Somewhere I remember reading that ‘when you are good with hammer, everything looks like a nail’. It is natural that we apply the same process that has worked beautifully for us as a solution to other challenges we face or suggest that as a solution when others are facing similar challenges.
If that is so, please excuse me from coming up with this COL body of knowledge (COLBOK) for what I present them as ABCD quadrants similar to PMBOK that I am familiar with. I used it as the basis for managing software development projects around the globe. It is a methodology that is followed to manage projects. There are others like Prince2. PMBOK in short stands for Project Management body of knowledge. More about this can be found at www.pmi.org .
When it comes to managing, most often than not we forget the source of the derivatives and focus our attention on managing the derivatives rather than the source. It is usually in an attempt to alter either the course of action taken or to respond to some external stimuli. For example, if Information literacy is what we are looking for to manage, then focusing on how the information is produced, managed, distributed and consumed is all what we need to know. However, unless we keep our fingers on how the information is being produced, we will be lost in the myriad of information management, distribution and consumption processes. I say this because they keep popping up as each and every business try to position themselves in the market to get a competitive edge. However, if we lose sight on the benchmarks that are in place to measure the very competitive edge that they are claiming to have, we will be ending up with faulty products or faulty services.
If I paint identical mannequins with the same paint, but one I make with steel and the other with clay, you will not notice the difference till such time they are put to test in such a way to bring out that difference. But if the benchmark that is set is to measure only the height and weight and the structural appearance, then we will totally miss out on which one will stand the test of times. Do we blame the people who set up the benchmarks or those who measure it according to the benchmark. Both are equally responsible as an element of ‘common sense’ that is essential to make that ever important differentiation has been lost in the process of adhering to the processes that are in place or to the job duties that one is responsible for.
What if they do possess the common sense to bring out that difference? Should I punish those who take an extra step to test the mannequins causing an irreparable damage to one of them and thereby cause damages to the company testing it or should I reward the them for taking that extra step outside the norms of testing procedures?
There is an example to highlight this that happened recently at one of the high schools conducting the AP exams. An unintentional administrative error occurred in the seating arrangement requiring the students to retake the exam as the college board had to void the exam because of that error. However, this error wasn’t noticed till such time a student complained about a cheating from a fellow student to safeguard his or her own scores. They followed the process and they were right. No question about it. So nobody needs to question it, right?
However, if you think for a moment and see the impact on the students who were honest in taking their exams, you will see them as totally broken down. Does college board will ever know the fact that individual situations might have changed since then and to make them take the exam again would be paramount to punishing them for no fault of theirs? What if I tell you that one of the student was dealing with a family tragedy that occurred just after taking the exam. Is it fair to punish that person by a process that did not make any sense?
But how could we had this process making sense?
It is very simple. If the college board had the process in place to travel COL, they would have learnt about the error, they would have discovered the impact of their decision, and, they would have connected with the affected parents and students to discuss the alternatives. That would have given them ammunition to improve the process that they are following by supporting it better with installations of cameras at the exam center (to localize the problem to only those who cheated) or conducting the exam in a college approved center or come out with better benchmarks to consider including the exam that was already taken along with the new exam that must be taken to make an objective decision on the final scoring, rather than to follow the process of voiding the entire exam without considerations to its impacts.
Hence, it is important to understand the body of knowledge that COL possess. It gives a sense of completion in learning not only about setting up a new benchmark, but also on the path that must be taken to do so. This is the kind of education that is needed for the 21st century as the number of processes will keep growing in hundreds and thousands, and following them without the support from COLBOK may lead to undesirable effects or loss of valuable time and effort for many.