{"id":2023,"date":"2012-08-26T15:47:08","date_gmt":"2012-08-26T15:47:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.saasoft.com\/blog\/?p=2023"},"modified":"2012-08-26T15:47:08","modified_gmt":"2012-08-26T15:47:08","slug":"the-role-of-the-credible-skeptic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/?p=2023","title":{"rendered":"The Essential Role of the Credible Skeptic"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>All improvement implies change – some may be incremental elimination of current Niggles; other may be breakthrough achievement of future NiceIfs.<\/p>\n

Change is an uphill struggle and the inevitable friction generates heat and sparks which dissipate some of the energy.<\/p>\n

People throw spanners into the wheel which may eventually grind to a halt. Experts talk about \u201coiling the wheels of change\u201d and generating momentum. The mechanical metaphors are numerous and have a common thread – that change requires pushing.<\/p>\n

The unstated assumption is that resistance is \u201cbad\u201d and any means to overcome or bypass resistance is therefore justified – but this assumption is one-sided and discounts the possibility that there is a \u201cgood\u201d side to resistance.<\/p>\n

Suppose a design is proposed that would be effective (it would do the right thing) then resistance-to-change would be counter-improvement. Suppose the proposed design would be ineffective (it would not do the right thing and might even lead to the wrong thing) then resistance-to-change would be protective. The difference is the effectiveness<\/strong> of the design – not the presence of resistance-to-change.<\/p>\n

\n

Effectiveness has two components – effective in theory and effective in practice.\u00a0 Demonstrating effectiveness in theory is the purpose of pure research; delivering effectiveness in practice is the purpose of applied research. Both are embraced in Improvement Science.<\/p>\n

Who is best placed to decide what will work in theory? An academic.<\/p>\n

Who is best placed to decide what can work in practice? A pragmatist.<\/p>\n

So we need both<\/strong> doing the parts that they do best.\u00a0 And we need them doing it at the same time … not in sequence … not theory and then practice.<\/p>\n

\n

It is a common assumption that novel designs are created sequentially – working from big conceptual chunks in stages of increasing detail to the final blueprints.<\/p>\n

Reality is a bit messier than this!<\/p>\n

An experienced design team will flip between broad-brush and fine-detail and they know the importance of including both theorists and pragmatists in the team. This is where the practical challenge comes because most people have a preference for one or the other modes of thinking.<\/p>\n

Coordinating the effective-design-conversation requires awareness by everyone of the value of both.\u00a0 This is not discussion, instruction, manipulation, or facilitation – it is education.\u00a0The role of the design team leader is to create the context to allow the learning to flow and the synergy to emerge.<\/p>\n

\n

The symptoms and signs associated with inexperienced design teams are:<\/p>\n