How should organisations use and prioritise the scientific, technical and evidence-based information available to them?
In what ways might, e.g., significant private enterprises legitimately use these sources of information differently from governmental ones? (I mean, in business, economics and the like, rather than in expressly ethically difficult contexts.) What sorts of relationships in sci-tech are 'best' between, e.g., universities and other large institutions?
Clarification added February 3, 2008:
I have tried to look at this question a little via my website, www.scienceandtechnologyuk.co.uk.
Your views on these thoughts are most welcome. Thank you.
Answers (3)
Drago P
Fellow, Data Integrity Institute, http://www.dataintegrityinstitute.com
Best Answers in: Business Development (1), Derivatives Markets (1), Supply Chain Management (1), Software Development (1), Web Development (1)
Hi Hilary,
I see great potential in your idea.
While it is true that (North American) corporations pay major attention to government regulation (accounting, security, legal environment, etc.) and compliance (Sarbanes-Oxley), there is no such enthusiasm for using and prioritizing of the scientific, technical and evidence-based information available to them.
From my point of view, a sophisticated repository of such information, based, perhaps on ASG Rochade metadata management technology, would be essential, together with more close relations with universities and institutes.
Drago Pejic, M. Sc., F.L.M.I.
http://www.dataintegrityinstitute.com
Links:
Shaun S
Managing Director
Best Answers in: Quality Management and Standards (9), Change Management (2), Organizational Development (2), Ethics (2), Mentoring (1), Government Policy (1), Corporate Governance (1), Databases (1)
This is an interesting question. I study W Edwards Deming quite a lot. By profession he was a statistician, but as a management thinker he was only too aware that management information falls into two distinct categories. That which can be known, and that which is both unknown and unknowable. See my article for an insight
http://blog.capablepeople.co.uk/blog/Deming/_archives/2007/11/29/3380597.html
Anyway, taking a bit more consideration of your question, there can often be a couple of mistakes that an organisation can make regarding MI, at opposite ends of the decision making spectrum. That is firstly to assume that decisions can only be based on hard facts and evidence, thus ignoring the fundamental truth that the success of any strategy may well pivot on some unknowable series of events. Or secondly to adopt a more cavalier or fatalistic approach and accept that MI can't give you everything, so why bother with it at all. In this case you would base all your decisions wholly on intuition
Clearly the answer is somewhere in the middle. Business decisions are always a risk, a gamble, with no guarantees. What good MI does is slant the odds in your favour, and that is by any standards a good thing
Neil L
Learning Development Specialist at The Cooperators
Best Answers in: Business Development (2), Business Analytics (2), Occupational Training (1), Resume Writing (1), Staffing and Recruiting (1), Ethics (1), Starting Up (1)
First of all, we need to clarify what we mean by "organizations". Some private companies have big R&D projects on the go, but the "organization" may not make good use of them. Xerox is an example of this. They invented the PC, the GUI-mouse PC interface, the laser printer and more. They created the modern office. But this was at their PARC labs. The head office didn't move fast on these developments because the photocopier business was so profitable. Apple, Microsoft, IBM and HP grabbed the category instead. So when we say "organization" we really mean key decision-makers, i.e. upper management.
Upper management will never have enough mindspace to track developments in science and technology, for several reasons. First, just running the organization takes up a lot of mindshare. There isn't much left over. Secondly, science and technology are inconclusive endeavours. Scientific discoveries are announced as provisional only, until many further studies are done. Tracking this and screening out the well-established from the recently-announced again takes too much effort. That is a full-time job; one undertaken by science journalists, for example. Finally, there is the information explosion. Science and innovation spawn more of the same. This creates the informational irony that the more good information we have, the less time we have to allot to any specific part of it. This is all just too much for a busy manager to follow.
The answer is not modern, but ancient. Kings and queens have always relied on known and trusted wise counselors for making decisions of state. Modern managers need to "ask an expert". They can and should rely on proven, trustworthy expert consultants who can advise them on where the current research stands, and which parts of that research are relevant to the managers' information needs.
Organizational managers have no time for the "breadth" aspect of information search. Others who make it their job to stay on top of new science and technology can sell that breadth to management. What the consultants can do is narrow down the subset of discoveries that pertain. Then management can probe that area in depth, with the consultant's support or not.
Technology is not the answer. It makes so much information available that it's power to do so has become the new problem. *Trust* is the solution; trustworthy advisors who can gather the evidence and present the case to busy managers.
