I’ve been doing a lot more focussed research and practice into better ways of ‘doing’ IT over the past few months, and often sharing snippets on twitter. As usual, these snippets poked a few bears and encouraged some healthy debate… In one case, the inimitable @florianotel made a typically acerbically accurate point that maybe DevOps is like ITIL, maybe if processes are b0rked then they don’t just need “improving”, and maybe anything new isn’t really new and it’s all still fubar. Ok, I am heavily paraphrasing but this is my blog and I’ll cry if I want to.
I wanted to share my simple 3-step fubar smoke test for any process. For each point, score 0 if it is absolutely true; score 1 if its sometime true; score 2 if its never true.
1. Watch people do the work (also known as the Reality Test) – does it match the process? (0, 1, 2)
2. Is the process updated easily to reflect reality (is there a Closed Loop system in place? Do the workers have the ability to improve the process?) (0, 1, 2)
3. Using police interrogation techniques, separate two or more people who know the process and ask them explain it as they would to a new employee (known as the FNG Test). Do the two accounts match? (0, 1, 2)
There you have it. Do that for any process. The higher you score, the more fubar the process is. There’s more, but these three are fundamental.
I’ll invite Sir Florian the Acerbic to come and comment… Should be fun (expect swearing!)
3 Comments
Right upfront bias admission: Atm I’m doing quite a bit of reading on — and am fascinated by — complexity theory, CAS (Complex Adaptive Systems), Adaptive Strategies and Decision Making (the likes of Klein, Thagaard, Boisot and — my idol atm — David Snowden)
With that out of the way — and since there’s no 140c limit — a bit more seriously:
1. My score (from 0 – 2): 10. In the spirit of Thagaard / Snowden: I’d call it “reality coherence test”. Does the “rules” (i.e. process) match what ppl actually do ?
My favourite quote on that topic (from here: http://cognitive-edge.com/library/more/articles/bramble-bushes-in-a-thicket/ ): “Good management practice creates [as in: encourages] habits rather than [imposing] rules”
The sweet irony: If ppl actually do what the process _intended_ then process serves little more than guideline and reminder. If they don’t, no amount of rules (i.e. processes) can fix that discrepancy (if anything, it will make it worse).
2. Same. And for the same reason.
In more detail: An automated process implies an ordered reality (Simple / Complicated domain in Cynefin terms -. here comes D. Snowden again…). While the whole point in those contexts is to impose good / best practice (and effectivize — ergo “production”) they are highly brittle i.e. subject to catastrophic failures if the surrounding context (aka “reality”) changes.
Or, if you want it in the 140c acerbic terms “All assumptions start with an ass” :
3. Close, but no cigar (score: 2 for the intent, 0 for execution): Far to complex topic even for a non-140c blog post comment: What you’re seeking is an explicit (via narrative) expression of tacit knowledge (i.e. experience). But, outside very specific setups (e.g. specific tasks) that’s impossible. The reason is that knowledge is, fundamentally, implicit (i.e. internalized) and it’s only shared via an osmosis process and narative (hence the importance of “apprenticeships”)
Try “the rubber duck” experiment for yourself: Try to explain, to a complete non-expert, what exactly _do_ you do i.e. your expertise. Let me know how long you can carry on.
My fav quote on that topic: “We only know what we need to know when we need to know it”
Hope that sheds a bit more, not-so-acerbic light on the matter, with the constraints of a quickly scribbled (not so v. thought of) comment. Definitely more to discuss 1-to-1.
Sir Florian the Acerbic
He was not at all afraid / Oh brave Sir Florian / To write a non-acerbic comment / Oh Brave, brave Sir Florian / He was not in the least bit scared to be automated into a process / Oh brave Sir Florian
Why use verbal storytelling ? Why are people so reliant on “personal coaching” ? Why not use screencasts, technical documentation, process documents instead ?
This allows for personal referral to confirm facts and prevents knowledge fade due to oral retransmission.
Is it not time to to stop thinking old school and consider new ways of knowledge transmission ?
Well, for two reasons:
1) The mechanisms you mention capture and transfer _information_ , not _knowledge_ . And no I’m not going to disect at length here the difference btw the two. Grossly oversimplifying, I see knowledge as information interpreted and acted upon in specific contexts.
2) It’s virtually impossible — at least w/ currently avail technologies — to “code” and capture serendipity, personal contact and non-verbal communication.