The Battle between Products and Processes

Ever since I read the book Business Process Re-engineering and many other interesting articles on business processes, way back in college, I've been a strong believer in the concept of tweaking products to meet business process needs rather than tweaking processes to meet the product design and requirements. I've passionately argued against deploying products without a thought for existing organizational processes and sometimes even flicked a few specks of dust from my sleeves during these arguments ;-). So far so good, Nimmy. But a recent experience makes me re-look at my beliefs.

It's not been hard for me to understand that if you're talking about a really 'good' product (brilliant because of the minds behind it or something that has had time on its side and has evolved into a very mature version), then the organization deploying it must definitely consider studying and comparing the ways of the product with its own. If the organization has been a laggard in the innovation and improvement of its processes, it truly doesn't make sense to stick to them and say that the product must be turned upside down to meet the former's requirements.

Without rambling on aimlessly, here's what I think organizations could do to avoid this "business process ego" trap! If the fear is that of being brainwashed by the product features, why plunge into it without appropriate preparation? A few days of unbiased brainstorming, introspection and analysis of the existing set of processes and what they lack in, before considering products for deployment may do the trick! Post this exercise, When you actually look at the product and its features, you are ready to accept and admit its brilliance (if any) and are prepared to stoutly refuse to accept some of its features as not apt for the organization and the way it works.

KM - People, Process or Tech?

I have been quite silent in the online KM forums – that I am a so-called part of - for sometime now, due to reasons I don’t have to waste your time going into. This is probably the beginning of a phase where I may get active again or maybe not…depending on how much time I want to spend thinking and listening versus talking.

Anyways, I found some time to answer this question on Linked In.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the answers that we have here are all thought-provoking and nice ones to consider. Based on my experiences so far, I'd have definitely chosen People....but I love the answers that point towards Processes too. Having said that, let me add that I've seen most people slip through the cracks in processes somehow or the other. It's difficult to design a perfect process. And people will always find a way out if they don't like or believe in what they're being asked to do. Anyway, here's how I look at the three –

http://nirmala-km.blogspot.com/2007/05/body-mind-soul.html

Let me just add one more dimension to this discussion. I think you ought to decide what to focus on after studying the context - the business environment in your organization, the focus areas for your KM plan and so forth. For example, if you're in a conventional organization that isn't too tech savvy, then you need to focus on technology in order to make people feel more comfortable with your KM tools...

K(M)others! :)

Many a time, when I attempt to convey what embedding knowledge in processes means, I end up not being so satisfied with the conversation/debate/discussion. For some strange reason, I almost always come away feeling that my partner(s) in conversation was(were) not exactly on the same wavelength. Only perhaps a person with a good process-orientation and an exposure to process improvements/enhancements/design/re-engineering would get the message in the way it might be intended? So, I was quite excited by what I came across this morning. I came across an example that I think is worth a mention in order to understand what KM professionals mean when they say knowledge needs to be embedded in processes rather than be a separate ‘activity’ altogether. The example popped out at me from a programme on TV. As far as I am concerned, it was an Aa..ha! moment. :).

The anchor of the programme was pointing out that while in the western culture, people celebrated “Mother’s Day” as an exclusive event to honor and celebrate one’s relationship with one’s mother and used it to demonstrate one’s love and affection for one’s mother, in the Indian context this is rather a value that is ingrained in the culture in multiple ways. We have mythological stories that bring out the beauty of motherhood, communicate the value of a mother-son/daughter relationship, instill respect and love for mothers etc. We also have regular rituals and practices that involve paying obeisance to our mothers, specific festivals that celebrate motherhood etc. Moreover, we have plenty of maxims related to the importance and value of a mother that get handed down from one generation to another by default. Now, isn’t this a clear example of ‘knowledge’ as an exclusive/stand-alone event versus knowledge ingrained and embedded in processes??? I think so....!

