The trouble with new tools is that they often require little effort to use but some effort to exploit. Salman Rushdie, on a recent radio programme was asked how he found it when he started to write his novels using a PC rather than a pen. He replied that he had resisted the changeover as long as he could but then took the plunge and really worked at mastering the PC. When asked if it affected the quality of his work he replied "You buy a new pen and at first it writes its own sentences, but after a while you get used to it and you begin to write your own."
An interesting aspect is the possibilities afforded by the PC and its applications, if we are prepared to take the time to learn them, practice them and ultimately master them. In the words of Churchill, "we shape our buildings, and afterwards our
buildings shape us." (On October 28, 1943 at a meeting in the House of Lords). In a similar vein some 20 years later, Marshall McLuhan said: "we shape our tools and afterwards our tools
shape us." Peter Senge in his book "5th Discipline Handbook" discusses learning in the context of a system consisting of to a triangular Domain of Action (Guiding Ideas; Innovations in Infrastructure; Theory, Methods and Tools) in order to achieve change. For enduring change we need connect this with the Domain of enduring change (Attitudes and beliefs, skills and capabilities, awareness and sensibilities). But ultimately learning is judged by results. Measuring those results can have an effect on the outcomes.
One can imagine that ultimately the word count per day might rise considerably as one abandons a pen and moves to a word processor. So as a crude measure we might say productivity has increased and pronounce the adoption of new technology as a success. However when the book reaches the market and is not as successful as the last 'penned' version we might argue that the fashion has changed and so we need to take a different slant on the plot. The real reason might be that we have only used the PC and not exploited it. The output has been faster and therefore against some measure we are more productive but the total result is ultimately less effective... The challenge is "What gets measured gets done" but unless we have the right measures in place we will not be able to direct our practice and learning in the right area. So we really need to think through what we are trying to achieve in order to specify the right critical success factors and key performance indicators... remembering that they are not the same... critical success factors are the drivers, the 'things' to be achieved; key performance indicators tell you how your are travelling towards the goal. If we need 16 highly experienced stress engineers in order to achieve our goals then a kpi that states it is the number of people recruited in the next quarter (and your bonus depends on it!) then the recruiters will find a way of getting all 16 on-board even if we have to massage the standards a little. If the kpi is to recruit the 16 best engineers then the time-scale will be challenging as well as the remuneration (or working environment). Remember... "What gets measured gets done".... so if the objective is to obtain airworthiness clearance by the end of the next two quarters we can put a plan in place that may involve building a global team of partners with the required technology, infrastructure and relationships that can support and enable the activities 24hrs/day, 6 days a week, and come in at or below the budget and early! Picture uploaded on by iphilipp. Used with thanks under CC.
Thus, by creating powerful guiding ideas, finding new theories, methods and tools and combining with innovations in infrastructure we can deliver stunning results.
Comments