Discussion: View Thread

On Sat, 5 Dec 1998 "Laurie A. Fitzgerald, PhD" wrote RE: Management &
Measurement
>
>Greetings,
>
>Through the lens of Chaos, I have come to understand that control ---
>whether we call it that or by its synonym "management" --- is
>essentially an illusion. If that is so, and I for one am convinced it
>is, then a new slant can be taken on Drucker's comment "What cannot be
>measured, cannot be managed/controlled": If no thing can be
>managed/controlled, perhaps the act of measurement is but a comforting
>fiction...Werner Heisenberg has proven as much with his "Uncertainty
>Principle." Your thought?
>
>Laurie

Synonym, Not! There is more to management than control. In fact, good
management includes the act of instilling in each individual the "rules for
success" so that the group of individuals do not have to be "controlled."
Good managers have understood why animals flock and geese fly in formation
long before "chaos" theory became popular. (c.f. GE's emphasis on line
manager training (plan, organize, integrate, measure) in the 1950's and the
Air Force's experiences in getting fighter pilots to appreciate and adopt
formation combat in the 1960's)

Note that Drucker and Kelvin (and the many others to whom the saying is
attributed) never said the obverse, namely, that "things that Are measured
Can be controlled" Measurement is necessary but not sufficient.

And measurement need not be fiction. As Phil Crosby, the Quality guru, has
noted, "As organizations get larger it is difficult to know what is
happening and darn near impossible to know what is not happening."
Achievement reports tell you what is happening. Knowing what is not
happening can be done by a-priori modeling of what is expected to happen
and observing whether expectations are being realized. Thus the
fundamental importance of plans.

And Heisenberg said that "As the thing you want to measure gets
infinitesimally small, then the act of measuring perturbs the position or
velocity of the thing." Rather than the infinitesimally small world of
Heisenberg you should note the same phenomenon under a different name --
the Hawthorne Effect.

If you do not equate management with control, there is a lot to be said
about management. If you do equate management with control then you have
to invent other terms for the rest of management --such as Leadership,
Stewardship, Principle-Centered (anything), Mentoring, Coaching, Chaosship,
etc. But understand "management" and this Tower of Babel is unnecessary
(except for the promotion of book sales).

Jack Ring
32712 N. 70th St.
Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
sendmail: jring@amug.org
602-488-4615
Cell) 602.418.8784
F)602-488-4616

Jack Ring wrote:

> Synonym, Not! There is more to management than control.

Bravo! I couldn't agree more...

> In fact, good
> management includes the act of instilling in each individual the "rules for
> success" so that the group of individuals do not have to be "controlled."

On the other hand, I disagree about this relationship. Given what we now know
about the complex behavior of systems such as our societies, our cultures, our
markets, our economies and our corporations, there are no distinct "rules for
success" that can render an organization's behavior 'neat and orderly' in any
meaningful and productive way. My experience suggests that when you give
people "real" rules (first principles that are relevant and meaningful when
faced with the unknown or unfamiliar), the organization in which they
particpate looks like anything except 'under control'! In fact, the common
interpretation and application of traditional management, a la Peter Drucker
and others, is wholly devoted to gaining control.

> Good managers have understood why animals flock and geese fly in formation
> long before "chaos" theory became popular. (c.f. GE's emphasis on line
> manager training (plan, organize, integrate, measure) in the 1950's and the
> Air Force's experiences in getting fighter pilots to appreciate and adopt
> formation combat in the 1960's)
>

Those so-called 'good managers' are few and far between, often being those who
were brave enough to break the rules they were taught in the first place! In
spite of much of the GE rhetoric circulating these days, their 'management
model' is seriously under attack these days--not by the corporation's
renegades, but the market itself: their business model is substantially
invalid in today's socio-economic environment.

>And measurement need not be fiction. As Phil Crosby, the Quality guru, has

> noted, "As organizations get larger it is difficult to know what is
> happening and darn near impossible to know what is not happening."
> Achievement reports tell you what is happening. Knowing what is not
> happening can be done by a-priori modeling of what is expected to happen
> and observing whether expectations are being realized. Thus the
> fundamental importance of plans.

Not so! Measurement is pure fiction. The vast majority of managers and their
charges view plans as a statement of what must be acheived and not as a
framework for gaining understanding of what works and what does not work.
Invariably whole and important corporations, governments, cultures and
communities have been lost throughout the ages by failing to understand the
difference between maps and reality. True, planning is important, but only as
a process devoted to developing an understanding of one's environment and the
consequences of their interaction with that environment as a basis for making
changes and adjustments. If managers perceive the consequence of a planning
effort as the development of a plan to be adopted as 'the rules' to which
workers must conform, their organizations will likely fail or most certainly be
hastened to their demise.

