For multiple situation evaluations, the following is the correct format to use in the final evaluation write-up:

In checking over the evaluations of others, there is no substitute for following the hard and fast rule of insisting upon

a. Purity of evaluation

• POLICY:

b. Consistency

c. Workability

d. Authenticity of the data.

There are no small rules. To quote one of these, "The situation is the direct opposite of the ideal scene." This is not necessarily true and is not a precise definition. A situation is the most major departure from the ideal scene. That's purity by definition.

A Why is not necessarily opposite to an ideal scene. But it is of the same order of thing.

Example: Stat of Income Divided by Staff sunk to 15£.

Ideal scene: Staff producing under competent management.

Sit: Execs not coming to work.

Why: The ED has forbidden any exec to be paid.

If you look this over it is consistent. But it is not reversals or opposites.

The stat found the area, the ideal scene was easy. Search of data found the sit as the biggest departure. Further search found the Why. Further search and knowledge of the existing scene would get a bright idea (which would not be sacking the ED who is probably the only one coming to work, but more likely getting the ED and execs into a hello-okay session and resolve their hates and ordering execs be paid at once).

• POLICY:

"I found that getting the sit was a common bug. Evidently people don't do a real stat analysis and get an ideal scene, look for its furthest departure and get the sit and then look for data and find the Why.

The above format is repeated for as many situations as were evaluated.

"There are many ways to go about it but the above is easy, simple and foolproof.

Then:

"It would look like this on a worksheet:

"GDS analysis to find the area and a conditional guess.

• 1. (First target)

"Ideal scene for that area.

"Biggest depart from it for the SITUATION.

• "Stats

The program targets to specifically handle the Whys of each situation should be divided up as follows:

• 4. (Or whatever number, in sequence, after any beginning general targets) Make up a list....

• 19. (Or whatever number, in sequence, following the Sit One targets) See that....

"If you're very good your GDS analysis will get confirmed by data.

"The real Why opens the door to handling.

"And you can handle.

One does this for as many situations as were evaluated.

"This doesn't change eval form. It's just a working model.

When writing and issuing a set of program orders or mission orders separate to the eval itself, the usual program or mission order format is used, except the operating targets get divided up as shown above.

"All good evals are very consistent-all on same railroad track. Not pies, sea lions, space ships. But pies, apples, flour, sugar, stoves.

"I think evaluators get dispersed and Q and A with data, lacking any guideline. And so take a near forever.

"Last one I did, the GDS analysis gave the whole scene and then it got confirmed, all on the same outline as above. That org is still booming!

"It took 61/2 hours, including doing the majority of the targets!

"It doesn't take days or weeks, much less months!

"It takes hours."