IO Map for Process Design


I had reason to think about how to design processes recently, and just for fun I drew the Intermediate Objective map you see above. This is a process level IO map. It shows the necessary conditions that must be fulfilled in order to have a good process design.

The map is meant to be generic, so you may have to adapt it to fit a special situation. In most cases, it can be used as is. Note though, that one of the necessary conditions for creating a good process is understanding how the goal of the process furthers the goal of the organization using the process. In other words, you need an IO map for the organization (or equivalent) in order to create a good process.

I won't write a long-winded article with a detailed explanation of the map, at least not for now. However, if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Henrik,

Beautiful IO map! Thank you for posting it.

I sense an implication of standardized work (related to reducing variation) but that connection is not made explicit.

Do you think that standardized work is necessary or would this IO map work equally well for processes dealing with highly customized work products?
April 12, 2008 9:19 PM
Kallokain said…
Yes, I believe it will work for processes with customized work products. Consider software development, for example. All the necessary conditions in the map still apply. I believe the range of application is quite wide, though I am sure the map can be improved.

(I originally wrote a much longer article, where I applied the map to a very wide range of problems, from making sure there is always a pot of coffee available at a café to improving the chances of the United Nations achieving their Millenium Development Goals. Kind of went all over the place, so I scrapped it in the end.)

There is one problem with the map: it is intended both as a work tool (check list, basis for measurement system design, starting point for The Logical Thinking Process) for process developers, and as a pedagogical tool when discussing process design with non-experts. That may be one purpose too many.

For a non-expert, the terminology is difficult to understand, and what one does not understand, one tends to dismiss as unimportant.

I considered making a somewhat simpler map to show clients, but then I would have to explain to clients why the process I designed for them does not quite correspond to the map I showed them.

Better to face the problem head on, and trust the client to be smart and interested.

(I saw a strategy book last Friday, where the authors had "simplified" John Boyd's OODA loop to make it easier to understand. Unfortunately, it also became utterly useless. In the end, I think I made the right choice with the IO map.)
April 13, 2008 2:12 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waterfall vs. Agile: Battle of the Dunces or A Race to the Bottom?

Image
The major software methodology wars since the mid 1950’s. Someone was wrong on the Internet, so here we go… In a recent HBR article, It’s Time to End the Battle Between Waterfall and Agile , the author sets up a false premise: There is a war between Waterfall methodology and Agile. The war must end. And finally, you can combine the approaches to get the best of both worlds. This sounds good, but the article is based on a misunderstanding of both Waterfall and Agile. Also, there is no war between Waterfall methodology and Agile. There can’t be, because Waterfall methodology does not exist! Waterfall is a name for large projects that failed in the 1960’s. Waterfall was never a methodology, but a failure to apply the methodologies that existed back then. As I will show towards the end of this article, at least one of the “successful” Waterfall projects mentioned in the HBR article was neither successful, nor a Waterfall project. I got invaluable help from Alistair Cockburn. He fact che
Read more

Performance Evaluations, Business Strategy, and Agile Methodologies

Image
It is performance evaluation time in many companies. This can be stressful, both to the people being evaluated, and the people doing the evaluation. In companies adopting agile software development methods, the tension can be extraordinary. Individual performance evaluations run counter to agile philosophy, which emphasizes team performance over individual performance. However, managers and corporate leaders need to take a few steps back, and consider the impact performance evaluations have on the organization as a whole. Especially now, in the midst of a recession, it is important to look at a companies current policies to see if they can be improved, or if they are actually holding the company back. So, how can a manager evaluate policy? Performance evaluation policies can serve as an excellent example. I'll confine myself to discussing the so-called ‘rank and yank’ methods. These are performance reviews were employees are ranked using a forced ranking system. It usually looks so
Read more

Agile Requirements Structures, Part 1

Image
If you have worked in large Agile projects or programs, you may have noticed that there is often quite a bit of confusion about requirements, what the requirement types are, their purpose, how to write them, how to use them, and above all, what not to do with them. There are many causes for this confusion. Here are some of the more common I have seen: Nobody in the organization has read up on the requirements model it is using, so everyone makes their own interpretation. The organization deviates from a standard requirements model, but nobody knows which standard model the organization is deviating from, and/or there is no agreement about how they deviate from it. The organization has not documented its own requirements model very well. The organization mixes two or more different requirements models, often without realizing it. The organization has documented its requirements model, but finding the documentation is an epic project in itself, on par with when Henry Sta
Read more