Prototyping As A Method

Between a rock and a hard place? Not at all.

Last updated on January 26th, 2022 at 04:59 am

April 22, 2020

Reference (Website subscription required.)

A subscriber to recently posted information about technical opinions regarding the current COVID-19 virus, originally published as a slide presentation about the COVID-19 virus event, by Alliance Bernstein, a global asset management firm in Nashville, Tennessee.

The subscriber opines about the highly certified technicians providing the technical assessments included in the presentation:

“Pages 2 and 14 demonstrate bureaucrat thinking. They are caught between a rock and a hard place.”

However, consider the following…

Between a rock and a hard place? Not at all.

As evidenced by the funding of the original technical experts not being in jeopardy. It continues.

The technicians providing the assessments are doing what technicians do best, and are paid to do: focus on technical arguments and challenges as required. Their job is to focus on the technical aspect and technical consequences of the prototype vehicle, not other consequences; the other consequences being the province of management; and the perceived “rock and a hard place” are normal indicators of the technical challenge serving as the basis of any prototype, AND the justification for the prototype itself. Without a technical challenge, a prototype could not reasonably be supported; nor rationalized.

To date, the prototyping of political and economic controls during the present COVID-19 event appears to be operating correctly, as evidence by the prototyping continuance; and every prototype effort requires technical input, processing, and rationale. This particular aggregation of political and economic controls prototypes is also generating intense customer demand and interaction for the controls that are being prototyped. (E.g., widespread public compliance, demand to enforce…[whatever], more “stimulus,” et cetera.)

That customer involvement is in itself is a significant achievement of the prototype proponents; hence, the intense media focus and manipulation, resulting in manifold Shell Games of immense proportions.


The attention of the denizens of has been drawn in and engaged in extensive discussions about this occurrence of the latest discovered strain of seasonal illness, in an environment of innuendo, implication, and dearth of conclusive fact; in response to which those denizens are executing costly reactions. The phrase “knee-jerk” comes to mind.

As a result, the testing of the political and economic controls continues unabated, including the test of proponents’ unilateral ability to determine what is “unacceptable” (a word left wholly undefined, and with which an attorney would have a field day), and thereby control the narrative. (Reference slide 5 of Alliance Bernstein’s slide presentation.)

It is those subject to the prototyped controls that may be “…between a rock and a hard place” depending upon any particular controls to which they are subjected. (A situation which is wholly affected by their individual capability.)

But that’s why managers implement change via prototyping: because of potential, anticipated, or realized “resistance” in whole or part of the target audience. From this perspective, prototyping is a mitigation tactic. Notice how the present Michigan governor adjusted controls as resistance was encountered; “adjusted,” not discontinued. This “adjustment” is inherent in classic prototyping.

All-in-all, it appears COVID-19 is proving to be a much superior vehicle for change than “climate [whatever]” ever promised to be: the goal and objectives are being realized globally, within an immediate timeframe.

Leave a Reply