Discussion: View Thread

Kim,

Pls elaborate on how an academic can perform #2 without having some
appreciation for the demands within #4.

Specifically, I am inquiring into whether a judgement that knowledge is
"right" can be based on the properties of the knowledge, sans situation, or
does one first have to observe the effect of applying the knowledge to judge
its viability let alone value?

I am not suggesting "situation ethics" here. Simply inquiring into whether
the proof is in the recipe or in the pudding -- as in, "It isn't what you
know, it is what you do with what you know"

If testing and justification can be done without #4, how do you handle the
Law of Unintended Consequences?

In my several decades in this milieu I consistently see that the better
results stem from collaboration --- among academics, practitioners and just
plain workers (including professors).


> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:13:22 -0600
> From: Kim Boal <KimBoal@TTU.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Decision Making thoughts...
[...]
> Let us put the knowledge spectrum on a four stage continuum from: 1) the
> generation of new knowledge; 2) the testing/justification of new
knowledge;
> 3) the learning & dissemination of knowledge; and 4) the application of
> knowledge.

Dear Jack, I fully agreed with the need to collaborate. That is what
prompted me to first respond to Conna's email. I wish practioners would
make better use of academics. While academics can theorize (I have myself
written several theoretical papers on Organizational commitment & job
involvement, resource based view of the firm, charismatic leadership etc.)
and academics can do limited laboratory studies to see if something "can"
happen, to see if something "does" happen we need the cooperation of
practioners.

See my previous email on internal validity.

Regards, Kim Boal


At 07:18 AM 12/21/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Kim,
>
>Pls elaborate on how an academic can perform #2 without having some
>appreciation for the demands within #4.
>
>Specifically, I am inquiring into whether a judgement that knowledge is
>"right" can be based on the properties of the knowledge, sans situation, or
>does one first have to observe the effect of applying the knowledge to judge
>its viability let alone value?
>
>I am not suggesting "situation ethics" here. Simply inquiring into whether
>the proof is in the recipe or in the pudding -- as in, "It isn't what you
>know, it is what you do with what you know"
>
>If testing and justification can be done without #4, how do you handle the
>Law of Unintended Consequences?
>
>In my several decades in this milieu I consistently see that the better
>results stem from collaboration --- among academics, practitioners and just
>plain workers (including professors).
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:13:22 -0600
> > From: Kim Boal <KimBoal@TTU.EDU>
> > Subject: Re: Decision Making thoughts...
>[...]
> > Let us put the knowledge spectrum on a four stage continuum from: 1) the
> > generation of new knowledge; 2) the testing/justification of new
>knowledge;
> > 3) the learning & dissemination of knowledge; and 4) the application of
> > knowledge.

--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

From: Michael Greer [mailto:projmgtguy@yahoo.com]

An interesting footnote to this discussion: I've been
consulting, developing instruction, and presenting Project
Management training as an indepent contractor since 1982.
Many times I have been hired by staff members who have
PhDs. In many cases I have been explicitly asked by such
client contacts to NOT refer to him or her in meetings as
"Dr.," since they were afraid of being perceived as overly
academic or theoretical by their fellow staffers.
Furthermore, I have hired subcontractors with PhDs and have
been asked, again by client contacts, not to introduce
these subcontractors to in-house staff as "Dr." for exactly
the same reason.

Personally, I'll continue to regard a PhD as a potential
asset to any project team... after they provide me with
evidence of a track record of appropriate, role-specific
results that has been corroborated by references.

In my experience, the main difficulties I've had with
hiring an overly academic person on a project team is that
they are sometimes so passionate about particular theories
that they are not willing to compromise enough to "get on
with it" and complete the project. Clients expect us to
resolve problems, not introducte more "fascinating"
questions.

What's even more interesting to me is this: The fact that I
have written several books on Project Management (i.e.,
played the role of writer/pontificator) seems to provide
considerable credibility in the eyes of clients. Yet my
books are not at all research-based, nor do I claim them to
be... they are light on theory and heavy on practical,
how-to-do-it specifics distilled from my own experiences.
So from my marketing successes and failures I've concluded
that theory is welcomed in organizations as long as it is
thoroughly grounded in practice and the clear and swift
connections are made between the theory and actions
necessary to apply it.



=====
Michael Greer
Author of The Project Manager's Partner, The Pocket Guide to Project
Management, ID Project Management, and creator/presenter of on-site,
customized PM workshops. Visit Michael Greer's Project Management
Resources at http://www.michaelgreer.com for freebies and links.

Colleagues,

About Charles' comments on the Ph.D.: I've been advised over and over to
stop using mine. In the last two years, I've taken it off my card and
(mostly) off my website.

Today, I use it as a demonstration of my ability to learn, synthesize, and
present knowledge. Nothing more.

In the late '90s, business schools couldn't keep MBA students because they
saw no need for the degree. Business was too easy. The degree became
irrelevant. At that pace, a Ph.D. was even less relevant. Indeed, it
signified someone who had wasted time instead of making a difference.

It will be interesting to see how higher degrees fare in the next few years.

Happy Holidays.

Gary

----------------------------
Pre-planning accelerates strategy accelerates performance.

Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
303-840-9929 www.market-engineering.com
garyl@market-engineering.com

Typically, those on the front lines do not seem to think much of "academics," whether MBAs or PhDs, in my experience. I use all my degrees AND my experience in the field - it seems to work to get the kind of assignments I want.
Edryce
Gary Lundquist <garyl@market-engineering.com> wrote:Colleagues,

About Charles' comments on the Ph.D.: I've been advised over and over to
stop using mine. In the last two years, I've taken it off my card and
(mostly) off my website.

Today, I use it as a demonstration of my ability to learn, synthesize, and
present knowledge. Nothing more.

In the late '90s, business schools couldn't keep MBA students because they
saw no need for the degree. Business was too easy. The degree became
irrelevant. At that pace, a Ph.D. was even less relevant. Indeed, it
signified someone who had wasted time instead of making a difference.

It will be interesting to see how higher degrees fare in the next few years.

Happy Holidays.

Gary

----------------------------
Pre-planning accelerates strategy accelerates performance.

Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
303-840-9929 www.market-engineering.com
garyl@market-engineering.com


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

I suggest that much of what Jack Welch applied stemmed from the lectures of
several academics at Crotonville, especially the program director, Noel
Tichy.
cheers,

> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 09:03:01 -0500
> From: C Gopinath <cgopinat@suffolk.edu>
> Subject: Academic vs Practitioner debate
[...]
> But a few reflect on it and take it
> to a level of abstraction (say, Chester Barnard), or train many on their
> concepts and stress those concpets as the cause of their success (say,
> Jack Welch), and that makes an impact.

Those interested in Crotonville, and the marriage between one academic
(Steve Kerr, Chief Learning Officer), Jack Welch, and managers on the
firing line, may enjoy reading Larry Greiner's interview of Steve Kerr in
the December, 2002, issue of the Journal of Management Inquiry (Sage
Publications).

Regards, Kim Boal


At 12:44 AM 12/25/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>I suggest that much of what Jack Welch applied stemmed from the lectures of
>several academics at Crotonville, especially the program director, Noel
>Tichy.
>cheers,
>
> > Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 09:03:01 -0500
> > From: C Gopinath <cgopinat@suffolk.edu>
> > Subject: Academic vs Practitioner debate
>[...]
> > But a few reflect on it and take it
> > to a level of abstraction (say, Chester Barnard), or train many on their
> > concepts and stress those concpets as the cause of their success (say,
> > Jack Welch), and that makes an impact.

--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

From: Conna Condon [mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]

Can I suggest that this might be flipped?

Academically rigorous theory in the shape of properly structured,
implemented, and validated research provides a solid foundation to the
distillation of the information learned into the how-to-do-specifics
that
business needs - the tools. These can be task or process tools (human
oriented or things).

Business cares that the tools consultants provide work. They have
properly
delegated the "why they work" to the researchers.

Consultants have the responsibility to be both. To insure that the tools
they bring to business are proven through proper validation and a
grounding
in solid research.


"they are light on theory and heavy on practical,
how-to-do-it specifics distilled from my own experiences.
So from my marketing successes and failures I've concluded
that theory is welcomed in organizations as long as it is
thoroughly grounded in practice and the clear and swift
connections are made between the theory and actions
necessary to apply it."

Conna Condon writes:

>Can I suggest that this might be flipped?
>
>Academically rigorous theory in the shape of properly structured,
>implemented, and validated research provides a solid foundation to the
>distillation of the information learned into the how-to-do-specifics
>that business needs - the tools. These can be task or process tools
>(human oriented or things).
>
>Business cares that the tools consultants provide work. They have
>properly delegated the "why they work" to the researchers.
>
>Consultants have the responsibility to be both. To insure that the tools
>they bring to business are proven through proper validation and a
>grounding in solid research.

Hear, hear! A fair statement indeed. Couldn't agree more.



Regards,

Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting
nickols@safe-t.net
www.nickols.us