83,229
edits
Template:Modernism versus pragmatism: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
The modernist narrative focusses on [[Legibility|what it can see]], which is necessarily limited to the ''formal'' inputs and outputs of its own model. There are at least two consequences of this. | The modernist narrative focusses on [[Legibility|what it can see]], which is necessarily limited to the ''formal'' inputs and outputs of its own model. There are at least two consequences of this. | ||
Firstly, [[modernism]] cannot see ''informal'', but vital, interactions between components of the system that are not in its model: random acts of kindness, the | Firstly, [[modernism]] cannot see ''informal'', but vital, interactions between components of the system that are not in its model: random acts of kindness, the star seller’s sales technique, the time every staff member spends building lateral relationships, the value of those relationships, the necessary work beyond the [[service catalogue]], the work-arounds that the machine going; the ad-hoc tricks that make up the difference between meaningful performance and work-to-rule. | ||
Theory: it is not the structure of an organisation, but its interactions that determine its outcomes. A badly organised firm that nonetheless interacts well with its customers will perform better than a perfectly organised firm that interacts poorly, does not interact at all. | |||
“You are in a queue. an operator will be with you shortly. Your call is important to us.” | |||
{{The parable of the two Elvi}} | |||
When you put it like that, it becomes obvious. Success is an [[emergent]] property of a [[system]]. Systems are defined by their flows, not their stocks. Components that don't interact are not in a system. Stocks — formal, structural capacities — only ''facilitate'' flows. But formal structures are easier to see than interactions. [[Modernism]] focuses on what it can see. | |||
Secondly, thanks to its [[physics envy]], [[modernism]] is a ''[[negative sum game]]'': its baseline is immediate, costless performance of the program. Positive variance from this baseline ''is not possible'': the goal is ''to lose as little energy as you can''. But friction, gravity, heat, entropic energy loss means in the real world, the system loses energy. We can minimise entropic loss with engineering and environmental control but it remains practically impossible to conserve energy, and ''theoretically'' impossible to create it. | Secondly, thanks to its [[physics envy]], [[modernism]] is a ''[[negative sum game]]'': its baseline is immediate, costless performance of the program. Positive variance from this baseline ''is not possible'': the goal is ''to lose as little energy as you can''. But friction, gravity, heat, entropic energy loss means in the real world, the system loses energy. We can minimise entropic loss with engineering and environmental control but it remains practically impossible to conserve energy, and ''theoretically'' impossible to create it. | ||