Something for the weekend, sir?: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 15: Line 15:
*Static versus dynamic
*Static versus dynamic
*Stocks versus flows
*Stocks versus flows
*Things versus interactions
*Structure versus interaction
*Nouns versus verbs
*Nouns versus verbs
*Trees versus wood
*Trees versus wood
Line 41: Line 41:


===[[Modernism]]===
===[[Modernism]]===
The top-down models are basically “[[modernist]]” in the sense of Le Corbusier’s urban planning. They view organisations as [[complicated]] machines, ultimately directed and controlled by a homunculus sitting at the bridge in a kind of  [[Cartesian theatre]]. [[Form]]al design is important, and follows (centrally determined) function; the better regimented the parts of your contraption and the more efficient it is, the better it will navigate the crises and opportunities presented by the environment in which it operates — the market. Modernism regards the market — for all practical purposes — as an infinitely complicated mathematical problem: hard, but ultimately calculable. Modellable. So when the model turns out not to work, the answer is to develop it.  
The top-down models are “[[modernist]]”. They view organisations as [[complicated]] machines, ultimately directed and controlled by a homunculus sitting at the bridge in a kind of  [[Cartesian theatre]]. [[Form]]al design is important, and follows (centrally determined) function; the better regimented the parts of your contraption and the more efficient it is, the better it will navigate the crises and opportunities presented by the environment in which it operates — the market. Modernism regards the market — for all practical purposes — as an infinitely complicated mathematical problem: hard, but ultimately calculable. Modellable. So when the model turns out not to work, the answer is to develop it.  


Thus Basel I was 20 pages, Basel II, 60 pages, Basel III 400 pages. We are asymptotically tending to to perfection.
{{gigerenzer on basel quote}}


These shortcomings in engineering and technology mean we cannot (yet) fully solve that problem. But we should prioritise the algorithm, and deploy humans in its service. We still need humans to make sure the machine operates as best it can, but the further humans in the organisation get from that central executive function, the more they resemble a maintenance crew: their task is simply to ensure the orderly functioning of the plant. As technology advances, human agency can be progressively decommissioned.  
These shortcomings in engineering and technology mean we cannot (yet) fully solve that problem. But we should prioritise the algorithm, and deploy humans in its service. We still need humans to make sure the machine operates as best it can, but the further humans in the organisation get from that central executive function, the more they resemble a maintenance crew: their task is simply to ensure the orderly functioning of the plant. As technology advances, human agency can be progressively decommissioned.  

Navigation menu