June 15, 2009

New directions in science are launched by new tools much more often than by new concepts. The effect of a concept-driven revolution is to explain old things in new ways. The effect of a tool-driven revolution is to discover new things that have to be explained. -Freeman J. Dyson

The quote above caught my attention for its reference to ‘concept-driven’ vs. ‘tool-driven’ revolution. I think that is an interesting distinction, though I am not sure that concept-driven revolutions are necessarily about explaining old things. Perhaps he meant it in the context of science or in a context which is not accessible to me.

I think while tool-driven, or technology-driven revolutions have been critical in our evolution, ultimately they too are based on ideas. The idea evolves as an initial experiment with a tool opens up new avenues for exploration. But in the beginning there has to have been an idea – a novel way to solve a problem, a way to improve something. Of course, I do not want to get into a chicken-and-egg discussion here, and my friends would correctly call it co-evolution any way.

Comments from David and Doug on my earlier posts got me to think more about what I had written about transformation and agility. In one of my posts on an IBM blog, I had wondered if we are not now in a state of ‘perpetual transformation’, as in continuously practicing the discipline of transformation.

While, in stabler periods of history one could think of ‘punctuated equilibrium’, I think in certain circumstances, we might not have a period during which we can breath and stabilize. The process of renovating form and function must be an ongoing one.

That brings into question the notion of a ‘time horizon’. In engineering we used to use the Greek symbol ‘tau’, to represent time constants, a unique characteristic of the system under consideration. Enterprises too must have a time-constant of some sorts, though it would be much harder to quantify. I would define it as the amount of time it takes an organization to reconfigure its architecture in response to a quantum/radical change in its operating environment.

While the ideal situation would be an ability to change in the shortest possible time, we know that to be unrealistic. However, from the perspective of agility, this would have to be an important consideration. At the very least, the enterprise must be able to match the expected response time dictated by its environment, as a minimum condition for its viability.

In principle, it could be better than what is required, but that raises a question in my mind.

I have been toying with the notion of a ‘requisite foresight horizon’, a time horizon over which an organization has a relative degree of clarity (an acceptable level of uncertainty which it can eliminate or handle through alternative means), based on what is known to it today. At the very least an enterprise must possess a foresight time horizon which corresponds to its time constant. If it extends its time horizon through foresight practice, it has the possibility of gaining competitive advantage.

I propose that every enterprise has a different requisite time-horizon (which seems obvious), depending on its business architecture, and that it must practice at least enough foresight to match this horizon.

I do believe that enterprise’s practice foresight in a number of different ways. An organization which deals with uncertainty purely through risk evasion methods, is also practicing foresight in my opinion, though that approach would most likely result in its not being able to sustainably achieve purpose.

It might have to be dismantled and abandon purpose when circumstances change.