5S Philosophy

Ilker explains what the Japanese 5S philosophy is all about. Sort, Straighten, Shine, Systemize, and Sustain. Sounds like plain and simple common sense. I don’t know if everyone feels the way I do, but I think most of the Japanese philosophies and methods are embarrassingly obvious in retrospect. :)

Ambidextrous Organizations!

Interesting article......on a subject that has puzzled me quite a bit time and again. But honestly, the article doesn’t really point me to the solutions I’ve been scouting for. Holistic case studies stuffed with many on-the-ground stories from the so-called ambidextrous organizations would help sceptical people see for themselves! Do you have any experiences or for that matter other articles to share? :-)

PS: My previous post on this topic and a closely related topic.

Innovation - Small Vs Big

Link - Article on innovation, from Wharton

I've always pondered over the significance of the trade-off between process and innovation. Somewhere down the road, I heard some process people speak passionately about innovation in processes themselves and also about saving money (by resorting to processes rather than ad-hoc methods to accomplish tasks) and using the money thus saved for investments in innovation.

I think, in larger organizations, there is also a belief that going the Big I way can be an issue (read impractical) because of the size. They'd rather take one bite at a time. And, I also believe that large organizations, over time, end up pampering those who stick to the rules and are “loyal” while chasing away the people who are innovative and “rebellious” and want to do something revolutionary...

Learnings

Somethings that run around in my mind...

• You tend to go by what is familiar to you

Is that why there is so much of bias and resistance to change?

• You tend to stick to status quo and change very little
• You tend to go by the historic database and try to justify past actions

I don't relate to this - Innovation is what I live for!

• At work, people normally suppress their fear through anger. Anger becomes a mask.

Hmmmmm. Human behaviour...tcchhh tchhhh

• Processes sometime stifle innovation.

Absolutely! But I love both processes as well as innovation. Come to think of it, the paradox (there I go again!) is that processes are results of incremental improvement/innovation! Processes are what happens when incremental innovation gets ingrained and hard-coded!

The Paradox of Processes

Viewpoint of an Entrepreneur - A Business Intelligence Software Blog - IT War Stories - Process Kills. Without Process You are Dead.


This is a very interesting Blog (By Nari Kannan - IT Toolbox) indeed. I simply had to Blog this Blog. ;)
Having been into Paradoxes for some time now and also given the fact that I have a soft corner for processes, this one was irressitable. How true it is that startups cannot afford to spend too much time on establishing processes because they are in a market that is moving at break-neck speed and they have something to prove as in in competition with the stalwarts. Too much of a focus on processes would de-motivate people who want to be fast and and want to have the freedom to set things right right away and want to change things on the fly! On the other hand, allowing them to have their own way and not emphasizing on any process will take its toll in the long-term. It becomes that much more difficult to learn things from the past and to go up the value chain and maturity levels. Not to speak of the fact that they are competing in a market that demands for process compliance and certifications.
The old-timers have already set their processes in stone and are looking at improving them incrementally if not radically. But herein the employees are getting frustrated about the rigidity and inflexibility that comes with we--established and mature processes. And then, there might too much of an emphasis on processes which might in turn kill innovation and speed at times.
But what I want to look at is actually the people/culture and softer aspects out here. Of course, the primary question is whether we know when to draw the line and decide to ignore processes (read the traditional way of doing things) and go the ad-hoc way. But the secondary question and probably the more important of the two is to do with the egos of the stakeholders. Will the quality manager give in and ask the project manager to go his own way and not stick to processes when he sees that the occasion calls for the same? Will the project manager give in and agree to follow the process to the T when he knows that the situation calls for the same? Will both of them compromise in situations that call for a balanced approach? Will the management understand and encourage the 2 stakeholders when they complement each other or will it be perceived as a battle of egos?

Interesting paradox indeed! Everything is a paradox....!
Jumping from just processes to something bigger....Ultimately, life seems to be nothing but the management of paradoxes! If one can't live with paradoxes, then life is no rose-bed...!