In a nutshell, the calibrations tell us to continue to follow the signposts, the details can be found in Appendix C: Signpost calibration.

But before we set off for there, I asked our locals to re-calibrate the same signposts, but this time according to what they perceived to be the established point of view. That is, not based on what they would do, but what they thought the industry or sector in which they operate would do.

If we follow the established view calibration, we are more likely to head in the opposite direction or do nothing at all.

Figure 31.1 shows these two opposing results depending on the viewpoint. The area of the shapes is proportional to the percentages of responses.

Fig. 31.1
figure 1

Calibration of the seven selected signposts by all 22 local participants. Established view (left), Personal view (right)

Full size image

The results of these calibrations illustrate the tension between the established view and the personal view. They also show the push and pull that I experienced for months on end, with the signposts simultaneously luring me to go there but also to head in the opposite direction.

Then Ethan warned me, “the established view is tricky, because as you know, academics don’t agree”. Well, ‘Ethan’ is not his real name, all of our locals were given pseudonyms. But what he was telling me was that the established point of view doesn’t imply a consensus in academia, nor in the industry as Brooke also warned, “the established view really depends on the type of client.”

Even if taken with a pinch of salt, this view is still important because it reflects the ways in which organisations have overcome challenges in the past. At the same time, it’s important to know the extent to which the circumstances and assumptions behind this view are still relevant – or is it established just because that’s the way it is?

Along the walk I received less advice from fewer locals and still made it to Sydney, but some might question whether a group of 22 people, the number of experts I interviewed, is too small to have valid statistical significance. They would be right, it doesn’t. I would have to be able to demonstrate that if the study is to be (hypothetically) repeated 100 times, it would produce the same result at least 95 times. For that to happen a larger sample and a different sampling technique are required.

However, that doesn’t mean that the calibrations are wrong or that they can’t be used, far from it. Talking to a small group allows us to analyse the reasons behind the calibrations in greater detail. In addition, even with the right number of people for statistical analysis, the calibrations would neither prove, nor disprove, the signposts. Other methods are needed for that.