Even if you have a nail, not all hammers are the same
This is a quote from Phil Goetz. It's particularly relevent in the field of experimental strategies. It's dispiriting to find that someone proudly claims they have performed an experimental design ("that box is ticked"), only on closer inspection to find they have applied an innaproprate or inefficient design. So why does that happen? I'm reminded of the phrase "choose your rut carefully, you may be in it for some time". A way to escape the rut, is after every design we perform is to ask the questions: "what worked well?" & "what could you have done differently?". Note that the second question doesn't imply that the design was "wrong". It simply implies that there's always room for continuous improvement. And "Continuous improvement" isn't some mindless mantra that you daub on your CV or company mission statement. What it actually means is that you reflect on new possiblities and then, most importantly explore and implement the best of these new ideas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Continuous improvement" isn't some mindless mantra that you daub on your CV or company mission statement.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't?
I double checked our company mission statement (for the first time) and learned that:
"We are dedicated to continuous improvement."
I don't know HOW that got in there.
I've asked Bob to do a global search and replace on the mission statement and all of our corporate documentation so that it now reads:
"We are dedicated to mindless mantra."
I believe our customers will find our honesty refreshing.
Suggest that we change that to "we are dedicated to open and transparent mindless mantra"
ReplyDelete