Reform is a fundamental activity in most nations. It is usually also a last minute activity that may solve one problem, but then also introduce more problems into the mix. Reform is usually brought about by good oversight, but this is not about oversight, nor is it about some of the reasons one may need to trigger a reformation.

 

As a rule, reform solves the weaknesses of whatever is being reformed. To put it simply, a reform is just a recipe change, be it large or small. Perhaps you are reforming a recipe for cake that isn't light and fluffy enough. Maybe you must reform a police infrastructure to be more efficient. Whatever it is you are doing, it is fundamentally important that the old system doesn't work well enough, or that the new system will work better. It is no coincidence, therefore, that usually nobody will even consider going back to the old ways. It is also not surprising, when you think about it, that a system will require some type of reform in the future. It is important, however, that you go about any reform in a deliberate and informed way.

 

One of the main obstacles to reform is the fact that the people using the old system believe that it isn't broken. Another main obstacle is that those people also perceive the new way to be very extreme and invasive. Either point may be correct, but neither is a good reason. The main and most important factor to any reform is to make sure to introduce it as an experimental action. It would be pretty idiotic to, for instance, change the flavor of BBQ sauce that a restaurant serves with its ribs after thirty years without any consideration to the customer's feelings, and without the possibility that you may be persuaded to change it back. It is the same for every other type of reform. It is also important to be well informed about the choices you are making. Perhaps a year after changing the BBQ sauces, you find out that it is spiked with trace amounts of lead.

 

Another important bit of advice is to always try to hybridize. In a business setting, try to keep some of the old staff, and re-train them. Investigate every detail about the old business structure, and try to save some of the policies that worked well. In some areas, you may not need to change anything at all. It may also be important, if you are using a fairly new business model, that you also monitor it closely for a period of time to make sure that it performs to your expectations. One of the benefits of keeping some of the old workers is that you can get a better idea of how the old system worked. Old employees may be able to give you pointers about what worked well, and how to adapt or merge the two systems to maximize efficiency. It may be less efficient from the begining, but it has a greater potential.

 

Sometimes people involved in reforming the system may be new to the whole thing, or at least new to the specific situation that they will be working with. These people, such as new presidents and new employees, may be going into the situation with their own pre-conceived agendas. When a change is proposed, it is usually not based on much research or on much real understanding about how things work locally. It is usually based on the idea that it will improve one small isolated detail that everyone is complaining about. One small example would be the idea of adding more oil to a cake mix so it won't stick as much, and to improve moisture.  This makes the cake heavier, may not make it stick to the pan less, it may interfere with the overall flavors of the cake, and the oil may increase the unhelathiness of the cake.

 

This brings us to a common situation in which the person in power doesn't have the intelligence to make the decision (s)he is making. If the person is smart, (s)he will bring in as many professionals, analysts, and scientists to the bargaining table as possible, including people with opposing views. If everyone has a chance to state the facts, and give their best projection of what would happen because of your decision, your plan will be much better for it. Bringing experts to the table is also good for another thing, that is to bring you an in-depth plan of what they believe solves the problem the best. Lets say some anonymous investor buys an ice-cream factory that is going out of business, but wants to keep it as an ice-cream factory. The investor has a great opportunity to bring in professionals from anywhere to analyze the situation and give input on how to make it succeed. Information and experts are spread out all over the world, so theoretically, you could ask a Russian professional and a Japanese professional for a project in Mexico.

 

Here is a good real-world example where people didn't quite understand. Currently USA politicians are arguing about the price of oil, why it is high, and how to make it go down. For one, they hardly hired any professionals to look into the problem. They didn't ask the same professionals, and they obviously didn't cross-examine them. They seem to have made up their minds about situation even before hiring professionals, and only once they were questioned did they produce any meagre amount of scientific information. Again, and this is extremely important, the information was conflicting, ignored the opponent's results, and was not detailed enough to have a decision made upon it. With faulty information and pre-determined decisions, a person can not make the right decision.