by Richard and Aidan
Earlier this week, Rachel was on her way to New Zealand via Heathrow. Here's how the interaction of several systems failed her.
1. Thanks to the latest security scare, it now takes two and a half hours to search all the handbaggage and get all the passengers onto the plane.
2. By which time the plane has frozen, and needs de-icing again. That takes another hour.
3. By which time the pilot and co-pilot have already spent so much time sitting on the plane that they no longer have enough flying hours remaining in this shift to take the plane to its destination. So the flight is cancelled.
4. The passengers are asked to return to the baggage hall, collect their checked-in baggage and start the process all over again. But there are many other flights that have been cancelled for similar reasons, and the baggage hall is already full-to-bursting with unloaded bags and frustrated passengers, so Rachel has to wait several hours before her unloaded bags appear on the carousel.
5. Then she has to queue to get onto the next available flight, and the process starts all over again.
By a happy fluke, the next plane Rachel boarded actually managed to take off, and she was on her way to New Zealand, but not before a last-minute search to find enough qualifying aircrew ...
Why does this kind of mess occur? Anyone can look at the whole system and see what could have been done differently. But each system is operated by a different organization, and there is a lack of trust and overall systems leadership.
As readers of Kurt Vonnegut's novel Cat's Cradle will recognize, Ice Nine was the name of a fictional crystal that was capable of bringing the whole world to a complete stand-still. Quite an apt metaphor for failed systems then.
Showing posts with label Aidan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aidan. Show all posts
Friday, January 8, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2004
Trust as she is spoken
originally posted by Aidan
On the front page of the FT the other day is a big article saying how pissed off the FS sector is with the FSA for changing its mind about risk management regulations it was introducing. There was a raft of new recommendation in the Prudential Sourcebook about how the players were supposed to manage their operational risk in particular. In the event the FSA said that the matter was being overtaken by EU regulation and they were dropping the matter. The industry said that they had already spent millions on compliance and that this was now wasted.
The FSA claims that it works with the industry to produce sensible regulation that is in the industry's interest to comply with. The industry in practice will only implement things that have official force in case their base costs get out of line with the competition. That is nobody will actually implement sensible measures for their own sake as part of responsible business management. I know this first hand as well.
Needless to say the FT article does not conclude that this shows that the whole process does not work and cannot work.
On the front page of the FT the other day is a big article saying how pissed off the FS sector is with the FSA for changing its mind about risk management regulations it was introducing. There was a raft of new recommendation in the Prudential Sourcebook about how the players were supposed to manage their operational risk in particular. In the event the FSA said that the matter was being overtaken by EU regulation and they were dropping the matter. The industry said that they had already spent millions on compliance and that this was now wasted.
The FSA claims that it works with the industry to produce sensible regulation that is in the industry's interest to comply with. The industry in practice will only implement things that have official force in case their base costs get out of line with the competition. That is nobody will actually implement sensible measures for their own sake as part of responsible business management. I know this first hand as well.
Needless to say the FT article does not conclude that this shows that the whole process does not work and cannot work.
Monday, September 13, 2004
Symmetry is a choice
originally posted by Aidan in reply to post on Asymmetric Trust
Richard,
This is an interesting place that clearly confuses people’s radar. I am proposing that the benefits of trust come from trusting behaviour. You are absolutely correct that most corporate businesses are incorrigibly asymmetric in their dealings with individual customers. My point is that that precludes trust. If they want the benefits of trust they have to personalise their dealing to a point where it is clear that the person dealing with a customer has complete latitude to meet the demands of trust in that relationship. I claim that it is their choice that they do not do this.
The point about other ways of achieving symmetrical power, even if this is specific to a local set of circumstances, is that it shows that the shadow side of that symmetrical trust relationship is always just beneath the surface and that it is always hubris to claim otherwise.
Richard,
This is an interesting place that clearly confuses people’s radar. I am proposing that the benefits of trust come from trusting behaviour. You are absolutely correct that most corporate businesses are incorrigibly asymmetric in their dealings with individual customers. My point is that that precludes trust. If they want the benefits of trust they have to personalise their dealing to a point where it is clear that the person dealing with a customer has complete latitude to meet the demands of trust in that relationship. I claim that it is their choice that they do not do this.
The point about other ways of achieving symmetrical power, even if this is specific to a local set of circumstances, is that it shows that the shadow side of that symmetrical trust relationship is always just beneath the surface and that it is always hubris to claim otherwise.