> And Heisenberg said that "As the thing you want to measure gets
> infinitesimally small, then the act of measuring perturbs the position or
> velocity of the thing." Rather than the infinitesimally small world of
> Heisenberg you should note the same phenomenon under a different name --
> the Hawthorne Effect.

Heisenberg was myopic: the act of measurement effects everything, no matter
how small. Humans just aren't well enough equipped yet to understand the
nature and form of the effect. Nevertheless, several brilliant minds have been
able to guide us in our knowing this to be essentially valid.

> If you do not equate management with control, there is a lot to be said
> about management. If you do equate management with control then you have
> to invent other terms for the rest of management --such as Leadership,
> Stewardship, Principle-Centered (anything), Mentoring, Coaching, Chaosship,
> etc. But understand "management" and this Tower of Babel is unnecessary
> (except for the promotion of book sales).

Three cheers on these notes: "management" is indeed a broad topic that
encompasses a myriad of inter-related theories, philosophies, practices,
standards and actions. I believe the sooner we recognize that what we call
management is itself a 'complex' system which must inherently be afforded the
latitude to adapt and adjust to the ever-changing demands of its environment,
the sooner we will find ourselves able to 'manage' our organizations in ways
that are simultaneously attuned to the needs of individual human beings as well
as theose of the human race as a whole.

Cheers, Arnold J. Wytenburg

Regarding the comments by Jack Ring and Arnold Wytenburg about
the subject line above and, in particular, about control, the
current issue of Harvard Business Review (Nov-Dec) carries a
lengthy letter by yours truly about this exact topic. Those
interested in management, measurement, empowerment, control,
etc, might find it interesting.

Fred Nickols, Executive Director
Strategic Planning & Management Services
Educational Testing Service [01-D]
Princeton, NJ 08541
Tel = 609.734.5077 Fax = 609.734.5590
e-mail = fnickols@ets.org

Views expressed are the author's, not ETS's.

Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Arnold Wytenburg wrote Re: Management and Measurement
>
>Jack Ring wrote:
[...]
>> In fact, good
>> management includes the act of instilling in each individual the "rules for
>> success" so that the group of individuals do not have to be "controlled."
>
>On the other hand, I disagree about this relationship. Given what we now know
>about the complex behavior of systems such as our societies, our cultures, our
>markets, our economies and our corporations, there are no distinct "rules for
>success" that can render an organization's behavior 'neat and orderly' in any
>meaningful and productive way. My experience suggests that when you give
>people "real" rules (first principles that are relevant and meaningful when
>faced with the unknown or unfamiliar), the organization in which they
>particpate looks like anything except 'under control'! In fact, the common
>interpretation and application of traditional management, a la Peter Drucker
>and others, is wholly devoted to gaining control.

I'll meet you half way. Given that we now know how to create emergent
behavior by installing rules locally in the elements of the system (Craig
Reynolds demonstrated this in 1987 with the BOIDS simulation. BOIDS may
not have explained everything about the swooping flight patterns of
starlings that bemused the poet, Colerige, in 1799 but close enough), it
seems to me the question is whether we are smart enough to write the "rules
for managers." I agree that we are not (at least I am not) but that does
not invalidate the underlying system. Also, I do not consider 'neat and
orderly' to be a typical characteristic of a successful organization.
'Exploring and recouping' is a preferred behavior. As Prof. Azides has
pointed out in Corporate Lifecycles, the 'neat and orderly' (or repetitive)
organization is the non-improving and non-innovating organization. Thus,
near death.

I find it convenient to consider four styles of control; The Monarchy, the
Oversight Committee, the Process Office and the Systemic or Embedded style.

+ The Monarch allows no action that is not directed from "HQ."
+ The Oversight Committee reviews past events, actions and outcomes and
discerns which were appropriate and which not and then recommends new rules
or guidance for such situations if they reoccur.
+ The Process Office, a more recent invention of the organizational
psychologists, is similar to an Oversight Committee but is closer to the
action thus does not suffer the time delays and chances of mis-information
endemic to Oversight. However, they are still "riding shotgun" and not
directly involved in the mission of the organization.
+ The fourth style, Systemic or Embedded, is quite different. It seeks
"control from within" or, as Senge has said, "Control without Controlling."
In this style, a manager ensures (by role modeling) that sufficient shared
values (principles) and vision (purpose and meaning) exist and that each
element has the fundamental behavior patterns needed to survive (plan,
organize, integrate and measure is an upper level pattern and Plan, Do,
Check, Adjust is a lower level pattern). Finally, he or she facilitates
the setting of standards (goals and objectives) at a level that will ensure
success in the face of competition, shortage of resources, and other
adversities. It is this fourth style of management that chaos theory is
re-describing but it has been around since the Halls of Montezuma and the
Shores of Tripoli.

