- Ironically, process standardization can undermine the very performance it's meant to optimize. Many processes work best when they're treated like artistic work rather than rigidly controlled.
- To decide if a process should be more scientific, look for these conditions: inputs to the process are variable (for example, no two pieces of wood used in making piano soundboards are alike), and customer value variations in the process output (each pianist appreciates the distinctive sound and feel of his piano)
- If a process is artistic, invest in giving employees the skills, judgement, and cultural appreciation to exel in variable conditions. Ritz Carlton, for example, recaptured its reputation for unrivaled service when it empowered employees to iprovise their responses to individual guests' needs.
This idea seems sound, yet not terribly novel. Still, I think it is important to keep this in mind, especially for enterprise architects, especially since architects tend to see (process/ information system / infrastructure) standardization as the holy grail.
Another interesting aspect of the article is the way artistic processes are identified. According to the authors, processes with high variability and positive value of output variations to customers are artistic (the three other types identified in the classic 2x2 matrix are: mass customization, mass processes, and nascent of broken processes). Unfortunately, the article prescribes a 3-step process to deal with artistic processes...
As a side-note: software development is identified as an artistic processe wince writing code for a new application often involved iterating with customers to learn how to refine the program to adress their needs, as well as decisions on which corners can be cut.
An interesting question in this respect: what do architects bring to the table to deal with processes which should be treated as "artistic"?
5 comments:
Tools that I bring to the party include Cynefin and Causal Layered Analysis (see summaries on Wikipedia for further links). Both of these address inherent uncertainty, and Cynefin in particular provides ways not only to identify inherent uncertainty, but also to identify the extent and applicability of the uncertainty, and what tactics to use for different types of uncertainty ('complex' and 'chaotic' domains).
Wherever there is a high degree of certainty, rule-based or analytic ('scientific') approaches will usually give the best results - though note that machines will give better results than people if the work is solely rule-based, because people usually need some context for personal skill in order to be engaged in the work. Wherever there is inherent uncertainty, the 'artistic' approach will give best results, and rule-based or analytic models will create problems, and may fail in destructive ways: hence, being rule-based, machines and IT are not well-suited for such contexts.
Statistical analysis will also help. Wherever the work tends toward high repeatability, 'scientific' approaches will probably serve best. Wherever the work tends towards the unique (i.e. low statistical repeatability), the 'artistic' modes should be emphasised. At the exact point of sale, for example, the customer-decision to buy or not-buy is a classic quantum-point: analogous to classic quantum-theory, any pressure one way or the other will cause the 'probability wave-form' to collapse early into no-sale - limiting the possibilities for actual sale.
Somewhat paradoxically, we can use analytic techniques in this way in order to identify when not to use analysis. :-)
It is an interesting balance between stability/ standardization and chaos/ flexibility. I agree that over-structuring is not good, or standardizing ‘the lot’. In IT this often happens, but as Tom argued machines will give better results if the work is structured and rule-based.
As for people it is important to invest in ‘giving them the skills, judgement, and cultural appreciation to exel in variable conditions’. Nobody wants to work without responsibility and a sense of purpose. Who will read all the detailed procedures?
But analysis can give nice insight in the artistic process. For me, EA is about providing that insight (for decision making and for design) and building a sound business-IT alignment. It bridges the world of machines with that of men and thus of analysis with artistic. Or at least it should, there is still some missionary work to be done.
It is interesting to see how the concepts of Business Technology (Forrester) will be put to practice, how flexible can IT be to differentiate to customer needs?
Brilliant blog, I hadn't noticed strategic-architecture.blogspot.com before in my searches!
Continue the superb work!
Thanks for sharing the link, but unfortunately it seems to be down... Does anybody have a mirror or another source? Please reply to my post if you do!
I would appreciate if a staff member here at strategic-architecture.blogspot.com could post it.
Thanks,
William
What exactly is down? I just checked: the link to HBR is still working so... not sure what you mean exactly. Please be more specific and we'll see what we can do!
Post a Comment