A recurring theme, as felt by me as a ‘customer’ of many services, is that the front-line person (apparently) ‘helping me’ with my need(s) has treated me like an idiot.
I’d expect that this has been experienced by most of you.
The front-line ‘helper’ has (subconsciously) slipped into ‘you’re an idiot’ mode because it’s sooo obvious (to them) as to how to do the thing that I’m currently struggling to achieve.
A chance conversation causes me to post this short sketchy brain fart (a partially formed idea in my little head) that I wrote ages ago…
Before the 1990s – before we had information technology (IT) – large service organisations operated with distributed branches of people working on paper files.
In this model, we had:
I hear a recurring mantra from conventional operations management within relational service organisations. I’ve been hearing it for years.
That mantra is the (apparent) necessity for ‘consistency across the front line’.
It often starts with decrying that “we’ve got 1,0001 [front line workers] and 1,000 ways of doing things. We can’t have that, we need consistency!”
So, to examine this presupposition, I’ve imagined a conversation between a senior operations person…and a coach:
…nor in your (leading1) measures of success.
Short post time…
Context: I regularly participate in reflective conversations with people. I often ask them to ponder the question “what is the purpose of your organisation (or part thereof)?” and I’m struck by how often the response includes something about “our reputation”2 (as in gaining, bolstering, or protecting it).
And so, to repeat the title of this post, your reputation has absolutely NO place in a purpose statement3, nor any system of measurement against this.
Here’s my reasoning…
A short ‘Friday post’:
A lot is talked, and written, about ‘Purpose’1.
If a group of humans decide to organise and spend time and resources to achieve [something], then – if they genuinely want this – they ought to define the ‘what’ and ‘why’ so that the network of actions and interactions have a chance of producing the desired emergent properties. A clear purpose (ref. intent).
“Without an aim, there is no system…the aim must be clear to everyone in the system.” [Deming]
However, just because some powerful stakeholder(s) have set out and communicated a purpose statement, this doesn’t make it so (despite the posters on the wall).
I recently finalised a ‘measurement of performance’ guide and, within this, I explain various archetypes of services, and the types of measures that best fit each.
I’m particularly interested in relational services – the big hairy ‘social system’ ones that (should) really matter for the most vulnerable and ‘in need of help’ humans.
Most societies have decided to organise (i.e. intervene) because of a desire (or perhaps obligation) to help people. As such, knowing whether that ‘outside help’* is valuable to those in need is rather important…and it really won’t be about ‘how many/how much we did’ of something, or ‘how fast we did it’ (Ref. Our work this Year)
It will be about whether:
…noting that achieving and sustaining 1. above is very probably a pre-requisite for any advances in the space of 2. and 3.
I’ve worked with several service organisations that have adopted (what are referred to as) Tiered service models for their service design…and I’ve written about some of the problematic implications.
Some specific recent posts to mention in this regard are:
You might think that I have a problem with the idea of ‘tiered services’…and you’d be right (at least as they are conventionally enacted).
You might then ask “okay, but what instead?”
Good question! This (longer) post is some opening thoughts on that.
‘Triage’ is a word that I’ve heard used a lot within large human-designed social systems.
But where does this word come from, and is its (newer) ‘service system’ usage reasonable…or does it hide/confuse/obfuscate?
Starting with the dictionary:
“Triage: the process of quickly examining sick or injured people, for example after an accident or a battle, so that those who are in the most serious condition can be treated first.” (Collins Dictionary)
A few things to note:
I regularly hear these title words around me – or words to that effect – and, depending on my mood, this makes me smile…or groan.
They are the recurring ‘message’ sung out from many senior figures in organisations and then ‘cascaded down’ …and then informally kicked ‘around and around’.
And my main reflection on hearing it?
“As if we don’t want to!!!!”
A little parable springs to mind1 which I’ll set out as follows: Continue reading
I recently wrote a measurement guide and a hugely important (and definitely too short) section within is titled ‘Beware the allure of measurement’.
Unfortunately, our working worlds seem to be obsessed with measurement, to the detriment of getting on with doing obvious things.
So I was very happy to read a LinkedIn post by a chap called Nuno Reis which really ‘laid into’ this measurement point.
Nuno starts by telling us that we’ve been lied to! And not only lied to…but sold the exact opposite of the truth.
Implementing Effective Safety Solutions
...attempting to stand on their shoulders
The Work Of Alfie Kohn
Exploring And Discovering
Police Inspector and Systems Thinker
Thoughts and Insights from the Shop Floor
Deming, Vanguard, Systems Thinking and that, in a normal, ordinary command and control organisation
Making Lives More Wonderful
Bridging People and Ideas......
Squire to the Giants 