And the last time I heard Drucker he was talking about controlling without
control. Clearly, we have a lot of learning to do about what to embed in
the individuals who comprise the organization. But the point is, such
embedding, avoiding the time delays and mis-information of an external
controller, is the right way to go.

>> Good managers have understood why animals flock and geese fly in formation
>> long before "chaos" theory became popular. (c.f. GE's emphasis on line
>> manager training (plan, organize, integrate, measure) in the 1950's and the
>> Air Force's experiences in getting fighter pilots to appreciate and adopt
>> formation combat in the 1960's)
>>
>
>Those so-called 'good managers' are few and far between, often being those who
>were brave enough to break the rules they were taught in the first place! In
>spite of much of the GE rhetoric circulating these days, their 'management
>model' is seriously under attack these days--not by the corporation's
>renegades, but the market itself: their business model is substantially
>invalid in today's socio-economic environment.

Time warp. I was speaking of the GE of the 1950's, not the GE of today.
However, I am intrigued by your view of their current shortcomings and
would like to hear more.

>>And measurement need not be fiction. As Phil Crosby, the Quality guru, has
>> noted, "As organizations get larger it is difficult to know what is
>> happening and darn near impossible to know what is not happening."
>> Achievement reports tell you what is happening. Knowing what is not
>> happening can be done by a-priori modeling of what is expected to happen
>> and observing whether expectations are being realized. Thus the
>> fundamental importance of plans.
>
>Not so! Measurement is pure fiction. The vast majority of managers and their
>charges view plans as a statement of what must be acheived and not as a
>framework for gaining understanding of what works and what does not work.

I understand that there are more B, C and D students than A students. And
certainly a concert by a middle-school band does not give one a good
impression of the musical talent of John Phillip Sousa. But what the vast
majority does with the idea is not an indictment of the idea.

>Invariably whole and important corporations, governments, cultures and
>communities have been lost throughout the ages by failing to understand the
>difference between maps and reality. True, planning is important, but only as
>a process devoted to developing an understanding of one's environment and the
>consequences of their interaction with that environment as a basis for making
>changes and adjustments. If managers perceive the consequence of a planning
>effort as the development of a plan to be adopted as 'the rules' to which
>workers must conform, their organizations will likely fail or most certainly be
>hastened to their demise.

Aha! The foregoing, well said, should be in the curriculum of every
managment course. Is it?

[...]
>Three cheers on these notes: "management" is indeed a broad topic that
>encompasses a myriad of inter-related theories, philosophies, practices,
>standards and actions. I believe the sooner we recognize that what we call
>management is itself a 'complex' system which must inherently be afforded the
>latitude to adapt and adjust to the ever-changing demands of its environment,
>the sooner we will find ourselves able to 'manage' our organizations in ways
>that are simultaneously attuned to the needs of individual human beings as well
>as theose of the human race as a whole.

Well said, again. That is what management is supposed to do.

ps. "a myriad of" will get you a D- in your English class. ;-)


Jack Ring
32712 N. 70th St.
Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
sendmail: jring@amug.org
602-488-4615
Cell) 602.418.8784
F)602-488-4616

In a message dated 98-12-06 17:18:37 EST, you [arnold@originalthinking.com
(Arnold Wytenburg)] write:

<< On the other hand, I disagree about this relationship. Given what we now
know
about the complex behavior of systems such as our societies, our cultures,
our
markets, our economies and our corporations, there are no distinct "rules for
success" that can render an organization's behavior 'neat and orderly' in any
meaningful and productive way. My experience suggests that when you give
people "real" rules (first principles that are relevant and meaningful when
faced with the unknown or unfamiliar), the organization in which they
particpate looks like anything except 'under control'! In fact, the common
interpretation and application of traditional management, a la Peter Drucker
and others, is wholly devoted to gaining control.
>>
I am confused. When you say 'looks like anything except 'under control'!' do
you mean that it is NOT under control, or do you mean that it MIGHT be under
control and possibly under better, though shared, control, than if it LOOKED
as though it were 'under control'?

