Process: Difference between revisions

{{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 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 expert]]ise might incline one to ''take a view'' on process step, such that the form breaks, even though the substance does not, and if your means of control is predicated on the immaculate operation of process, there is something to be said for ''removing'' [[subject matter expert]]s from the process altogether, and staffing it with those with ''no'' insight, who will be inclined to be as machine-like as can be. The process is its overlord.

Wisdom, judgment, [[pragmatism]], “[[metis]]”: these might accelerate a particular item through the system, but at a cost to the ''integrity of the process''. 

 

Holding this world view one might appoint business controllers with no subject matter understanding, let alone [[metis]], at all. They administrate, rather than manage. To a process aficionado, one who suddenly asks his [[legal eagle]]s to ''prove'' that one can terminate a standard [[stock loan]] on notice, as if he can scarcely believe it — quite a specific example, I know — is demonstrating an impressively fearless readiness to challenge conventional wisdom — an almost child-like, savant curiosity. Once upon a time, such a person would have had no business being employed in financial services at all.