82,891
edits
Process: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{draft}}{{g}} | {{draft}}{{g}}Integrity of the process is ''everything'' in modern risk management {{t|dogma}}. Hence [[risk taxonomies]], [[service catalog]]s and [[playbook]]s | ||
Following an [[algorithm]] requires no understanding of the subject 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 that process: [[subject matter expert]]ise might incline one to ''take a view'' on a formal, non material issue — there is something to be said by populating your process by people who are as like machines as can be. The process is its overlord. | |||
Wisdom, judgment, pragmatism: they might accelerate a particular item through the system, but at a cost to the ''integrity of the process''. | |||
[[Subject matter expert]]s are also expensive. This is a cardinal sin in an industry where the highest calling is cost reduction. | |||
But therein the problem: if the process ''can'' be computerised, why ''hasn’t'' it been? | The ideal “[[process participant]]” costs nothing, follows instructions with perfect fidelity, doesn’t break down, makes no errors, and certainly doesn't ''think'' or ''question'' the process: that is, it is ''a computer''. In the same way a machine doesn't question its program (it can’t), a [[process participant]] escalates within the process, but doesn’t question it. the difference is that cantankerous human process participants ''can''. | ||
But therein the problem: '''if the process ''can'' be computerised, why ''hasn’t'' it been?''' | |||
There is a paradox here, though, because to get the best outcome within the playbook parameters requires a degree of advocacy, inasmuch as the process participant is facing the outside world (beyond the playbook control) - you can best negotiate if you understand your subject material. | There is a paradox here, though, because to get the best outcome within the playbook parameters requires a degree of advocacy, inasmuch as the process participant is facing the outside world (beyond the playbook control) - you can best negotiate if you understand your subject material. | ||
| Line 16: | Line 15: | ||
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''. | ||
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. | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Playbook]] | |||