Andrew Fildes wrote:
> The fundamental concept in Parkinson's Law is the concept of expansion.
Agreed. I would go further and say the subject is expansion that occurs
for its own sake, without any reference at all to need, goals or results.
> It can be applied more widely than just to work - or at least I do and Is
> suspect that that old iconoclast C. Northcote P. would approve.
Again, I agree. Mr P. applied it more widely and I would say it applies
to any sort of scarce resource, time, money, space, labour, and so on.
> The "plus 10%" is critical
Here I disagree. I don't recall, and don't find in the web sources, any
reference to expansion beyond available resources. Your theory may or
may not be correct, but is not, as far as I can tell, the same one
propounded by Parkinson.
There is, of course, a ratchet effect, which Parkinson documents, which
may easily lead to resources being exceeded if they decline after an
increase. I submit that, although the effect may be the same, the cause
is different that what I understand you to be proposing.
> and is there in his thesis - that is the element that introduces the truly
> absurd aspect.
Can you refer me to something documenting this?
> It escalates the situation to higher levels.
It certainly would.
> He is brilliant on the way a multiplication of staff results in less work
> being done and is one of the reasons that I argue against teamwork, meetings
> and committees whenever possible.
>
Absolutely!
> Work, or rather people doing work IS a resource.
>
Again, I agree. (With the content. The sentence needs another comma.)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|