Personally, I believe that an organization in which everyone applies sound,
shared guideline QUESTIONS, which remind of all the issues that should be
considered in decisions and stimulate creative thought, is likely to be under
better control than one that has strict 'control' rules, guidelines, and/or
procedure manuals/forms/etc. (If you forgive the plug, such guideline
queations are discussed in depth in the book High Quality Leadership:
Practical Guidelines to Becoming a More Effective Manager. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ
Quality Press, 1998 by John Washbush and myself)

Erwin (Rausch)

Erwin Rausch wrote:

> I am confused. When you say 'looks like anything except 'under control'!' do
> you mean that it is NOT under control, or do you mean that it MIGHT be under
> control and possibly under better, though shared, control, than if it LOOKED
> as though it were 'under control'?

> Personally, I believe that an organization in which everyone applies sound,
> shared guideline QUESTIONS, which remind of all the issues that should be
> considered in decisions and stimulate creative thought, is likely to be under
> better control than one that has strict 'control' rules, guidelines, and/or
> procedure manuals/forms/etc.

You seem to have captured the nuance that so many in management miss completely.
In my experiences with many corporations around the globe, both large and small,
I've found that a great deal of energy and focus is devoted to creating and
maintaining the illusion of control. The popular version of that concept of
control is (at least) two-fold. First, it is consistent with a single viewpoint,
usually that of the 'leader', and second, it must be maintained and sustained for
as long as that leader holds his or her viewpoint as being the single 'right' way
of doing things. Please don't misunderstand me: I'm not suggesting we simply
give ourselves over to chaos and let our organizations fall into a state of
potential anarchy. I am suggesting, however, that we need to explore and exploit
management models which allow organizations to exist in a state of extreme
flexibility .

And thatnks for the lead to your book. I'll be looking for it.

Cheers, Arnold J. Wytenburg

Since this is a forum for discussion of management issues, let's stretch
the envelope a bit and look at the roles of planning in entrepreneurial
behavior. Amar Bhide, at Harvard has done some provocative work debunking
our control-oriented predilection for pushing entrepreneurs through things
called Business Plans (articles in HBR, 1986, 1994). His work shows pretty
clearly that the presence of a formal plan is not a success indicator.

Yet we continue to believe that the exercise of planning has substantial
heuristic merit. ENT and other business profs. all over the world remain
committed to the idea that working students through the process of
measuring and forecasting business results, at the enterprise, SBU, or
product levels will improve their abilities to manage real processes. The
planning exercise is a simulation, but how good is it as a way of preparing
for real management challenges? My experience this week has led me to
wonder if we're really asking the right questions.

I've just collected about 25 proto-plans from students in my 3rd year class
on entrepreneurship. Over the last two weeks I've had them draw up what I
called New Venture Maps. Using the outline of a business plan, they were
told to fill in the parts they already know. ("If you were going to start
a business next year, what would it be?" -- that's a question that
immediately triggers all kinds of existing emotions and knowledge; it's far
from a blank sheet.) Then they were to use the knowledge gained in the
first 12 weeks of the course to identify the soft parts of this Map, and to
sketch out a little work plan that would help them fill in the blanks.
Finally, I asked them to run a best-estimate set of numbers through some
basic financial spreadsheets (Balance Sheet, Income statements for 5 years,
Cash Flow to break-even) so they could see how those things work, and their
relation to the buisnes model in the Map. I figured it would take them
about 10-15 hours.

WRONG!! Most seem to have put in 30-50 hours, and are still far from
satisfied. I told them I wanted a rough first draft, no new research,
maybe 10% of what a final, acceptable Plan would look like. But they don't
seem to have listened to those caveats! Granted, some of that extra effort
is because they are passionately involved with the subject, but there seems
to be something more going on here.

Earlier comments from Jack, Erwin, and Arnold have touched on the issue of
leading questions which stimulate learners to pursue greater knowledge.
There's something about this exercise in figuring out the basic operation
of a new business that seems to have a minimum threshhold to it, one these
students are fighting to get over. They found, for example, that when they
didn't like the Net Income numbers, they had to go back and rethink
substantial chunks of the business model. Having done that, they had to
rethink their cost and compensation structures, and then had to redo their
cash flows. And on it went, apparently ad infinitum, over the week-end.
The levels of uncertainty on their rough cuts were simply unacceptable to
the vast majority of them.

