>In 1994 Telecom Australia undertook an 'archetype' study similar to one
>done by AT&T in the mid-80s. These and other similar studies found
>the following differences in cultural understandings/shared meanings
>of QUALITY:
>
>Germany = standards
>Japan = perfection
>France = luxury
>United States = "it works"
>Australia = relationships
>
>It would seem then that your view is 'typically' Australian and
>Lou's is 'typically' U.S. (or I should say 'archetypical' to be exact).
The Telecom study sounds fascinating. Where was it published?
In my own 20-year working life, I have in fact moved from the Japanese to
the United States and now to the Australian view of QUALITY. I began simply
wanting to produce the perfect output to satisfy perfectly the needs of the
client.
Then I decided that perfectionism was too stressful and concentrated on
producing an adequate output to satisfy the client. Nowadays I see the
relationship as a critical output of the project.
Is there any logical or natural sequence of archetypes which people or
organisations can pass through?
>On the debate of speed?
>
> If we are to question the speed/efficiency archetype
>should we not also question the others?
Absolutely.
>Lessons for the learning organisation?
>
>We are living through a number of interlocking and overlaying
>cultures each with its own variation on archetypes. The 'quality'
>archetypes referred to above present an opportunity to explain
>to the uninitiated what 'shared meanings' are in a context they
>can easily recognise.
Are you saying that in order to communicate effectively, one needs to be
clear about where the other person is coming from, say in their definition
of QUALITY?
If so, could it be that some QUALITY definitions might be less appropriate
for a learning organisation than others?
Eddy
<<<<-This message comes from the Steenbergen household of PO Box 175, North
Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Ph +61 02 726-007. Fax +61 02 333-972.->>>>
<<<<-in omnia paratus->>>>