Pearl Harbor, Foresight, and turn Implementation

In his book, The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives, Leonard Mlodinow spends some time discussing the assault on Pearl Harbor. One of the points that he makes about the assault is that there were indicators in the behavior of the Japanese soldiery which, in hindsight, could have served as predictors of the attack. Of course, hindsight is always far more acute than foresight, but it is acute vision that scheme managers complex in convert implementation need to have at their disposal.

A coarse question that plagues convert implementation projects is a lack of risk oriented planning. The irony is that, in many cases, lists have been compiled and discussions have taken place about the possible risks and pitfalls. What never materializes from these lists and discussions are tangible contingency plans to deal with those risks and pitfalls. So, if one is prominent a convert implementation scheme or has responsibility for Pearl Harbor while Wwii, what can one do to heighten foresight?

Pearl

One means of enhancing vision is to put sensors in place to get the requisite facts before a small question becomes a killer problem. For the soldiery commander of Pearl Harbor who is anticipating an attack, this may mean assigning person to monitor changes in radio communication or to watch an embassy for signs that the embassy is preparation to close. For the convert implementation manager, this means monitoring data that has a history of showing impending dangers, encouraging team members to bring even small problems to your attention, and anticipating the worst scenarios that could occur so that a plan will be in place to deal with it.

While no one has excellent foresight, it is possible to heighten the odds of a flourishing convert implementation by being open to the possibility of disaster. As Louis Pasteur once asserted, "Chance favors the ready mind."

Pearl Harbor, Foresight, and turn Implementation

Friends Link : The Bests Rings