Method and imagination
Today computers are extending the entire world. Their size and potencies are very assorted so like their utilities. Computers have come in our lives that work for us. Without their intervention we never have arrived at technological and knowledge level that we have today, level unimaginable before, even science fiction literature.
The unstopping growing of potencies helps us to confront a lot of problems with awkward solution that we can do methodic solutions when the problem didn’t allow analytic once. Method is the best thing that you can do when the problem has a knowing solution and the method is just for it. Method is fast and sure but it’s restricted at the specific problem that it thinks. Sometimes we can extrapolate the method at the similar problem even there are methods that we apply at all the field of problems.
But more times we are tempted to take the short lane and to apply methods that we know, at all the problems that we can find, even when the problem has specific method. After the disagreement between the hoped results and really will make evidence the necessity of a correction, but sometimes the unknowing of correct result, laziness, or the arrogance impedes to think a new solution
I had a thermodynamics professor that he reduced all systems in a Carnot Machine. How can all be the same of a Carnot Machine? It’s a good question, but really he didn’t aspire to apply solutions of it. He wanted to show that we can identify all the elements of this machine in any system that we found, but at same time he taught us that the machine doesn’t exist. The objective of this contradiction was in to see that system have its particular solution, but it depend of the level of description that you need, the systems tends to be similar and in a higher level all can be assimilated as a thermodynamic system.
When we affront a new problem the logical actuation is to search a similar thing and we apply knowing methods. This exercise give us a first approximation at the problem but not necessary a solution. Every problem has his particular solution however a general solution can indicate the route to follow. We will never forget that ours objective is the particular solution but sometimes it’s not necessary or impossible to achieve; when it happen we can considerate the solution satisfactory.
But if we have a satisfactory solution don’t mean to have the solution, and this is the point where I want to arrive. When people begin to analyze a problem more times they write the solution before to think it. The need of fast results pushes the analyst to view the problem above, and she/he proposes a solution now. Today the professionalism of one depends of how fast you find the solution, and this is magnified for the ignorance of the evaluator. Nobody knows all and the extremely specialization only foments a deft knowledge of nothing. People must think before to find a solution but today to think is assimilated by doubts and in the current time that is forbidden (for me people without doubts or they don’t think or they lie).
Luckily we have a definitive tool: the standard. There are a lot of standard (ISO, ITIL…). The standardization is the life motive of modern times. It has arrange and simplified many things in the business world and others facets of life. But it has a little problem, it stops the imagination. The problem isn’t in the standardization, people who apply follow it until the last consequences, but every case is different. The standardization works in a first or second level of description, but today the models arrive until write how many times has go the bathroom people. The optimization and rationalization are the objectives that it searches, but the model has been designed only on a standard situation that isn’t the real system, and its later application does not usually have this into consideration, so the results will made more problems that solutions with the consequent funny situation that implemented models are only partially followed.
In the Procter & Gamble contest Karl Menger demonstrated that problem isn’t soluble with methodically, and the solution arrived in 1962 thanks to use a heuristic strategy. Obviously while it was not the final solution we must use a partial solution, and in this trivial case it did not have much importance to find the solution. But today it’s very usual to leave the partial solution as a definitive and they will think more in it, and more times the problem is important. When the time cost money, imagination and thinking are expensive, but sometimes if we stop to think, we can avoid higher losses.
The unstopping growing of potencies helps us to confront a lot of problems with awkward solution that we can do methodic solutions when the problem didn’t allow analytic once. Method is the best thing that you can do when the problem has a knowing solution and the method is just for it. Method is fast and sure but it’s restricted at the specific problem that it thinks. Sometimes we can extrapolate the method at the similar problem even there are methods that we apply at all the field of problems.
But more times we are tempted to take the short lane and to apply methods that we know, at all the problems that we can find, even when the problem has specific method. After the disagreement between the hoped results and really will make evidence the necessity of a correction, but sometimes the unknowing of correct result, laziness, or the arrogance impedes to think a new solution
I had a thermodynamics professor that he reduced all systems in a Carnot Machine. How can all be the same of a Carnot Machine? It’s a good question, but really he didn’t aspire to apply solutions of it. He wanted to show that we can identify all the elements of this machine in any system that we found, but at same time he taught us that the machine doesn’t exist. The objective of this contradiction was in to see that system have its particular solution, but it depend of the level of description that you need, the systems tends to be similar and in a higher level all can be assimilated as a thermodynamic system.
When we affront a new problem the logical actuation is to search a similar thing and we apply knowing methods. This exercise give us a first approximation at the problem but not necessary a solution. Every problem has his particular solution however a general solution can indicate the route to follow. We will never forget that ours objective is the particular solution but sometimes it’s not necessary or impossible to achieve; when it happen we can considerate the solution satisfactory.
But if we have a satisfactory solution don’t mean to have the solution, and this is the point where I want to arrive. When people begin to analyze a problem more times they write the solution before to think it. The need of fast results pushes the analyst to view the problem above, and she/he proposes a solution now. Today the professionalism of one depends of how fast you find the solution, and this is magnified for the ignorance of the evaluator. Nobody knows all and the extremely specialization only foments a deft knowledge of nothing. People must think before to find a solution but today to think is assimilated by doubts and in the current time that is forbidden (for me people without doubts or they don’t think or they lie).
Luckily we have a definitive tool: the standard. There are a lot of standard (ISO, ITIL…). The standardization is the life motive of modern times. It has arrange and simplified many things in the business world and others facets of life. But it has a little problem, it stops the imagination. The problem isn’t in the standardization, people who apply follow it until the last consequences, but every case is different. The standardization works in a first or second level of description, but today the models arrive until write how many times has go the bathroom people. The optimization and rationalization are the objectives that it searches, but the model has been designed only on a standard situation that isn’t the real system, and its later application does not usually have this into consideration, so the results will made more problems that solutions with the consequent funny situation that implemented models are only partially followed.
In the Procter & Gamble contest Karl Menger demonstrated that problem isn’t soluble with methodically, and the solution arrived in 1962 thanks to use a heuristic strategy. Obviously while it was not the final solution we must use a partial solution, and in this trivial case it did not have much importance to find the solution. But today it’s very usual to leave the partial solution as a definitive and they will think more in it, and more times the problem is important. When the time cost money, imagination and thinking are expensive, but sometimes if we stop to think, we can avoid higher losses.
Comentaris
Publica un comentari a l'entrada