On Tue, 5 Dec 1995 CrbnBlu@aol.com wrote:
> Replying to LO4040 --
>
> It would seem there is something besides the method which produces
> successful results. When multiple organizations can employ the same
> "formula" and produce everything from amazing success to abysmal failure,
> and multiple organizations can employ very different "formulas" and
> produce everything from amazing success to abysmal failure, it leads me to
> suspect there is something else operating here of which the practitioners
> and healers are not aware. Any ideas?
For tonight, at least, I think the answer is quite simple. The words we
use to describe or define a "method" cannot possibly characterize it in
enough detail to distinguish between successful and unsuccessful
"applications" of the method.
Right now, as I write this or you read it, there are companies that are
doing _everything_ right, and prospering by it, and have never heard of
Peter Senge. If, in any of the methods and formulas you allude to, there
is ANYTHING of substance, then _necessarily_ that substance can exist
unnamed. If there are good ways to run a business, that are founded in
human nature, then it must have been possible to practice them in 1500 as
much as in 1995.
Conversely, if a good way to run a business can be named and described,
that name and description can (and certainly will) by degrees take on a
life independent of the detailed practices they were first applied to.
The fact is not just that they _may_ become a "fad" or a "cliche": they
_must_. It cannot _not_ happen.
Things are only simple for a day or so at a time. Then they get
complicated again. Tonight, for me, they're simple.
--
Regards
Jim Michmerhuizen jamzen@world.std.com
web residence at http://world.std.com/~jamzen/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------_-
_ - _ If our software were _really_ hardware independent _ -
- _ _ - we wouldn't need computers at all. - _ _ -
--
Jim Michmerhuizen <jamzen@world.std.com>