What do you think of the idea of a results based decisionmaking system?
We're watching the same failure loop.
This premise will depend on two main factors: An objective which has been decided upon, perhaps by a constitutional provision, perhaps by plebiscite, or a bill enacted as law, or similar. Something that can be considered to be somewhat like a general will, as Rousseau might have said. And secondly, a metric by which the result is going to be measured by (as part of the objective's adoption) and a system for finding out if that result, by that metric, has been achieved, or else some disincentive or incentive is imposed on those tasked with achieving the objective (a reward for achieving it or sanction for failing to do so). The rule here will not specify in more detail than necessary how to achieve it. It is not the suggestion of a grand ideal someone might suggest like no law infringing free speech, given that there is no included definition of that that actually means nor a way to empirically prove what it is and no incentive or disincentive for those with the power to decide on what that ends up meaning.
Soldiers in many modern armies are given exactly this kind of expectation, where they can use whatever legal methods they can think of to carry out the aim of their superior, and it is the norm to not dictate an order in more detail than necessary to achieve the goal.
The objectives could be one of a wide variety of options. Sweden has the objective of Vision Zero on roads, aiming to have 0 KIA while engaged in traffic. Some cities have aimed for the elimination of the homeless and I don't mean by exterminating them. Perhaps MPs get a bonus of 10 or 15% to their pay if they can maintain a balanced budget in times other than armed conflict or a major natural disaster or verified recession or if they keep the cost of housing of the median family to 30% or less of their after-tax income or some definition. Maybe get fined a tenth of their income in a year if they let the cases in the judiciary and administrative tribunals languish and they don't use their powers to ensure they are dealt with rapidly like settling on the number of judges and actively solicits good candidates.
What a society will decide is valuable enough to become such an objective, at what level it is imposed (such as whether it will bind the executive or also the legislature and perhaps local governments), what sanctions or incentives will be used, what metric will be used, and so on, that could vary across many places and times, I don't know in all cases, but maybe you have some ideas for what you'd see?
We're watching the same failure loop.
This premise will depend on two main factors: An objective which has been decided upon, perhaps by a constitutional provision, perhaps by plebiscite, or a bill enacted as law, or similar. Something that can be considered to be somewhat like a general will, as Rousseau might have said. And secondly, a metric by which the result is going to be measured by (as part of the objective's adoption) and a system for finding out if that result, by that metric, has been achieved, or else some disincentive or incentive is imposed on those tasked with achieving the objective (a reward for achieving it or sanction for failing to do so). The rule here will not specify in more detail than necessary how to achieve it. It is not the suggestion of a grand ideal someone might suggest like no law infringing free speech, given that there is no included definition of that that actually means nor a way to empirically prove what it is and no incentive or disincentive for those with the power to decide on what that ends up meaning.
Soldiers in many modern armies are given exactly this kind of expectation, where they can use whatever legal methods they can think of to carry out the aim of their superior, and it is the norm to not dictate an order in more detail than necessary to achieve the goal.
The objectives could be one of a wide variety of options. Sweden has the objective of Vision Zero on roads, aiming to have 0 KIA while engaged in traffic. Some cities have aimed for the elimination of the homeless and I don't mean by exterminating them. Perhaps MPs get a bonus of 10 or 15% to their pay if they can maintain a balanced budget in times other than armed conflict or a major natural disaster or verified recession or if they keep the cost of housing of the median family to 30% or less of their after-tax income or some definition. Maybe get fined a tenth of their income in a year if they let the cases in the judiciary and administrative tribunals languish and they don't use their powers to ensure they are dealt with rapidly like settling on the number of judges and actively solicits good candidates.
What a society will decide is valuable enough to become such an objective, at what level it is imposed (such as whether it will bind the executive or also the legislature and perhaps local governments), what sanctions or incentives will be used, what metric will be used, and so on, that could vary across many places and times, I don't know in all cases, but maybe you have some ideas for what you'd see?
What do you think of the idea of a results based decisionmaking system?
We're watching the same failure loop.
This premise will depend on two main factors: An objective which has been decided upon, perhaps by a constitutional provision, perhaps by plebiscite, or a bill enacted as law, or similar. Something that can be considered to be somewhat like a general will, as Rousseau might have said. And secondly, a metric by which the result is going to be measured by (as part of the objective's adoption) and a system for finding out if that result, by that metric, has been achieved, or else some disincentive or incentive is imposed on those tasked with achieving the objective (a reward for achieving it or sanction for failing to do so). The rule here will not specify in more detail than necessary how to achieve it. It is not the suggestion of a grand ideal someone might suggest like no law infringing free speech, given that there is no included definition of that that actually means nor a way to empirically prove what it is and no incentive or disincentive for those with the power to decide on what that ends up meaning.
Soldiers in many modern armies are given exactly this kind of expectation, where they can use whatever legal methods they can think of to carry out the aim of their superior, and it is the norm to not dictate an order in more detail than necessary to achieve the goal.
The objectives could be one of a wide variety of options. Sweden has the objective of Vision Zero on roads, aiming to have 0 KIA while engaged in traffic. Some cities have aimed for the elimination of the homeless and I don't mean by exterminating them. Perhaps MPs get a bonus of 10 or 15% to their pay if they can maintain a balanced budget in times other than armed conflict or a major natural disaster or verified recession or if they keep the cost of housing of the median family to 30% or less of their after-tax income or some definition. Maybe get fined a tenth of their income in a year if they let the cases in the judiciary and administrative tribunals languish and they don't use their powers to ensure they are dealt with rapidly like settling on the number of judges and actively solicits good candidates.
What a society will decide is valuable enough to become such an objective, at what level it is imposed (such as whether it will bind the executive or also the legislature and perhaps local governments), what sanctions or incentives will be used, what metric will be used, and so on, that could vary across many places and times, I don't know in all cases, but maybe you have some ideas for what you'd see?
0 Comments
0 Shares
45 Views
0 Reviews
