I saw a bumper-sticker once. Looked like this:
The Buddha is said to have that bumper sticker on his car (a Tesla, I might add).
Anyway, I have been reflecting on the idea of “control” and the ways that accountants (the ultimate “controllers”), structural engineers, and Oreo Cookie makers, tackle it. So, with that in mind, let me talk about Oreo cookies, earth filled dams, and skyscrapers, and the idea that nothing is under control.
I was trained as an accountant, which you no doubt remember, and the entirety of “internal control systems” which, to an accountant, is paramount. We are trained to “test” the rigor of such systems. We don’t test everything; just samples here and there to satisfy ourselves that the controls are what management says they are.
We invariably find fault – errors – and report them back to management, along with commentary about the severity of the errors found. We opine on the degree to which management should concern itself with changing/strengthening the control systems. It is up to them, of course, whether to do that or not, but if the errors found are severe enough they might lead us (the accountants) to declare the financial statements unreliable. It rarely got to that point, but it could. In fact, we were concerned if we did NOT find any errors.
All dams leak. Did you know that? They are designed to leak; or, I should say, to be able to withstand a certain volume of leakage. The earth-filled dam at Oroville leaks. Hoover Dam leaks. Thus, it can be said that even dam builders know that “total control” is impossible.
Skyscrapers sway in the wind. If you ever get to New York, try and get to the top of a really tall building and experience the sway. It’s unnerving. But structural engineers would remind you that even the mightiest of oak trees sway in the wind. They are designed to do so. To try for total control is to build something so rigid that it will snap in the worst way possible, when you least expect it.
Back to control systems. We design such systems with an eye toward cost-benefit and the notion that nothing can ever be 100%. Retail stores try their mightiest to “control shrinkage” (aka, shoplifting losses), but allow for a certain amount anyway. Total control would be so unenjoyable as to invite customers away from your store.
Think of it like a statistician would: The best we can hope for is two standard deviations’ worth of control. That we can get to 95% control is damn good. If we go to 3 standard deviations, we can cover 99%. But at what cost?
The Oreo factory is happy with 99.99966% accuracy. They can afford it and your basic Oreo doesn’t cost that much to begin with. But to strive for 100% perfection is madness. So … they build systems to keep them at about 99.99966% (ever heard of Six Sigma? That’s the goal – 99.99966%). To get that last .00034% isn’t worth the cost. Ever.
Better to go to bed at night knowing that you have strived for two standard deviations of control and to then leave the outliers to chance. They WILL happen but with such rarity that it will actually be fun tracking down the cause.
Having systems in place, systems which by the way you are forever tweaking on the basis of experience (in life), will get you closer to that kind of “control.” Striving for 100% perfection (e.g. Total Control) will cost far too much time and energy and, sadly, take the fun out of life.
The Buddha might have said, “Dear son, you asked me how I do it. The answer is … I have systems. And when they fail, the fun begins.”
Relax.
