts like photos, sales brochures, product packaging

  • stories, especially those that will embarrass the founders

Please look at the list below and post a comment (at the bottom of the page) to provide missing e-mail addresses and/or phone numbers so I can extend the invitation personally. And if you can correct the order of employment, that would also be a contribution I’d appreciate.

Invitees = employees before the September 1983 acquisition


(listed as close as Dan could get to the order of employment)



  1. Dan Webb — dan@danwebb.com

  2. Ann Winblad — ann@humwin.com

  3. Tim Dickinson — swataky@gmail.com

  4. Gary MacHalec — gary1mac@aol.com

  5. Lynn Keyes — lmbk007@facebook.com (Is there a better e-mail address for Lynn?)

  6. Mark Coronna — markcoronna@msn.com

  7. Ken Kark — KenKark01@gmail.com

  8. Gerry Hoffman — Can anyone locate Gerry? I wasn’t able to find him via Google or LinkedIn.
    (Seems like we may be missing some early technical folks.)

    Below here, I don’t claim to know the order of employment.


  9. Cindy Mienke (sp? Lynn’s sister)

  10. Dotty Huss

  11. Renee Lamley

  12. Tom Kuder — tom.kuder@entente1.com

  13. Mike Shouldice — mikeshouldice@mchsi.com

  14. Denny Shields — dshields@webershandwick.com

    Did Sue ever work for Open Systems?

  15. Mike Thomas — Mike.Thomas@pb.com

  16. Ruth Olson

  17. Rich Urban — urbanmicro@comcast.net

  18. Scott Waterman —

  19. Jane Telleen — jtelleen@hamline.edu




  20. Were the following people in before the acquisition in September 1983?

  21. Marjorie Eisenach — meanda@msn.com

  22. Mark Skoglin

  23. Pam McClellan

  24. Jane Lohrey Armstrong

  25. Mark Hendricks

  26. Kevin Loucks

  27. Barb Sigurdsen

  28. Bruce Bourdon — brucebourdon@yahoo.com





  29. ——————————— Acquisition by UCCEL (Wiley): Sept 1983 —————————–

  30. Peter Davis (include even though he wasn’t in before the acquisition?)

  31. Lisa Thomas — Lisa@WorkingDesigns.biz — comes with Mike

  32. Kristi Kuder — comes with Tom

  33. Maryanne Coronna — mc@WritingLifeLLC.com (always part of the first family)

Filed Under: Open Systems

Evidence-based Reasoning vs. Ideological Argument — a Troublesome Process Conflict

3 December 2012 by Dan Webb

One of the most troublesome sources of conflict I experience in meaningful relationships is grounded in internal processes that conflict implicitly — that is, the root of the conflict is felt but not seen.

Some people acquire knowledge and make decisions about their world based on a familiar ideology — i.e., by “just knowing” or by relying on an external authority for knowledge. Others put thoughts or questions through a more formalized process of examination and reasoning before they’re confident in arriving at a conclusion or making a claim. (I suspect this process preference correlates with one or more dimensions of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.)

When we make a claim about external reality or disclose a decision or when we withdraw however momentarily to engage in an internal examination process, our choice of what process we’re adopting is usually covert — neither identified openly nor self-evident to our audience — a choice that’s not subject to their participation. We just tend to feel discomfort when another person in a discussion adopts a pace and a process that’s different from ours. Before we’ve started, we’re already out of alignment if the other person’s process for acquiring knowledge feels unnatural to us.

This domain of study falls under epistemology, the theory of knowledge. Epistemology questions what knowledge is, how it can be acquired, and the extent to which knowledge that’s relevant to any given subject or entity can be acquired.

The scope of this article applies to acquiring impersonal information of a factual, public and scientific or political nature and to observations about external reality. It does not apply to personal communication and connection or to someone’s subjective experience of meaning — internal states that are not subject to objective verification. I use my intuition and simply listening to understand information about another person’s experience. (I’ve written volumes about that scope of experience, and I developed a workshop to refine one’s perception of and connection with their romantic partner: Deepening Sensual Connection.)

