Jananas

In this week’s Opposable mind lecture, Roger Martin went through a brief overview of the conventional methods for how we resolve clashing ideas/models. One of the common methods is “Choose & Move On” wherein we lay out all the options, consider the pros & cons of each (evaluate them), and then choose the least worst option from the bunch. A common business practice of this is the use of NPV/IRR when deciding between projects & priorities.

At Rotman, we hear a lot about Integrative Thinking and how we’re supposed to be practicing it everywhere so that we gain a new (and arguably more important) skill set. Outside of our actual IT courses and maybe our marketing course, I feel that Integrative Thinking hasn’t been incorporated into our curriculum. What triggered this thought was having NPV/IRR referenced as a way to choose from one of a set of clashing models and then move on. This is precisely what we were taught in our Finance course. So if this is a conventional way to resolve model clash and we are supposed to be practicing more integrative thinking, is there a better way for us to be making decisions about which projects get the go ahead? Are there other criteria that we could be considering? And shouldn’t the fact that there are other options be mentioned so that people are aware that we are not limited to merely that which we are told is true?

I don’t know what the answer is (yet), but I do feel like the school is missing out on an opportunity to more actively integrate these techniques into our everyday lives. And if they do this, we would get even more active practice and in many different kinds of business settings (economics, finance, marketing, accounting, etc.).

More from jananas

• Wanted: a good home for some Yarn
• Antique Spinning Wheel & Yarn Winder
• An Update on Lila