This is just a quick response, because I think I have covered off the most necessary/relevant points in my response (above) to superboyac
...strongly held opinion, bigotry, ego...Am I the only one that sees the irony?
I am sorry, but arguments ad hominem
are largely wasted on me, and please see in my response (above) to superboyac
The point is that my training leads me to ensure that anything I say must be rational and based on and substantiated by referenceable experience (as research done for the client, or as recognised case studies, for example). I don't get paid to dish out opinions, and my opinions are irrelevant anyway, but whenever I am asked for an opinion, I will state it prefaced with "This is only my opinion, you understand, and I could be wrong of course, but...", because it could be a pile of unsubstantiated cr#p (like most, if not all opinions).
If I gave my clients an opinion without that rider, and if they then acted on it and it then caused a loss/damage, then this could be actionable as professional negligence. My company could be liable for either punitive damages or to make good for any consequential operational losses incurred (but not both of those things, in law). My professional indemnity insurance premiums would go sky-high, and I might not be able to remain in business or afford to remain in business. You see, my professional reputation would have been tarnished, and my operational costs could have escalated phenomenally.
When I put this quote at the end of one of my posts above:
"Nullius in verbo." Motto of the Royal Society, London. Take nobody's word for it; see for yourself.
- I did so for a very good reason - i.e., The Age of Enlightenment included a transformation of our methods of thinking about "truth":
- Legitimate science seems to be based on rejection of trust. Saying something purely on the basis of trust does not resemble genuine knowledge.
- 16th century: Montaigne: no harm in the fact that "almost all the opinions we have are taken on authority and credit".
- 17th century: Gilbert, Bacon, Descartes and Boyle made a big thing of taking nothing on trust/authority.
- Natural knowledge founded in evidence in nature - individual reason. Not in authority of tradition. Real knowledge not based on trust but on direct experience.
- Reliance on the views of others produces errors. The best scientist is thus incapable of functioning as a member of society.
- Objective truth may exist, but human nature may preclude us from being able to experience it.
I tend to agree with superboyac, I believe you know what you are talking about.
I feel somewhat gratified that you might agree with him that I know what I am talking about, but, as per my response to him, I am not so sure that I do - I only hope that I do
know what I am talking about regarding business processes(etc.), but I certainly do
know about the mistakes I or my colleagues have made.
In any event, your agreement is irrelevant as it is an opinion and an appeal to the consensus (a logical fallacy, and therefore meritless), and your belief is irrelevant. They do nothing to substantiate the rightness/validity or otherwise of anything that I might have said/written, or what you say/write.
That's despite the fact that you've demonstrated little insight into superboyac's situation and needs, and that your writing is sometimes obtuse and disjointed. I'd expect someone successful in your profession to be perceptive and a good communicator.
Please see my comments above and earlier posts, regarding arguments ad hominem
Look, I don't wish to be rude, but the rest of your post seems to me to be mostly more ad hominem
and some weak attempts to rationalise and validate your past work/experience, so I shall not address that as it appears that it would not contribute materially to improvement in any rational debate on the subject. That doesn't necessarily mean that there is nothing in there that could
contribute, it's just that I haven't spotted it after a quick sift through.I do appreciate that I have put things in one of my posts above in such a way that it might have called into question the validity of a great deal of your and other people's past work/experience and preferred opinions. No-one likes being told to accept that they have been doing it wrong.
But that's just it you see. I was and still am rich in "withdumb" and relatively poor in wisdom. When I was literally forced
to find a better way to do things, in order to retain the multi-million dollar contract that we had won (and I was a lead author for the RFP response that had won the business, so my job could have been on the line), I had to put in some seriously hard work to dig us out of the hole we were in. I was responsible - and I have a very strong locus of responsibility. It was up to me. I had to carry out some rapid research, and, without consciously realising it, I had to push aside conventional approaches and conventional wisdom - my "withdumb". I was very lucky indeed to discover the new methods, tools, and approach that I did, and in so short a time too.
And when I had time to stop, take a deep breath and review and actually think
about what I had just gone through, I saw the awful and inescapable truth, that, regardless of how I tried to rationalise and validate my past work/experience:
I HAD BEEN DOING BUSINESS PROCESS WORK IN AN ARCHAIC MANNER FOR YEARS.
I HAD BEEN DOING IT THE WRONG WAY.
I HAD TO CHANGE.
If I had not been forced
into discovering this, then I probably would never have done so. "Necessity is the mother of invention"? Maybe.
I kid you not, my ego took a serious bashing at that point and for some time after. I still cringe when thinking about it. But it taught me to systematically question and review my own training, thinking skills, education, motivations, pet theories, cherished beliefs and opinions. It made me realise just how much my negligent self-awareness of those selfsame things had enabled them to cluster around my potentially open mind like fats collect slowly to block an arterial pathway, fitting me into a tight paradigm straightjacket so that my mind could no longer be
open. And my ego had prevented me from ever realising that this had been happening to me. Dammit! I was always right! How could I need any improvement in the thinking skills department? I was shocked at myself.
"Why are we all so damn stupid?" (W. Edwards Deming)
I had just turned 50 at the time, and I thought "Sh#t! This must be how we grow old and set in our ways." But I realised that I could choose to let my mind age like that, or do something about it. CHANGE.
This is just a quick response...
That opening line was, of course, a joke.
Your post made me think and it deserved a thoughtful response, else I would have failed to take an opportunity to contribute to, and communicate on what I consider to be a very interesting and important area of human endeavour - an area where we could all probably benefit by learning to do better.