Your Revenue Driver

29 March Why Management Science Fails to Perform (Parts...)

Much of management science is based on the successes it created in the industrial era.

Much of its failure (Paul's opinion) is that we are using management and thinking models designed for effiiciency of property, plant and equipment in the knowledge era which relies upon data, knowledge and efficiency of decisions.

We fall into this trap from a training perspective.

We "adore" best practices, skills gaps and competencies - all of which are very important.

We "ignore" the fact that the individual will be more effective when applying their strengths.

We know as instructors that we are better off teaching with our style and personality than trying to copy someone else's style and personality. What does this mean for instructor guides?

Frequently I am asked - "What is the best way to prospect for new business?" My response is - "The way that you will remain committed to even if it did not work today?"

Humans function differently from - property, plant and equipment. It used to be that equipment costs were a multiple of the costs associated with the humans that operated them. Today it is the opposite - perhaps therefore our "systems" should adapt how they operate to meet the needs of the human?

How can the corporate training environment adopt this approach?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul Terlemezian on March 29, 2016 at 11:55am

We know that systems thinking is neither linear nor static. Yet - as humans - while able to acknowledge this reality - we still try to understand, develop and manage systems in a linear and relatively static manner.

Is it possible to develop a system that is designed to be dynamic and non-linear?

This link to Smart Simplicity offers some insights that are relevant - https://www.ted.com/talks/yves_morieux_as_work_gets_more_complex_6_...

It is not that process and structure are irrelevant - it may just be that they are not dominant anymore?