Do you want to build a Patek Philippe or a XXXX watch?
The most lasting memory of the day has to be chancing upon Patek Philippe's advert in today's papers. The tagline goes like that:
"Begin you own tradition - You never actually own a Patek Philippe. You merely look after it for the next generation."
Isn't this just mind-blowing? Such a strong imagery it conjures.. just like a recent commercial on going green that goes something along the lines of: when you are using energy, you are borrowing those resources from the next generation.
->> Before I get to the point, I just want to apologise for the "XXXX" in the not so fanciful line at the beginning. It's not meant to represent a censored brand. I actually did a google search for "the worst brand of watches of the century" to try to get some universally-agreed lousiest watch of the century, but didn't manage to get anything conclusive out of the search. (Well, I just wanted to be as 'generally/factually right' as possible about that. But nevermind. The intent was there. ) I was nearly careless enough to put 'casio' in the XXXX category, but stopped in time. Thinking back, I did survive on a casio watch for the longest time in my school days. The one that could see me through the whole of primary school (despite having to spend a couple of dollars to replace the broken plastic black strap yearly). It had the potential of seeing me through my secondary days, but the school was just too strict about it's rules. The rules stated that the watch had to be smaller than a 50-cent coin (bezel included), plain face, straps either in black or white, no more than 3 colours in the entire watch, cannot cost more than $20... That marked the start of the longest search for a watch that fitted that description. The cheap watches were always too big; a simple small watch was always branded & way too expensive... somehow watchmakers just didn't consider doing up a design based on those descriptions. But well, I was lucky I found a cheena-brand watch that had a glow-in-the dark face for $15! I was so happy when i found it.
<<--
Simplicity was what I was trying to get to. (Simplicity was one of that school's motto btw. Perhaps already a teaser to suggest that getting to simplicity is ever so difficult!) Now, a PP watch and a XXXX watch both tell the time. It's got to be simple, hasn't it? Just a few numbers ain't it? Man, that's just so so wrong. The intelligent man, Einstein, himself said that the hardest thing to do is to represent an idea, a theory simply. And we see this theme recurring all the time! In math, the hardest thing for me, was always trying to prove a formula was "true". The simpler (the less variables) the formula, the harder it was to devise a proof. You had to completely deconstruct it, add in many many more variables to represent something else, prove those other variables actually balance out and come to nothing (and probably prove a few other formulas u used in it was the universal truth, just to be thorough) and ta-da, strike them all out of existence! Now, I'd like to think of these variables that got struck out as the ghosts variables/ variables in parallel universe / whatever you fancy. The ideal one would be one that is not subject to any condition. The purest form, but in real-life economics, you know that never exists.
The issues I want to bring out, related to this in an organisation are the following:
Q1. When we get from the state of the unconscious incompetency to conscious incompetency to conscious competency to the fuzzy state - a conglomeration of unconscious competency & unconscious incompetency, how can we allow the next generation appreciate the state of simplicity (i.e. product of the fuzzy state, typically represented in the form of SOPs & usually in the form of instructions "dos & don'ts" - deceivingly fool-proof to execute but difficult to understand the rationale behind it), without either requiring them to experience the entire growing/learning process?
Q2. How do you know if you've identified all the 'ghost variables'?
Finally, I end this entry with the question, what makes you think the Patek Philippe you looked after during your generation is what the next generation needs/desires?
Ok, that's too depressing. 2012 isn't here yet. Embrace the present right? So, yes, the question should be: Do you want a Patek Philippe that you can resell at a high price or a Cartier Happy diamond collection that still costs a bomb anyway but probably has no resale value (just because no atas tai-tai would buy a second hand one)
The most lasting memory of the day has to be chancing upon Patek Philippe's advert in today's papers. The tagline goes like that:
"Begin you own tradition - You never actually own a Patek Philippe. You merely look after it for the next generation."
Isn't this just mind-blowing? Such a strong imagery it conjures.. just like a recent commercial on going green that goes something along the lines of: when you are using energy, you are borrowing those resources from the next generation.
->> Before I get to the point, I just want to apologise for the "XXXX" in the not so fanciful line at the beginning. It's not meant to represent a censored brand. I actually did a google search for "the worst brand of watches of the century" to try to get some universally-agreed lousiest watch of the century, but didn't manage to get anything conclusive out of the search. (Well, I just wanted to be as 'generally/factually right' as possible about that. But nevermind. The intent was there. ) I was nearly careless enough to put 'casio' in the XXXX category, but stopped in time. Thinking back, I did survive on a casio watch for the longest time in my school days. The one that could see me through the whole of primary school (despite having to spend a couple of dollars to replace the broken plastic black strap yearly). It had the potential of seeing me through my secondary days, but the school was just too strict about it's rules. The rules stated that the watch had to be smaller than a 50-cent coin (bezel included), plain face, straps either in black or white, no more than 3 colours in the entire watch, cannot cost more than $20... That marked the start of the longest search for a watch that fitted that description. The cheap watches were always too big; a simple small watch was always branded & way too expensive... somehow watchmakers just didn't consider doing up a design based on those descriptions. But well, I was lucky I found a cheena-brand watch that had a glow-in-the dark face for $15! I was so happy when i found it.
<<--
Simplicity was what I was trying to get to. (Simplicity was one of that school's motto btw. Perhaps already a teaser to suggest that getting to simplicity is ever so difficult!) Now, a PP watch and a XXXX watch both tell the time. It's got to be simple, hasn't it? Just a few numbers ain't it? Man, that's just so so wrong. The intelligent man, Einstein, himself said that the hardest thing to do is to represent an idea, a theory simply. And we see this theme recurring all the time! In math, the hardest thing for me, was always trying to prove a formula was "true". The simpler (the less variables) the formula, the harder it was to devise a proof. You had to completely deconstruct it, add in many many more variables to represent something else, prove those other variables actually balance out and come to nothing (and probably prove a few other formulas u used in it was the universal truth, just to be thorough) and ta-da, strike them all out of existence! Now, I'd like to think of these variables that got struck out as the ghosts variables/ variables in parallel universe / whatever you fancy. The ideal one would be one that is not subject to any condition. The purest form, but in real-life economics, you know that never exists.
The issues I want to bring out, related to this in an organisation are the following:
Q1. When we get from the state of the unconscious incompetency to conscious incompetency to conscious competency to the fuzzy state - a conglomeration of unconscious competency & unconscious incompetency, how can we allow the next generation appreciate the state of simplicity (i.e. product of the fuzzy state, typically represented in the form of SOPs & usually in the form of instructions "dos & don'ts" - deceivingly fool-proof to execute but difficult to understand the rationale behind it), without either requiring them to experience the entire growing/learning process?
Q2. How do you know if you've identified all the 'ghost variables'?
Finally, I end this entry with the question, what makes you think the Patek Philippe you looked after during your generation is what the next generation needs/desires?
Ok, that's too depressing. 2012 isn't here yet. Embrace the present right? So, yes, the question should be: Do you want a Patek Philippe that you can resell at a high price or a Cartier Happy diamond collection that still costs a bomb anyway but probably has no resale value (just because no atas tai-tai would buy a second hand one)
