(Contd.)
Waste 2: Over-Engineering
In IT services there is a clamor for process models of all kinds. This is understandable because many activities related to software are mental in nature. Unless there is rigor of a model and a method, quality and repeatability are dicey. But one often sees a swing between two extremes: at one end there is an utter disdain for anything remotely resembling a process and at the other end processes of questionable value proliferate to severely impact production efficiencies. And very quickly disillusionment sets in, strongly reacting to the wisdom of processes.
As mentioned in other posts, right-sizing the processes with their underlying artifacts is crucial to balance the cost and benefit. A small sample of heavy processes: many simple projects can be tracked using a Excel sheet whereas for some reason, a pert/cpm kind of plan is prepared; an estimation model goes into excruciating level of details; defect classification codes confusingly overlap and run into multitude; activity codes on a timesheet are needlessly granular and overlapping; computing dozens of process metrics, not all of them relevant (see below); applying complex prediction models of questionable validity…
For some time, some projects in this organization were scrupulously computing and reporting a commonly-in-use metric of ‘Adherence to Schedule’. A little digging showed the projects were basically streams of defects to be fixed within a few hours to a couple of days at the outer. The status was jointly reviewed by the customer and the software team at the start of the following day and the plan for that day was agreed. If some defect did not get fixed on the previous day for whatever reason, it got done on the next day without generating any heat. The ‘planned completion date’ was being (re)negotiated daily. And a meaningless but feeling-good 100% ‘Adherence to Schedule’ was perpetually reported!
Mindless application of process models and heavy processes are more wide-spread in use than as exceptions. Pruning the processes and their artifacts to fit the purpose significantly cuts out waste.
To continue on other themes for reducing waste…
March 31, 2009 at 1:25 pm |
This is so true. Unfortunately, in an environment driven by checklists, not following this will lead to you being marked as “Not following quality procedures laid down”. Sending the 100% adherence report is the path of least resistance.
March 31, 2009 at 10:08 pm |
There are three questions here:
1. Does the practice really deliver value to the practioner? Is it process for the sake of process? Many practices fail on this count.
2. Has it been clearly communicated to the practioner?
3. Is it too much effort to implement a practice? Some well-designed practices fall into disuse because there is not enough systems support to implement it.
Thanks, Rajesh, for your inputs.
.
May 29, 2009 at 1:05 pm |
(1) ..crazy thought
In a era of physical stuff production, our eye, ear, tactile senses were ‘key to doing’. To ensure good coordination, well-laid processes as written documents, diagrams, checklists were used interpreted easily by the “thinking sense” as this “sense” was free!
In the era of virtual stuff production, thinking sense is the only sense that is (supposedly!)seriously used and this busy/overloaded. In this contention of (a) “doing the job” -thinking and (b)”how to the job”,- process we pay more attention to (a) and refuse to think about (b) as our thinking sense is overloaded. We become dumber and (a) suffers!
Whoa – what a interesting weirdo justification for poor thinking!
Am I making sense?
(2) Process implies measurements.. Measurement means behaviour change – for the good or bad. In the instance where we have meet 100% schedule , we have to meet it or we perceive that we will be punished. Hence our behavior changes, sometimes in the stupid direction that was not intended by the process formulator.
May 30, 2009 at 11:50 am |
The notion that the stated process needs to be diligently executed, without questioning the business value and ignoring the intended contextual adjustment needed, is indeed sadly commonplace.
Since a process is measured (as you have outlined ‘Adherence’ as an example), and the perception that these can be used punitively, possibly makes the consumer mindlessly implement without questioning and adjustment.
My take is that “process is simply a logical series of steps”, but the community-at-large views this as “larger-than-life” and thereby creating a sense of aura/rigidity.
June 28, 2009 at 10:34 am |
In a zest of process compliance and certification, real objective of the process is lost. Any process makes sense to me if it is adding a business value, which I can charge to my customer, OR it is reducing my waste, which allows me to delivery the same value to my customer with lesser cost. Though it looks like a very common sense this is the last thing, which is considered once we start our journey of process. This journey reminds me the movie “The Lord of the Rings”. There are three sequels of the movie and at the end of each sequel audience come out of the theatre with confused faces. This is why I would like to a journey of process as “The Lord of the Process Rings”, a movie J.