Template:M intro design protestant and catholic: Difference between revisions

In any case these are quite divergent philosophies when managing [[risk]] in a [[complex system]]. Form has but one advantage over substance: ''unit cost''.  You don’t need expensive [[expert]]s, who have invested the time and resources in understanding the territory, to follow a [[playbook]]: 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 ''do'' tend to ask precocious questions, and that really isn’t in the spirit of things in a formal world:

Top down, the organisation implements process ''A'', to deal with malign contingency ''X''. Process A will be formulated and managed by an ''[[administrator]]'', who need not, and usually won’t, be a [[subject matter expert]].  

Now, processes being based upon simplified models of the worlds they represent,<ref>We take it as axiomatic that, the “real world” being analogue, fractal, complex and unbounded, and a valid process being short, digital, algorithmic and complete, a process ''cannot'' perfectly map to a target contingency: to believe it can is to mistake [[the map and the territory|a map for the territory]].</ref> process ''A''’s shadow inevitably will fall 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.

(The alternative would be to implement a Process ''A''', drawn wholly ''inside'' the boundary of malign contingency ''X'', and whose shadow therefore didn’t fall across ''any'' benign contingencies, but which also did not quite cover all aspects of contingency ''X''. Such a process, which fails to address “[[tail risk]]s”, is a ''bad'' process).<ref>It is also the principle upon which almost [[Black-Scholes option pricing model|all modern risk management is based]], but that is another story.</ref>

We should expect process ''A'' to get in the way every now and then, when a contingency ''Y'' or ''Z'' comes about. When it does, the alternatives are to run process ''A'' anyway, even though everyone knows it isn’t needed, or to ''waive'' process ''A'', by invoking process ''B'' (the “''process A waiver''” process).

Either alternative has a cost, the first being marginally preferable because it is already costed in. To justify the second one must show 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, in turn, 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.

There is another way of doing things, of course: engage [[subject matter expert]]s — which we define as “one who understands the territory and therefore the map’s limitations” — who can apprehend that this is a benign contingency ''Y'' and make the substantive judgment that, Process ''A'' is not substantively relevant, and thereby ignore process ''A''.

This will upset two categories of people: [[administrator]]s — who we define as “that class of people who are not [[Subject matter expert|subject matter experts]], don’t understand the territory, fetishise the map, and therefore are aggrieved, or fearful, when the map is disregarded”; and [[Rent-seeker|rent-extractors]] — those who stand to be gain by rigid application of the map, some of whom will be [[administrator]]s, but many of whom will be external [[professional advisers]]. (Often the waiver process might require, for example, a [[legal opinion]]: being a certificate from a specially-engaged [[subject matter expert]] that there is nothing to worry about.)

====Protestant and catholic modes of organisation====

This leads the [[Jolly Contrarian|JC]] to offer two modes of operation: the run-of-the-mill ''protestant'' mode by whose principles nearly all significant organisations are run — in which rules are rules, to suffer is divine, and rewards are presumed to be in the next life, since they clearly don’t apply in this one — and the much-talked-about-seldom-seen ''catholic'' mode —  in which people who know what they are doing act immediately and. if need be, ask for permission, or forgiveness, later.  

That always seemed more fun, open-minded and apt to uncover opportunities, and expose lurking risks, one might not find when following the same, mandated path home every day. The [[map]] may be linear, after all, but the [[territory]] is definitely not.

To live the catholic life is a risky bet, with no room on the broom for bluffers, fakers or know-nothings — they may ''ask'' for permission, but few will get it. But nor should you want bluffers or fakers on your broom, and if you have hired no-nothings as part of your protestant strategy — which is what it recommends — good luck changing faiths: you will be a long time finding a catholic path to redemption.