Thursday, September 9, 2004
Who needs symmetry?
originally posted by Aidan in reply to post on State of Trust 2
Richard,
What does it mean to say that something doesn’t work – as in the assumption of symmetry? It means presumably that if you use that principle to conduct your analysis and understanding of the situation, then you end up not being able to control or influence the situation in the way that you would like. What doesn’t work is the attempt to explain and interact.
If we assume that war is between nation states (and of course in international law it is) then we find we are at war with Al Qaeda then we find we are a bit hamstrung, by our assumptions, by our linguistic framework, by our laws, by our governance mechanisms and their rules. Probably it is worse than that, and our desire to find someone to be at war with as if by proxy will cause all sorts of extra problems.
These problems exist because of the attempt to use frameworks, like lines on a map in Africa, for things that they cannot support. When we try to keep our conceptual map tidy by forcing observations into the existing frame, we will have lots of confusion like this.
Trust works inside out however. The trusting disposition as a basis for the development of collaboration and shared perception is as old as man. As a basis it does not know about frameworks but is designed to allow the exploration of commonality and difference. When Gen Powell insists on national action in a situation where nation doesn’t support that, the first things he does is to create the shared perception amongst non-American interested parties that Americans come from another planet and cannot be trusted to understand.
Where trust development is the purpose, the symmetry of trust must be created. That is, the power of the more powerful party must be placed in a context where the amount of skin in the game is roughly equal. This is why terrorists can negotiate with the US government, because they can find a context in which their power in the moment is balanced with that of the superpower. Where there is good will and humility, the positive rather than the negative game can be played. The positive game can develop useful conceptual tools and frameworks that are of the moment and the issue, not some relic of a previous set of problems.
Richard,
What does it mean to say that something doesn’t work – as in the assumption of symmetry? It means presumably that if you use that principle to conduct your analysis and understanding of the situation, then you end up not being able to control or influence the situation in the way that you would like. What doesn’t work is the attempt to explain and interact.
If we assume that war is between nation states (and of course in international law it is) then we find we are at war with Al Qaeda then we find we are a bit hamstrung, by our assumptions, by our linguistic framework, by our laws, by our governance mechanisms and their rules. Probably it is worse than that, and our desire to find someone to be at war with as if by proxy will cause all sorts of extra problems.
These problems exist because of the attempt to use frameworks, like lines on a map in Africa, for things that they cannot support. When we try to keep our conceptual map tidy by forcing observations into the existing frame, we will have lots of confusion like this.
Trust works inside out however. The trusting disposition as a basis for the development of collaboration and shared perception is as old as man. As a basis it does not know about frameworks but is designed to allow the exploration of commonality and difference. When Gen Powell insists on national action in a situation where nation doesn’t support that, the first things he does is to create the shared perception amongst non-American interested parties that Americans come from another planet and cannot be trusted to understand.
Where trust development is the purpose, the symmetry of trust must be created. That is, the power of the more powerful party must be placed in a context where the amount of skin in the game is roughly equal. This is why terrorists can negotiate with the US government, because they can find a context in which their power in the moment is balanced with that of the superpower. Where there is good will and humility, the positive rather than the negative game can be played. The positive game can develop useful conceptual tools and frameworks that are of the moment and the issue, not some relic of a previous set of problems.
Chickens, eggs and basics
originally posted by Aidan
From the perspective of the system, there appears to be information and knowledge about the system that is needed to make sensible judgements about its operation. From the perspective of the individual, there is communication that creates a space for responsible action and there is communication that expects obedience and compliance. The problem is that knowledge almost always gets attached to the second sort of communication.
It is only when knowledge becomes explicit and valued that this happens. Once knowledge becomes important in the choices that are made about the system and its operation it becomes important for people to control and to police. It must be shown to be correct and it must be sanctioned by the management systems. So most of the things that might be learned about the operation of the system are not even available as perceptions. Knowledge management is on dangerous ground before it starts.
The issue to me is responsibility for what is perceived. I know I can change what I see and what I hear and what intuitions I have. I know that these changes affect the systems I work within. I know that no-one can change these perceptions but me. But most people in power want to insist that knowledge is external and that we must act rationally in the face of consensus knowledge. It is just that I know that what I am capable of perceiving is repressed by this insistence: its character is closed and not open to what I can know.
When people talk about socio-technical systems they seem to mean rational technical systems that have some unfortunate dependence on human players within them. I want socio-technical to mean that human actors have acquired huge extensions of reach and power via technological devices. They need to learn to use this reach and power, not to have their perceptions dominated by the supposed logic of the system.
