Posted by Yogesh Malhotra on January 30, 1998 at 18:49:45:

In Reply to: Re: Knowledge Process and Information Artifacts posted by Tom Sudman on January 30, 1998 at 16:29:40:

Tom,

We are on the same page, but some clarification may be in order. The notion of tightening and loosening of the existing 'best practices' that I referred to in the other document relates to your point. However, the reference to 'Jonathan' is of interest given that the dominant paradigm has focused on assuming the 'givens' as the 'best practices.' Not surprisingly, overcoming human 'resistance to change' has been the hot topic over the last four and half decades.

Taking your example of airplanes, it is fine to believe in the paradigm of 'tried and tested' for predictable environments. This ties up with the 'old world of business' for which the focus on prediction and optimization makes complete sense. However, it is the unpredictable and the untested that challenges the 'tried and tested.' Here is one perspective from one of the well chronicled air disasters:

Just before two big jets collided in Tenerife 18 years ago, the tower radioed:"Clipper 1736 report clear of runway." The pilot thought he was cleared for takeoff; he wasn't, and 600 people died' (The Wall Street Journal, 1995).

The active role of individual interpretation and its affective dimension is explicit in Karl Weick's (1990) analysis of the factors responsible for the Tenerife air disaster. Weick suggests:

(a) under conditions of high expectancy, individuals try to fill in the gaps in the received information;
(b) individuals interpret information in ways that minimize anxiety; [maintain the status quo]
(c) individual stress may result in "emotion, anxiety, strain, pressure, and arousal";
(d) individuals may sacrifice sensing and criticism in the service of group maintenance.

It is the last aspect, namely 'sensing and criticism,' that is very critical for the turbulent landscape of the 'new world of business.'

Categorizing people in terms of the 'Jonathans' and 'elders' may not be the best approach, because it typifies them on the notion of static behavior... We know of 'elders' who have retained their station as visionaries by balancing 'convergence' with 'divergence.' This may very well hold true in both product development and customer fulfillment since both processes need the balance of 'efficiencies' with examining such 'efficiencies' for their 'effectiveness.' In both instances, one may need to 're-examine' the givens to ensure that the processes are aligned with the dynamically changing reality... the keyword is not experimentation, but experimentation necessary for adaption... back to good old Darwin's thesis.

- Yogesh

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: Experimentation vs. Adaption Sam Domenico 10:35:23 8/05/98 (0)
• Re: Experimentation vs. Adaption Tom Sudman 19:44:57 1/30/98 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: