82,891
edits
Process: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{draft}}{{g}} Two roles: :(i) identifying the rule set, and :(ii) seeking data as to compliance with it. It is a formal role only. Note the behaviour that this encourages:...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
The portfolio risk engine ascribes the same value to any outcome as long as it conforms to the playbook. The principle measurement is ''cost'' (lack of) and then ''speed''. | The portfolio risk engine ascribes the same value to any outcome as long as it conforms to the playbook. The principle measurement is ''cost'' (lack of) and then ''speed''. | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Playbook]] | |||
The theory is we [[operationalise]] a negotiation process. We divide into ''doers'' — [[process participants]] and thinkers “[[process designers]]”. Wherever there is a playbook, the demands of fidelity and economy require a deskilling and de-emphasis of [[subject matter expert]]ise from the process participants. | The theory is we [[operationalise]] a negotiation process. We divide into ''doers'' — [[process participants]] and thinkers “[[process designers]]”. Wherever there is a playbook, the demands of fidelity and economy require a deskilling and de-emphasis of [[subject matter expert]]ise from the process participants. | ||
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. | ||