I've been appalled at how this little learning exercise has gotten out of
hand, squeezing some students' exam preparation and other assignments. At
the same time, I think these students have learned a tremendous amount
about business.

Can we revisit the "controlled chaos" discussion a bit? What do we know
about managing the degree of chaos we unleash with learning exercises?
When is "a little knowledge"' simply not enough? Why does curiosity
sometimes overwhelm us? How do we, really, pace a learning process?

Tom Bryant.

+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+
Prof. Thomas A. Bryant, Ph.D., Visiting Professor and
State of New Jersey Chair in Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Faculty of Management, MEC 326
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
111 Washington Avenue, NEWARK, NJ 07102-3027 U.S.A.
Tel: (973) 353-1062; Fax: (973) 353-1664
e-mail: tabryant@andromeda.rutgers.edu

Tom, you put a finger on your students intolerance for ambiguity, which many
see in MBA students. I personally think that it reveals a lack of experience,
of trying to operate in what cognitive psychology terms an "ill-structured" (to
them) problem domain. For example, I have had students try and be price about
expenses and have to tell them not to worry too munch, that they will keep to
budget by MANAGING their expenses and cutting costs if sales don't take off as
early as anticipated. Emphasizing and articulating the process that they will
go through helps a little. More recently, I had the opportunity to review some
real world business plans submitted for funding and wished that they were
available to students to analyze and understand why most were rejected. Getting
a feel for the numbers and misfits may also help reduce uncertainty.

But most importantly, the management skills that you are teaching really matter
the most in years 3-7, if the business takes off. Until then, getting customers
and building the business is THE critical success factor and (not) keeping an
eye on cash flow probably the big failure factor. Entrepreneurs hit the wall
when the span of control exceeds one persons grasp and they have to run the
business professionally. That is when your planning may pay off. Early
(start-up) planning, it seems to me, best helps to shape thinking about how the
organization will be structured and operated after the management
professionalizes. I always liked the story of Compaq Computer planning to
become a Fortune 500 co. and creating an org. chart which they later filled in
with names as each was hired. That planning helped them move from 3 people to
$500 million in sales after the first year.

Maybe you are on the right track after all, but don't see entrepreneurship
class as a long-term payoff. A good analogy might be teaching portfolio theory
to budding financiers who start up a mutual fund. The portfolio theory payoff
is over the long-term and probably won't affect their first year performance
that much. A little luck helps start-up funds and businesses, but long-run
performance is helped by a cluster of superior management skills.
--
Prof. John L. Naman naman+@pitt.edu

Hi,
While responding to the questions that Tom puts I am wearing two hats - one as
a lecturer and member of a university faculty, and the other as an
owner/manager of a small business.

I must be very honest and admit that for over a decade I have constantly failed
to practice what I've preached. I've taught management in both the public and
private sectors and in doing so have stuck to the same old principles that have
changed little in the last one hundred years. I've taught planning and
controlling, and the importance of having a good, solid business plan with
which to drive one's business, but I've never had a good, solid business plan
myself. And my business is doing very well thank you very much (nearly
$2million income last year alone - over $3million in the last eighteen months).

The secret, I believe, is in the fact that I don't teach the theories of good
management. I've actually been part of teams that have gone out into the
workplace and identified the skills and knowledge that the best and most
successful people have been applying - and both taught and copied them. And
most of the people I've taught (and they have all been from the business, not
education, sector) are also doing very well thank you very much. One person
wrote saying that she had earned an increase of $3million simply by doing one
or two things differently in her planning processes - and she earned this at a
stroke of a pen, not over a given period.

One of the most important lessons I've learned is that the people who get most
excited about good, solid business plans are the accountants and bankers.
Neither of them will approve expenditure or loans unless a plan is created that
details everything that the business owner is planning to do and how he/she
plans to fund it. These plans can sometimes takes weeks or months to develop
and in the meantime the business owner or manager has to continue running a
business and make enough money to pay the bills. I know of many small business
owners who have long ago decided that tenacity and courage far outweighs a good
business plan - mostly because they can't see the need for one.

In my own business I take the tack of having a clear vision of what I want to
do and where I want to go. How I get there is never so clear because my
business balances on keeping up with latest trends and ideas, and I haven't got
a clue what these are going to be until I come across them. Furthermore, my
business relies on my ability to make decisions based on information I haven't
got yet - and may not have until I've discovered other information that only
comes from information I am working with now. And just thinking about that
excites the pants off me because it means that every day is different, every
transaction is different, every customer is different, and tomorrow is going to
be more wonderful than yesterday, but nowhere near as wonderful as the day
after.

