CONSIDERATIONS IN COORDINATING CONCLUSIONS
From Attention to Intention
Coordinating anything requires keeping a number of variables and influences in mind rather than just focusing on one issue or one point in time. In the modern era there has been a debate about the extent to which this is possible. The classical model of rationality assumed a “fully informed” decision maker, but this is impossible, and therefore not a realistic expectation. Herbert Simon’s concept of “satisficing” involves that we do our best with what we have. The lists in the MindMap can be referred to by keeping a printout near the computer screen, so that cognitive capability is not strained and yet ready reference is still possible. With this proviso in mind, an important form of coordination is that between “attention” and “intention”. In its simplest terms, what this means is using what we know to inform and direct what we decide to do. For instance, I get a number of electronic newsletters on health every week, I read them, and I use what is relevant to help manage my own health – similarly I use everything that comes my way that I assess can add to my quality of life. This is a primary form of coordination that everyone should engage in – why wouldn’t you?
Between Correspondence and Coherence
Empiricism is the epistemological premise that “the facts” or evidence should determine your ideas or theories. However, we know more than “just the facts.” Even in science, gravity, entropy, and evolution are ideas rather than facts. So, the smart scientist uses those ideas to organize the search for more facts – meaning that the coordination is going from ideas and theories to facts (rationalism) rather than from the evidence to concepts. What in fact this coordination process becomes is a balancing act, involving trade-offs at every turn. New ideas prompt a search for new facts, and new facts prompt the synthesis of new ideas. In this process too, the maxim of satisficing is important. Knowledge is like a “rolling front” in a weather system – it keeps moving, so there is no stationary point from which to evaluate progress in any absolute sense.
Conclusions and Actions
One of the great pro-occupations of moral philosophers throughout history has been “how should we act.” We are reminded again and again that “life must go on” and “decisions must be taken” and “tasks must be done.” When this comes to house-keeping, for individuals, or groups, or institutions, it is certainly true – food, shelter, transportation, etc. are valid and legitimate pre- occupations. But with the bigger issues and bigger projects, whether individual or collective, “getting things done” is all too often an excuse for, and justification of frenetic activity – as if “motion” itself was the measure of accomplishment.
If we study cases of both innovationary and revolutionary “rush” we see an important Project Management lesson being ignored again and again – the lesson being that “where time is not taken at the beginning to do things properly, it takes even more time later to correct the many mistakes that accumulate.” What WE can learn from the refusal to adopt this Project Management lesson, is that the so-called “improvement imperative” that is being claimed is often very questionable, in the form and at the speed being recommended. There are always winners and losers, and trade-offs between costs and benefits. If the stakes are high and time allows, we should think before acting!