From the perspective of the system, there appears to be information and knowledge about the system that is needed to make sensible judgements about its operation. From the perspective of the individual, there is communication that creates a space for responsible action and there is communication that expects obedience and compliance. The problem is that knowledge almost always gets attached to the second sort of communication.
It is only when knowledge becomes explicit and valued that this happens. Once knowledge becomes important in the choices that are made about the system and its operation it becomes important for people to control and to police. It must be shown to be correct and it must be sanctioned by the management systems. So most of the things that might be learned about the operation of the system are not even available as perceptions. Knowledge management is on dangerous ground before it starts.
The issue to me is responsibility for what is perceived. I know I can change what I see and what I hear and what intuitions I have. I know that these changes affect the systems I work within. I know that no-one can change these perceptions but me. But most people in power want to insist that knowledge is external and that we must act rationally in the face of consensus knowledge. It is just that I know that what I am capable of perceiving is repressed by this insistence: its character is closed and not open to what I can know.
When people talk about socio-technical systems they seem to mean rational technical systems that have some unfortunate dependence on human players within them. I want socio-technical to mean that human actors have acquired huge extensions of reach and power via technological devices. They need to learn to use this reach and power, not to have their perceptions dominated by the supposed logic of the system.
Friday, July 23, 2004
The purpose of (project) management
originally posted by Aidan
When a project is very much in the public spotlight, the question about the purpose of management actions taken on a projects becomes problematical. For instance the huge (£6bn) NHS IT project currently underway is under scrutiny in parliament and by many formal and informal bodies. When a stage or gate review is held to assess the current status we might assume that the purpose is to find out if things are as they are supposed to be. But of course the political implications of a less than clean card are such that information about problems will not become public. In this situation the process often splits into a public and a private part. The situation then rapidly becomes more complicated because the bodies such as parliamentary committees with statutory duties to oversee what is going on cannot necessarily unpick what information is for whose consumption.
The question of how to get necessary information to flow to the people who need to use it does not have ready answers and you can be fairly sure that where people talk about openness, transparency and accountability these things will be missing when it counts: discussion gets displaced from doing the work to trying to provide the conditions in which work can be done.
When a project is very much in the public spotlight, the question about the purpose of management actions taken on a projects becomes problematical. For instance the huge (£6bn) NHS IT project currently underway is under scrutiny in parliament and by many formal and informal bodies. When a stage or gate review is held to assess the current status we might assume that the purpose is to find out if things are as they are supposed to be. But of course the political implications of a less than clean card are such that information about problems will not become public. In this situation the process often splits into a public and a private part. The situation then rapidly becomes more complicated because the bodies such as parliamentary committees with statutory duties to oversee what is going on cannot necessarily unpick what information is for whose consumption.
The question of how to get necessary information to flow to the people who need to use it does not have ready answers and you can be fairly sure that where people talk about openness, transparency and accountability these things will be missing when it counts: discussion gets displaced from doing the work to trying to provide the conditions in which work can be done.
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
Imagination and discipline
originally posted by Aidan
The most obvious dimension of leadership to me is the imagination to create more than one concrete possibility for the future of the organisation. The more imagination, the greater the difference between the possibilities raised and the more the whole organisation can be aware that there are different ways to be, different stories that can be told.
The complementary insight is that when there are real possibilities open, then choosing and pursuing the one people actually want takes that application of individual and group disciplines in its achievement. Our debased ideas of leadership have impoverished options and consumer style choice that has no implications for the chooser.
The most obvious dimension of leadership to me is the imagination to create more than one concrete possibility for the future of the organisation. The more imagination, the greater the difference between the possibilities raised and the more the whole organisation can be aware that there are different ways to be, different stories that can be told.
The complementary insight is that when there are real possibilities open, then choosing and pursuing the one people actually want takes that application of individual and group disciplines in its achievement. Our debased ideas of leadership have impoverished options and consumer style choice that has no implications for the chooser.
Monday, December 29, 2003
Leadership and risk management
originally posted by Aidan
One of the tenets of risk management is that risks are best managed by those with the power proximity and interest to do so. Peoples' desire for leadership may be an irresponsible abdication of their interests to the group and to the leader (look for instance at the typical process when we join an organisation) or it may be a responsible loyalty to the goals the leader can articulate and eventually deliver. The difference between these lies in the follower, not in the leader, but the leadership style is important in evoking one or the other.
