Much in the headlines involves rules and rulemaking and rule
enforcement (or rule breaking). The conflicts and problems arise in the face of
the arduous task of implementation, but at the origin is the age old debate
between following the intent of the rules and the strict interpretation of the
words (literalism). By my observation, rule makers seem to be responding by
issuing even more rules (and you may substitute regulations if you wish).
Missing is the rhythm of consolidation and rationalization.
Companies, institutions, and sometime even governments have always
regularly revisited the naturally expanding landscape of rules and policies and
procedures to try to make some sense for implementation. Under the name of
rationalization or consolidation or streamlining; experts review and reduce and
consolidate the volume of tasks, remove anomalies and simplify processes. This
has always followed a rhythm – expansion then consolidation then expansion and
a synthesis, often but regularly.
Recent history, for convenience just take this century,
shows the rules keep expanding without rationalization. The benefits of more digital storage seem to
assist this proliferation, but implementation and oversight do not benefit. Critical
voices appear to spot the single momentary issues but lose the big
picture. I suggest that everyone ask how
recently and often the rules in question have been revisited. If the answer is not often, I believe there
is an automatic obsolescence making the desired outcome problematic.
(End note: There is
a rising literature on the issue of complexity that deals with this issue,
often targeted to law or finance, but I am addressing a much simpler issue…the
rhythm of revision. I also submitted a comment in the NY Times http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/basel-banking-chief-expects-fine-tuning-of-risk-rules/?comments#permid=13521432
No comments:
Post a Comment