Personally, I think business plans have seen their day. Success doesn't come
from planning, it comes from putting the plan into action. I've known many good
planners who never moved beyond their plan. In fact, not so long ago I was
working with one small business owner who lamented the fact that even though he
had a good solid business plan, one that his bank was willing to lend him
hundreds of thousands of dollars on, he was still going broke. He was convinced
that the only thing that would ensure his success was to have a good plan -
nobody told him that the plan must be something that realistically helps him
get through the day.

Just a couple of thoughts

Phil Rutherford


Tom Bryant wrote:

> Since this is a forum for discussion of management issues, let's stretch
> the envelope a bit and look at the roles of planning in entrepreneurial
> behavior. Amar Bhide, at Harvard has done some provocative work debunking
> our control-oriented predilection for pushing entrepreneurs through things
> called Business Plans (articles in HBR, 1986, 1994). His work shows pretty
> clearly that the presence of a formal plan is not a success indicator.
>
> Yet we continue to believe that the exercise of planning has substantial
> heuristic merit. ENT and other business profs. all over the world remain
> committed to the idea that working students through the process of
> measuring and forecasting business results, at the enterprise, SBU, or
> product levels will improve their abilities to manage real processes. The
> planning exercise is a simulation, but how good is it as a way of preparing
> for real management challenges? My experience this week has led me to
> wonder if we're really asking the right questions.
>
> I've just collected about 25 proto-plans from students in my 3rd year class
> on entrepreneurship. Over the last two weeks I've had them draw up what I
> called New Venture Maps. Using the outline of a business plan, they were
> told to fill in the parts they already know. ("If you were going to start
> a business next year, what would it be?" -- that's a question that
> immediately triggers all kinds of existing emotions and knowledge; it's far
> from a blank sheet.) Then they were to use the knowledge gained in the
> first 12 weeks of the course to identify the soft parts of this Map, and to
> sketch out a little work plan that would help them fill in the blanks.
> Finally, I asked them to run a best-estimate set of numbers through some
> basic financial spreadsheets (Balance Sheet, Income statements for 5 years,
> Cash Flow to break-even) so they could see how those things work, and their
> relation to the buisnes model in the Map. I figured it would take them
> about 10-15 hours.
>
> WRONG!! Most seem to have put in 30-50 hours, and are still far from
> satisfied. I told them I wanted a rough first draft, no new research,
> maybe 10% of what a final, acceptable Plan would look like. But they don't
> seem to have listened to those caveats! Granted, some of that extra effort
> is because they are passionately involved with the subject, but there seems
> to be something more going on here.
>
> Earlier comments from Jack, Erwin, and Arnold have touched on the issue of
> leading questions which stimulate learners to pursue greater knowledge.
> There's something about this exercise in figuring out the basic operation
> of a new business that seems to have a minimum threshhold to it, one these
> students are fighting to get over. They found, for example, that when they
> didn't like the Net Income numbers, they had to go back and rethink
> substantial chunks of the business model. Having done that, they had to
> rethink their cost and compensation structures, and then had to redo their
> cash flows. And on it went, apparently ad infinitum, over the week-end.
> The levels of uncertainty on their rough cuts were simply unacceptable to
> the vast majority of them.
>
> I've been appalled at how this little learning exercise has gotten out of
> hand, squeezing some students' exam preparation and other assignments. At
> the same time, I think these students have learned a tremendous amount
> about business.
>
> Can we revisit the "controlled chaos" discussion a bit? What do we know
> about managing the degree of chaos we unleash with learning exercises?
> When is "a little knowledge"' simply not enough? Why does curiosity
> sometimes overwhelm us? How do we, really, pace a learning process?
>
> Tom Bryant.
>
> +/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+
> Prof. Thomas A. Bryant, Ph.D., Visiting Professor and
> State of New Jersey Chair in Small Business & Entrepreneurship
> Faculty of Management, MEC 326
> Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
> 111 Washington Avenue, NEWARK, NJ 07102-3027 U.S.A.
> Tel: (973) 353-1062; Fax: (973) 353-1664
> e-mail: tabryant@andromeda.rutgers.edu

Phil Rutherford wrote: "Personally, I think business plans have seen their day."

Two marine-based analogies may shed an interesting light on this statement:

- Coastal navigation may not require "plans"; but what about deep blue journeys?
- It is when the whether turns into a gale that one misses the plans he /
she has not done.

Daniel Pratas

(No accountant; no sailor either)