Richard's post makes it clear that the question of what is important and what needs paying attention to is never simple. To portray it as simple is to disable the contribution followers can make to the complexity and the management of risk. It is far too easy to support leaders in the mode that says they are responsible for the failures only I could have prevented.
One of the tenets of risk management is that risks are best managed by those with the power proximity and interest to do so. Peoples' desire for leadership may be an irresponsible abdication of their interests to the group and to the leader (look for instance at the typical process when we join an organisation) or it may be a responsible loyalty to the goals the leader can articulate and eventually deliver. The difference between these lies in the follower, not in the leader, but the leadership style is important in evoking one or the other.
Richard's post makes it clear that the question of what is important and what needs paying attention to is never simple. To portray it as simple is to disable the contribution followers can make to the complexity and the management of risk. It is far too easy to support leaders in the mode that says they are responsible for the failures only I could have prevented.
Is trust a static property?
originally posted by Aidan
So whether you claim knowledge of a subject affects my relationship with you. I may buy into your claim (trust your knowledge) or I may distrust you because you attempt to monopolise knowledge impairs my ability to relate to you.
The question becomes one of opening up or closing down. The experts in all the cases Richard quotes tried to close down debate and to belittle the contribution that could be made by others. Knowledge can equally be used to allow others to stand on your shoulders and achieve things neither they nor you can achieve on your own. When we treat the expert as a thing the only question that seems to make sense is whether they are technically correct or not. But the more important question once the expert becomes human is what they are trying to achieve. And that is affected both by their own situation and by whether we trust them to be human. The other feature of the cases Richard cites is that in the full glare of publicness no-one can be human and knowledge is bound to be misused - John's point.
Trust is relative to human stance and to humanity before it is relative to knowledge and correctness. This is what politicians seems to miss. Because trust is based not in information but in stance it is fully dynamic.
So whether you claim knowledge of a subject affects my relationship with you. I may buy into your claim (trust your knowledge) or I may distrust you because you attempt to monopolise knowledge impairs my ability to relate to you.
The question becomes one of opening up or closing down. The experts in all the cases Richard quotes tried to close down debate and to belittle the contribution that could be made by others. Knowledge can equally be used to allow others to stand on your shoulders and achieve things neither they nor you can achieve on your own. When we treat the expert as a thing the only question that seems to make sense is whether they are technically correct or not. But the more important question once the expert becomes human is what they are trying to achieve. And that is affected both by their own situation and by whether we trust them to be human. The other feature of the cases Richard cites is that in the full glare of publicness no-one can be human and knowledge is bound to be misused - John's point.
Trust is relative to human stance and to humanity before it is relative to knowledge and correctness. This is what politicians seems to miss. Because trust is based not in information but in stance it is fully dynamic.
Thursday, December 4, 2003
Leadership levels
originally posted by Aidan
There is another dimension to leadership: the level at which action is considered, whether this is about change or whether it is about maintenance. At the lowest level leaders speak only of measures and numbers and only what can be measured is considered to be material in the organisational processes. At the highest level there is open discussion of the purposes of the organisation and the values by which it operates.
This concept of the level of leadership determines the scope for action by others in the organisation. Indeed it determines the scope for humanity in the organisation as it implies a level of respect and engagement.
Do we want self-aware organisations or would we rather they stayed in a more predictable place?
There is another dimension to leadership: the level at which action is considered, whether this is about change or whether it is about maintenance. At the lowest level leaders speak only of measures and numbers and only what can be measured is considered to be material in the organisational processes. At the highest level there is open discussion of the purposes of the organisation and the values by which it operates.
This concept of the level of leadership determines the scope for action by others in the organisation. Indeed it determines the scope for humanity in the organisation as it implies a level of respect and engagement.
Do we want self-aware organisations or would we rather they stayed in a more predictable place?
Thursday, November 27, 2003
The socio-political and the socio-technical
originally posted by Aidan
Richard’s point is exactly the one I am trying to tease out. Whether we trust these agencies and their technologies is one thing and whether the wrappings aid their ostensible purpose is another. If David Blunkett or his successors ever actually believed that ID cards identified their holders then of necessity the security situation would deteriorate. All the diverse ways that society and its institutions remain vigilant about impersonation and identity theft would wither on the vine leaving a single hurdle for terrorists to surmount before being allowed complete freedom to travel and operate. Those whose identity had been stolen would be completely defenceless before the law – the ultimate human rights violation. The ramifications of trust or mistrust extend way beyond the immediate implications of the act.