Part of my motivation in writing this article is to arrive at a place in myself where I can respect and validate people who rely more on ideological argument than on evidence-based reasoning in constructing their perceptions and conclusions about the world. Methods in science were developed primarily to eliminate ideological or personal-interest bias from the results of the discovery process. So, naturally, as a science-trained professional, I’ve tended to adopt an attitude of not only skepticism but also veiled contempt for people or “news” sources that exhibit a strong bias toward ideology at the expense of scientific knowledge. So I clearly have some work to do to arrive at acceptance of ideology-subscribing individuals while I remain skeptical of their claims until they rise to my standards for truth.

A friend recently sent me a YouTube video with a well-credentialed talking head ranting about a coming economic collapse due to quantitative easing, quoting the usual anti-Fed memes. I responded that it wasn’t persuasive for me because the speaker didn’t adopt an evidence-based reasoning strategy to make his arguments. The argument was purely narrative and ideological, counting on the listener to swallow the speaker’s predigested conclusions without the effort of masticating verifiable evidence through their own reasoning process. (I’m making a process observation here, not rendering a value judgment about the content.)

I guess I pissed her off by saying, “Sorry, this isn’t persuasive. I’m a science guy.” In an ill-advised moment of flippancy, I used shorthand to say this: My method of acquiring knowledge and making decisions is the claim-evidence-reasoning (CER) model that’s adopted primarily in science and jurisprudence. (See the list of resources about CER below.) In a court of law or in a peer-reviewed journal, just making claims without any evidence or reasoning to support the claims (except references to one’s own or others’ previous claims) is an attempt to make an ideological argument in hopes that the listener will skip over the process of logical inference from verifiable evidence and move to a conclusion based on a sense of familiarity or an engaging narrative or the “it’s just obvious, everybody knows this” leap that we all know so well. The ideological argument begs the question and entices us to abdicate our own judgment to a “higher authority” — i.e., what (their) experts say, what the Bible says, what the Koran says, what a widely-read author says, what The President says, etc.

When relying on ideological methods of acquiring knowledge, people often prefer anecdotal evidence rather than objective evidence that’s verifiable in common practice by scientifically respectable means. The current political “debate” about the Affordable Care Act provides an abundance of evidence, anecdotes, and examples that demonstrate how we can talk past each other without understanding. The resulting chasm divides good people and makes civil discourse difficult.

We could also pick as topics humans’ contribution to global climate change, progressive taxation, women’s healthcare rights, immigration reform, the bankruptcy of Detroit, and a very long list of other subjects where we will find it difficult to converse with someone whose knowledge-acquisition process is different from ours.

Ironically, the key provisions of the Affordable Care Act were derived almost 100% from a market-based approach, including the individual mandate, proposed by ideologues on the political right such as the Heritage Foundation and put into practice with great pride in Massachusetts by Republican governor Mitt Romney. This demonstrates one weakness of an ideological argument — it can flip without warning or explanation. When one’s perceived identity feels threatened, it’s easy to change an ideologically-based position to the polar opposite without feeling even a little bit slippery as long as there are others in our self-identified cultural group who are making us feel welcome into the flipside in a conspiratorial alliance to reduce our collective cognitive dissonance.

My theory is that our knowledge-acquisition process preference derives from how we’ve learned to respond to cognitive dissonance. Per Wikipedia:

“Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. When inconsistency (dissonance) is experienced, individuals largely become psychologically distressed. His basic hypotheses are listed below:
“The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance.”
“When dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance.”

