Africa was civilised much too soon. It seems that humankind first emerged in Africa. A civilisation developed that was well adapted to local conditions. Food was abundant all around as animals, fruits, etc. So there was no need for agriculture. So no need for astronomy and predicting seasons.
There was no need, either, for irrigation and the mathematics involved. There was no need to store food for the winter season so store-keeping and its associated language did not evolve. Much of the country was far from the sea. In any case there was no need to sail the seas in search of food because food was so abundant on the land.
So stable tribal based civilisations evolved. They evolved to a stable equilibrium state. There was no need for change and no need for mechanisms of change. In some areas art evolved to a high degree. There were tribal wars, but the emphasis seemed to be more on bravery and strength than on the development of newer weapons.
STABLE EQUILIBRIUM
There was nothing wrong with this stable equilibrium state. It may even be said that in terms of human and ecological values it may have been superior to other civilisations. But other civilisations with a need for mathematics, written language and science developed better weapons of destruction and sea-going transport. In the subsequent conflicts the African civilisations lost out.
Perhaps the only thing that can be said against a stable equilibrium system that has adapted well to the environment is that it may be way below potential. Is this enough motivation to seek out a change? There is the much quoted saying of George Bernard Shaw: 'Progress is always due to the unreasonable person. The reasonable person adapts to the situation. The unreasonable person seeks to change the situation'.
A small, family-run Italian company is making high quality shoes. There is a reasonable profit and a ready market. Should they seek to modernise or to grow? Could that company become the Gucci or Ferragamo of tomorrow? Why should they want to?
DANGER DOWN THE ROAD
One of the usual reasons given for the need to change is that the world is no longer a stable place. Some things are changing: technology in particular. If you choose not to change this does not mean that those around you will also choose not to change.
E-commerce is growing steadily and is supposed to become a big thing. What about those organisations that ignore it? Will they get left behind? Will it be possible to jump in at the last minute through a merger or acquisition? Possibly.
Shopping on the Internet could change the relationship between buyer and seller. A buyer could post a notice saying that she wanted to buy a two-week trip to New York for $2,000. Who could offer such a thing? Vendors would then make their offers. There may need to be an intermediate layer of 'seekers' and 'packagers' to make the connection.
Booksales via the Internet are already big business via companies like Amazon.com and www.bookshop.co.uk - which provides excellent service for all my books. It is very difficult to assess the danger or time scale of being left behind. The change can happen very slowly at first and then with surprising speed. It is very difficult to assess the ease of catching up.
The threat of being left behind is very real. It is also much used as the motivation for creativity, for change and for seeking to challenge established methods. If, however, someone refuses to be awed by that threat then there is not much that can be done.
If someone believes in slow evolution with plenty of time to catch up - then the advantages of being in the forefront may not be very appealing. Most organisations are happier with a 'me too' approach than with the risks of pioneering.
POTENTIAL
Does a strong man have to bend every iron bar he sees? Does an investor have to buy every undervalued stock he notices? Does a photographer have to photograph every interesting face she sees? There is greed. There is ambition. There is the joy of making things happen. It is possible to be unmotivated by any of these. Should such an unmotivated person be running an organisation (or part of it)?
SMALL CHANGES
Civilisations reach a stable equilibrium state. So do organisations. There may not be any compelling reason why they should seek to change. There is usually more motivation for small changes. Something may always have been done in a certain way: stocking shelves, claiming expenses, testing a product, conducting a meeting, etc. There may not be any perceived problem. Things do work out.
Should there be any effort to find a better way? Better could mean faster, with less effort, less errors, better quality, etc. There are any number of potential benefits here. There is the benefit of reducing cost which may, or may not, be passed on to the customer. There is the benefit of better quality. There is the benefit of making life easier and less stressful for the workers involved. All these benefits are tangible and easily accessible.
PROTO-TRUTH
In one of my books I introduced the concept of a 'proto-truth'. This is a truth we hold to be valid - provided we are trying to change it. The same could apply to most procedures. We continue to use them, but keep open the possibility of changing and improving them.
All this applies very much to simplicity. My latest book is called Simplicity (Viking, London). Most things can be simplified - if we make the effort to simplify them. There is nothing in ordinary evolution which makes things simpler.
Usually it works the other way around. Something which was needed at one time persists even when it is no longer needed. There is a growing accumulation because there is usually no mechanism for dropping things which are no longer of use. One only has to look at the many totally out of date laws on the statute books to become aware of this.
This whole process is addressed in the motivation for 're-engineering'. The value of this depends very much on the balance between the two key ingredients: getting rid of what is no longer necessary; and creatively redesigning what is being done. Re-engineering without creativity is like running a race wearing only one shoe.
EQUILIBRIUM
Although equilibrium states rarely evolve further, such states do have considerable merit. Such states are very robust and resist perturbations. Forced changes usually return to the original state. So there is continuity, reliability and dependability. That is supposed to be the reason why the British people accept their monarchy. They suspect that any other system would be fragile, changeable and subject to abuse.
DESIGN
So far I have considered possible changes in equilibrium steady states. This may indeed be rather difficult. But what about the design of systems in the first place? Should systems be designed to be stable or should they be designed to be capable of constant evolution?
This is not a simple matter. Should an architect design a 'finished' building or one that can be modified and added to? The unity of design insists that it be a finished building. Yet buildings in airports are in a constant state of change and evolution.
It is not only a matter of being able to respond to changes imposed from outside. There may be internal changes in policy, strategy and emphasis. If a system is designed for change in the first place, does this mean more than having a 'change unit' which assesses possible changes. Then the change unit may have a hard time effecting any change and really become a mere token of change. Yet to design a system that is stable and robust enough to function and still open enough to change is not at all easy.
COMPLACENCY
Complacency is not exactly the same as a system in equilibrium. Complacency is a mental attitude that holds that any change is not only unnecessary but could make things worse. In a sense, it is an internal 'mental' equilibrium state. Complacency is a negative motivation for change. Complacency is a system sin, because it cuts off communication with the world around.
TRANSITION
When a system changes from one stable state to a better stable state there is the transition period of instability. In real life many systems cannot afford this transition state. This is the main reason why there is such reluctance to improve systems that are so obviously out of date.
NOTE:
My new book, Simplicity, published by Penguin/Viking in London, will also be available in some other countries. If there is difficulty in obtaining copies, they can be ordered via the Internet from www.bookshop.co.uk
