On Thu, 21 Sep 1995, Thomas Bertels wrote:
> >The work of Taylor is not a fad and will not go away either. The
> >mechanistic world is over as an exclusive guiding metaphor but not
> >yet as pragmatic or useful one.
> >I suggest that the challenge of the times is to be able to shift
> >guiding metaphors - even cosmologies - as appropriate and to be able
> >to discern appropriateness. Also that it will be the synthesis - or
> >recombinations - of the various metpahors that will provide the most
> Indeed this is a point of view I really like. Why do not maintain
> mechanical views of the world for the standard business process in order
> to reach economies of scale. A company cannot apply this approach to the
> demands of the future but standards once reached in business can sure be
> handled from a mechanical point of view...
I heartily agree. To identify what _can_ be handled mechanically or
automatically, and to construct the system that will do so, is as big a
challenge as ever, and as necessary as ever. This, in the end, is one of
the critical operations by which we _free_ ourselves from the delusion
that we ourselves are automata. In every situation in which I've had a
chance to make comparative observations, it has turned out that the
organization that _knows_ its dataflows is a pleasanter environment -- in
ordinary human relations -- than the organization that doesn't.
There are mornings when I really _want_ only to make little checkmarks
against a long list of items. Maybe this is a fundamental human need,
like food or sex.
-- Regards Jim Michmerhuizen firstname.lastname@example.org web residence at http://world.std.com/~jamzen/ -----------------------------------------------------^--------------------- . . . . . . . . . . Actions speak louder than words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . but not as clearly . . . . . . . . . .