82,891
edits
Playbook: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Playbooks derive from the belief that business is a heuristic<ref>See {{author|Roger Martin}}’s {{br|The Design of Business}}.</ref>. | Playbooks derive from the belief that business is a heuristic<ref>See {{author|Roger Martin}}’s {{br|The Design of Business}}.</ref>. | ||
In {{author|Thomas Kuhn}}’s conception of it<ref>{{br|The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}}. It's a brilliant book. Read it. </ref>, [[normal science]]: There are no mysteries or conundrums. The landscape has been fully mapped, boundaries have been set, tolerances limited, parameters fixed, risks codified and processes fully understood. Playbooks are algorithms for meatware: a means of | In {{author|Thomas Kuhn}}’s conception of it<ref>{{br|The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}}. It's a brilliant book. Read it. </ref>, [[normal science]]: There are no mysteries or conundrums. The landscape has been fully mapped, boundaries have been set, tolerances limited, parameters fixed, risks codified and processes fully understood. Playbooks are algorithms for the [[meatware]]: a means of maximising efficiency when operating within a fully risked environment. | ||
They speak to the belief that ''the only material risk lies in not complying with established rules'': Playbooks are of a piece with the doctrine of precedent: When the playbook runs out of road, there is an [[escalation]] to a [[control function]]. the [[control function]] acts like a competent court, the idea being (in theory, if not in practice) that the the [[control function]] can develop the heuristic to deal with the new situation, and it can be fed back down and incorporated into the playbook as a kind of ''[[stare decisis]]'' to updating and building out the corpus of established process.<ref>This is rarely what happens in practice. [[control function]]s make ''ad hoc'' exceptions to the process, do not build them into the playbook as standard rules, meaning that the playbook has a natural tolerance (and therefore inefficiency). The heuristic is set inside the organsiation’s risk tolerance (this is a good thing from a risk monitoring perspective, but a bad one from an efficiency perspective, as [[escalation]] is a wasteful and costly exercise. | They speak to the belief that ''the only material risk lies in not complying with established rules'': Playbooks are of a piece with the doctrine of precedent: When the playbook runs out of road, there is an [[escalation]] to a [[control function]]. the [[control function]] acts like a competent court, the idea being (in theory, if not in practice) that the the [[control function]] can develop the heuristic to deal with the new situation, and it can be fed back down and incorporated into the playbook as a kind of ''[[stare decisis]]'' to updating and building out the corpus of established process.<ref>This is rarely what happens in practice. [[control function]]s make ''ad hoc'' exceptions to the process, do not build them into the playbook as standard rules, meaning that the playbook has a natural tolerance (and therefore inefficiency). The heuristic is set inside the organsiation’s risk tolerance (this is a good thing from a risk monitoring perspective, but a bad one from an efficiency perspective, as [[escalation]] is a wasteful and costly exercise. | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
The theory is we operationalise a negotiation process. We divide into doers and thinkers. Wherever there is a playbook, the demands of fidelity and economy require a deskilling and deemphasis of [[subject matter expert]]ise. | The theory is we operationalise a negotiation process. We divide into doers and thinkers. Wherever there is a playbook, the demands of fidelity and economy require a deskilling and deemphasis of [[subject matter expert]]ise. | ||
But we also operationalise the [[escalation]]process - the dogma of [[internal audit]] and the bottomline imperative see to that. As a result [[subject matter expert]]ise leaks out of the whole system. | But we also operationalise the [[escalation]] process - the dogma of [[internal audit]] and the bottomline imperative see to that. As a result [[subject matter expert]]ise leaks out of the whole system. | ||
And are we even going to talk about the fact that the big shock risks that hit the systems are never ones that have previously been recognised, analysed and subjected to constant monitoring? [[Black swan]]s gonna be [[black swan]]s, yo. | |||
{{seealso}} | {{seealso}} | ||