This three-part series explores the relative value of people, of process, and of tools. We will look at the strengths of each, their weaknesses, and how they provide value to our projects. Is one of the three more important than the others? We will see, as we investigate people, processes, and tools.

People are important to our projects because of the value they provide. It is people who are creative. People embrace a vision of the future -- a future that has not yet been realized. And people apply their intellect to turn that vision into reality. This creative energy is the life-blood of our projects. It is what makes the difference between something that might happen and the realization of a dream.

The reason humans are so indispensable is that we have capabilities that cannot be duplicated by machines. Primary among those capabilities that are unique to us is creativity. Simply put, creativity is the ability to create -- to make something out of nothing. While we are unable to create in the physical sense, we have vast ability to create in the intellectual sense.

Any project that we embark on requires this sort of creativity. Starting with a goal or a need, we make intuitive leaps from concept to concept as we build on the things we know and our base of experience to establish a springboard into the unknown. Then we launch ourselves from that springboard into new realms where we capture ideas that had not been in our minds before. We find new concepts, new connections, and new ways to attack problems and challenges.

It is creativity that allows us to move beyond what we knew, and capitalize on what we discover. Machines cannot do this. Software is unable to. Human creativity is the key.

We humans are able to envision what we might create, and use that vision as the impetus for our actions and the motivation for our creative energy. Every project starts as a vision in someone's mind, and that vision is communicated from the champion to the rest of the people who work on the project. It becomes the guiding principle for all of the work that is done, and all of the creative energy that is expended.

Our intellect is the enabler of creativity, as we bring our understanding of facts, relationships and abstract principles to bear on new challenges and problems.

The problem is that people are not magic. Although they are essential to the success of our projects, they often also sew the seeds of failure. People are the source of most of the problems we experience on our projects.

They make mistakes, and those mistakes waste our time and money. They forget things, and those omissions force us to go back and rework what has already been done. And they are imprecise. What is "good enough" for one person may not be precise enough for another, and is often insufficient for the machines we must interact with.

The errors that people commit have significant impact on our projects. First, because we expect errors, we plan for them by including reviews, audits and tests as part of our project plan. This time and expense is simply part of what we do on projects because we know that people make mistakes.

In addition, when we detect the defects or other problems that people's errors cause, we must spend more time and money to correct those errors. This usually includes scrapping some work that has been done, and spending additional time and money on rework.

In either case, the omissions almost always result in problems for the project. Someone must often go back and fill in the missing work, and in many cases, the entire job must be re-done, wasting the person's original effort.

Or, if the system architect does not analyze the impact of his or her design choices in sufficient detail, important ramifications of those choices may be missed until they show up as problems during construction (or worse, during testing)!

Human perception is quite tolerant of ambiguity, and we readily fill in the gaps by making assumptions. So, we are often satisfied with work that lacks the level of precision that is actually needed by the circumstance.

Clearly, to gain the full benefits that people bring to our projects, we must look for opportunities to mitigate for their shortcomings. And this is the reason for processes and tools. In the other two parts of this three-part series, we will look at each of those two enables of our most precious resource: our people.

This three-part series explores the relative value of people, of process, and of tools. In the first installment, the "People Premium", we explored the attributes of our people that make them indispensable to our engineering work, but at the same time cause problems. In this second installment, we will discuss the role of processes in compensating for our people's shortcomings.

People make mistakes, and those mistakes waste our time and money. They forget things, and those omissions force us to go back and rework what has already been done. And they are imprecise. What is "good enough" for one person may not be precise enough for another, and is often insufficient for the machines we must interact with.

Clearly, to gain the full benefits that people bring to our projects, we must look for opportunities to mitigate for their shortcomings. And this is the reason for processes. Effective processes enable our most precious resource -- our people -- to work their magic!

So, it is not a question of whether or not our people have (or should have) processes. Those processes exist, and people do follow them. Just as surely as they follow their morning routines, and their patterns for traveling to work, much of the project work they engage in is defined by processes that they follow. Most people may not call these things processes, and may not even be aware of these routines, but those things are processes nonetheless. Following processes is just part of being human.

So, why is the subject of "process" such a hot issue? Why do Agilists and others rail against them? It is because much of what is done in business in the name of "process" fails in the primary purpose of a process. It doesn't meet the needs of the people who must follow it. Our unconscious processes are invisible precisely because they meet our needs without getting in our way. A process becomes visible to us when it either fails to meet our needs, or it requires us to do things that are wasteful of our effort or time. These ineffective processes are what people complain about.

People make errors, so our processes must help us to mitigate for that propensity. Most of the time, a good process will help us to avoid making an error in the first place. A laundry process that includes matching socks before putting them away will prevent one from wearing mismatched socks to work. A morning routine that includes listening to the traffic and weather report can help us to choose the best method and route for our commute.

People also omit things. We forget to do certain steps, or do them in the wrong order, so our processes help us to do all of the things we must do, and to do them in the right order. In our morning routine, we tend to bathe, shave, brush teeth, dress, and eat in the same order each day. This consistency helps to ensure that we don't forget to do any of the steps. Just think about what happens on those days when your routine is upset! The results can be embarrassing (if you don't put enough extra thought and effort in to compensating)!

And people are imprecise. We don't always focus on important details, so our processes point us to the level of detail and precision that is required of us. Many of us have a process for picking out the clothes we will wear that includes rules about which colors and patterns go with others, and which do not. These guidelines help us to make appropriate choices without spending too much time and effort.

But not every error, omission or imprecision can be avoided, so our processes also include checks and balances that help us to detect and correct those mistakes before they cause problems. One last look in the mirror before we walk out the door allows us to detect and correct problems before they can ruin our day.

