This is a story of two competing cement plants operating with similar state of art technology to produce high grade cement catering to similar but highly competitive markets.
However, the quality of cement that is produced is highly dependent on the quality of limestone mined from a limestone quarry.
In this respect the limestone deposit of Cement Plant A was considered to be inferior as compared to the limestone mine of Cement Plant B. Therefore, Plant B was supposed to produce better quality cement. These two mines and their plants were separated by about 200 kms and people thought that this is what determined the difference in the quality of the limestone in the respective quarries.
The comparison of quality was based on the usual analysis of Ferrous content, Silicate, Aluminate and Carbonate as is usually done in laboratories of cement plants around the world. And in all respect the quality of limestone of Plant B, determined in this fashion was vastly superior to that of Plant A.
But there was a surprise!
The quality and strength of cement produced by Plant A was much superior to that of Plant B. This went against conventional wisdom and immensely puzzled the cement technologists of Plant B forcing them to wonder as to how this might be possible.
But this 'surprise' emergence made the management of Plant A much happier since they could now sell their product at a premium to happy customers who brought in more customers through word of mouth. Soon their customer base and their reach exceeded that of Plant B. Within a few years they could create their unique brand identity in the market. Their cement, which looked more blackish in color, was called as 'black rock' by admiring customers and civil engineers.
The seemingly inferior quality of Plant A's limestone mines did not seem to matter at all. And happy times for them continued and they expanded their operations.
Many years later, while researching more in depth, the researchers found that the limestone deposit of the so called inferior mines (Plant A) had a trace amount of boron while the limestone deposits of Plant B had no boron content. Instead, it contained trace amount of barium. So they understood that while boron gave the cement (of Plant A) superior strength; barium made the bonds weaker (of Plant B) though all other constituent of limestone mines of Plant A were really inferior to that of Plant B. That relationship alone explained the difference in quality of cement produced by the two plants.
Lessons:
1. The relationship between the parts causes the system properties to emerge.
2. The emergence is always in the form of a pattern. And it defines the purpose of the system. It might be desirable or undesirable and it need not follow our definition of an intended purpose.
3. Relationships are more important than the parts. And relationships form the essence that produces the emergence.
4. One strong relationship can overshadow other weaker relationships and the emergence can come up as a winner.
5. Another way to describe such relationship that forms the essence is by the word 'AND'.
6. 'AND' a small change in the relationship causes dramatic changes in the output or emergence.
7. Therefore the root cause (or the essence) of an emergence always lies in the NOW (as relationships evolve). A cause can't lie in the past or be lost or hidden from our senses and understanding. So, we need not look beyond or look into the past to explain what happens now in form of an emergence. It is easy to find a root cause provided one searches intently for the AND in the NOW. We need not go any further.
Summary:
1. The AND is in the NOW. 'AND' is the essence and the cause of the emergence.
2. System Thinkers must be aware of it to understand the cause of system behavior. 3. Design Thinkers must take care of it to create dramatic competitive advantage.
4. The concept also serves the issue of Sustainability in a great way.
5. Strategy, Decision Making & Improvement plans are to evolve on emergence.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment