Process: why rules can cause more harm than good
Workflow rules: we put them down for a good reason, to create a uniform, standardised outcome.
Sometimes, however, adhering to a rule in your workflow creates an outcome that is worse than the “non-standard” alternative.
We recognise these paradoxes and so create contingencies:
e.g. x must ALWAYS be y (except z when n will apply but ONLY if p > t AND when changing non-standard x to standard y you MUST then also change all instances of C otherwise j will not work)
When time spent managing the network of exceptions and contingencies because of a rule exceeds time spent producing outputs, we may need to revisit the rule. Did it really need to be there? Is it adding genuine value or was it based on something wholly arbitrary to begin with and simply become institutionalised? Has it now become an untouchable “sacred cow”?
You can’t sell internal process
You can only sell the result of process. The more complex the process you must perform to get you from input to output, the the farther you stray from profit.
Where are the sacred cows in your business that seem holy and untouchable but in fact are keeping you from the light?