More from de partitione oratoria.
The first part of the broad theory of rhetoric is the "speaker's personal resources" ("vis oratoris"). A speaker's personal resources consist "in matter and in language" ("in rebus et verbis") (Id, at 3).
The term "invention" ("invenire", lit, "to invent") applies to matter: "delivery" ("eloqui", lit, "to utter") applies to language. "Arrangement" ("collocare", "to arrange") applies to invention. Delivery includes voice, gestures etc.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Into how many parts do you divide the theory of rhetoric?
I'm dipping into Cicero's "de partitione oratoria" ("The Classification of Oratory") at the moment (Rackham's translation in the Loeb Classical Library).
He says that the theory of rhetoric ("doctrina dicendi", lit. "the teaching of speaking") should be divided into three parts (de partione oratoria 3):
He says that the theory of rhetoric ("doctrina dicendi", lit. "the teaching of speaking") should be divided into three parts (de partione oratoria 3):
- The speaker's personal resources (lit. "strength") ("vis oratoris").
- The speech ("oratio").
- The question ("quaestio").
Monday, February 4, 2008
Chess - sitting on the boundary between "wicked" and "tame"
Interesting piece here from John Kay on how winning at chess is both like and unlike winning in business.
You can succeed in chess through "brute force and ignorance", if you can process possible moves as fast as IBM's Big Blue. That may be why chess responded so well to a 5 year planning approach under the former Soviet Union.
Nonetheless, as Kay points out, a game of chess is best won through innovation and experimentation. The same skills you need in business. And the same skills that the former Soviet Union seemed incapable of displaying.
I wonder if chess responds both to an "innovation" approach and to an "algorithmic" approach because it sits on the boundary between "wicked" and "tame" problems?
You can succeed in chess through "brute force and ignorance", if you can process possible moves as fast as IBM's Big Blue. That may be why chess responded so well to a 5 year planning approach under the former Soviet Union.
Nonetheless, as Kay points out, a game of chess is best won through innovation and experimentation. The same skills you need in business. And the same skills that the former Soviet Union seemed incapable of displaying.
I wonder if chess responds both to an "innovation" approach and to an "algorithmic" approach because it sits on the boundary between "wicked" and "tame" problems?
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Google.org
Interesting piece here from The Economist about Dr Larry Brilliant, head of Google.org. Google.org is the philanthropic division of Google. According to the article, when it was conceived in 2004 Google hoped that this division would one day “eclipse Google itself in overall world impact by ambitiously applying innovation and significant resources to the largest of the world's problems”.
What's interesting about this article is its description of how Google.org has developed its strategy. It's taken Larry Brilliant two years to work out what Google.org is going to do. They started with 1,000 ideas, narrowed them down to 11 (dealing with the "biggest, most imminent, least well resourced problems”). Each of the 11 got one member of the team to act as its advocate. These have now been reduced to the 5 final initiatives. These 5 were chosen in part by thinking about how much impact Google itself could have on them.
Interestingly, the final 5 initiatives span 3 areas: fighting global climate change; economic development; and early warning for global pandemics.
I'd love to know more about the process they used to cull their ideas from 1,000 to 5.
What's interesting about this article is its description of how Google.org has developed its strategy. It's taken Larry Brilliant two years to work out what Google.org is going to do. They started with 1,000 ideas, narrowed them down to 11 (dealing with the "biggest, most imminent, least well resourced problems”). Each of the 11 got one member of the team to act as its advocate. These have now been reduced to the 5 final initiatives. These 5 were chosen in part by thinking about how much impact Google itself could have on them.
Interestingly, the final 5 initiatives span 3 areas: fighting global climate change; economic development; and early warning for global pandemics.
I'd love to know more about the process they used to cull their ideas from 1,000 to 5.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Excellence
I've just listened to a great episode of ABC Radio's Background Briefing programme. The episode was devoted to a speech by Atul Gawande, given at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. You can read a transcript of the edited speech here.
Gawande has a distinquished bio. He is both a surgeon and a writer, and as a speaker he is compelling. His topic for this speech was effectively about excellence. In particular, in his field of medicine.
On the surface, Gawande is claiming that excellence in his field comes from attention to detail. Of course, he's right. Medicine is, after all, a science, dealing with the realm of things that "cannot be other than they are". And so, if you are conscientious and look after the detail, you will get results. Gawande cites a number of examples of doctors and hospitals who are truly excellent: at the right end of the "Bell Curve". Getting results significantly better than the average. (With in vitro fertilisation, for example, the chance of a couple getting pregnant can vary from 5% to 75%, depending on what institution they choose).
