Dynamic Alternatives
PO Box 59237
Norwalk, CA 90652

Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:28 AM

Mr. Morris E. Jones
Intel Corporation
350 East Plumeria; Mail Stop CHP3-105
San Jose, CA 95124
Subject:   Bridge to a New Way of Working Begins with Study


I agree. No matter what tools are used, they will be used by people to support their approach to whatever is under discussion.
Whatever the tool, some will use it to attempt to control the judgments of others and to attempt to become ascendant at the center of things. Nearly everybody falls into this category.

A really good tool allows an individual who wishes to do so to pursue the facts rather than merely to support his own opinions.

This is one of the reasons that I am not optimistic of the benefits of allowing millions of people to "collaborate" in arriving at decisions. More than 10 people in a room can't agree on when and where to go for lunch.
This goes beyond the "if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail," to something more like "if the objective is to drive nails, then any tool becomes a hammer."

As to 5h3 "25 words or less," I confess to an inability to do that in my own work, but I do try to write in such a way that the issues, my proposal, and the reasons for it are all clear. I do try to provide an introduction that is as close as I can come to the "25 words or less," following the classic formula of "tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you told them."
Having said that, there has to be *some* change in the way people work if there is to be any change in the results they achieve. If we continue to do what we have always done, we will continue to get what we have always gotten. Unfortunately, the changes needed are more fundamental than any tool, though better tools can help.

One of the major flaws in work practices that I see is that, at *all* levels, *nobody* ever defines what the desired outcome is before setting out to achieve them. There is always an assumption that *everybody knows* what we are trying to do, so let's just get on with it. There are no defined results, not plans based on those results, and no ways defined to determine if we are actually accomplishing what we are supposed to be accomplishing. Since "it all pays the same," and "that is the way we have always done it," this seems perfectly normal, so nobody ever notices that there is anything wrong with this approach.


Garold (Gary) L. Johnson