Should we change something and how? These are the questions everyone should ask from themselves, before changing anything from one thing to another. The answers can be very simple on most cases and we won't even notice answering them, but when we are dealing with bigger things, then we should acknowledge these questions and answer them thoroughly beforehand. With following I am going to show you my idea of how a change should be brought about.
Step 1: There has to be something wrong, something not working quite as it should before we make the decision to change something. There is no need to fix a machine that is already working. Yes, you have to maintain it, oil it from time to time, but you mustn't make it completely new just cause you feel like it. In a situation when we see, that the "machine" is not working, the first thing to do, is to find out why was it made so in the first place. Simple example from everyday life: you happen to notice, that the electricity main switch is turned off. We have a problem: no electricity. We decide to change it without finding out why the switch is turned off and so we pull it back on. Now there might be a fellow electrician, who turned off the electricity so he could work and we just killed him. So the first thing to do is to find the cause why things are as they are.
Step 2: When we have found out the reason why things are like they are, then we may start to find a change to fix the issues. Next thing to do is to check whether the change fixes issue. In the example case, the off-switch most probably is the cause why there is no electricity, so we can be quite sure, that by changing the position of the switch, we solve the problem of having no electricity.
Step 3: Now comes the hard part in most of societies - the discussion. We have to find the people, who know the most about the current issue and check with them, whether our solution is a good one or not. This time the person we should talk to is the electrician. We go to him and ask about the switch. We say that we need the electricity and by the end of discussion we get to an agreement that the electrician finishes his work in 30 minutes and will tell us when to turn the switch back on. This step is particularly hard because we believe that we already are the smartest one and we need no-one else and also because of the compromise part.
Step 4: The people with the most knowledge of the issue have had their say and given us the green light to do the change in its new form. Now is the time to do it. In the example this part is not very hard: just go and pull the switch. But it can be hard when large quantities of resources are involved, when we have to find the right men to do it. The change in practice must be as close to the one in theory as possible. In the example we have to make sure that we won't send someone half-minded, who tries to pull the switch horizontally even though the lever moves up and down.
Having done all the steps above correctly and thoroughly I believe in the success of a change. In real life, when we notice that some change has made things worse or is insufficient, then probably someone skipped a step or wasn't thorough enough.
For example our final exam of Estonian language at the end of gymnasium. I don't actually know what was wrong with the initial one (Step 1), therefore I cannot be sure whether the change fixed the issues (Step 2). But I am certain that they failed miserably in Step 3, because neither the teachers nor students were taken into the discussion, who after all are the ones most close to the problem and should not be left out. Step 4 was accomplished marvelously: they found the money and the people who made sure that the brand-new exam paper was in front of us when the time came. The result was a complete failure as expected having missed one step completely and being dodgy in two.
This is my idea of how things should be done. If you have a better one or if you would like to offer additions, feel free to do so.
PS: Read comments for necessary improvements of the idea.
The steam engine worked but combustion engine was invented and mass-produced nevertheless (conflict with Step 1). Hence, should we stop improving our machines or creating alternative options for them just because in our current status they work?
ReplyDeleteSure, you may argue that the combustion engine was an upgrade rather than a whole new idea but you would still run into different electrical engines. For that matter you would have a conflict with creating electricity - if we had a working method, why create machines that could get us power from the water, wind, or sun? The main objective of these machines is still to create electricity, the only difference is in 'how'.
If you say they were not fulfilling their full potential then you can find a problem with anything, even the dreaded Estonian exam. Say the problem might have been that since a single task was evaluated per person, every single mistake in that task had huge consequences. A person in a bad mood might not be able to write a great essay, but he can still answer questions with a preset syntax, hence favoring the person. On the other hand, a person with terrible grammar will still lose those points on grammar (curiously enough, about half of what they used to, but still they lose). Hence for the Estonian exam Step 1 is passed by taking an imperfection as the thing that is 'wrong'.
And let's not forget, the previous format of the exam existed so long because nobody had changed it, nobody had improved it. As did the steam engine as the primary machine.
That 'wrong' was fixed - now there are 2 tasks to be evaluated for a 'better' and more 'wholesome' picture of the person's abilities. Step 2 is completed.
The only problem by this logic was Step 3, which nowadays is a common issue. However you exclude a tiny bit that I would add to Step 2. The problem at hand can be fixed, but other problems can arise by the patch added to the bug. Beak down, tail loose; tail down, beak loose. And that is where the Estonian exam also failed miserably.
I understand that this addition gets patched in Step 3, but I believe in safeguards - even if a detail is missed in one step, it has to be checked in another step before all steps have been completed. That's why they invented beta testing - to find the flaws in programs. Beta testings rarely create discussion, usually that is barred by NDA-s, they are to check for any bugs. And once they report the bugs, the bugs get whacked. And then the program goes back to testing to see if there are any unnoticed or perhaps even new bugs, caused by the whacking.
To sum it all up, Step 1 either blocks all innovation of presently functional items or can be bypassed by any little nuisance. Step 2 is good but I would add a hint of orange. Step 3 is very important, in fact, Step 3 should be used for more than just changes. And Step 4 is obligatory. As a corollary, I give you my compliments on the theory but some nuances deserve to be specified further.
Thank you for your comment. The theory is raw and answers like yours are essential for making it better.
DeleteLet's start from beginning. Now I see how my Step 1 prevents innovation and that isn't good. So I could add something like this: you can also change if you have an idea that is more efficient than previous one, even if it's just potential efficiency. The drawbacks will be checked later. This should allow the invention of combustion engine and research of electricity.
Any change which focuses on small mistakes, will either be terminated in one of the following steps, or is truly a good thing to do.
I don't know how I missed the 'beak down, tail loose' aspect. I surely wanted to include it initially, but it got lost along the way. (Perhaps because I was rushing to see football) That is something that also should be included in the Step 2. That isn't only because of the safeguard, but also efficiency: if we can see the huge inevitable mistakes early on, we can cancel the project before troubling professionals or investing resources.
And the national exam was probably not a good idea to bring out as an example, since I haven't given it much thought. It just seemed as a change which failed and was topical.
This is how ideas and theories evolve, a second look is always welcome.