Oh why did we think that mere straightforward compliance with one definitive set of rules (however principled, or detailed) would achieve anything worthwhile ..?
Why didn’t we consider the inherent, innate beauty of variance and variation, beyond mere secondary usefulness in resilience/robustness ..?
Because reasons. The perennial one being Fear, probably. Fear of uncertainty. As there’s downside risk in that. Where all the risk management still focuses on. Yes, no, no denying that; all models still have any ‘impact’ of any ‘event’ as a single negative number. If (in the every-part-but-when sense) we would inculde positive, good possibilities and outcomes to count as well, wouldn’t we end up with zero average impacts in many places ..? Like the great many places where non-compliance is conscious just because the enterpreneur wants to achieve something worthwhile hence other than compliance ..?
But what if we turn risk management into the brushing off of the rough edges of beautiful sculpturing that enterpreneurs and true managers do ..? Chiseling away grey/gray unusable material to keep the beuatiful statue that was in the stone already to be released ..?
Those that want nothing to bloom may await nothing but their ignomous and insignificant death. In the mean time, don’t bother the one sthat want to achieve something, please.
After which I remind you: That’s all secondary talk. Primarily, seek the beauty of variation for its own richness. Hence:
[The view from my field office, once. Y2K was a party on St. Lucia…]