|
November, 2000
Seeking Consistency with Flexibility
This is part of an ongoing series of design principles
for
improving systems. (See last month for "Reducing Interruptions.")
Few people argue with the need for consistency. When
everyone
does things the same way, it is easier for them to cross-cover each
other,
easier to track down the root cause of errors, and easier to repair a
system
when it goes out of whack. Consistency makes it so that anyone on a
team can
help a customer, and customers don't have to rely on their favorite
"heroes"
in order get their needs met.
Most people also agree that there is a need for
flexibility. Sometimes the rules need to be bent or outright changed.
Sometimes exceptions
need to be given. Flexibility is the antidote for red tape which binds
organizations
to inaction in the name of consistency.
The paradox is that on the surface flexibility seems to
fly
in the face of consistency. Doesn't every exception violate the
principle
of consistency? Doesn't enforcement of rules inevitably lead people to
feeling
like they are simply a number? How can we give up standardization
without
suffering anarchy? How can we enforce rules without becoming
dictatorial?
There are a few simple principles which will make it
possible
to undo the paradox, and recognize that consistency and flexibility are
complementary
and not opposites.
Principle #1: Standards should be created by the
people
doing the work. In most organizations, standards for operation
are set
by managers. The "rules" are then usually put into a manual which
gathers
dust on a shelf because the workforce has discovered the "rules" don't
work
very well. Standards need to be developed by people doing the work. An
easy
beginning point is to have them write a training manual for newcomers.
The
manual can't be completed without getting everyone to agree how to do
things.
If continuous improvement is part of the organization's lifeblood, then
the
manual should be updated at least once every six months to reflect the
ongoing
changes.
Principle #2: Let people doing the work have
authority
to make exceptions. When exceptions are given, then ask, "What's wrong
with
the standards?" instead of asking, "What's wrong with the person?"
Most
bureaucracies enforce their red tape by hunting for "bad apples"
whenever
a worker gives an exception. This has to stop. It needs to start being
understood
that when an exception is given, it is because the worker has found
something
wrong with the standard.
People doing the same work should meet regularly in
order
to discuss the exceptions they have been giving. The group can share
how
they would have responded. The group can then decide if the standards
in
the training manual need to be changed. Managers should insure that
disagreements
about standards get brought forward to the group for discussion.
Principle #3: Buy-in should be the driver of
consistency,
not coercion. This is the most controversial of these three
principles. Most bureaucracies are accustomed to being driven from the
top and designing
systems that ensure top-down control. Consequently managers are given
the
job of making sure everyone is toeing the line and following the rules.
This
is the root of red tape which leads both employees and customers to
feeling
like they are victims.
Instead of using coercion, the workforce should be
discussing
ways of doing things so that they can buy into the rules which
eventually
are made. This requires that managers be facilitators who can both
raise
issues and ensure that all voices are heard. The top must give up its
desire
for control, and instead recognize that it should be organizing people
so
that learning is rapid and wide-spread. Flexibility is then viewed as a
prime
force for changing standards and helping better meet the needs of
customers.
In the end, when all is said and done, we need to
create organizations
which are flexibly consistent and consistently
flexible.
"Reducing Memorization"
For more on bureaucracies
|
