Birnbaum's article also talks about loose and tight coupling. I am a little completed with the boxes she used (predictable and perverse) to describe the types of coupling. The preserve is the loosely coupled, but the image also confuses what I think loosely coupled systems are.
On pg. 39, it is said that loosely coupled is attacked because it is often used to describe waste and inefficiency in a system. This seems in contrast to another reading where loose coupling was supposed to cost less. I don't know if I believe either description. I can understand that attack in this article, but I do not know if I believe it.
The way loose coupling is described that I like in this article is that it allows organizations to try new things, but not let it influence what else is going on in the organization. If it doesn't work, it can be discarded, but if it does, this new idea can be brought into the tightly coupled system. I don't consider this waste-- it actually seems smart. Test pilot something before introducing it to everyone as the new system. This seems like a good model in policy.
Thinking of the two articles together shows as well how different authors use metaphors to illustrate complex ideas. Weick's low/no cost has more to do with the costs of set up of operation of the systems when compared to tightly coupled. For Birnbaum, however, he is looking at the costs of being inefficient and in not being tied tightly into the operations. So, looking at efficiency from two different angles.
ReplyDelete