|
|
|
|
|
|
Getting
Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial
Craftsmanship (DC: Brookings, 1998) |
|
6-7 years |
|
much field interviewing |
|
9 policy areas, 19 “cases” |
|
“pre-quantitative” rather than “qualitative” |
|
Methodological problems were mostly philosophical |
|
|
|
|
You can’t advise practitioners |
|
You are
doing uninteresting science |
|
Interesting phenomena are off-limits |
|
But:
rival camps and approaches not really a problem |
|
|
|
|
|
Craftsmen act creatively, purposively |
|
But
their actions are “channeled” |
|
by functional requirements of the product |
|
by natural qualities of the materials |
|
by the feasibility and practicality of generic
designs |
|
Channeling is causal, though metaphorically unfamiliar |
|
|
|
|
|
An
upside-down formulation |
|
the clay causes the potter’s motions |
|
the lumber causes the carpenter’s actions |
|
the ventilation requirements cause the
architect’s design choices |
|
The rat
controls the experimenter |
|
The
chicken is the egg’s way of making another egg |
|
|
|
|
|
The
Elinor Ostrom test (GTC, p. 192) : |
|
“relates whole families of models together” |
|
“one derives questions that ... clarify the
structure of a situation and the incentives facing individuals” |
|
Guides
you towards insightful answers |
|
Illuminates the interface between |
|
practitioner and problem |
|
practitioner and opportunities |
|
practitioner and array of options (“checklist”) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interagency Collaborative Capacity (ICC) |
|
A “virtual organization” |
|
Made up of pieces that need to be created and
“put together” |
|
operating system |
|
resources |
|
a steering process |
|
a culture of pragmatism and trust |
|
What makes for an “efficient” developmental
process? |
|
|
|
|
|
In the
ICC case, what creates synergistic potential? For instance: |
|
Production complementarities |
|
More coherent scope of decision |
|
Wrap-around resources |
|
Does
stronger potential synergy improve odds of collaboration? Quality of ICC work? |
|
|
|
|
|
Synergistic potential a special case of “latent opportunity” |
|
Opportunity: producing value on the cheap |
|
Technological analogy |
|
Yes,
there are free lunches, and managers love them |
|
But many
opportunities are unnoticed, noticed but ignored... Why? |
|
|
|
|
|
How
shall we understand “developmental processes”? |
|
Labeling?
Division into “phases”? |
|
An efficiency problem: design and enactment of
optimal sequences of tasks or functions. |
|
But what
makes for efficiency in a political world? |
|
Technical considerations: “platforming” |
|
Momentum-building |
|
|
|
|
|
Dig more
deeply into “the nature” of generic problems |
|
For instance, leadership in ICC process |
|
It’s very functional -- but problematic |
|
The equality problem |
|
The incentives and recruitment problem |
|
The resources problem |
|
“Facilitative” and “advocacy” solutions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is
not about craft judgment or appreciation (Majone, Vickers) |
|
“Qualities analysis,” not “qualitative analysis” |
|
Predictive power can sometimes be a test of worth of a
craftsmanship model |
|
“Understanding” a more comprehensive test of worth |
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Potential” is “real” even if not “actual” |
|
and even if never actualized |
|
and even if not visible |
|
and even if there is no obvious physical locus |
|
for instance, the potential for making a profit,
the potential for Pareto improvement |
|
In the
real world, purpose (creativity) and determinism (causality) interact
happily |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comparison with economics |
|
More alike than different |
|
Opportunities analogous to incentives |
|
“Opportunities” is rhetorically broader |
|
“Opportunities” has a cognitive aspect |
|
Purposes analogous to preferences |
|
Purposes anchored externally as well as
internally |
|
Purposes more situational, more mutable |
|
More
humanistic as well as realistic |
|
Notes