Knowledge and data are two interesting entities: essential for decisions at any one time. And yet evolving with time.
Consequently: what we know today, based on science and hence data, may experience updates (and upgrades) over time.
Case in point: The standard model of particle physics as we know it, is currently in the process not only to be ‘broken’ i.e. shown to be not, or not entirely, accurate. But also we keep learning in what way it may be different/wrong. This after decades of research efforts … that did not lead anywhere other than hints at best.
In science these developments are what we hope for. Because each time they represent a significant leap in insight and knowledge. A sound barrier break through of sorts. One that goes beyond evolutionary step-wise improvements.
And even the often underestimated incremental improvements:
Over time they accumulate. In this way they can, collectively, represent proverbial quantum leaps (pun intended).
And with that, decisions taken some time ago, possibly decades earlier, may prove flawed – in hindsight.
Which raises obviously the question of the role and relevance of, and challenges related to, the precautionary principle. But that is for another day and another blog post.
Now, all of us in the ESG (sustainability) field, in business, and technical innovation, give advise, receive advise, as well as take significant decisions based on knowledge and data. All of which are (or should be) valid as at today.
Sometimes the nuggets of insight we produce can even be intended for public consumption (such as this very blog). But what if years later these insights are resurfaced – possibly through a third party – and either proven to be partially or fully inaccurate? What if the nuggets are suddenly being used in a context that has shifted significantly since? What if our best intended and best-possible informed statements of the past are called out and question years, decades down the line?
The following are a few thoughts about this dilemma:
Quality of work matters: doing the truly best we can
This is a principle that actually goes without further explanations.
Except: what about when there is a need to simplify (cf. this blog post)?
This is a tricky one, because where is that thin red line between that is better not crossed?
There are various approaches to deal with that.
- Target audience identification: for example, if it is for ‘beginners’ – say so. And ensure whoever uses your work is aware that this is an ‘introductory’ level simplification.
- Textual caveats: verbalise the trade offs, and the simplification decisions taken. Also, verbalise the biases and/or over simplification introduced and why.
- Encourage deeper going engagement: invite questions on deeper going background insights for those in need of or interested in it.
Authenticity: being meticulous on what to put our names on
Some work we do, in fact most experts and consultants do, whether as independent advisors or as employed in-house resources, will experience ‘adjustments’: for example by the marketing and coms team, or by investor relations, to just name two of these sources of interference.
In many cases the outcome profits: it is better understandable, more accurately targetted to the reader, better actionable on an every day basis.
But not always. Sometimes the outcome is … questionable to say the least.
Ensuring that the original author – we experts, advisors, consultants – are able to sign off any ‘good to publish’ item that carries our name is essential.
This again requires strictly adhered governance processes to be in place, so that no one will take the jump and override final sign off signatures.
Accept you’ll keep learning: science, insights and experience compound, evolve over time
No one, and no insight or decision, is perfect forever after.
We may have done the best we can. And yet.
It is impossible to be aware of every nugget of science that has ever been produced up until a specific point in time.
And: Over time, new insights compound. New data becomes available. Science and insights compound and evolve.
That does not make us worse experts. It makes for better science. More valuable resources for us. And the opportunity to improve our work going forward. An opportunity to review/evaluate our work in retrospect.
Would we decide or advise differently given the new data? Could be the case indeed.
There is nothing wrong in saying so if indeed the question arises. Also these learnings are valuable for everyone around us. It is not a dent in expertise, but rather a development to which our expertise and the questions we asked, the answers we could not or only partially give in the past, contributed.
If indeed we did the best we can historically, we can be proud that with new data we could do even better.
We can be proud to state when, why, and how, information and insight available have become better, and how this allows for better solution finding.
Accountability: If we were wrong, despite best effort … say so.
Even if we consistently do the best we can … we make mistakes. Or in hindsight the decision should maybe not have been taken at all. Or postponed.
But decisions were taken, advise given, public statements made.
It is unfortunate, yet also a public record of the signs and resources of a point in time.
Admitting to mistakes and owning up to their rationale shows real capability in keep up with the time, and ability to continue to learn.
Acceptance: Squeaking wheels will keep existing – and it’s OK they do
Indeed, as inconvenient such people and organisations may be – society needs them. And yes, some of them will choose to punch under the belt line … as long as this serves their intentions and agenda in that very moment. They may even have little inclination in being objective and fair to the outside world. Sadly, this cannot be helped.
The plus point though is: These kind of public interventions become ‘can live with’ events if – and only if – at least the above series of points are upheld in our daily, sometimes public facing, practice.
What are your thoughts?
Are there other thoughts to be considered?
What is your view on public blame-and-shame of statements and insights, of 5+ or 10+ years, or even longer, ago?
