- More oganisation leads to greater efficiency
I once had a discussion with a colleague who was appointed to yet another process improvement workshop to look at a particularly inefficient installation procedure to try and make it more efficient. The discussion went something like this…
Me: What makes you thing that it will deliver a more efficient process?
Her: silence… “Well we are going to see how we can improve the delivery”
Me: I can tel you know exactly what the problems are and how to improve it
Her: silence
Me: Are there any people on the team that have the technical background to understand the technical complexities of the process
Her: silence … Erummmm … no
Me: How do you think that a team of non-technical people who do not have the background to understand the technical problems will deliver a more efficient process – given that the problems are highly technical in nature
Her: silence …. Erummmm …. well…
Me: In all your many years with the organisation and the many many process improvement teams you have been on has one delivered a more efficient process
Her: Long silence ….. Well no, not really
Me:What make you think this team will be any different
Her: You’re right
Me: I know
For reference, that conversation was about three years ago and as far as I know the exact same process is being used today.
I was listening to an academic and author several days ago being interviewed on the radio which leads me to the next myth.
- Untidy people spend an hour a day looking for things
In fact this is untrue and a myth perpetrated by the people who make an industry out of teaching people to be tidy. The truth is that both untidy and tidy people spend an average of 7 1/2 minutes looking for things. except for obsessively tidy people who spend an hour a day searching for things.
He also discovered that the average tidy person spends between 1 and 4 hours tidying their house, and the only difference it makes it to make them feel better.
Now you may say that the above two myths are more or less the same and you would of course be correct. There is a huge industry in corporate process improvement and personal organisation.
The only people who believe that process improvement and organisational efficiency improvements lead to more efficient organisations are the people who sell these programs and the managers who have no idea how their organisation really works anyway. The only thing I have seen these programs do is to extend delivery times, increase costs, and generally stop me from doing my job.
One of the most effective mechanisms for getting things done in an organisation is to use what are called informal networks. These are networks of contacts outside the formalised processes and are far more efficient ways of getting things done than the formal processes. Anybody that has worked in a large organisation is familiar with the concept of informal networks. The problem being that the process improvement and organisational restructure gurus would have us eliminate these informal networks. This suits middle management because it means that it gives them the illusion that they have more control over their organisation. In fact what this does is reduces efficiency and increases costs.
If you want an efficient organisation sure have your formal processes but make them simple by reducing the number of boxes. It seems to me that the more boxes in a flow chart the happier the middle management. The truth is that the less boxes in a flow chart the faster a process is. The aim of a process improvement should be to reduce the munber of boxes in the flow chart – not to formalise every minute step. Also allow organic informal networks to develop. These are self regulating and lead to huge increases in efficiency. They look untidy but actually behave like neural networks and can deliver huge cost savings.
On the domestic front – get over this obsessive desire to be tidy. Sure make sure your house is clean but don’t waste your time and energy obsessing over the state of your house. No one cares except for you.