83,035
edits
Hindsight: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
''A “failure to crunch data” was not the problem here''. The problem was ''a failure of narrative''. Part of that failed narrative was ''the primacy of [[data]]''. [[In God we trust, all others must bring data]]. But will ''that'' be the lesson we all learn from this debacle? Like the certain death of a bricks-and-mortar company with an irretrievably broken business model, don’t bet on it. | ''A “failure to crunch data” was not the problem here''. The problem was ''a failure of narrative''. Part of that failed narrative was ''the primacy of [[data]]''. [[In God we trust, all others must bring data]]. But will ''that'' be the lesson we all learn from this debacle? Like the certain death of a bricks-and-mortar company with an irretrievably broken business model, don’t bet on it. | ||
It is interesting to that when executives appeal for change, for “[[revolution]]” — ironic, I know, but I’ve seen it happen — for “a new way of working” they are not talking about the revealed failings of their own narrative — | It is interesting to that when executives appeal for change, for “[[revolution]]” — ironic, I know, but I’ve seen it happen — for “a new way of working” they are not talking about the revealed failings of their own narrative — it’s got them where they are, after all, so it can't be ''all'' bad — but is upon the inconstant performance of those mortal, expensive, fallible [[Meatsack|meat-sack]]s snoozing away at the switch. Thanks to overwhelming [[confirmation bias]], the idea that ''the switch isn’t working'', and ''it’s the hierarchy supporting the broken switch that is not fit for purpose'', somehow fails to occur. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Signal-to-noise ratio]] | *[[Signal-to-noise ratio]] | ||