Process following getting in the way of outcomes

We now have, in many organisations, a culture where processes take priority over purpose. When the concept of Business Process Re-engineering first began to spread, the promoters and practitioners were clear that it was a technique to revise and re-design work more efficiently, to eliminate unnecessary activities, and ensure the correct steps were taken and nothing overlooked. This involved mapping processes step by step around work flows which took a process, for example creating an invoice, from sale to printing to recording, through the minimum steps, but all the steps, needed to carry out some action. Bearing in mind how work and tasks grow and grow over time, some spectacular improvements were implemented.

Now, there are too many organisations, especially in the public sector, where their natural affinity for bureacracy, form filling, and back covering has interbred with poorly understood management jargon and corner cutting lowest price bid acceptance, to produce a tick box culture. The tragedy of the Baby P death demonstrates many aspects of this.

The management defended themselves by saying that 'correct procedures' were followed, that no mistakes were made, and they have three stars for efficiency. Yet the baby died. Every worker ticked each box at the right time. Every step was completed and form filled. Yet the baby died. The processes, workflows, forms, computer systems, scorecards, traffic light performance management, deadlines and so were followed impeccably. Yet the baby died.

The object of all the processes and procedures was to protect the baby, and that was the one thing that they conspicuously failed to do. The same problem occurs throughout business and government: no one makes any mistakes, but the whole point is forgotten.

There can be no clearer indication of how wrong things have really gone when it becomes apparent that the computer system designed to help staff work more effectively in fact takes up more than half their time.  This is an extremely common outcome for large computer systems across the board, and a future blog will try to explain why this is. The essence though is that the systems are designed by people who do not understand how and why the people who will use the system really work. 

The only practical solution is to revisit these processes and procedures, simplify the checking and form filling, and refocus on the outcomes not how to get to them. A simple tool for doing this is to evaluate each step as to how important it is on a common scale, what are the real risks surrounding it, and what does it contribute to the outcome.