[From Chuck Tucker 931217]
I have been trying to recall where I had read a statement about
"mere perception" that was quite relevant to many of the posts
on CSG-L about PCT and Control Theory. The quote I was thingking
of comes from the first page of Chapter 6 (sorry, my copy has no
page number of Tom Peters and Nancy Austin's (1985) A PASSION FOR
EXCELLENCE. NY: Random House and reads:
We spent four long days with the thirty top managers
of a $1.5 billion capital-good manufacturer. We scrutinized
sales problems, marketing problems, manufacturing
problems, people problems. When it can time to
summarize, six were thought to merit top-level follow-
up. However, in five of the six it was noted that
persistently the approach was: "We're OK. It's ONLY a
perception problem." Finally, Tom had had enough.
Stepping far beyond the bounds of what's good and proper
for a visitor, he virtually shouted, "A perception
problem in a engineer's way of saying, 'We've got the
right solution, if it weren't for the damned people
who invariably get in the way of implementation.'"
A "mere" perception problem. The real problem is that
PERCEPTION IS ALL THERE IS. There is no reality as such.
There is only perceived reality, the way each of us
chooses to perceive a communication, the value of a
service, the value of a particular product feature, the
quality of a product. The real IS what we perceive.
As the First Commandment of the formal, written
Customer Philosophy at a successful forest-products
retailer says: Feelings ARE facts." .......
I would suggest that instead of trying to relate PCT to CT
one can see the difference between the two approaches by
examining a detailed description of one act that you engage
in on a daily basis (e.g., making a cup of coffee, getting a
glass of juice, getting in and driving your auto out of the
driveway, dressing yourself) and see if you can PARSE the
description without including the feedback loop of the
simple PCT model or can it be done simply with the CT
model. If it can be done with the CT model (as long as
it is not just different tags for the same functions of
the PCT model) then put it on the net and let us look at
this description and its characterization in CT terms. I
this would get to the heart and soul on many of the "spats"
that I read on the net. Remember, PCT is a model of human
experience and it becomes very difficult to understand or
critically evaluate without some experience to discuss.
Regards, Chuck