|
|
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{draft}}{{g}} | | {{freeessay|design|process|}} |
| 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: following an if/then logic structure requires no understanding of the underlying subject of the process (you don’t need to know how an internal combustion engine works to drive a car), and indeed such comprehension risks challenge to or subversion of that process: [[subject matter expert]]ise might incline one to ''take a view'' on a formal, non material issue. That might accelerates the particular item through the system, but at a cost to the ''integrity of the process''.
| |
| | |
| Integrity of the process is ''everything'' in modern risk management {{t|dogma}}.
| |
| | |
| The other thing about [[subject matter expert]]s is that they are expensive, also a cardinal sin in an industry where the highest calling is cost reduction. The ideal “[[process participant]]” costs nothing, follows instructions with perfect fidelity, doesn't break down or make 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.
| |
| | |
| 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 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.
| |