Platt, Mark, others,
Seeing that I brought up the term Bottom-up Morality I'd better
explain it right, before someone like Platt gets the chance to
mess it up :-|.
PLATT
But let's move on. More important than our argument about whether the
Good equates with the Moral in the MoQ is whether the idea of bottom up
morality is the best perspective to adopt. In his article about customer
service, Mark Lerner made an interesting observation:
MARK
We think that if we start with quality parts then they must add to a quality
whole. Pirsig realized that it is only the whole that determines which parts
are necessary. This is why quality cannot be defined. . . . Thanks to Pirsig
we can see why all of the books, consultants and quality programs often fail
to produce the expected results. It's because we have attempted to create
quality backwards."
PLATT
What Mark is proposing is a top-down morality.I'd be most interested in
your thoughts about this. A "participative universe" may mean that what's
participating and making things happen is the force of Dynamic Quality from
the top-down, leaving static patterns in its wake. Does this idea fit in with
your scientific view of existence in any way? What do you think about top-
down morality?
WALTER SHOUTS
no, no, no, NO, NO, NO, NO! NO!, NO!
Let's be clear about this. What Mark is proposing is NOT top-down morality.
In fact the approach he descibed used for his problem in the hospital is a
clear cut example of a bottom-up approach! Mark has written a beautifull story
that for more reasons appeals to me, but in my NASHO (notalwayssohumble
opinion) the conclusions he gives are wrong.
MARK WRITES
"We think that if we start with quality parts then they must add
to a quality whole. Pirsig realized that it is only the whole that determines
which parts are necessary."
WALTER SAYS
To have a Quality whole, you have to have Quality parts first. If you're
in control of the Quality parts, like when you're arranging your living-room with
design elements, the proces of ordering the parts taking into account the
relationships, is a Quality proces. It is bottom-up. It would be top-down if
someone told you how your room should be like. Pirsig would never state that
"it is only the whole that determines which parts are necessary". It's the other
way around. He realized that every whole is built of quality parts and that
these parts are further built of parts and so on. The Quality of the whole
depends on the quality (incl. structure and relationships) of it's parts. This is
the basis of what I mean with Bottom-up Morality!
So projects often fail and there're many consultants and managers that do
lousy jobs. I agree with Mark that this is due to "attempts to create quality
backwards." In any implementation-project you first have to define goals.
This can hardly be the problem for the failure of projects. Even the worst
consultants and managers begin a project with goals. In the example of the
hospital the goal was to better the service to the patients and with that
lessen the amount of complaints.
Now, the approach to reach this goal can either be Top-down or Bottom-up.
The problem with consultants: the blueprints, the books and the quality
programs is that they often fail to produce the expected results because
the approach in the implementation is NOT bottom-up. They write
huge and very expensive rapports for the board (with mostly financially
based outcome parameters), but never have talked to nurses that are
confronted with everyday practise of patient care. They give training after
training for the higher management about quality in service, but never care
to ask what would help the ladies that handle all the incoming calls.
Examples of top-down approaches. Mostly quick money. No change at all
is accomplished.
I state and this is for all the political parties with there political programs
all around the world too:
ALL REAL CHANGE IS ONLY ACCOMPLISHED BOTTOM-UP
Again I want to give you the great ZMM-quote I posted in my first
"Bottom Up Morality" post (note that it's translated):
"I believe that if we want to change (reform) the world and
make it better inhabitable, we will never achieve that by speaking
of [...] programs that are full of things that other should do. I
believe that approach begins at the end and supposes that the
end is the beginning. Polilical programs are important endproducts
of social quality, that can only work if the underlying structure of
social values is good. The social values only are good if the
individual values are good. The place to make the world a better
place is first of all in your own heart, head and hands. Than you
can go on from there."
Read it?
Read it again.
Dtchgrtngs,
Walter
application/ms-tnef
