Proposals
Worked-out ideas that have not been built, written for someone who could build them. Each says what exists, what it needs and what a host would get. None has been run.
- Post-AI planningA map of what remains when agents do the execution, and the course, audit practice or unit that can be built on it.
- CitiesHow does a plan read against the place it describes?
- Strategy makingHow does a strategy read against what the organisation does?
- MandatesHow does what an institution may do read against what it can do?
What exists, and what each needs
| Proposal | What exists | What it needs | What a host gets |
|---|---|---|---|
| Post-AI planning | A map: two territories, five bearings, a passage with three waypoints and four positions, read in Holagram’s terms. Not yet taught or tried. | A home department, a person for each of the four positions, and one running or public planning process to work on. | The map, the bearings as a form for audits and examination, and the Gram as the way of working, so that the work can be inspected. |
| The three methods: Cities, Strategy making, Mandates | A written design for each, with its levels, texts, ground, agents and a first study. None has been run. | For each: one public document, the ground it describes, three weeks and one outside reader. | A diagram and a log of entries, a conventional write-up produced from the log, and a result on whether the method works. |
The three methods side by side
Cities, Strategy making and Mandates take the Gram to one kind of ecology each. A method fixes five things: the levels, the texts, the ground, the agents and a first study.
| Cities | Strategy making | Mandates | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Question | How does a plan read against the place it describes? | How does a strategy read against what the organisation does? | How does what an institution may do read against what it can do, and what it does? |
| Levels, 1 to 5 | body, street, site, institution, territory | move, unit, organisation, field, world | act, unit, authority, jurisdiction, polity |
| The text | Detailed plans, terms of reference, consultation reports, permits, codes | Strategy documents, budgets, objectives and key results, board papers, annual reports | Decrees, statutes, charters, delegation letters, memoranda, sandbox conditions, performance sheets |
| The ground | The place at different hours, and what people do there | Where money, time and decisions go, and what units change | What the unit can in fact require, spend, publish and decide, and what counterparts accept |
| Agents | Residents, users, officials, planners, models | Boards, unit heads, staff, those the strategy is for, peers, models | The unit, its counterparts, those governed, regulators, models that hold delegated tasks |
| Typical failure | Reading intent into a plan that has none, and patterns into a place that are only the observer’s | Reading the cascade as the sum of its parts, and the scenario as the evidence | Taking authority for ability, and the organisation chart for the mandate |
| First study | One public plan and one walkable place, three weeks | One public strategy whose term has ended, read against its budget lines, notices and decisions, three weeks | One public instrument that creates or empowers a unit, such as a decree, charter or sandbox regime, read against the unit’s outputs and a counterpart’s records, three weeks |
Writing another
Another method needs the same five answers, and a reason to believe that the text and the ground it claims to describe come apart. Candidates not yet written: portfolios of projects, regulation and rules, evaluation. Each must name its levels before the first entry, say which texts are public, and state what would show it works. What the methods share is the premise on the Gram page: text, ground and fiction rarely agree, and the disagreement is the finding.
A proposal differs from the pages on Research: the research pages say what is known and what would count as the method working, and a proposal is addressed to someone who could act on it.