Ed Brenegar's response to Doc made me think about 'process':
> It would appear that an organization which operates as you
> describe below would be ripe for problems. To think that business is
> nothing more than "processes" is to look at people as interchangeable
> parts of
> a mechanized system. My sense is that this is not some new idea, but how
> many
> organizations have traditionally operated.
Doc's post (in snippet) made the point:
> >on a more serious note, Steve, the point (I believe) is that knowledge
> >workers aren't managed in a knowledge society/workplace. Instead,
> >processes are "managed." Workers are hired for their technical skills,
> >knowledge, professionalism, interpersonal skills, etc., and are fired (or
> >whatever euphemism is appropriate) when their skill levels aren't
> >adequate
> >or when the work is no longer available. People (managers) who still
> >want
> >to "manage" people in this environment will find themselves out of
> >place.
One view of process is: input-> transformation-> output. The industrial
model uses the elements People, Materials, Machines, Methods,
Measurements, and Environment as the variable to solve for in optimizing
any process. Without years of teaching and transformation, people are not
interchangeable parts. But Doc's post doesn't suggest a mechanized
system, nor does his use of process appear to me to be as simplistic or
problematic as Ed implies.
Even though we write job descriptions and development curricula, people
are 'interchangeable' in only minimal ways. The richness of the process
view allows for data to be an input, and equation to be the
transformation, and information to be the output. On the next level we
could have: information-> cognition-> knowledge, etc. Looking at Doc's
postings, his web site, and my own 'transformations' of Doc as input, I
think we see that the term process is interpreted too often as a
simplistic, and mechanistic element of system. The input->work->output
model is perceptually simplistic. By substituting transformation for
work, we can see that we are applying a transformational/generative model
in which we may have either normalized outputs (i.e. steel bar->CNC
machining->screw) or true generative outputs
(facts->brainstorming->breakthrough). In both instances, there is both
management and leadership. In the first instance, management of the
purchasing system, the manufacturing system and the people system ensure
normalized (consistent) outputs. In the second, the second, management
can be seen as facilitation of process of brainstorming by providing the
training, education, the environment which allows thinking. In both
instances, leadership which understands the importance of theory in both
the technical and human subsystems is key to getting value from output.
The process model, at this level is also a systems model. There are
subsystems for obtaining inputs, subsystems for optimizing
transformational processes, and finally, subsystems for measuring outputs.
In every process, there are people, materials, methods, measurements, and
environment. In industrial models, we need to add machines.
We don't manage people in the process model. We study them, lead to
understand that they need to study us as well. In the same way, however,
that we need to replace or repair machines which cannot ensure the quality
of product, we need to model the replace or repair of people who cannot
ensure the quality of the organizational life. When leadership cannot
create an environment which continuously improves quality at the
technical, behavioral, and cognitive levels, we end up with negative
reinforcing loop such as GM is facing in Flint. A basic process has not
been managed.
John F. Zavacki
jzavacki@greenapple.com <mailto:jzavacki@greenapple.com>
--"John Zavacki" <jzavacki@greenapple.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>