Critical Chain - Eliyahu M. Goldratt [31]
I open my mouth to explain why, but he doesn't wait. "As strange as it may sound, I agree with you. One hundred percent."
I close my mouth.
"I went to all this length to show you that I do understand. Now let me tell you, I'm disappointed."
I'm tired of imitating a fish, so I keep quiet.
"Don't you see that this, how shall I call it, intriguing observation, is totally impractical?"
This is too much. Then I realize he is right. "As long as we are unable to recommend when to start each path, it does have limited practical use," I admit.
"You don't get it, do you?" Jim shakes his head.
Apparently I don't.
"Look Rick," he starts patiently, "you cannot describe focusing of a person by an equation."
"So?"
"So, this problem can't be solved mathematically."
I still don't get it. "But it can be solved logically," I insist. "We now know where to look. If we keep on thinking we might find a logical procedure. It will be immensely helpful for projects."
He is not convinced. I try harder. "Jim, I don't want to sound presumptuous, but I always dreamt of finding such a breakthrough. Something as powerful as Just-In-Time or TQM. They are not based on math, either. These methods are so robust because they are based on common sense, on logical procedures. I know we are still far from reaching the breakthrough, we don't have the answer. But at last we have identified the right problem. You must admit, it's a major step forward."
"It won't help," he sighs.
"You've lost me," I say sincerely.
"Rick, you entered the academic world over ten years ago. It's about time you knew the rules. If you want to move ahead you must publish, and to publish you have to conform to the accepted academic standards. You know the criteria for articles. They must be based on surveys or on mathematical models. That's it."
"But, Jim, what about things like JIT and TQM? According to what you say, they are not academic enough. Still, we teach them in every university."
"They've passed the test of reality."
"But what about new such breakthroughs?"
"If you find one, you can always publish it in a book. Books don't pass through the screening of academic reviewers. But remember, books don't count toward full professorship."
"I know all that. But it's ridiculous!"
"Why?"
"Jim, you yourself have said to me more than once that the knowledge in almost every aspect of organizations is far from being satisfactory. At the same time there is a whole army of people who are supposed to improve it. How many professors are there in business schools around the world? A hundred thousand? And what have we produced? Nothing. In the last thirty years knowledge has progressed in leaps and bounds. How many of those breakthroughs came from academia? Zilch. Don't you see that the criteria we use to judge what is acceptable research are the problem. They choke us. It's almost impossible to put any meaningful contribution through the system. How can we . . ."
He raises his hand to stop me from continuing. "You may not like it, I don't like it, but in order to prevent academic anarchy we all must adhere to the standards. It's like democracy or our legal system. They may suffer from major flaws but they are the best we have."
He glances at his watch. "What about your other idea?"
"Forget it," I say bitterly. "It's important for projects, very important. But it's impractical. It's not based on mathematical models."
"Still, I would like to hear it," he requests gently.
"What for?" Nevertheless, knowing that Jim has a particular interest in measurements, he published a book on them, I say, "It's about how we measure the progress of projects. The measurement is wrong."
"How did you conclude that?" He is genuinely interested. "Did you use my criteria?"
"Yes, of course." And I quote from memory, " ‘Criteria number one: Measurements should induce the parts to do what is good for the system as a whole.'