85% of Problems Are in the Processes and Systems, Not the People
Managers assume that most of the organizational problems are caused by employees. But are the operators really to blame? or is it the systems that they are using?
I may not be a performance measure specialist, but throughout my professional career as a software developer, big part of my job was to detect and solve problems. And in a software, as in any other thing, you may identify different solutions and various ways to work out one single issue. My favourite, however, is Root Cause Analysis (read more about Root Cause Analysis); most of the times when I tackle a problem, I find that the ultimate answer lies in tracing a problem to its origins.
And I believe solving any other problem is no different. Whether you are programmer troubleshooting a bug, a doctor diagnosing an illness... it's always logic that leads the way. That's what I will try to do in this article, arguing a matter we all experience frequently within the organizations we work in: who is to blame when the numbers are not as presumed? when the performance is of low productivity?... Should we condemn the employees? the systems?
In a modern organization with more than 15 people working in it, what you can find are lots of systems. Which is a good thing. Systems are the structure around which the other parts of our work are framed and without them, there would be chaos.
The staff will always be the first and best asset. Obviously, without people, business can’t function. And for the commonly asked question: What’s most important - the people or the systems? the simple answer is: Both. Certainly it’s important to have the right people in the right jobs, but I would argue that it is equally important to have the right systems in place.
Now, when performance and quality problems occur, leading to any reduction in productivity, who is to be held responsible: the people or the systems?
In “The Secrets of Consulting“, Gerald Weinberg tells us that "Whatever the problem is, it’s always a people problem". The Toyota Way, based on Toyota Motor Corporation's managerial approach and production system, states that "Whatever the problem is, it’s always a process problem". Such a controversy! The debate can go on and on, however in my opinion, I believe a conclusive answer to the riddle does not exist. People and processes are two sides of the same coin.
Still, some managers assume that most of the organizational problems are caused merely by employees. Employees are the reason why the service level, production standard or quality measurements are not met. And we all tend to have that same conduct: When we see problems at work, we naturally connect problems to people. It’s human nature. We essentially blame the person closest to the problem. This is called the fundamental attribution error, and it hurts managers and executives, because it distracts you from fixing the processes behind the problem.
How are the systems found the most guilty?
As I pointed at the start of the article: "The answer lies in tracing a problem to its origins". A quote I read in Lean FAQ of the Northwest Lean Networks says:
"If your '5 Why' exercise seems to be pointing to 'operator error' as the root cause, you are going down the wrong path. Operators only do what our production systems allow them to do, so the root cause is in our systems, not our workers."
Yes, after all operators only do what our production systems allow them to do. The systems' limits are the furthest boundaries the employees can reach. And although it is people who operates the systems, they are submitted to the systems' laws, limitations, potential and flaws. One could argue that it is the people who are responsible of improving the systems and processes, thus it is always a people factor. Yes true, but in our case we are considering that the systems and processes are put into production work, and that we are detecting performance problems, not system design or concept defects. Moreover, it is the management's job to make decisions about the systems and processes, and not the operating employees.
For me, I can image the scenario this way: Two drivers racing each other, one of them driving a Ferrari "fast car" and the other one some ordinary "slow car". Considering that the drivers are the operators, the cars are the systems, if the drivers are at the same level of driving skills, no doubt the Ferrari would win. What if the Ferrari driver is slower (fast car, slow driver) and the other driver is still an excelent driver (slow car, fast driver)? who will in this case be the most decisive, the "operator" driver or the "system" car?
Here lies our dilemma, but it has an answer. If the race depends on the competence of the driver - supposing that the race track has lots of turns and need the experience skills and talent of the driver - the "fast driver, slow car" will have more chances to win. In the opposite case, where the race will rely on the car's speed, the "slow driver, fast car" will be the victor.
Yet on the long run in both cases, the "fast car, slow driver" will have the better advantage. His skills can be upgraded as he adapt and grow skills and experience using the system. The competence of the cars form the limits.
Today, our dependancy on technology and systems is known fact in all modern companies. This dependancy has been growing since the rise of the industrial revolution; And as we began to rely more and more on the machines to do our labour, and as our tasks were and are still progressively becoming automated, the systems replaced people in getting most of the work done. And in addition to the performance evolution, one of their key benifits is reducing - to the maximum extent - the human error. Therefore deploying and integrating the right systems are pivotal for the performance and problem prevention.
"A bad system will beat a good person every time." W. Edwards Deming
Processes and systems, that function poorly or are insufficiently integrated with each other, make it difficult for people to deliver high-quality end products. Systems will always set the performance boundaries and potential limits in any modern organization. They take the lead, processes get updated, and employees will need to follow and adapt. And as automation grows more and more in our daily tasks, so does the system responsibility and influence in everything related to performance. And that includes the problems we are describing in the article.
Ultimately, rather than putting their effort into measuring and fixing people, the organizations will be acquired to fix the broken processes. The people will join and become partners in creating the vision of the systems... Behold the conceptual age soon knocking on our door...
Keeping Your Tradeshow Relevant in the Future
This article is heavily based on Francis J. Friedman's "The Modern Digital Tradeshow", that can be downloaded for free on...
What Do Great Leaders Have in Common?
From ancient to modern, all great leaders share common key denominators.
How to Deal With An Incompetent Boss
An incompetent boss can seriously damage or derail your career, how to handle him/her?
