“relatively small changes had a big impact on a big problem. There is a clear asymmetry between the scale of the problem and the scale of the solution. Big problem, small solution.
.
This is a theme you will see again and again. Big problems are rarely solved with commensurately big solutions. lnstead, they are most often solved by a sequence of small solutions, sometimes over weeks, sometimes over decades. And this asymmetry is why the Rider's predilection for analysis can backfire so easily. W hen the Rider analyzes a problem, he seeks a solution that befits the scale of it. If the Rider spots a hole, he wants to fill it, and if he's got a round hole with a 24-inch diameter, he's gonna go looking for a 24-inch peg. But that mental model is wrong.
.
For instance, in analyzing malnutrition in Vietnam, the experts had exhaustively analyzed all the big systemic forces that were responsible for it: lack of sanitation, poverty, ignorance, lack of water. No doubt they also concocted big systemic plans to address those forces. But that was fantasy. No one, other than Sternin, thought to ask, "What's working right now?"
…
To pursue bright spots is to ask the question "What's working, and how can we do more of it?" Sounds simple, doesn't it? Yet, in the real world, this obvious question is almost never asked.
.
Instead, the question we ask is more problem focused: "What's broken, and how do we fix it?"
É isto que aprecio, por exemplo, quando aplico esta metodologia, pois as acções são cirúrgicas e têm um efeito multiplicador virtuoso no sistema.
.
Basta pensar na nossa situação económica e em vez de apoios, em vez de programas complexos, benesses ficais para atrair os pins, perguntar: por que é que algumas PMEs têm sucesso? O que pode ser aprendido e generalizado nesses casos? Como se pode multiplicar a criação de mais PMEs que sigam essas lições?
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário