Arte vs eficiência

Nas minhas apresentações, há muito que uso esta sequência:

Contra a força bruta da eficiência pura e dura e do número, apostar na arte, apostar na diferenciação, apostar no caminho menos percorrido.
.
Por isso, estes trechos de Hillary Austen são um bálsamo:

"The belief is such analytically inclined students have been trained in the scientific inquiry process, which will give them a solid footing in tackling the problems their companies encounter. But Hilary Austen, an adjunct professor at the Rotman School of Management in Toronto and semi-retired consultant, pushes back at such notions.
.
It’s not that a scientific background is unhelpful. But she believes there is a balancing approach, artistic inquiry, which in many cases will prove just as valuable.
...
In mid-career, she went back to get her PhD and her dissertation involved watching what managers did, a study that did not fit with the scientific, hard numbers approach [Moi ici: As habituais folhas de cálculo. Boas para um mundo de risco, perigosas num mundo de incerteza. O velho conflito McGyver vs Sandy] favoured in much of academe.
...
The validity of the scientific approach depends on bias-free methods and conclusions. It records measurable observations. Generalizations come from sound statistical sampling. Artistic inquiry, on the other hand, captures important experiences and their meaning. Generalizations are informed by qualitatively vivid single samples. Their validity depends on their power to shape our conception of the world. Knowing is emotionally neutral for scientific inquiry but rooted in emotion for artistic inquiry. [Moi ici: Aquilo a que aqui costumamos de chamar de relações amorosas com clientes, fornecedores e produtos]
.
You may prefer hard facts. But she quotes her mentor: “We can’t say something only counts as knowledge if it’s algorithmic and neutral.”

Onde é que a interacção actua?

Trechos retirados de "Make a smart decision: Balance data with experience"