No matching fragments found in this document.
The common problem of an org is not the development of programmes but
failure to execute existing ones.
Another difficulty with orgs is that they often alter the existing
programme so that it no longer resolves the problem the programme was set
up to handle. A current example is magazines. Magazines exist to solve the
problem of public unawareness of an org. An org has no space unless it is
sending out anchor points to make it. And it is in non-existence for its
Scientology public unless it mails magazines regularly. Magazines do not
develop much new public-that is another, largely unsolved, problem.
Magazines exist to continue the awareness of the existing Scientology
public. Now as these people are already aware of Scientology, the awareness
one is trying to develop is that of the org and its services. Recently
Continental magazines began to issue only Scientology data. The ads making
the Scientology public aware of the org were toned down and omitted and the
Cash-Bills ratio worsened in orgs. The orgs started toward non-existence.
Significantly the trend was begun by a someone who did not like orgs but
was in favour of Scientology. Issue Authority erred in not looking at old
magazines and comparing them to the current layout. There was a vast
difference. No ads in current ones. The programme had been altered.
Artists are taught to be "original" and to alter. Yet successful artists
painted the same picture their whole lives under different names. These
just seemed new.
To change, alter or drop a programme one must know what the programme
was there to solve. Just change for change's sake is mere aberration
(making the lines crooked).
It's a good exercise for a senior executive to list the problems the org
really does have. To know the programmes of an org that are in is to see
what problems an org would have if they were dropped.
It's healthy to revert a programme now and then by meticulously
examining how it was originally when it was very successful and then put it
back the way it was originally. This is done not by adjusting lines but by
looking up old magazines, old policy, old despatches and issue pieces, even
old tapes. What did it used to consist of? If it is no longer successful:
(a) the programme was altered or dropped and
(b) the org will have a problem it once had long ago, or
(c) (rare) the causes of the problem have been removed
and the problem no longer exists.
There's lots of trial and error in developing a programme. That's why
any new programme should only be a "special project" for a while, off the
org main lines really, under special management. If a "special project"
starts to show up well in finance (and only in finance), then one should
include it "in" with its new staff as an org standard project.
To run new programmes in on existing lines is to disturb (by distraction
and staff overload) existing programmes and even if good the new will fail
and damage as well existing programmes.
Provide, then, staff and money to pioneer a new programme as a "special
project". If you don't have money or staff to do this you would do far, far
better simply looking over the problems the org faces and get in the old
programmes that handled them. These are known winners and don't forget,
they cost a lot to find and prove as the thing to do. And they took a long
time.
Take the Central Files,. Letter Reg set-up in orgs. That's a standard
programme. Developed in London and D.C. in the mid '50s. If you dropped it
out, an org would fail. The problem is "how to achieve special individual
contact with existing clientele and maintain existing already developed
business." One large firm, I was told the other day, that has put in our 7
division system was stunned to find they had never contacted their existing
business clientele. They only had done business with new clientele. This
cost them perhaps 200,000 sales a year! They promptly put in our CF-Letter
Registrar system with a vengeance.
In their case (as in a forming or reorganised org) they weren't even
aware of the problem and so had no programme for it.
It is often the case that one can develop a programme that removes the
need of