This is really interesting - I’ve known the power of “via negativa” but have never considered it’s potentially positive implications in complex systems like you describe. It’s probably the same in a lot of quality management processes, where SOPs are piled on SOPs just to fix problems superficially, and add more tedium in the process
100% Process paralysis leads to process anarchy because you can't possibly follow them all so they throw most away. Instead, get rid of as many as absolutly possible and then hold accountability for what remains.
Part of the cultural dilemma is that medium to large organizations rarely take the time up front to assess the fundamental problem sets before them to solve and develop the often tedious work and product breakdown structures that illustrate exactly what the project[s] will create and how to do it. Nor do they do the "branches and sequels" up front to tease out contingencies and roadblocks and the concomitant responses.
Process is a path but like a river, it needs to have the capacity to bend and shape around intractable problems.
100%. I'm seeing a pattern in my essays that it's rarely about process, it's about culture. But that leads me to something I started to do at a previous job when asked to help improve factory processes. I'd ask "Are you currently following the processes you currently have?" Because if you aren't, why would I expect you to follow an improved process?
This is really interesting - I’ve known the power of “via negativa” but have never considered it’s potentially positive implications in complex systems like you describe. It’s probably the same in a lot of quality management processes, where SOPs are piled on SOPs just to fix problems superficially, and add more tedium in the process
100% Process paralysis leads to process anarchy because you can't possibly follow them all so they throw most away. Instead, get rid of as many as absolutly possible and then hold accountability for what remains.
Part of the cultural dilemma is that medium to large organizations rarely take the time up front to assess the fundamental problem sets before them to solve and develop the often tedious work and product breakdown structures that illustrate exactly what the project[s] will create and how to do it. Nor do they do the "branches and sequels" up front to tease out contingencies and roadblocks and the concomitant responses.
Process is a path but like a river, it needs to have the capacity to bend and shape around intractable problems.
100%. I'm seeing a pattern in my essays that it's rarely about process, it's about culture. But that leads me to something I started to do at a previous job when asked to help improve factory processes. I'd ask "Are you currently following the processes you currently have?" Because if you aren't, why would I expect you to follow an improved process?