Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!voder!pyramid!athertn!hemlock!mcgregor
From: mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Specification Tools and Code Testing
Message-ID: <29844@athertn.Atherton.COM>
Date: 4 Sep 90 17:21:13 GMT
References: <141583@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <141454@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <20013@well.sf.ca.us> <1990Aug13.140347.9441@nixtdc.uucp> <19578@well.sf.ca.us> <8316@fy.sei.cmu.edu> <29390@athertn.Atherton.COM> <29541@athertn.Atherton.COM>
Sender: news@athertn.Atherton.COM
Reply-To: mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Atherton Technology -- Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 44

In article <141583@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, donm@margot.Eng.Sun.COM (Don
Miller) writes:

> >Second, I didn't say that the experienced people spearhead the change, only
> >that they catalyze it.  I have observed as you have that the experienced
> >people ones are often more entreched in what they already know.  
> 
>    Good, I think the thesis that we can agree on is something like this:
>    "Inexperienced people often initiate organizational change.  However,
>     experienced people are largely responsible for operationalizing the
>     change."
>    How's that?
>    

My observation is more along the lines of "if you want inexperienced
people to initiate organizational change, make sure you have enough
experienced talent on hand that the inexperienced people won't be
afraid of trying something where they need might help later."  A mix of
experience is beneficial because experienced people without
inexperienced people
can become entrenched, and inexperienced people without experienced
people can feel frustrated, hesitant and fearful of getting in trouble. 
Managing such a combination calls for making sure that creative new ideas from
the inexperienced are giving a fair hearing and are not censored
by the opinions of the more experienced nor self-censored by hesitant less
experienced contributors. 

I think that  is somewhat different than the statement about making 
changes operational, which has to do with knowing how to get things done in
an organization.  My comment is about trying new things in the presence of
a (human) safety net--more people are willing to try it if the
net is nearby than if not.  As I noted, these nets often go untested,
but work often takes longer until they are available

The comment above about how experienced people
know how to make things become operational may be true too,
though they can also have come to decide that such changes can't
be made and don't bother to try.  There do seem to be individuals
who play the role of "change agent" (often unofficially) and it is
important to identify them and work with them to get changes accepted.

Scott McGregor
Atherton Technology