links in a chain
April 8, 2008
Various links in a chain exist for strength (or information) to be passed on from one end to the other. The elements in between are not mere transporters, i.e., they should not just blindly pass on the packets but “attempt” to process them. Why? So that a) junk gets filtered and b) the next person (most probably an expert and more experienced) needs to process less to find the solution to the problem quickly.
In an organization, when a hierarchy exists, not every small issue gets escalated to the topmost.. they get processed, chopped, distributed so that the overall efficiency of the group as a whole increases.
Same is with chain forwards: one should not blindly forward emails just because it is easier to hit the forward button, but if he/she takes a mere 2 seconds to see if it makes sense (or is genuine), a lot of headache is reduced. Now why would I spend that time to process when I could just pass it on, what do I gain? The goodwill is reciprocated.
This rambling stemmed from the way I sometimes see issues getting escalated (say in a corporate scenario or library) without proper inputs from the various hands it passes: since when was the issue existing, what might have triggered it, who else has seen this etc etc.
When a patient goes to a doctor, he gives various hints (symptoms, etc) for the doc to analyze. He doesnt just lie on the examination table expecting miracles to happen. The more the info, the better the results. And that makes us humans rather than just iron links in a chain.