|
|
|
|
|
|
|
according to some, it has found no voice in the classification scheme. Invisibility is not only erasure, though, on this view; it can come from intimacy, as with a team that has worked together for so long they no longer need to voice instructions or classify activities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Control. No classification system, any more than any representation, may specify completely the wildness and complexity of what is represented. Therefore any prescription contains some amount of control to be exercised by the user, be it as small as in the most Taylorist factory or prison or as large as the most privileged artists' retreat. Control, like visibility, has good and bad elements, depending on one's perspective. Freedom trades off against structurelessness. The ability to exercise a wide range of judgment is worthwhile only if one has the power and resources to do so safely and effectively. Too much freedom for a novice or a child may be confusing or may lead to breakdowns in comparability across settings, thus impairing communication. Judgment about how differentiated to make the classification must take due consideration of this factor. This balance can never be fully resolved (as novices and strangers are always entering the field of work); the managerial trick is to measure the degree of control required to get the job done well, for most people, most of the time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the point of view of design, the creation of a perfect classification scheme ideally preserves common-sense control, enhances comparability in the right places, and makes visible what is wrongly invisible, leaving justly invisible discretionary judgment. It has, simultaneously, intimacy (in its detailed knowledge of the nuances of practice), immutability-standardization, and is manageable. A manageable work classification system works in practice, is not too fine-grained or arcane in its distinctions, and it fits with the way work is organized. It is standard enough to appear the same in every setting and is stable over time as well.
36 Intimacy means that the system acknowledges common understandings that have evolved among members of the community. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Such a perfect scheme, however, does not exist. In the real world, these areas trade off against each other. Maximizing visibility and high levels of control threaten intimacy; comparability and visibility pull against the manageability of the system; comparability and control work against standardization. For a classification system to be standardized, it needs to be comparable across sites and leave a margin of control for its users; however, both requirements are difficult to fulfill simultaneously. A manageable classification system (for whomever) |
|
|
|
|
|