Template:M intro design process: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Integrity of the process is ''everything'' in modern risk management {{t|dogma}}. Hence risk taxonomies, service catalogs and playbooks. Following an algorithm requires no comprehension of the ''content'' of the process — you don’t need to know how an internal combustion engine works to drive a car — and comprehension even risks ''subversion'' of the process: if subject matter expertise might incline one to ''take a view'' on process step,...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
The same does not hold for the [[process designers]]. BUT — and here's the thing: if we also operationalise the [[escalation]] process — and the dogma of [[internal audit]] and the bottom line imperative see to it that we do — we wind up with a series of nested playbooks stretching up and across the organisation, and the real expertise ([[internal audit]]s) becomes expertise in the operational parameters of the different layers and abstractions of operational playbook: reconciling them, testing them for consistency and compatibility, while in the mean time [[subject matter expert]]ise — of the actual substantive content of the operation — has leaked out of the whole system. | The same does not hold for the [[process designers]]. BUT — and here's the thing: if we also operationalise the [[escalation]] process — and the dogma of [[internal audit]] and the bottom line imperative see to it that we do — we wind up with a series of nested playbooks stretching up and across the organisation, and the real expertise ([[internal audit]]s) becomes expertise in the operational parameters of the different layers and abstractions of operational playbook: reconciling them, testing them for consistency and compatibility, while in the mean time [[subject matter expert]]ise — of the actual substantive content of the operation — has leaked out of the whole system. | ||