However, it's interesting as to how the doctors and hospitals that Gawande cites do this. Yes they show attention to detail. Yes they are conscientious. And yes they study their results, and the results of their peers, and learn from their mistakes. They are constantly looking for ways to improve.
But I suspect, it's the social systems that support and generate this conscientiousness, that are really interesting. In a sense, it's the way the people in these organisations interact with each other, and with the cold hard physical facts of a person needing care, that makes all the difference. Gawande touches on this, but I would like to find out more. If nothing else, he's convinced me to read his books ("Better" and "Complications").
Gawande has a distinquished bio. He is both a surgeon and a writer, and as a speaker he is compelling. His topic for this speech was effectively about excellence. In particular, in his field of medicine.
On the surface, Gawande is claiming that excellence in his field comes from attention to detail. Of course, he's right. Medicine is, after all, a science, dealing with the realm of things that "cannot be other than they are". And so, if you are conscientious and look after the detail, you will get results. Gawande cites a number of examples of doctors and hospitals who are truly excellent: at the right end of the "Bell Curve". Getting results significantly better than the average. (With in vitro fertilisation, for example, the chance of a couple getting pregnant can vary from 5% to 75%, depending on what institution they choose).
However, it's interesting as to how the doctors and hospitals that Gawande cites do this. Yes they show attention to detail. Yes they are conscientious. And yes they study their results, and the results of their peers, and learn from their mistakes. They are constantly looking for ways to improve.
But I suspect, it's the social systems that support and generate this conscientiousness, that are really interesting. In a sense, it's the way the people in these organisations interact with each other, and with the cold hard physical facts of a person needing care, that makes all the difference. Gawande touches on this, but I would like to find out more. If nothing else, he's convinced me to read his books ("Better" and "Complications").
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Roger Martin and Strategic Choice Structuring
I've just re-read a great 1997 paper by Roger Martin, "Strategic Choice Structuring". There's a lot in this, but it's worth reading just to be reminded that strategy is all about choice. And good strategy is all about good choices.
And, as Martin says in this paper, you need to make "genuine" choices for your strategy to be sound. A genuine choice entails not just what you will be doing, but also what you won't be doing. For example, a strategy that will "focus on the customer" is no strategy at all - because it is no choice at all. As Martin says "could the company really have decided otherwise? Could it ever truly choose to ignore the customer?"
And, as Martin says in this paper, you need to make "genuine" choices for your strategy to be sound. A genuine choice entails not just what you will be doing, but also what you won't be doing. For example, a strategy that will "focus on the customer" is no strategy at all - because it is no choice at all. As Martin says "could the company really have decided otherwise? Could it ever truly choose to ignore the customer?"
Organisational design as the heart of strategy
I've just been reading a McKinsey Quarterly article ("Better strategy through organisational design", Lowell L Bryan and Claudia I Joyce, No. 2, 2007). Bryan and Joyce claim that a "golden opportunity" to generate competitive advantage can be gained by "making organisational design the heart of strategy".
The authors claim that we need to move away from the organisational structures of the 20th Century. These structures were designed to cope with the scarcity of capital. We need to move to new designs, designs aimed at "maximising the returns on people, not capital". (Amongst other things, this argues for new measures, including "profit per employee").
In the 21st Century the design of an organisation needs to reduce unproductive complexity, and maximise the opportunities for productive interactions amongst talented workers. How do we do this? The authors argue that you need both hierarchy and collaboration.
You still need hierarchy, because you need to be able to set aspirations and make decsions etc. But you also now need collaboration. The rest of the article starts to canvass how you might induce collaboration in a large scale organisation (while at the same time still getting the best out of hierarchy, without undue complexity). One of the great ideas for promoting collaboration is to borrow from basketball - where players are rewarded on their number of "assists" and not just on goals scored.
The authors claim that we need to move away from the organisational structures of the 20th Century. These structures were designed to cope with the scarcity of capital. We need to move to new designs, designs aimed at "maximising the returns on people, not capital". (Amongst other things, this argues for new measures, including "profit per employee").
In the 21st Century the design of an organisation needs to reduce unproductive complexity, and maximise the opportunities for productive interactions amongst talented workers. How do we do this? The authors argue that you need both hierarchy and collaboration.
You still need hierarchy, because you need to be able to set aspirations and make decsions etc. But you also now need collaboration. The rest of the article starts to canvass how you might induce collaboration in a large scale organisation (while at the same time still getting the best out of hierarchy, without undue complexity). One of the great ideas for promoting collaboration is to borrow from basketball - where players are rewarded on their number of "assists" and not just on goals scored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
