82,891
edits
Finite and Infinite Games: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
Finite games tend to favour a top-down game management, with a coach and a captain. Infinite games are bottom up: every player must constantly assess her immediate environment and work out what to do based on the information she currently has. | Finite games tend to favour a top-down game management, with a coach and a captain. Infinite games are bottom up: every player must constantly assess her immediate environment and work out what to do based on the information she currently has. | ||
Where [[form]] dominates, we should concentrate our resources at the centre, where we formulate rules, work out [[algorithm]]s and devise playbooks, since if we get this right, success is a matter of execution, and failure comes from failure to follow the form. This has a few implications. Firstly, it means the brilliant minds belong to those at the top of the organisation: they do the most inspired thinking. Secondly, there is no more sacred quest than the creation of excellent process. Our most talented personnel are those who can write and maintain formal rules. Thirdly, those at the edges of the organisation whose job is not to formulate policy but to follow it — those who must put the leadership’s plans and algorithms into practice must not think: they must, so far as possible: quickly, flawlessly, cheaply. If you are in a finite game environment, the ''last'' thing you want them to do is make things up as they go along, as that will upset the plan. ''They must act like machines''. The top-down model: God’s eye; the [[self-perpetuating autocracy]]. | Where [[form]] dominates, we should concentrate our resources at the centre, where we formulate rules, work out [[algorithm]]s and devise [[Playbook|playbooks]], since if we get this right, success is a matter of execution, and failure comes from failure to follow the form. This has a few implications. Firstly, it means the brilliant minds belong to those at the top of the organisation: they do the most inspired thinking. Secondly, there is no more sacred quest than the creation of excellent process. Our most talented personnel are those who can write and maintain formal rules. Thirdly, those at the edges of the organisation whose job is not to formulate policy but to follow it — those who must put the leadership’s plans and algorithms into practice must not think: they must, so far as possible: quickly, flawlessly, cheaply. If you are in a finite game environment, the ''last'' thing you want them to do is make things up as they go along, as that will upset the plan. ''They must act like machines''. The top-down model: God’s eye; the [[self-perpetuating autocracy]]. | ||
[[Infinite game]]<nowiki/>s favour virtuoso performances in the field: in a [[wicked environment]] cheap, quick, accurate machines are no use, and the infrastructure they need to ensure they continue working may get in the way. Rather than being elaborate, internal infrastructure should be simple, robust and permissive — enabling communication, facilitating dynamic reallocation of resources, but fundamentally organising the architecture to empower quick and effective decision-making in the field. Seeing as the idea is not to win but to continue, conferring discretion upon those at the edge of the organisation who must engage with the complex adaptive system outside is not necessarily catastrophic as long as the individuals are experienced experts: they must ''not'' act like machines, and empowered — ''trusted'' to deal with unfolding situations as they perceive them. The ongoing prosperity of the organisation is an [[emergent]] property of the behaviour of these subject matter experts. This is quite the opposite model: here the greatest value is provided at the edges of the organisation. The bottom-up model: ''laissez-faire''; [[invisible hand]]; evolutionary. | |||
=== As [[Single-round prisoner’s dilemma|single-round]] and [[Iterated prisoner’s dilemma|iterated prisoner’s dilemmas]] === | === As [[Single-round prisoner’s dilemma|single-round]] and [[Iterated prisoner’s dilemma|iterated prisoner’s dilemmas]] === | ||