|
|
Line 52: |
Line 52: |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| ===Form over substance===
| |
| :(a) Burgeoning complexity means a preference for substance over form<br>
| |
| :::(i) As previously rehearsed, the more complex the organisation the less likely people are to understand the substance, let alone be responsible for it. <br>
| |
| :::(ii) The form is, by definition, easily articulated. It is measurable, observable, auditable. <br>
| |
| ::::(1) “Did you review that template by year end?” has a yes/no answer which is easily given in the affirmative. All you need is a diary and a decent sense of time management. <br>
| |
| ::::(2) “Did you review the template properly?” is a harder question to answer. <br>
| |
| :::::(a) Did you check it against policy, legal developments and corresponding templates” is a harder question, but it has a yes/no answer. It functions like a checklist. <br>
| |
| :::::(b) Did you get the right answers? Is hard to validate. <br>
| |
| ===Checklists=== | | ===Checklists=== |
| A word on checklists – eyebrow raising book of Atul Gawande. Illustrates the benefit, as well as the limitations, of form as an aide to substance. <br> | | A word on checklists – eyebrow raising book of Atul Gawande. Illustrates the benefit, as well as the limitations, of form as an aide to substance. <br> |