In the same way, the processes that we employ on our projects must be tailored so that they provide the needed support for the people who do the work, while helping them to be as effective and productive as possible. When processes meet peoples' needs, they truly become invisible; and people will often believe they are not following a process at all!

Achieving consistency does not necessarily require formality. The example we have been using (a person's morning routine) is almost never formalized, yet most of us follow it faithfully every morning. In fact, achieving consistency is usually pretty easy when the process meets your needs efficiently!

But in organizations, when many people are involved, process consistency becomes much more challenging. First, it is a rare process that can be tuned to the point that it is invisible to everyone who is affected by it. Each person, if left to their own discretion, may choose to do the activities in a slightly different way. While there are times when those minor differences are of no consequence, more often, those differences can result in problems

Therefore, most processes require someone to pay attention to the consistency with which it is followed. Whether that job is done by peer reviews of work, peer pressure to conform, a "coach" who guides the team members, enforcement by a manger, or double-checks by an auditor, it is generally important to use some mechanism to assure that processes are followed consistently.

Even in small organizations, there is often little that is written down. The founders of a company figure out how to work with each other, discuss problems that arise, and agree on future actions. Often these agreements are not written down. But as the company grows, the need to document operating procedures, guidelines, and processes grows.

The more people who are involved in the process, the more likely it will be that some amount of process documentation will be helpful in achieving the required consistency. When new staff is added, the documented processes help them to learn the rules and work patterns more quickly, and help them to know what is expected of them.

In large organizations, more process documentation is generally needed so that different groups or functions can dovetail their work effectively to assure that the needs of the organization as a whole are being met.

But it is possible to go overboard in producing process documentation. Some organizations pursuing an ISO 9000 certification or a CMMI Maturity Level Rating produce shelves and shelves of process documents that are aimed at achieving the certification or rating. Unfortunately, when the primary purpose of the processes (to support people in doing the work) is overshadowed by those goals, the resulting processes can be cumbersome. And, of course, if too much process documentation is written, then people won't read it, or will be unable to find in it the guidance they need.

This three-part series explores the relative value of people, of process, and of tools. In the first installment, the "People Premium", we explored the attributes of our people that make them indispensable to our engineering work, but at the same time cause problems. And in the second installment, "Processes For People", we discussed the role of processes in compensating for our people's shortcomings. In this final installment, we will explore the role of tools in making people and the processes that support them efficient.

People make mistakes, and those mistakes waste our time and money. They forget things, and those omissions force us to go back and rework what has already been done. And they are imprecise. What is "good enough" for one person may not be precise enough for another, and is often insufficient for the machines we must interact with.

Processes enable our most precious resource--our people-to work their magic by mitigating for their shortcomings. While people can sometimes efficiently execute processes, this is not always the case. Many processes can have a negative impact on our people's effectiveness, and some processes are so tedious as to become a source of new problems, even as they solve others. In these cases, tools are the key to making our people efficient and effective at executing the processes that support them.

A compiler is a good example of a tool that primarily leverages human effort. Decades ago, people wrote the actual code that ran on the computer's processor. This was an incredibly time-consuming proposition, as the programmer conceived of the actions the computer needed to take, and decomposed them down into the individual 1's and 0's that were required to make it happen.

Compilers magnify the amount of work programmers can do by allowing them to work at a higher level of abstraction, spending more of their time analyzing the problem at hand and applying their intellect to solving it, while the compiler translates each line of high-level code into dozens (or hundreds) of commands to the computer.

The Internet provides a good example of a tool that actually replaces human effort. When you want to view a certain website, all you need to know is its address (its URL -- Universal Resource Locator). There is no need to think about how to get from wherever you are on the Internet to the location of the website you want to visit. After you provide the URL, the computers of the Internet work together to figure out where the pages for that site reside, and how to route your request to that location and its responses back to you.

Eliminating the need for people to understand the details of the Internet, has opened the World Wide Web to use by average people around the world. This is only possible because the Internet does that work invisibly, without any input from the user, other than the URL.

Are there time-sinks in our processes? Look carefully at the specific steps and tasks that your people spend their time on. Peoples' strengths revolve around exercising their creativity and intellect. Do your people spend the bulk of their time on creative aspects of the work? Or are there more mundane activities that drain their effort?

When a process demands that people spend significant time on non-creative steps, it is a candidate for a tool. Look for a tool that will magnify people's effort on the mundane activities, allowing them to spend less time on them, and more time on the more challenging aspects of their work. Not only will such a tool make people more efficient, but it will also improve the quality of their work-life, as they spend their efforts on more interesting and challenging work.

Are there processes that don't need human intervention at all? The analysis described above can sometimes yield an important discovery; that there is no aspect of the work that requires a person's unique abilities. In that case, the entire job becomes a candidate for automation. If the appropriate tool can be found, our people's time can be redirected to more important in interesting work.

But the process changes that are required by any specific tool is an important consideration. If a tool requires that we make significant changes to our processes, then we need to pause to consider if we should adopt that tool and its required process changes. How will those changes affect our people? Will the new process support the people's work (the key function of a process)? Will the people be able to perform the new process? Do they have the time? Do they possess the requisite skills and knowledge? Does the process support the organization's objectives?

We must always remember that the role of tools is to support people and their processes, making them efficient and effective. Any tool that reduces effectiveness of efficiency is not worth adopting, and should be rejected.

We need people, processes and tools (just as a three-legged stool needs all three of its legs). Ensuring the success of our projects requires that we always keep these three elements properly balanced.

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Write comment