July 13, 2015 at 3:32 pm
GoofyGuy (7/13/2015)
It is a great read, and starts out by talking about the Gauls and their sacking of Rome in 4BC with a superior army.
The Gauls sacked Rome in 390 BC.
Heh... "BC". That stands for "Before Computers", huh? 😀
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 13, 2015 at 3:38 pm
Jeff Moden (7/13/2015)
GoofyGuy (7/13/2015)
It is a great read, and starts out by talking about the Gauls and their sacking of Rome in 4BC with a superior army.
The Gauls sacked Rome in 390 BC.
Heh... "BC". That stands for "Before Computers", huh? 😀
Maybe so Jeff! -- but it looks like the ancient Greeks might have been onto something not long after the Gauls sacked Rome.
July 13, 2015 at 3:55 pm
GoofyGuy (7/13/2015)
Jeff Moden (7/13/2015)
GoofyGuy (7/13/2015)
It is a great read, and starts out by talking about the Gauls and their sacking of Rome in 4BC with a superior army.
The Gauls sacked Rome in 390 BC.
Heh... "BC". That stands for "Before Computers", huh? 😀
Maybe so Jeff! -- but it looks like the ancient Greeks might have been onto something not long after the Gauls sacked Rome.
Too true, unless you count Abaci...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus
Of course, one of the biggies in ancient memory devices provides the basis for why I don't call tables of sequential numbers "Numbers Tables"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick
Heh... I'm not sure if even the Tally stick is the earliest "computer" or "memory" device. As old as I am, I wasn't around during 18,000 to 20,000 BC. 😀
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 13, 2015 at 8:27 pm
GoofyGuy (7/13/2015)
It is a great read, and starts out by talking about the Gauls and their sacking of Rome in 4BC with a superior army.
The Gauls sacked Rome in 390 BC.
The link in the editorial is broken; but the article referred to (at least think it's the same article it's date ) is now at Put your trust in systems, not in genius.
And it says 410BC, not 4BC. In fact the battle on the Allia probably took place in 387BC, rather than 410BC, although the "traditional" dating was 390.
At that time the Roman Republic was still pretty small - the distance or its territorial border from the center of the varied between maybe 12 miles and maybe 25 miles (it's more than 50 years since I studied pre-classical Rome or read Livy's account of the events of 487BC, I didn't learn much then and I've probably forgotten most of it, so those distances are guesses), depending on direction from the centre. The Romans set up defense on the Allia (a bit less than 10 miles from the center or Rome) with maybe 24,000 troops (6 legions, which would be nominally 25,200, but none of the legions was up to full strength) who hadn't a clue about defensive warfare (they'd been the agressors in their skirmishes with the towns on the fringes of Etruria and Latium, and with the hill tribes to their east); these were not regulars but a militia; they were probably a bit demoralised too because the cause of the fight was that Roman ambassadors had abused diplomatic immunity and when the victims families demanded justice the Roman politicians refused to hand over the offendors, despite the Roman priests saying they should be handed over and it would be a catastrophe if they weren't (I guess the priests had more military nous than the politicins, quite apart from any moral issues) and the Romans' Etruscan allies (only a couple of the fringe cities anyway) weren't going to fight on the side of oath-breakers so the Romans were on their own. The Gauls had far better metal workers and smiths, so better armour, better weapons, better shields and also far better close quarters combat tactics and their 12000 troops rolled up twice as many Romans without much difficulty.
The Romans learnt a lot from that episode. They abandoned Greek-style spears and took to arming legionaries with pila and sword. They improved ther shields and adopted the Gauls'"tortoise" tactic. They increased the size of their army and improved training. They imported skilled metal workers to train their smiths. They changed the organisation of their army. They introduced proper training. After about 200 hundred years they had a pretty good army by the standards of the times. Another 150 years after that they had the best army in Europe - Caesar even managed to take the Gauls on in their homelands - but it didn't last - just 60 years later P. Quinctilius Varus lost the battle of the Teutoberger Wald and the Romans were driven out of Germany East of the Rhine, permanently ending their influence in Northern Europe apart from the extreme West.
So the system worked, but rather slowly, and not for as long as the Roman's would have liked. I'm not at all sure that the Roman military system after 387BC is really a good example of something we should attempt to emulate in our efforts to build companies of technologies today.
Tom
July 14, 2015 at 6:35 am
Its Intereating that you raise the battle of the Teutoberg forest as this almost turns the concept of this article on its head - here the genius of a German Chieftan Arminus (Herman) , who having been raised under the roman empire , lured Three legions into terrain where their battle drills would prove useless due to the lack of space , utilised his personal charisma and status to get the warring tribes to work to gether - a victory of genius over the system!
July 16, 2015 at 2:22 am
I think the book, The Checklist Manifesto by Atul Gawande manages processes without being overly bureaucratic. "Gawande begins by making a distinction between errors of ignorance (mistakes we make because we don’t know enough), and errors of ineptitude (mistakes we made because we don’t make proper use of what we know)." A key to a good checklist is to get the input from people who have to apply it (not managers) and follow it. It's when managers think they know the process, but no one follows it because they are convinced it won't work or really isn't necessary.
July 16, 2015 at 9:26 am
"Gawande begins by making a distinction between errors of ignorance (mistakes we make because we don’t know enough), and errors of ineptitude (mistakes we made because we don’t make proper use of what we know)."
Mistakes made because we don't make proper use of what we know, is more inapt than inept.
Mistakes made because we're too lazy to properly apply what we know, is most definitely inept.
February 7, 2017 at 3:55 am
It seems to me that most places I work the rule is that the process must be followed. But not blindly.
Professionals are employed for a reason. If there is a necessity to deviate from the process then it is documented as an exception for two purposes. It is to evidence the justification for the deviation as much as documenting the deviation itself. But also to provide input into process improvement. This is part of continuous improvement. Can we do it better? If so, how? This provides additional potential value into ever changing processes.
Some places will require approval for process deviations which I would recommend to always consider, even when not mandatory.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
February 8, 2017 at 6:56 am
can a post be deleted in the shiny new forum software?
Tom
Viewing 9 posts - 46 through 53 (of 53 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply