Please indulge this second diversion into the world of Robert Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Although this book really has nothing to do with business analysis, it has everything to do with how we approach technology and as I read it I keep seeing our profession in a new light.
In the latest chapter Pirsig writes about the classic-romantic split, exploring where technology fits into our world through his friends, John and Sylvia, who are regular technophobes.Their approach to motorcycles mirrors my approach to the printer–if it doesn’t work call the mechanic (a.k.a my fiancee).
As technophobes his friends rely on technology but deeply resent it. (Yes, this is exactly how I feel about the printer.) Pirsig finds that this is because they see things for what they appear to be instead of what they actually are. (Yes, I see the printer as something that “just prints” and not as a complex machine networked to multiple computers where all kinds of things can go wrong.)
This “seeing things for what they appear to be” is a “romantic” notion in the philosophical sense of the word. The story starts when Pirsig suggests using an old beer can as a shim to help fix a motorcycle. John, the “romantic”, responds negatively. He chooses not to fix the motorcycle because the solution involves using a beer can. He’s looking at what it is (just a beer can) and not what it can do (an elegant, cost-effective solution to fix the motorcycle). Pirsig, on the other hand, sees the beer can not just as an effective solution, but as one of the best. You couldn’t actually buy something better than an old beer can to solve just this problem.
I think business analysts see this in our day-to-day project lives too. Some stakeholders fit more on the romantic side of the equation. Our solutions must not just be effective, they must have flair. Maybe they want the solution to use the latest technologies available or maybe they are looking for an automated solution when a manual fix or process change will do just as well.
No matter, there are times when we get push back that has nothing to do with what the solution is, but simply how they perceive it. As business analysts, we are often trying to rationalize with these people. But don’t you see how perfect this BEER CAN is? It will fix your motorcycle!
If we keep forcing our rationality, we’re not likely to get anywhere. They are blocked. The rest of the book unfolds a new metaphysics for getting around the classic-romantic through Quality (what in other classical literature is called the One, the Tao, etc). Quality really is the source of all things and if you live a life infused with Quality you avoid the classic-romantic split because you can see things both for what they appear to be and what they are. You don’t feel compelled to choose between the two.
In a sense, John and Pirsig are lucky. They are driving separate motorcycles. They can make disparate decisions. John can choose to pay a high price for flashy motorcycle repair and Pirsig can work away in his garage using his own tools and the occasional beer can.
In software projects, we do not have this same luxury. We’ve got to find a way through it. And simply pushing forward is not going to work. Pushing forward without recognizing that each of us got to this very same point through completely different paths of thinking will only create an explosion. In these situations, we often find ourselves taking a step back. We begin to talk about larger project concepts like scope and return on investment. We ask questions such “Will this project generate the value for this fancy solution?” Is it worth it? Does it have Quality?
Of course, it can be difficult to have a metaphysical discussion in a regular old conference room. But I think if we realize that sometimes the challenges we face in alignment are, at their root, metaphysical differences in how people view problems and technical solutions, we might find ourselves on a path toward better communication.
|
By Laura Brandenburg. Laura Brandenburg is an independent business analyst consultant. She is passionate about the BA profession and is committed to contributing by supporting this blog as a forum for business analysts to build on each other's experiences. View more blog posts by Laura Brandenburg |
Related posts:
Loading ...
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Such a great blog post with no comments is not right! But heck, I’m an old philosophy grad myself, and I’m used to metaphysics falling on deaf ears. (By the way, it was THAT book, Pirsig’s Zen and the Art, that made me switch to philosophy in college)
Anyway, Laura, I love this article. It gets at what for me is the heart and soul of what we analysts do, which is work with people and their curious ‘notions’. I almost think the term ‘analyst’ has a little too much of the classic rationality in it. When you combine in with ‘business’, it sounds even more rational. Seems like the way we sell our profession, just using our handle “business analyst” as an example, is very classic rational. Of course, we’re not the opposite of a business analyst. What would that be exactly, an “artsy dreamer”? Actually though, there are times I’ve led alignment and stakeholder gatherings when it felt like what I was doing was more akin to art than business, and more like dreaming than analyzing; in short, more romantic.
What I love about this profession is that we do get to live in the moment, and at our best, sort of hold up the mirror of Quality in collaborative conversation and bring unity to different mindsets and agendas. So are we “analysts” really, when you get right down to it?
Curtis,
Thanks so much for this comment. It was this book which I read in high school which encouraged me to pursue Philosophy in college. I got confused at first because my English teacher recommended it and started down the English path. By sophomore year I’d figured out the difference.
I definitely see us analysts needed to where both hats. A bit of the dreamer, but a strong dose of analyst too. Without the analysis we have lots of pipe dreams and don’t get around to the actual solutions. Without the dreamer, we worry too much about how to solve the problem and don’t let our ideas range far enough. Phaedrus used some pretty significant analytical tools in pursuit of his definition of Quality but as I remember it he had a few watershed moments where some big notions took hold of, and eventually formed his thinking. Many business problems aren’t too different, I’d say.
As to this comment:
“we…sort of hold up the mirror of Quality in collaborative conversation and bring unity to different mindsets and agendas”
Consider what skills you are relying in when you discover “different”. Seeing differences, gaps, disconnects are all the result of highly analytical thinking brought to bear on some great ideas, even if those ideas are the result of the artsy dreamers and there romantic notions.
Laura