83,567
edits
Template:M intro design protestant and catholic: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Template:M intro design protestant and catholic (view source)
Revision as of 16:57, 1 September 2023
, 1 September 2023→Formal organisation
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
These are divergent philosophies when organising a complex system. | These are divergent philosophies when organising a complex system. | ||
Form has one advantage over substance, and one only: ''unit cost''. You don’t need expensive experts who have invested the time and resources in understanding the territory: a [[school-leaver from Bucharest]], with a suitable command of English, and a sullen teenage disinterest in asking precocious questions will do. Better, in fact, since [[expert]]s ''docc tend to ask precocious questions, and that really isn’t in the spirit of things. | |||
Here is how things roll in these opposing modes of operation: | |||
====Formal organisation==== | ====Formal organisation==== | ||
So we implement process ''A'', to deal with malign contingency ''X'', but processes being only simplified models — derivatives — of the worlds they represent,<ref>We take it as axiomatic that, the “real world” being analogue, fractal and complex, a process ''cannot'' perfectly map to a target contingency: to believe it might is to mistake [[the map and the territory|a map for the territory]].</ref> process ''A''’s shadow inevitably falls across ''benign'' contingencies ''Y'' and ''Z'': circumstances not needing process A, but which “[[If in doubt, stick it in|it won’t hurt]]” to subject to Process ''A'' anyway. | So we implement process ''A'', to deal with malign contingency ''X'', but processes being only simplified models — derivatives — of the worlds they represent,<ref>We take it as axiomatic that, the “real world” being analogue, fractal and complex, a process ''cannot'' perfectly map to a target contingency: to believe it might is to mistake [[the map and the territory|a map for the territory]].</ref> process ''A''’s shadow inevitably falls across ''benign'' contingencies ''Y'' and ''Z'': circumstances not needing process A, but which “[[If in doubt, stick it in|it won’t hurt]]” to subject to Process ''A'' anyway. | ||
| Line 18: | Line 21: | ||
Either option has a cost: option (i) being marginally preferable because it is already costed in. Justifying option (ii) involves demonstrating that the cost of obtaining the waiver will be less than the cost of just running process ''A,'' and so will result in a saving. This will trigger process ''C'' (the “''justifying the cost of a new initiatives''” process) which will, of course, increase the cost of process ''B'', making process ''C'', and therefore process ''B'' more likely to fail. | Either option has a cost: option (i) being marginally preferable because it is already costed in. Justifying option (ii) involves demonstrating that the cost of obtaining the waiver will be less than the cost of just running process ''A,'' and so will result in a saving. This will trigger process ''C'' (the “''justifying the cost of a new initiatives''” process) which will, of course, increase the cost of process ''B'', making process ''C'', and therefore process ''B'' more likely to fail. | ||
====Substantive organisation==== | ====Substantive organisation==== | ||
There is another way of doing things, of course: a [[subject matter expert]] — which we define as “one who understands the territory and therefore the map’s limitations” — can apprehend that what she beholds is benign contingency ''Y'' and make the substantive judgment that, while it is formally applicable, Process ''A'' is not substantively relevant, and thereby ignore process ''A''. | There is another way of doing things, of course: a [[subject matter expert]] — which we define as “one who understands the territory and therefore the map’s limitations” — can apprehend that what she beholds is benign contingency ''Y'' and make the substantive judgment that, while it is formally applicable, Process ''A'' is not substantively relevant, and thereby ignore process ''A''. | ||