I was raised in The South (Tennessee and North Carolina) in the 1960s and 70s. In those days, there was an undercurrent of “good-ole boy” peer pressure to adopt the common narrative and core beliefs in my peer group, which included thinking of African Americans as being unworthy of the same respect and dignity afforded to God-fearin’ white folks. I never adopted those beliefs in exchange for the social-belonging bait and was sometimes vocal in identifying the moral inconsistencies I saw around me. My failure to support the norms of that society heightened cognitive dissonance in some. The beliefs being sold in that attempted exchange were, I felt, entirely inconsistent with the Christian teachings to which I subscribed at the time. Bringing that to people’s attention intensified the cognitive dissonance they were already experiencing. The choice they faced was either to embrace the conflicting data and resolve the dissonance by adopting a new belief more in harmony with Christian principles or to resist the conflicting data points, in many cases by suppressing data or awareness or both. Less psychological effort was expended by distancing me and denying the conflict than by reevaluating their racist beliefs, which were culturally supported by the majority in those days. So I felt mostly peripheral to the social culture of The South during my childhood and adolescence. (Those of you who know me now will not be surprised to hear that I was an irritating teenager who occasionally took the moral high-ground with his peers. 😉

Shortly after graduating from college, I escaped to Minnesota for work and found a very refreshing I’m-OK-You’re-OK sentiment that tolerated individuals who entertained unique ideas (as long as they weren’t anti-social or hypocritical). It felt more loving and affirmative to me in Minnesota. I thrived there and built a pioneering business in software. In hindsight and from a distance, I think the good-ole-boy culture in The South was pushing an ideological package that was always foreign to my knowledge-acquisition process and to my ethical grounding.

In a related article, I intend to review research in neuroscience that helps us understand how brain structures, biochemistry, and belief-formation processes operate in knowledge acquisition. For a wonderfully rich work on this subject written by a self-described libertarian, see The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths, by Michael Shermer.

In US courts, in a trial by judge, an ideological argument will lose against a claim-evidence-reasoning-based argument almost 100% of the time. In a peer-reviewed journal, an ideology-based article won’t get past the junior editorial clerk at the front of their funnel. Ideological arguments are quicker and easier to make, thus the temptation to choose them over the more laborious track of claim-evidence-reasoning. It’s human nature to take the shortcut and to hang out with folks who’ll accept our narrative without resistance. Ideological narrative may advance a relationship, but it’s less likely to advance knowledge acquisition in a rigorous way.

In case you’re interested, let me offer some resources (listed below) that flesh out my preferred process for inference about reality. In my observation of the US culture (and human culture in general), emotional conflicts and political polarization often derive from the fact that one party relies on a form of evidence-based reasoning as their standard for knowledge (whether they know it or not) while the other party relies on ideological argument derived from others’ claims (whether they know it or not).

This is certainly the basis for any tension between me and one of my close friends. We genuinely love and trust each other to have each other’s best interests at heart. And we process differently, which is why we make a GREAT team in business. I just have to enforce a boundary with him that, if he and I can’t solve a particular problem between the two of us, we won’t discuss it because it’s irrelevant to our relationship. We don’t start from a common point of reality, and we don’t agree on a process for inference. Yet we enjoy each other’s company and have a deep sense of mutual trust. I have a similar relationship with a past girlfriend, a conservative raised in the Seventh Day Adventist tradition — deep trust and mutual appreciation without agreement on how to source verifiable evidence and conclusions.

Even broaching this topic for discussion with some test subjects (whom I suspected of leaning more toward an ideology-based worldview than an evidence-and-reasoning-based worldview) has raised prickles, so, at least on this occasion and in this realm, I’m going to reconsider opening this for discussion with someone until 1) I assess their openness to an evidence-reasoning-based thought experiment and 2) I unlearn my covert, self-protective attitude of moral superiority in these matters.

Apparently, ideologues think of a compelling narrative as “reasoning”. To identify an ideological argument as not being evidence-and-reasoning based has not advanced the conversation toward mutual understanding or a meeting of minds.

Perhaps I’ll start wearing a hat advertising “Seeking Epistemologists for Intimate Conversation”. Or browse on EpistemologicalMatch.com for companionship.



Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (CER) as a model for acquiring knowledge and making decisions

1. YouTube video –> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkpZfpNWjWY

2. PowerPoint deck –> http://cosmos.bgsu.edu/nwoSymposium/2013%20stuff/PresenterMaterial/Claim%20Evidence%20Reasoning%20(Elizabeth%20Buckholtz)%20NWO%20Symposium,%202013.pdf

3. Mind map –> http://www.pearltrees.com/#/N-u=1_1165847&N-fa=7753286&N-s=1_8859370&N-f=1_8859370&N-p=85964067

4. A CER assessment tool –> http://tulsa.curriculum.schooldesk.net/Portals/Tulsa/Curriculum/docs/Science/Writing%20in%20Science/CER%20Rubric.pdf

5. How-to article by secondary education specialists –> http://primaryconnections.org.au/professional-reading/images/Inquiry-Scientific-Explanations-Helping-evidence-reasoning.pdf

6. A dirt-simple process by which to examine the value of a troublesome thought or belief –> http://DanWebb.com/TheWork


Filed Under: Collaboration, Consciousness, Health, Relationships, Systems Thinking, Technology Management

Creating Effective Relationships,
Personally and Professionally

27 June 2012 by Dan Webb

The Five Dysfunctions of a Team by Patrick Lencioni


  1. #1: Absence of Trust — The fear of being vulnerable with team members prevents the building of trust within the team.
  2. #2: Fear of Conflict — The desire to preserve artificial harmony stifles the occurrence of productive, ideological conflict.  “Conflict purifies a commitment.” – Andrew Ferguson
  3. #3: Lack of Commitment — The lack of clarity or buy-in prevents team members from making decisions they will stick to.
  4. #4: Avoidance of Accountability — The need to avoid interpersonal discomfort prevents team members from holding one another accountable for their behaviors and performance.
  5. #5: Inattention to Results — The pursuit of individual goals and personal status erodes the focus on collective success.



Guiding Principles of Team Effectiveness


The McCarthy Show – Core Protocols



Filed Under: Collaboration, Consciousness, Relationships, Resource Links, Systems Thinking, Technology Management

Recommended movies and TV shows

23 June 2012 by Dan Webb

Some that I’m enjoying now or that I watched recently


  1. The Adventures of Merlin (3 seasons X 13 episodes, so you can get quite immersed) – Arthurian tales with enough grounding in the archetypal stories that they have my respect, simple enough in story construction that they’ll be appreciated by all ages.  I enjoy the acting, costumes, swordplay, etc.  I think it’s quite good at dealing with questions of identity, which the original archetypal stories did masterfully.
  2. Masterpiece Contemporary: The Last Enemy (5 episodes)
  3. The Story of India (6 hours) – The history of mankind in general and of India specifically, told by a guy whose interesting and engaging as a person and who clearly understands and respects the many philosophies that have moved through India.
  4. Empires: The Medici, Godfathers of the Renaissance (4 episodes X 1 hour) – looks interesting.  I haven’t watched it yet.
  5. The Tudors – I’ll bet you’ve seen it.
  6. The Forsyte Saga (10 episodes)
  7. Limitless – a movie you’ve probably seen


All-time Favorites


  1. Dangerous Beauty (my favorite movie)
  2. The Red Violin – You MUST have seen this one already.
  3. Gloomy Sunday (CD only) – Just watch it!
  4. Masterpiece Theater! Foyle’s War – Made me think of my Edinburgh days as a boy.
  5. Prime Suspect (7 seasons) – Helen Mirren is awesome!
  6. The State Within (7 hours)
  7. A Good Woman
  8. Chocolat
  9. Don Juan DeMarco (CD only)
  10. De-Lovely
  11. Malena
  12. Cinema Paradiso
  13. ALL Jane Austin movies
  14. Paris, Je T’aime
  15. Horatio Hornblower: The New Adventures – 2 full-length films – I wish there were 20.
  16. Smilla’s Sense of Snow
  17. The Count of Monte Cristo
  18. Tea with Mussolini


Off-the-Wall or Somewhat Riskier to Modern Tastes


  1. Deep Water
  2. Big Love (CD only — 5 seasons X 3 or 4 discs per season, typically 2 episodes per disc as I recall) – Fun view into relationships and cults
  3. Island at War (6 episodes)
  4. The Grand (10 eposides)
  5. To Serve Them All My Days (13 episodes)
  6. Woman on Top
  7. Basic Instinct 2




Filed Under: Dan's Frequently Visited Links, Entertainment, Resource Links, Search & Reference

Dynamic Post from Demand!

