카오틱스란?
지속하는 위기 때문에 카오틱스가 필요하다고 저자들은 말합니다.
The fact that an individual company can be living through conditions of turbulence, and if it lasts long enough, a recession, is underscored in Andy Grove’s well-known book, Only the Paranoid Survive (Currency Doubleday, 1999). As the former CEO of Intel Corporation, Grove had to deal with all kinds of threats to Intel’s preeminent position in the computer chip manufacturing business. It would take just one agile competitor to come out with a superior chip at a lower price to topple Intel. Grove had to live with uncertainty. Intel had to erect an early-warning system that would reveal signs of imminent trouble. It had to create different “what if” scenarios. And it had to preplan different responses to the different scenarios in case they occur.
Grove had to create a system that would insure against risk and respond to uncertainty. We have a name for such a system. We call it chaotics. All companies must live with risk (which is measurable) and uncertainty (which is unmeasurable). They must build an early-warning system, a scenario construction system, and a quick response system to manage and market during recessions and other turbulent conditions. But our finding is that most companies operate without a chaotics system. Their defenses are scattered and insufficient. Motorola doesn’t have a chaotics system. General Motors doesn’t have one; nor do countless others in the United States, Europe, Asia, and in markets all around the world.
Most companies operate on the assumption of a built-in self-restoring equilibrium. Economists built price theory with equilibrium in mind. If oversupply occurs, producers will cut their prices. Sales will increase, thus absorbing the oversupply. Conversely, if a shortage occurs, producers will raise their prices to a level that will balance demand and supply. Equilibrium will prevail. (Chaotics, pp. XI – XII)
그러니까, 이건 앤디 그로브가 생각해낸 건가요? 영속적 위기라는게 결국은 또 신고전주의에 대한 비판으로 이어지는군요. 결국 시장에 평형은 없다는 것을 전제로 한다면, 이에 대비하는 시스템은 평형상태를 전제로 한 시스템과는 다를 수 밖에 없겠죠. 그렇지만, 어떻게요?
그 전에, 앤디 그로브 이야기를 조금만 더 읽어 봅시다.
Intel’s former chairman, Andy Grove, wrote in his best-selling book, Only the Paranoid Survive, that “strategic inflection points” occur in all businesses as a direct result of specific forces affecting particular businesses. A business has arrived at a strategic inflection point when its old strategy no longer works and must be replaced by a new one if the business is to ascend to new heights. If a company’s leaders fail to successfully navigate their way through the inflection point, the business declines. (p. 11)
흥미롭게도, 제가 요즘은 리처드 도킨스의 책을 읽고 있는데요(The Greatest Show on Earth), 지금 어딘지 기억은 나지 않지만, 동물들이 지키는 안전거리에 대한 이야기가 나옵니다. 말씀인즉슨, 동물들은 위험이 어느 정도까지 가까이 오면 도망가야하는지 판단하는 거리의 기준이 있는데, 그게 너무 짧으면 잡아먹히게 되죠. 근데, 또 그게 너무 멀면 굶어 죽거나 아니면 목말라 죽거나 어쨌든 죽게 되는거죠. 미묘한 균형이 필요한거죠. 위의 이야기에도 마찬가지로 적용될 것 같은데, 앤디 그로브는 거의 피해망상 수준으로 경보 수준을 높여 놓아야 살아남을 수 있다고 하지만, 이게 아무나 할 수 있는 것은 아니죠. 엄청나게 비싼 돈을 들여서 신경 시스템을 만들어야 하는거고, 또 조그마한 경고에도 반응하려면 그것도 아주아주 비쌀 것이고, 또 정상적인 업무를 유지하기가 어렵게 될 수도 있죠. 모든게 결국은 균형의 문제 아닌가 싶네요.
아무리 카오스 이론에서 그렇게 말한다고 해도, 북경의 나비의 날개짓까지 모조리 감시감독하고 조심하는 브라질의 농부는 도저히 농사일을 지을 수가 없겠죠.