Of course our identity itself is socio-political and socio-technical. I cannot define my identity unilaterally in the context of existing political, social and technical systems. Those in power are tempted to think that they can, to the detriment of everyone involved.
Richard’s point is exactly the one I am trying to tease out. Whether we trust these agencies and their technologies is one thing and whether the wrappings aid their ostensible purpose is another. If David Blunkett or his successors ever actually believed that ID cards identified their holders then of necessity the security situation would deteriorate. All the diverse ways that society and its institutions remain vigilant about impersonation and identity theft would wither on the vine leaving a single hurdle for terrorists to surmount before being allowed complete freedom to travel and operate. Those whose identity had been stolen would be completely defenceless before the law – the ultimate human rights violation. The ramifications of trust or mistrust extend way beyond the immediate implications of the act.
Of course our identity itself is socio-political and socio-technical. I cannot define my identity unilaterally in the context of existing political, social and technical systems. Those in power are tempted to think that they can, to the detriment of everyone involved.
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Trusting agencies
originally posted by Aidan
How do people make sense of these situations where the agencies they have to deal with do not lead by example? They discount all the messages, even cynically inverting the “trust me” into “do not under any circumstances …”. They look at the actions that they can see and decide whether they can tolerate the situation or not. So we ask whether our experience of the police is that they are repressive, and if it is we assume that they will use identity cards to oppress us. Of course the government is institutionally blind to police oppression so they cannot understand this attitude.
Interestingly there are already signals being unwittingly sent. David Blunkett thinks that within five years the technology of identification will be 100%. (This despite no technology ever having achieved this – Titanic? – and there being nothing in the public documentation of the advice he has been given to support such a statement.) This signals to me that the evidence of fraud, fallibility and repression will be wilfully ignored, as it was for instance with early credit cards.
How do people make sense of these situations where the agencies they have to deal with do not lead by example? They discount all the messages, even cynically inverting the “trust me” into “do not under any circumstances …”. They look at the actions that they can see and decide whether they can tolerate the situation or not. So we ask whether our experience of the police is that they are repressive, and if it is we assume that they will use identity cards to oppress us. Of course the government is institutionally blind to police oppression so they cannot understand this attitude.
Interestingly there are already signals being unwittingly sent. David Blunkett thinks that within five years the technology of identification will be 100%. (This despite no technology ever having achieved this – Titanic? – and there being nothing in the public documentation of the advice he has been given to support such a statement.) This signals to me that the evidence of fraud, fallibility and repression will be wilfully ignored, as it was for instance with early credit cards.
Friday, November 21, 2003
Appetite for Debate
originally posted by Aidan
In the case of the rail industry, Richard points out that we are potentially looking to trust in government as a solution, or at least for government not to exacerbate the problem. When we look at the case for identity cards we start from a position of distrust by the government and a technical solution to identification. There does not appear to be an appetite for debate as to what the underlying trust and legitimacy questions are here.
Aidan
In the case of the rail industry, Richard points out that we are potentially looking to trust in government as a solution, or at least for government not to exacerbate the problem. When we look at the case for identity cards we start from a position of distrust by the government and a technical solution to identification. There does not appear to be an appetite for debate as to what the underlying trust and legitimacy questions are here.
Aidan
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Rail Safety 3
originally posted by Aidan
What rail companies need to do to reestablish a focus on customer service and safety is to work closely together to solve practical problems. This is the deficit that customers actually see. But we note that it is tough and sometimes illegal to step outside the contractual boundaries that have been set. An industry that has been broken up is not the same thing as an industry that has grown up in a "competitive" form.
Aidan
What rail companies need to do to reestablish a focus on customer service and safety is to work closely together to solve practical problems. This is the deficit that customers actually see. But we note that it is tough and sometimes illegal to step outside the contractual boundaries that have been set. An industry that has been broken up is not the same thing as an industry that has grown up in a "competitive" form.
Aidan
Rail Safety 2
originally posted by Aidan
There is a political driver to the rail service and safety question which is disturbing from a trust perspective. There is a natural conflict of interest between the Treasury, the DTI and the MOT which led to the current structure and a political impasse which still exists. The political wrangle has nothing to offer customers and it makes no sense for customers to trust a service where policy is driven by concerns other than theirs.
Aidan
There is a political driver to the rail service and safety question which is disturbing from a trust perspective. There is a natural conflict of interest between the Treasury, the DTI and the MOT which led to the current structure and a political impasse which still exists. The political wrangle has nothing to offer customers and it makes no sense for customers to trust a service where policy is driven by concerns other than theirs.
Aidan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)