15 April 2012 by Dan Webb


Click for a quick-jump menu that enables quick Google searching ... or just start typing your search text. 

 

Search and Quick-Jump Menu


Enter your search term or menu choice:



 
   

string not listed below = Google the string
phrase in single or double quotes = Google the phrase



(None are case sensitive.)

A = activities
ASP = ASP programming reference
B = Bainbridge-Seattle ferry schedule
BoA = Bank of America login
Browser = Display information about my browser
CSS = CSS2 programming reference
D = Dictionary & Thesaurus
D word = Dictionary definition of word
F = Functions reference for VBScript
Flix or Netflix = Netflix.com
G or Gmail = http://mail.google.com/mail/#inbox
H = HTML programming reference
J = JavaScript programming reference
K = listen to KUOW
M or mail = mail.danwebb.com:8585
Movie = movies currently showing near 98008
N = National Public Radio
NYT = NYTimes.com
PC = GoToMyPC
Photo or photos
Pollen = pollen counts today for 98008
Q = best practices in project management
Speed = Internet connection speed test
SQL = SQL programming reference
Square = Display a perfect square (to calibrate a monitor)
Task = task list (Requires login)
Team = Team Collaboration Zone (Requires login)
Time = World time converter
Timer = Stopwatch
Traffic = Seattle traffic map
TV = TV listings (98008)
V = VBScript programming reference
W or Web = developer resources
WX = weather for Bellevue, WA




Filed Under: Development

Forest for the Trees™
with Micro-Agreements™

7 November 2011 by Dan Webb

Micro-Agreements are the small gestures of mutual accountability that tie us together as a high-performance team.

The Forest for the Trees™ platform is a system for building secure Web applications that facilitate mutual accountability through Micro-Agreements.

Forest for the Trees Project Management The system is used primarily in support of high-tech project management and the workflow related to medical billing, where patients’ medical information must be shared in compliance with Federal HIPAA 2013 privacy and security requirements for electronic document sharing.


The workflow facilitation features worthy of mention in this quick summary include these:

  • Request for Commitment — You can assign a task to another member. The system sends an e-mail notification requesting that they commit to owning responsibility for completing the task.
  • Commitment Acceptance Notifications — When a member commits to owning responsibility for a task (or declines responsibility), the system notifies the person who sent the Request for Commitment (and, of course, the person who accepted or declined).
  • Auto-nagging — The system can send a periodic reminder that you haven’t yet accepted or declined a Request for Commitment for a task assigned to you.
  • Request for a Status Update — The system can send to the owner of a task a request that they update the status of the task so others can see a revised statement about its status.
  • New Member Invitations — Each member can invite new members to participate in the secure workflow of their organization and/or project. The prospective member receives an e-mail notification with a link to the intake processing page where they authenticate a secure login account. This process insures that you always know who has access to what documents and Web pages. Privacy and security are the top priorities of the Forest for the Trees™ system!


For more information about the Forest for the Trees™ platform, visit this page.

Filed Under: Collaboration, Featured, Open Systems, Project Management, Systems Thinking
Next Page »

Categories

  • Collaboration
  • Consciousness
  • Dan's Frequently Visited Links
  • Development
  • Entertainment
  • Featured
  • Financial Info
  • Health
  • Intellectual Property Protection
  • Open Systems
  • Project Management
  • Relationships
  • Renewable Energy
  • Resource Links
  • Search & Reference
  • Security & Privacy
  • Sports & Recreation
  • Sustainable Environment
  • Systems Thinking
  • Technology Management
  • Travel & Transportation
  • Weather

Recent Posts

  • Technology Management
  • Consciousness-related topics
  • Consciousness is Meta-Awareness
  • Deepening Sensual Connection
  • Reunion of the Open Systems Family,
    First Generation (post)

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2011 Dan Webb.  All rights reserved.    Web Design by CheriCalvert.com