This is NOT a tree
This is not a tree. Can you tell me what it really is?
Time’s up. It is a picture of a tree. No, it’s not a stupid trick question…there is a point behind it.
So often people confuse the real thing with the representation of that thing. This picture of a tree doesn’t grow, blow with the wind, won’t get struck by lightning, won’t change colors, has no rings inside it’s trunk, and doesn’t perform photosynthesis. Compared to an actual tree, it isn’t even close.
We make this mistake when performing any kind of analysis. We look at the data as if the data was reality. It is not. It is only an abstraction of reality. It’s never right, true, or unquestionable. It should always be questioned, challenged, and understood how it is calculated or measured. There is always more understanding that can be gained than the data can represent by itself.
The same thing happens when using any kind of process mapping. Here’s an example of a simple value stream map for depositing your check at the bank.
No matter how much more detail I add and data I insert, it will still only be an abstraction of reality. Reality is always more complex.
What are the implications?
- Never trust data, process maps, or any other abstraction blindly.
- Always question yourself and the team about what you might be missing.
- Treat all changes as experiment. You will never know how accurate your interpretation of reality is until you test it in reality. Think PDCA.
How does your organization treat data and process maps? Are they absolute, or just one tool in the process of exploration?
I like the points made by this posting: facts vs. data, going and seeing, not taking things at face value (although I sometimes mistakenly do). I’m often reminded of it in daily life experiences. One of my favorite instances of this was recently at a hotel breakfast bar. The milk had been put in a glass pitcher. I tasted it and it was “on the turn.” I pointed it out to the host, who brought me the original jug with the expiration date on it indicating that the milk should not have expired. He had the data – I had the facts. The facts can’t lie.
I like the points made by this posting: facts vs. data, going and seeing, not taking things at face value (although I sometimes mistakenly do). I’m often reminded of it in daily life experiences. One of my favorite instances of this was recently at a hotel breakfast bar. The milk had been put in a glass pitcher. I tasted it and it was “on the turn.” I pointed it out to the host, who brought me the original jug with the expiration date on it indicating that the milk should not have expired. He had the data – I had the facts. The facts can’t lie.
I like the points made by this posting: facts vs. data, going and seeing, not taking things at face value (although I sometimes mistakenly do). I’m often reminded of it in daily life experiences. One of my favorite instances of this was recently at a hotel breakfast bar. The milk had been put in a glass pitcher. I tasted it and it was “on the turn.” I pointed it out to the host, who brought me the original jug with the expiration date on it indicating that the milk should not have expired. He had the data – I had the facts. The facts can’t lie.
Good point Jamie. There is another side to this however. I read in a book on consciousness and the brain that people literally cannot see or process things for which they have no mental model. The brain needs to be able to run a simulation and match what they are seeing with some frame of reference, to paraphrase. The example given was about a person who had some sight disability, and upon gaining back some sight was unable to “see” a lathe or some machine tool because his brain could not form a simulation of this item. That may be an extreme case but the book offered other evidence. In terms of going to see, trusting first hand facts over data, the point is that our brains may be wired in such a way that without a concept of a tree we are not able to pick it out of the background and identify it in a meaningful way. When we see a real live tree, what we are seeing is really our brain’s rendering of the representation of a tree in our minds. Depending on the culture we grow up in we may see different things. The implications of this is that when we go see we may not actually see or may see but not notice the salient facts if we don’t have relevant model in our minds. Oddly, this seems to suggest that we must go see with prejudice in order to truly see…
Good point Jamie. There is another side to this however. I read in a book on consciousness and the brain that people literally cannot see or process things for which they have no mental model. The brain needs to be able to run a simulation and match what they are seeing with some frame of reference, to paraphrase. The example given was about a person who had some sight disability, and upon gaining back some sight was unable to “see” a lathe or some machine tool because his brain could not form a simulation of this item. That may be an extreme case but the book offered other evidence. In terms of going to see, trusting first hand facts over data, the point is that our brains may be wired in such a way that without a concept of a tree we are not able to pick it out of the background and identify it in a meaningful way. When we see a real live tree, what we are seeing is really our brain’s rendering of the representation of a tree in our minds. Depending on the culture we grow up in we may see different things. The implications of this is that when we go see we may not actually see or may see but not notice the salient facts if we don’t have relevant model in our minds. Oddly, this seems to suggest that we must go see with prejudice in order to truly see…
Good point Jamie. There is another side to this however. I read in a book on consciousness and the brain that people literally cannot see or process things for which they have no mental model. The brain needs to be able to run a simulation and match what they are seeing with some frame of reference, to paraphrase. The example given was about a person who had some sight disability, and upon gaining back some sight was unable to “see” a lathe or some machine tool because his brain could not form a simulation of this item. That may be an extreme case but the book offered other evidence. In terms of going to see, trusting first hand facts over data, the point is that our brains may be wired in such a way that without a concept of a tree we are not able to pick it out of the background and identify it in a meaningful way. When we see a real live tree, what we are seeing is really our brain’s rendering of the representation of a tree in our minds. Depending on the culture we grow up in we may see different things. The implications of this is that when we go see we may not actually see or may see but not notice the salient facts if we don’t have relevant model in our minds. Oddly, this seems to suggest that we must go see with prejudice in order to truly see…
Jon, absolutely agree. We can never see things as they truly are. Everything is interpreted, even the color of the sky. I think the most important point is to be aware that we are interpreting the world and to keep in mind that our interpretations may be flawed.
Jon, absolutely agree. We can never see things as they truly are. Everything is interpreted, even the color of the sky. I think the most important point is to be aware that we are interpreting the world and to keep in mind that our interpretations may be flawed.
Jon, absolutely agree. We can never see things as they truly are. Everything is interpreted, even the color of the sky. I think the most important point is to be aware that we are interpreting the world and to keep in mind that our interpretations may be flawed.
We treat them mostly as one tool in the process. @ Mark… great example.
We treat them mostly as one tool in the process. @ Mark… great example.
We treat them mostly as one tool in the process. @ Mark… great example.