Your absolutely correct, AjarnMark. Don't get me wrong though. I agree with a lot of what David had to say as well. I was certianly not saying that there was anything wrong with his opinion. I just believe that a different viewpoint to this is needed. I don't believe for a minute that its enough to look at what "IS". That's a firefighters viewpoint. I was very impressed with the article, but believe that it's VERY important to look at, and express opinions on, the "should be". Every trip begins with "IS", as its quite unavoidable. No trip goes anywhere until the "should" is applied. Treating symptoms will get you through in a pinch, and last until the next treatment. Treating the disease will releive the neccesity of the treatments.

Take any number of people and place them in any situation you can think of. Watch what happens. The situation will not change until one of them gets the idea for the "should". Even that's not enough though. The person seeing the should will now have to work to make it come about. The more people on board with the "should", the faster its changed to become the "is". The way you get people onboard with the should, is to express the idea that fixing the underlying issue would be a better approach. When David says:

The more layers of management there are the less likely a technical constraint is going to be listened to. , we need to realize that this is only true if we allow it to be. Now, I am not out to change the world, but I would be guilty of continuing the problem if I didn't at least express the need to look at it from this perspective.