The well-constructed metaphors that constrain our thinking

The well-constructed metaphors that constrain our thinking

CAROLINE DANIEL. Financial Times. London (UK): Oct 29, 2005. p. 6

The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric Raymond's now classic study of collaborative software development, is hardly a gripping read. But the metaphor in the title is profoundly important. Gone are the days when companies could think of themselves as cathedral builders, architects of products from concept to capstone, controlling the process with unquestioned authority. Increasingly, value is created jointly, through unruly collaboration betweencustomers, suppliers, competitors and peers. Thriving in this environment requires a very different managerial mindset.

Metaphors matter because they define how we think. A lofty example is Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1981), in which American philosopher Richard Rorty argued that European philosophy from Descartes onwards was just an earnest attempt to solve problems inherent in a metaphor: the human mind as a "mirror" which somehow "reflects" the "real world". Reject the metaphor and the whole epistemological enterprise seems rather pointless - as to bar-room philosophers it always had.

Management is no less a hostage to the language we use to describe it. Our notion of leadership is conditioned by military metaphors such as "chain of command". We speak of "battles for market share", "pricing power" and "wars for talent". We "marshal resources" to "exploit weaknesses" in the competitive position of others.

In Designing Interactive Strategy (1994), Rafael Ramirez and the late Richard Normann argue that the whole notion of a "value chain" - one of the most pervasive management metaphors - is particularly limiting. Chains are an orderly sequence of links, like a production line. The world looks very different if you think of your suppliers, business partners and customers as part of a "value constellation". Communication is no longer restricted to the next link in the chain. Dialogue and learning take place between all participants. Value creation is a community process.

It is a matter of personal preference whether you prefer "bazaar" or "constellation" as the central metaphor for this radically collaborative style of working. Either way, the language suggests complexity, communication and lack of hierarchy.

You can see it in action most clearly in the software industry where Microsoft, a cathedral builder par excellence, finds its Windows operating system challenged by Linux, an alternative from the open source community of developers, of which Mr Raymond is a leading light. In the cathedral-like world of Windows, changes to the sacred computer code can be made only by a select few Microsoft employees working under the direction of chief software architect (yes, that is his real title) Bill Gates. In contrast, amendments to Linux can be made by anyone at any time. The only proviso is that improvements must be shared.

This bazaar-like development process is noisy, unstructured and, so far, more successful than you would imagine.

The media industry is changing, too. The Financial Times, like every other newspaper, is a cathedral. Almost every word of every edition is written by FT journalists under the ultimate authority of an editor in chief. You, our customers, are allowed on to these pink pages only in small numbers - and then confined to the letters page.

This structured way of gathering and disseminating news works well. But, like Windows, it faces new forms of competition. There are "user-generated" media such as blogs and podcasts. There are internet news groups that invite users to identify, and comment upon, the most interesting stories of the day. There are search engines that allow readers to compare the FT's version of events with that of rivals.

Now, it must be said that most blogs are more bizarre than bazaar. Very many readers will continue to prefer the cloistered hush of the FT to the cacophony of the blogosphere. But others will frequent both. Some will desert conventional media altogether.

Publishers of non-fiction books are similarly challenged. Why buy the Encyclopaedia Britannica when Wikipedia is available at the click of a browser? This online encyclopaedia is written and edited by, well, anyone who wants to contribute. The system is policed against hoaxes and vandalism by users themselves. Conflicts over matters of fact or interpretation are revealed in background notes.

Like open source software development, it shouldn't work. Why should people contribute time and expertise for free? Well, it turns out that many of us like to share our knowledge. We like to show off. We get a kick from belonging to communities and helping to build things. So much so that there is talk of extending the Wikipedia model to the publication of low-cost textbooks.

This is not to say that the old model of publishing is finished - any more than Microsoft will be put out of business by open source software or the FT annihilated by blogs. There will be times when cathedral building skills (and the hierarchies required to deploy them) will serve us well. There will be times when it pays to harness the creativity of the bazaar. For most organisations, the trick is finding a balance appropriate for the times.

Scratch the surface and you can see this in progress at most companies. Thus IBM sees competitive advantage in aligning itself with open source software, but retains the habits and hierarchy of a cathedral builder. News Corporation has recognised the significance of user-generated content but has a business model based on the economics of traditional media. Xerox is trying to recast its relationships with customers, suppliers and business partners on more collaborative terms. In the technology-enabled bazaar of global commerce, loners, control-freaks and sociopaths cannot expect to thrive.