by Dr Paul Thomas
27. June 2008
Manchester Done.
Well having survived a night in the hotel from hell the day at the Complexity Society in Manchester was extremely delightful.
The event itself demonstrated to me if I’m honest the huge gulf in academic ‘speak’ and ‘real’ person on the street discussion. We [academics] seem to forget that we have a language, discourse that most people fail to understand, grasp to desire. It simple is un-helpful for those wishing to change practice for themselves or the organisations they represent. I know this sounds odd as an academic, but having spent the last three years talking to ‘non-believers’, frontline workers, hairy-arsed engineers the last thing they want is academics debating why policy shapes practice in micro-elements of human systems, they want how, why and where does it start. We need to get real people engaged in the field not bored by discussion on the micro-political power struggles of Marxist complexity thinker in a post-modernist economy…… see I was listen! Its seems that even in Complexity ‘Ego’s’ get in the way of development.
No wonder, DNA Wales promised to publish research and case studies directly on the web and not wait for ‘ego’s’ to ratify, support or condone current practical, cutting edge change in companies.
We need to follow the American way and separate Academic debate from practitioners and/or warn both that both type will be present.
However what was really interesting yesterday was the large attendance of NHS representatives. Excellent. There maybe a way forward at last!
Well done Complexity Society wonderful event, great venue MBS and overall a stunning day.
Paul
by Dr Paul Thomas
18. May 2008
I just recieved an email, which I thought I would share;
Everything arises from atoms. Genes shape life-forms. Brain chemicals shape behavior. Assemblies of neurons shape consciousness and thoughts. Just how exactly?
A new NYTimes.com article states that:
* meaning, belief and consciousness emerge
from dynamic activity of neural networks
* the self is not a fixed entity but a
dynamic process of relationships
A dynamic process of relationships. Is this the answer? Hmmhh. What do you think?
Maybe the self is indeed a mix-up of relationships involving the own body,
the other people, and the abstract concepts of person, personality and
identity. The resulting confusion which is caused by the attempt to resolve
the mix-up would indeed be a good description for self-consciousness.
If there is no "ghost," "mind," "self," or "soul, just activities which bubble
up from your brain stem, how can we beaware of ourselves? The confusing feeling
during self-consciousness is real, only the 'self' is not. Maybe it is this mix of the real and the imaginary which makes the old riddle so fascinating.
PT
by Dr Paul Thomas
7. December 2007
I’m not sure this is the correct place for this ‘moan’…as I am now aware of my increasing senility which is creeping on me unknowingly until I reflect on how many times I say ‘in my day’ or ‘how can it still be the same’….or worse still ‘where are my car keys’ and even when planning my journeys around convenient ‘comfort’ facilities and not interesting sites.
Anyhow my point….. why do we still take ‘structure’ and business structures as fixed, knowable and objective…and everything with do in organisations is with NO unbiased facts. Is the media to blame for presenting the scientist in their white coat at every point to convince us that unless the ‘science world’ say, fact, present numbers at every opportunity, we don’t believe a word, as if when they wear a white coat or present number they are the holders of truth.
In management and management schools there is a feeling that we are progressing towards a state of ‘complete knowledge’, with the games played by the ‘HRM’, or Procurement, or Operation dept. to be the scientific, rational, and credible holders of the truth to sustainable success….
Please! Their ‘scientific’ observations are primarily to influence the power that they claim to be – but are always biased and the theories themselves are part of that structure of power to keep them in power. They produce a knowledge that is used to reinforce existing power. Managers (and Politicians!) produce information, knowledge and systems that allow them to stay in power……isn’t this obvious… the ‘objectivity’ these managers claim couldn’t be further from the truth……
Old age…I know!
by Dr Kelly Page
16. August 2007
For every one person in an organisation who comes up with a great idea … imagine ten people looking over their shoulder focusing on how to quantify it or measure it … Thinking … what criteria shall we use to measure it’s quality, the effectiveness of it’s implementation, if it will make customers happy, if it will improve process efficiency … and than there are the financial performance measures, the potential sales figures, cost-savings and ROI … But why … why do we place so much focus on measuring the performance of our ideas and the effect of their implementation?
In a recent presentation I became concerned as a group of very bright students commented … ‘If you can’t measure it, you can’t control it’ … a learning from their class on Strategic Planning … but can we actually control anything ... by asking a customer if they are satisfied does that mean you can control their satisfaction ... and how does one measure satisfaction ... eeekkk!!
I once thought it was for insights and ideas, however very quickly learn’t that insights can come from anywhere … a conversation, an observation, a photograph, a dataset of numbers, the office environment within which we work, the people with whom we socialise or perhaps the radio show host as I drive home …
So why do we place so much focus on measuring performance, process and output … Is it for insights and ideas for our business moving forward? Or is to control (as the students were taught!), to report and justify the decisions we make, the money we spend?
So if you measure anything ... I'm curious ... why do you measure it? and why do you measure it the way that you do?
kp ...