iCans

Exploring auditing and training over the Internet

What does “workable” mean? (Part 2)

OK, so what does workable mean? That previous post was largely a copy/paste from elsewhere, and didn’t address the question. Round two. . . .

A telephone is workable if it does what you expect it to. Namely you pick it up, dial someone’s number, the call goes through, you can talk to and hear each other with minimal noise on the line, you hang up and it disconnects promptly, and it costs what you expect it to.

But how about a process? In broad terms, it does what you expect it to. Now, one has to assume that the expectations are realistic, and made by someone familiar with the field, in this case auditing procedures. Someone completely green who has not been exposed to proper auditing would probably have expectations that are unrealistically low. Such a person might be totally amazed that one short session has permanently got rid of something that’s been bugging her for decades. And some hardened critic of Scn might try to pound in the point that since there are no Scientology-made OTs able to toss planets around then all of Scn tech is a complete con.

So let’s try and get real here. What is a realistic expectation for a process in order that it could receive the Workable! stamp of approval?

My opinion is that all the points I listed above have to be in (auditor training, pc hatting and sessionability, pc case set-up and interest) before one even begins to look at the process in question. Assuming they are in, then what? Pick an option:

• More than 50% of pcs rate the process at 6 or above on a scale of 1-10
• More than 95% of pcs say they benefited from doing the process
• More than __% of pcs rate the process at __ or above on a scale of 1-10
• More than __% of pcs say they benefited from doing the process
• More than 66% of auditors say the pc benefited from doing the process
• More than 85% of auditors say the pc got more than 10 TA divs an hour from the process
• Terril Park gets more complaints about success stories he publishes from that process than 70% of other processes
• . . . .
• . . . .

I’m not going to say one choice is any more accurate than another. My point is that “workable” is too broad a term to have universal agreement here. With the telephone it’s pretty easy. With an auditing process it’s not.

Paul

Advertisements

March 21, 2010 - Posted by | Uncategorized

2 Comments »

  1. One of the criteria for workability or effectiveness is longevity. A person is very shy, gets audited and “feels better around other people”; a person is depressed and gets audited and “feels better” — but what are they like a month later? A year? What were the long term results? Permanent? Temporary?

    People feel different for a variety of reasons, the real test of a treatment is: Are the improvements permanent, or temporary? No matter how effective a drug treatment is, the results are usually quite temporary. A workable technology would make permanent, beneficial changes without harmful side-effects.

    Comment by Bill | March 28, 2010 | Reply

  2. Bill raises an interesting point. From the consumer view, is the change permanent?

    Part of a workable technology is knowing whether the result is a key-out (a temporarily beneficial result) or a long term result and then communicating that to the recipient beforehand.

    I see a workable process or technology as one that meet expectations. A temporary boost in ability or confidence may be acceptable if a permanent boost is sufficiently expensive or far more difficult to achieve.

    Comment by David St Lawrence | June 8, 2010 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: