Comments on: Cooking by the Numbers

By: Michael F. Martin

Michael F. Martin — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:51:30 +0000

This is a very under-appreciated point. As even Geneen notes in that piece you link, numbers are useless without comprehension, and comprehension requires theory. Numbers, theory, and comprehension have to work together in unison. Sure ignoring numbers is going to hurt your end product. But ignoring theory will do just as much damage.

I would say that the reason that more “dynamic” theories are now in vogue is because the older theories that were used to comprehend the numbers (like the Sloan/Brown model) were too static in the Newtonian sense. There was not enough room for change built into the theories. That was fine when macroeconomic dynamics were slowly changing with respect to micro (firm-level) changes. But these days, the large-scale changes are observable even in local-scale dynamics. New theory needed!

Interestingly, ITT now does a lot of work on flow and motion. Geneen’s philosophy lives on in a more dynamic form. If only their techniques could be applied to accounting reform!

By: What’s in a recipe? « Ledarsmak

What’s in a recipe? « Ledarsmak — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:55:27 +0000

[...] jag en hel del om recept. Nu märker jag att en av bloggarna jag följer (men sällan håller med), Organizations and Markets, har en utmärkt kommentar om Cooking by the Numbers. [...]

By: REW

REW — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:17:03 +0000

Get Harold Geneen out of the kitchen and put Harold McGee (http://www.curiouscook.com/cook/home.php) in!

But, if you wish to know the systematics of home cooks, see the results of Cornell research:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/health/17well.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss