Rethinking Process Improvement – IV

Yesterday I suggested that a lot of process improvement is trying to eliminate the overlap between roles. For example, when people talk about making job descriptions “better”, that is often what they mean.

Each team draws back, clearly defines themselves and what services they offer.
Here’s one example of what that might look like:

… So, who’s doing the work in the middle? (No one)

What does this mean on projects? (Things fall through the cracks)

Can we really call that ‘improvement’?

One comment on “Rethinking Process Improvement – IV

  1. I think that the devil lies in what exactly is in the gap. If each of the areas is a perfect circle, there will be a gap if they withdraw from each other as in your picture. However, if the three areas define themselves comprehensively, those gaps do not exist. Every function is assigned to one or the other of the areas.

    Draw the top two circles as squares, then the bottom circle as a rectangle, put the two squares together side-by-side on top of the rectangle and touching it, and that’s what I would envision as the perfect picture of the roles on a project.

    Does it always happen this way? Of course not. Can it happen this way? With a good understanding of the tasks and processes, yes it certainly can.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.