Assumptions about how work is carried out is often very different from the reality of the work. This is the difference between work-as-imagined and work-as-done. Assumptions about work as imagined often turn out to be wrong because they are based on a fundamental misunderstanding. Steven Shorrock on Humanistic Systems has been doing a great series on proxies for work-as-done that I recommend you read for more details.

The complexity of our organizations implies a certain level of inevitable unexpected variability and thus a gap between Work-as-Imagined and Work-as-Done. Work-as-Imagined reflects how work is understood by those who are separated from it by time or space; it is an over-simplified version of what is actually going on. Work-as-Done takes account of what it means to function effectively, despite resource-constrained circumstances. The analysis of the gap between Work-As-Imagined and Work-as-Done usually indicates that performance variability is present in both desired and undesired outcomes and, therefore, successful outcomes do not necessarily occur because people are behaving according to Work-as-Imagined.
The same concept applies to the nature and implications of the gap between the prescribed quality practices and policies, Quality-as-Imagined, and the way they are deployed in practice, Quality-as-Done.
This gap should be no surprise. Our organizations are complex systems, and complexity can give rise to unintended consequences.
The interesting thing is that quality can drive a reduction of that gap, solving for complexity.

Dynamic Interactions | Wide Diversity | Unexpected Variability | Resilience | |
Social | Interactions between employees | Employees with varying skill levels Employee turnover Diversity of functions performed by employees (e.g. multiskilling) | Errors when operating equipment and tools Unexpected behaviors Absenteeism Variability in human labor demand Unexpected outcomes from social interactions (e.g. conflicts and alliances) | Employees’ ability to anticipate risks Critical analysis of data Informal agreements between workers to distribute the workload |
Technical | Interactions between production resources Interactions due to tightly coupled operations (e.g. time constraints, low inventories, capacity constraints) | Product diversity Diversity of quality requirements Diversity of client requirements | Technical disruptions Resource availability (e.g. maintenance staff) Variability in production times (e.g. cycle time, lead time) Dimensional variability (e.g. potential for defects) | Inspection readiness Corrective, preventive and predictive measures |
Work Organization | Interactions between information sources Interactions between functions Interactions between processes Interactions between performance indicators | Diversity in managerial controls Diversity in relationships with external agents Diversity of rules and procedures | Variability in the hiring of new workers Changing priorities (e.g. frequent rescheduling due to unexpected conditions) Variability in timing and accuracy of information | Negotiation, partnership and bargaining power with suppliers and clients Investments on new resources Multidisciplinary problem-solving meetings |
External Environment | Interactions between the organization, suppliers, and clients Interactions with regulatory bodies | Diversity in suppliers Diversity in clients | Variability in Demand/Need Variability in logistics | Capacity and slack management |
10 thoughts on “Quality-as-Imagined versus Quality-as-Done”