Information, Inventory and Knowledge

Toyota made the just-in-time style of inventory management world famous: all the pieces came together exactly when they were needed. Which sounds like common sense at first: after all, if the pieces came earlier than they were needed, you had to find a place to store them (that costs money and could lead to excess inventory); and if they came later, well, you were going to be late. What Toyota really gets the credit for is for having devised (and executed) a system that managed to achieve this in real life.

Shane Parrish points out that we’ve now taken the same just-in-time approach towards information:
“We really seek out signal is when we need it the most: right before we make a decision.”
Which of course can be very dangerous: you act based on what you get your hands on instead of trying to get the big picture. And you don’t have the time to reflect or analyze thoroughly.

On the positive side, Parrish points out that:
“If we can’t connect the current situation to something we already understand, we might reason that it is not in our circle of competence and thus we shouldn’t be drawing conclusions. If we can, however, connect it to something we previously understood then we’re less likely to draw conclusions on the basis of “this time is different.”

To which I would add: just-in-time information is the easy (lazy?) way. Or as Nick Carr’s put it:
“Knowledge seems such a drab thing beside the fireworks of its simulation.”

Comments

  1. When I read your mentioning Toyota which implemented "all the pieces came together exactly when they were needed", I appreciated it. Toyota could do it in Japan, where people have a mindset which ensures such things can be done. I don't thing other nations would dare to venture into that kind of thing - if at all, Germany may be able to work it out that way, but even they would not prefer it.

    I pondered over your point, “We really seek out signal is when we need it the most: right before we make a decision”. For decision making data/information are no doubt required. Strangely it is not the whole thing. I know about people who zero in on decisions, often right and sometimes wrong too, fairly quickly (what I mean is without going on vacillating). They are of course not the same as those who take rash and not-contemplated decisions. I also know people who are better at vacillating than decision making. And, for all their checking, re-checking and demanding more data and all, their decisions taken after all the hullo-bullo are not any wiser than those taken by "decisive" people. There is something intuitive about the decision making process for one thing, there is also a factor of inner strength (courage or whatever you other term one may think of) which guides for another.

    Finally, even vacillating people are not such a poor lot. Really pitiable people are those who cannot quit worrying after decisions are made, or, who cannot come out of the rut of non-stop-regrets when some decisions go wrong. Poise is all about facing the consequence of one's decisions. It requires "manliness" (I mean by that word 'the ability of accepting oneself and facing the outcomes of one's decisions without going into blame game' I do not mean any gender orientation when I use the word. Women are equally capable of the same quality of inner strength).


    These kind of things cannot be supplied by data and information.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Student of the Year

The Retort of the "Luxury Person"

Animal Senses #7: Touch and Remote Touch