Written procedures with their step-by-step breakdown are a fundamental tool for ensuring quality through consistent execution of the work. As a standardized guideline for tasks, procedures serve many additional purposes: basis of training, ensuring regulatory requirements are met, ensuring documentation is prepared and handled correctly.
As written prescriptions of how work is to be performed, they can be based on abstract and often decontextualized expectations of work. The writers of the procedures are translating Work-as-Imagined. As a result, it is easy to write from a perspective of ideal and stable conditions for work and end up ignoring the nuances introduced by the users of procedures and the work environment.
The day-to-day activities where the procedures are implemented is Work-as-Done. Work-is-Done is filled with all the factors that influence the way tasks are carried out – spatial and physical conditions; human factors such as attention, memory, and fatigue; knowledge and skills.
Ensuring that our procedures translate from the abstraction of Work-as-Imagined to the realities of Work-as-Done as closely as possible is why we should engage in step-by-step real-world challenge as part of procedure review.
Work-as-Prescribed gives us the structure to take a more dynamic view of workers, the documents they follow, and the procedural and organizational systems in which they work. Deviations from Work-as-Prescribed point-of-view are not exclusively negative and are an ability to close the gap. This is a reason to closely monitor causes such as “inadequate procedure” and “failure to follow procedure” – they are indicators of a drift between Work-as-Prescribed and Work-as-Done. Management review will often highlight a disharmony with Work-As-Imagined.
The place where actions are performed in real-world operations is called, in safety thinking, the sharp-end. The blunt-end is management and those who imagine work, such as engineers, removed from doing the work.
Our goal is to shrink the gap between Work-as-Imagined and Work-as-Done through refining the best possible Work-as-Prescribed and reduce the differences between the sharp and the blunt ends. This is why we stress leadership behaviors like Gemba walks and ensure a good document change process that strives to give those who use procedure a greater voice and agency.
I went and did it. I now have a song on complex and complicated. A rap anthem to a subject I hold so dear. I bought this through Fiverr from Burtonm6, who was a joy to work with.
Lyrics below
Complicated and complex
these words are not synonyms/
people often misunderstand
i can break down for you
lets begin
problems that are complicated
gotta check how they originated/
from causes that can be addressed
piece by piece
individually distinguished/
yea
hope that you get the idea
cause and effect is linear
when we’re dealing with complicated
there’s more so listen here
learn the difference
ah yea we got to
I’m here to help yes i got you
remember
every input always has a proportionate output
now its time we move on to complex
lets learn what its about and how its so different
it deals with many causes that cant be distinguished
as individual
because it all intersects
and we must address as an entire system
and if you try to solve it then its not a one and done
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.
The interesting thing is that quality can drive a reduction of that gap, solving for complexity.
The Influence of Complexity on Quality
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
Perhaps more than anything else, we want our people to be able to think and then act rationally in decision making and problem-solving. The basic structure and technique embodied in problem solving is a combination of discipline when executing PDCA mixed with a heavy dose of the scientific method of investigation.
Logical thinking is tremendously powerful because it creates consistent, socially constructed approaches to problems, so that members within the organization spend less time spinning their wheels or trying to figure out how another person is approaching a given situation. This is an important dynamic necessary for quality culture.
The right processes and tools reinforce this as the underlying thinking pattern, helping to promote and reinforce logical thought processes that are thorough and address all important details, consider numerous potential avenues, take into account the effects of implementation, anticipate possible stumbling blocks, and incorporate contingencies. The processes apply to issues of goal setting, policymaking, and daily decision making just as much as they do to problem-solving.
Objectivity
Because human observation is inherently subjective, every person sees the world a little bit differently. The mental representations of the reality people experience can be quite different, and each tends to believe their representation is the “right” one. Individuals within an organization usually have enough common understanding that they can communicate and work together to get things done. But quite often, when they get into the details of the situation, the common understanding starts to break down, and the differences in how we see reality become apparent.
Problem-solving involves reconciling those multiple viewpoints – a view of the situation that includes multiple perspectives tends to be more objective than any single viewpoint. We start with one picture of the situation and make it explicit so that we can better share it with others and test it. Collecting quantitative (that is, objective) facts and discussing this picture with others is a key way in verifying that the picture is accurate. If it is not, appropriate adjustments are made until it is an accurate representation of a co-constructed reality. In other words, it is a co-constructed representation of a co-constructed reality.
Objectivity is a central component to the problem solving mindset. Effective problem-solvers continually test their understanding of a situation for assumptions, biases, and misconceptions. The process begins by framing the problem with relevant facts and details, as objectively as possible. Furthermore, suggested remedies or recommended courses of action should promote the organizational good, not (even if subconsciously) personal agendas.
Results and Process
Results are not favored over the process used to achieve them, nor is process elevated above results. Both are necessary and critical to an effective organization.
Synthesis, Distillation and and Visualization
We want to drive synthesis of the learning acquired in the course of understanding a problem or opportunity and discussing it with others. Through this multiple pieces of information from different sources are integrated into a coherent picture of the situation and recommended future action.
Visual thinking plays a vital role in conveying information and the act of creating the visualization aids the synthesis and distillation process.
Alignment
Effective implementation of a change often hinges on obtaining prior consensus among the parties involved. With consensus, everyone pulls together to overcome obstacles and make the change happen. Problem-solving teams communicates horizontally with other groups in the organization possibly affected by the proposed change and incorporates their concerns into the solution. The team also communicates vertically with individuals who are on the front lines to see how they may be affected, and with managers up the hierarchy to determine whether any broader issues have not been addressed. Finally, it is important that the history of the situation be taken into account, including past remedies, and that recommendations for action consider possible exigencies that may occur in the future. Taking all these into consideration will result in mutually agreeable, innovative solutions.
Coherency and Consistency
Problem-solving efforts are sometimes ineffective simply because the problem-solvers do not maintain coherency. They tackle problems that are not important to the organization’s goals, propose solutions that do not address the root causes, or even outline implementation plans that leave out key pieces of the proposed solution. So coherency within the problem-solving approach is paramount to effective problem resolution.
Consistent approaches to problem-solving speed up communication and aid in establishing shared understanding. Organizational members understand the implicit logic of the approach, so they can anticipate and offer information that will be helpful to the problem-solvers as they move through the process.
I’m doing a Gamestorming Expeditions right now, and it is a lot of fun. I’ve been a fan of gamestorming techniques for years, and it is great to be able to do this program with a bunch of other facilitators and have a space to learn. One of the best virtual events I’ve done during the pandemic and I highly recommend it.
One of the great games we’ve learned is a wrap-up, “Here, There and everywhere”
Here something in our time together that caught your attention, piqued your curiosity or, at the very least, you noticed. It might be a game, a comment from a fellow participant, a concept, a visual framework, etc…
There how you might take that specific example and implement it at work or in your personal life. Bring in as much detail as you can to make for easy implementation; imagine your future self doing it and the outcome it generates
Everywhere would be a generalized interpretation of this thing that would allow for more universal application – an underlying principle absent context
I love it for the elegance and simplicity and have already used it in my own practice.
Investigations of a Dog 